Obama PROMISES To Cut Deficit In Half By 2012
Live Obama speech on debt 23th february 2009
Amazing – Obama Caught in Bald-Faced Lie on White House Sequester
Sequester- President Obama says $85B in spending cuts WILL kick in Friday
Judge Napolitano: Facts About Sequester Caught Up To Obama “His Scare Tactics Are Reprehensible”
Obama’s big lie and massive deficits: spending addiction disorder (SAD)
By Raymond Thomas Pronk
Crisis and fear mongering as well as blame shifting are again running rampant among the ruling political elites in Washington over out-of-control government spending and what to do about it.
President Barack Obama and progressive Congressional Democrats want to increase federal government spending by increasing taxes through closing so-called “tax loopholes” or more precisely eliminating existing tax deductions and credits in the Internal Revenue code.
House Speaker John Boehner and conservative Congressional Republicans want to decrease government spending and decrease tax rates by also eliminating “tax loopholes.” There is no middle ground to negotiate given the diametrically opposed positions of the political parties. This was not always the case.
Early in his first term Obama delivered a speech in the White House titled “A New Era of Responsibility,” captured on the YouTube video titled “Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009.” He said, “We cannot, and will not, sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or the next generation.
“We are paying the price for these deficits right now. In 2008 alone, we paid $250 billion in interest on our debt — one in every 10 taxpayer dollars. That is more than three times what we spent on education that year; more than seven times what we spent on VA health care.
“So if we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road as our interest payments rise, our obligations come due, confidence in our economy erodes, and our children and our grandchildren are unable to pursue their dreams because they’re saddled with our debts.
“And that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”
The last George W. Bush deficit for fiscal year 2008 was nearly $459 billion. If Obama was serious about meeting his pledge of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term, the deficit should have been less than $230 billion for fiscal year 2012. Obama did the exact opposite of what he promised the American people he would do in February 2009. Instead of cutting the deficit in half, he doubled the deficit to more than a trillion dollars for each fiscal year he has been in office as the table below clearly shows:
Summary of Spending Outlays, Tax Receipts, Deficits (-) or Surpluses, 2005-2013
(in millions of dollars)
|Source: The Budget for Fiscal Year 2013, Historical Tables, Table 1.1http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
These massive and unprecedented deficits required that the national debt be increased to pay for the government’s out-of-control spending and for Congress to increase the debt ceiling to $16.4 trillion. On Aug. 2, 2011 President Obama signed into law The Budget Control Act of 2011. This ended the so-called debt ceiling crisis by increasing the debt-level immediately by $400 billion and allowing Obama to ask for another increase of the ceiling by $500 billion with Congressional approval in the future. The law established the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Debt Reduction, better known as the “super committee,” with the task of reducing the deficit by $1.5 trillion by Dec. 23, 2011. The super committee failed to accomplish its assigned task.
This triggered the sequestration provisions in the law requiring across-the-board cuts in government spending of $1.2 trillion over 10 years with a corresponding increase in the debt-level by $1.2 trillion. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for the sequestration when they passed the law. However, the original idea for sequestration came from White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors and Jack Lew, who was then budget director, whom with Obama’s approval presented the idea to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, according to Bob Woodward as documented in his book “The Price of Politics.“
On Jan. 31, Congress suspended the borrowing limit or debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion for three months until May 19.
By March 1 Congress needed to cut $1.2 trillion from the growth in the Congressional Budget Office baseline for fiscal years 2013 through 2021 or the sequestration would be triggered. These automatic spending cuts had to come from both discretionary and mandatory spending.
Under the sequestration order for fiscal year 2013, signed by Obama on Mar. 1, there needs to be a $85.3 billion cut in growth in federal government budget authority of which $42.7 billion is defense, $28.7 billion non-defense discretionary, $9.9 billion Medicare and $4 billion other mandatory.
For fiscal year 2013 the total federal government spending outlays are estimated to be about $3.8 trillion with estimated total tax revenues of about $2.9 trillion resulting in a deficit of about $901 billion. The sequestration impact for fiscal year 2013 is an estimated $44 billion cut in spending outlays or about 1.4% of total federal government spending.
The crisis and fear mongering and blame shifting is never-ending as Congress must now agree to a fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution by March 31. Meanwhile the U.S. economy is on the verge of another recession with higher unemployment rates and many more millions of unemployed Americans.
The absence of leadership in Washington to budget to estimated tax receipts and by so doing live within the means of the American people is the core problem. The solution would require the repeal of Congress’s baseline budgeting process whereby current spending levels are used to determine future funding requirements by adding increased funding for population growth, inflation and other factors to the current level of spending. The congressional budget baseline process totally ignores estimated tax receipts or revenues as a budgetary constraint. The result is massive unsustainable deficits.
Obama’s new era of responsibility was pure propaganda prevarication. Obama’s age of fiscal insanity and spending addiction disorder continues to destroy jobs, wreck the economy and kill the American dream. Neither progressive Democrats nor Republicans have the will, courage, integrity, wisdom and vision to balance the federal budget. Truly unbelievable.
Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2012
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
Budget Control Act Sequestration Would Hit Defense Hardest
Rand Paul: Sequester Doesn’t Cut Enough – Stossel 2/28/2013
Balderdash! Sen. Rand Paul demolishes Obama’s sequester scare tactics
Hooray for SEQUESTRATION…
Illegal Immigrants Released from Detention Centers…
Bernanke Urges Sequestration Alternative
The Obama Sequester: He Was For It, Before He Was Against It
Obama Then and Now: I was for the sequester and now I am against it
Rand Paul: Obama Claiming To Have Cut Debt By $2 Trillion Is Absurd – 2/13/2013
Paul Ryan confronted on sequester
The Truth about Sequestration
Fiscal Cliff: 5 Facts about the Federal Budget (animated) (2012)
Sequestration and transfer authority
Rand Paul: Sequester Is A Pittance – 2/19/2013
Rand Paul to Obama on Sequester: Stand Up, Be a Leader and Just Do the Right Thing
Sen Paul Sequester Barely Cuts Any Icing From Cake
Greenspan: Odds of Sequestration Occurring Are Very High
Krauthammer: ‘Republicans Should Do Nothing’ On The Sequester
Next big challenge facing DC: The sequester
US military fighting against ‘sequester’ cuts
What is the March 1 sequester!…
Sessions Criticizes Composition Of Sequester, Says Surging Domestic Spending
Understanding the Sequester with David Sirota
Obama Senior Adviser: Haven’t Talked To Congressional Leaders About The Obama
Bob Woodward: Sequester was Obama’s Solution
Drama Obama Pleas For Delay To Sequestration Cuts
Jay Carney: Yes the Sequester Idea Was Put Forward by the President’s Team
Flashback: Obama promises veto stopgap alternative to sequester cuts
Bob Woodward on ‘The Price of Politics,’ Fiscal Fight
In summer 2011, a partisan Congress sparred with the White House on how to solve the U.S. debt crisis. Judy Woodruff talks to journalist Bob Woodward about his new book, “The Price of Politics,” about how Washington’s politicians couldn’t look past their own political aspirations in order to forge a deal.
Our Lying President – Debate lie on sequestration
White House Already Backpedaling On Obama Sequestration Comments
Bob Woodward talks about his new book ‘The Price of Politics’
Fox & Friends Rips Obama On Sequester: Is It ‘Blackmail’ To Get More Tax Hikes
CBO Director: “We haven’t seen a specific proposal” from Obama on replacing
OBAMA despises his OWN idea: the SEQUESTER
Obama:Congress Putting Thousands Of Jobs At Risk
Markets Will React Big When Reality Sets In
Peter Schiff: Obama recession will be worse than the Obama recovery
John Lennon – Give Peace or Sequester A Chance (Original Video Tape)
John Boehner: The President Is Raging Against a Budget Crisis He Created
Obama invented the ‘sequester’ in the summer of 2011 to avoid facing up to America’s spending problem.
A week from now, a dramatic new federal policy is set to go into effect that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more. In a bit of irony, President Obama stood Tuesday with first responders who could lose their jobs if the policy goes into effect. Most Americans are just hearing about this Washington creation for the first time: the sequester. What they might not realize from Mr. Obama’s statements is that it is a product of the president’s own failed leadership.
The sequester is a wave of deep spending cuts scheduled to hit on March 1. Unless Congress acts, $85 billion in across-the-board cuts will occur this year, with another $1.1 trillion coming over the next decade. There is nothing wrong with cutting spending that much—we should be cutting even more—but the sequester is an ugly and dangerous way to do it.
By law, the sequester focuses on the narrow portion of the budget that funds the operating accounts for federal agencies and departments, including the Department of Defense. Exempt is most entitlement spending—the large portion of the budget that is driving the nation’s looming debt crisis. Should the sequester take effect, America’s military budget would be slashed nearly half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Border security, law enforcement, aviation safety and many other programs would all have diminished resources.
How did the country find itself in this mess?
During the summer of 2011, as Washington worked toward a plan to reduce the deficit to allow for an increase in the federal debt limit, President Obama and I very nearly came to a historic agreement. Unfortunately our deal fell apart at the last minute when the president demanded an extra $400 billion in new tax revenue—50% more than we had shaken hands on just days before.
It was a disappointing decision by the president, but with just days until a breach of the debt limit, a solution was still required—and fast. I immediately got together with Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell to forge a bipartisan congressional plan. It would be called the Budget Control Act.
The plan called for immediate caps on discretionary spending (to save $917 billion) and the creation of a special House-Senate “super committee” to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings. The deal also included a simple but powerful mechanism to ensure that the committee met its deficit-reduction target: If it didn’t, the debt limit would not be increased again in a few months.
But President Obama was determined not to face another debt-limit increase before his re-election campaign. Having just blown up one deal, the president scuttled this bipartisan, bicameral agreement. His solution? A sequester.
With the debt limit set to be hit in a matter of hours, Republicans and Democrats in Congress reluctantly accepted the president’s demand for the sequester, and a revised version of the Budget Control Act was passed on a bipartisan basis.
Ultimately, the super committee failed to find an agreement, despite Republicans offering a balanced mix of spending cuts and new revenue through tax reform. As a result, the president’s sequester is now imminent.
Both parties today have a responsibility to find a bipartisan solution to the sequester. Turning it off and erasing its deficit reduction isn’t an option. What Congress should do is replace it with other spending cuts that put America on the path to a balanced budget in 10 years, without threatening national security.
Having first proposed and demanded the sequester, it would make sense that the president lead the effort to replace it. Unfortunately, he has put forth no detailed plan that can pass Congress, and the Senate—controlled by his Democratic allies—hasn’t even voted on a solution, let alone passed one. By contrast, House Republicans have twice passed plans to replace the sequester with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect national security.
The president has repeatedly called for even more tax revenue, but the American people don’t support trading spending cuts for higher taxes. They understand that the tax debate is now closed.
The president got his higher taxes—$600 billion from higher earners, with no spending cuts—at the end of 2012. He also got higher taxes via ObamaCare. Meanwhile, no one should be talking about raising taxes when the government is still paying people to play videogames, giving folks free cellphones, and buying $47,000 cigarette-smoking machines.
Washington must get serious about its spending problem. If it can’t reform America’s safety net and retirement-security programs, they will no longer be there for those who rely on them. Republicans’ willingness to do what is necessary to save these programs is well-known. But after four years, we haven’t seen the same type of courage from the president.
The president’s sequester is the wrong way to reduce the deficit, but it is here to stay until Washington Democrats get serious about cutting spending. The government simply cannot keep delaying the inevitable and spending money it doesn’t have.
So, as the president’s outrage about the sequester grows in coming days, Republicans have a simple response: Mr. President, we agree that your sequester is bad policy. What spending are you willing to cut to replace it?
— Mr. Boehner, a Republican congressman from Ohio, is speaker of the House.
A version of this article appeared February 20, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The President Is Raging Against a Budget Crisis He Created.
2013 United States federal budget
The 2013 United States federal budget is the budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2013, which is October 2012–September 2013. The original spending request was issued by President Barack Obama in February 2012. The actual appropriations for fiscal year 2013 must be authorized by the full Congress before the budget can take effect, in accordance with the United States budget process.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 mandates caps on discretionary spending, which under current law will be lowered beginning in January 2013 to remove $1.2 trillion of spending over the following ten years. In addition, several temporary tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the beginning of the 2013 calendar year, including the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts on income, capital gains, and estate tax, which had been extended in a 2010 tax deal, as well as a payroll tax cut that began as a result of the 2010 deal and had been most recently extended in an early 2012 tax deal. The combination of sudden spending cuts and tax increases has led to concerns about significant negative effects on the economy in the wake of the weak recovery from the late 2000s recession.
Budget Control Act and the Deficit Reduction Committee
The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed in August 2011 as a resolution to the debt-ceiling crisis. The fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget is the first to be affected by the second of two rounds of budget cuts specified in the act. (The first round of cuts has already been applied to the ten years beginning in FY2012.) For this second round of cuts, the Budget Control Act had formed the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, sometimes referred to as the “supercommittee”, to identify at least $1.2 trillion in cuts over the ten years beginning with FY2013, and specified automatic across-the-board cuts of the same amount, equally split between security and non-security programs, if no such budget reduction legislation was passed by Congress.
On November 21, 2011, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction announced that it did not reach a deal on the budget-cutting legislation, raising the possibility that the automatic cuts would be activated if the full Congress could not enact its own deficit reduction legislation by December 23, 2011. The supercommittee’s lack of an agreement was attributed to the refusal of Republicans to consider any tax increases, combined with Democratic insistence on including these revenue increases such as the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which under current law expire at the end of 2012.
President Obama’s February 2012 budget message to Congress addressed themes of economic crisis and response, an updated defense strategy, taxation fairness, income equality, fiscal responsibility, and investments in education and research to help the U.S. compete economically. He wrote: “The way to rebuild our economy and strengthen the middle class is to make sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. Instead of lowering our standards and our sights, we need to win a race to the top for good jobs that pay well and offer security for the middle class. To succeed and thrive in the global, high-tech economy, we need America to be a place with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers; the most advanced transportation and communication networks; and the strongest commitment to research and technology in the world. This Budget makes investments that can help America win this race, create good jobs, and lead in the world economy.”
Key elements of the President’s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2013 included expiration of a variety of tax cuts for couples earning over $250,000 ($200,000 if single), short-term stimulus measures to support job growth, and targeted tax cuts for families and businesses. The budget included 2013 revenues of $2.9 trillion or 17.8% GDP (up from $2.5 trillion or 15.8% GDP in 2012) and spending of $3.8 trillion or 23.3% GDP (similar to the prior year in dollar terms but below the 24.3% GDP in 2012). The projected 2013 deficit was $900 billion (5.5% GDP), down from the 2012 deficit of $1.3 trillion (8.5% GDP).
Over the 2013-2022 period, the budget essentially freezes defense and non-defense discretionary spending in dollar terms, such that these categories shrink relative to a growing economy, from 8.7% GDP to 5.9% GDP. Mandatory spending (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other safety net programs) remain around 14% GDP. Net interest rises from 1.5% GDP to 3.3% GDP. Revenues rise steadily during the period from 17.8% GDP to 20.1% GDP, averaging 19.2% GDP. Debt held by the public rises from $12.6 trillion to $18.7 trillion, but remains flat around 77% GDP during the period.
On May 16, 2012, the United States Senate voted on a 52-page Republican budget amendment billed as a summary of the nearly 2,000 pages in the Obama administration’s 2013 budget proposal. The amendment was defeated by a unanimous 99–0 vote, which paralleled the House of Representatives having voted a similar rejection in March by a count of 414–0. Those defeats of the Republicans’ amendments marked the second year in a row such summary bills met unanimous opposition. In explaining their votes against, Congressional Democrats disputed whether the Republican summary accurately represented the Obama budget proposal; by contrast, Congressional Republicans claimed that their amendment included ample data taken directly from said budget.
Legislation begins to be passed
On July 31, 2012, a tentative deal was announced to fund the government from October 2012 through March 2013 through a continuing resolution, with spending rates slightly higher than the FY2012 levels. The deal was reached because Republicans were eager to avoid a prolonged dispute that could threaten a government shutdown just before the upcoming 2012 general elections. The bill, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, was passed in the House 329–91, passed in the Senate 62–30, and signed by President Obama on September 28, 2012.
On August 1, 2012, the House and Senate passed competing bills on the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The House bill would extend all the tax cuts for one year, while the Senate version would allow taxes to rise on incomes over $250,000. The passage of the bills was reported as being intended as political cover; progress on tax legislation was not expected until after the November elections.
In late December, the Republican House leadership proposed legislation that would allow tax cuts to rise relative to 2012 levels only for annual income over $1,000,000. The proposal was known as “Plan B”, and was intended to force the Senate and the Obama administration to pass it and delay further negotiations until the following month, when Republicans were expected to use the reaching of the federal debt limit as leverage. However, the House vote on the plan was abruptly cancelled on December 20, 2012 after it became clear that the bill did not have enough support to pass, due to conservative members of the House who would not support any legislation that would raise taxes without also cutting spending.
On December 28, 2012, the Senate passed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 to provide for $60.4 billion in additional spending to cover recovery costs from Hurricane Sandy, which had hit the northeastern United States in late October. The bill passed the Senate 62–32, but faced uncertain prospects in the House.
At around 2 a.m. on January 1, 2013, the Senate passed a compromise bill, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, by a margin of 89–8. The bill would delay the budget sequestration by two months, and bill includes $600 billion over ten years in new tax revenue relative to extending 2012 levels, which is about one-fifth of the revenue that would have been raised had no legislation been passed. The revenue would come from increased marginal income and capital gains tax rates relative to their 2012 levels for annual income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples; a phase-out of certain tax deductions and credits for those with incomes over $250,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples, an increase in estate taxes relative to 2012 levels on estates over $5 million, and expiration of the two-year-old cut to payroll taxes, which is applied to income under the Social Security Wage Base, which was $110,100 in 2012. All these changes would all be made permanent. House Speaker John Boehner promised a prompt vote on the Senate bill, but the prospect of the House passing an amended bill raised the prospect that legislation might not be enacted by the end of the 112th Congress at noon on January 3.
Implications of the Budget Control Act
Main articles: Budget Control Act of 2011 and United States fiscal cliff
Read Full Post
The automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion resulting from the absence of a deal from the supercommittee over ten years would be split equally between security and non-security programs, and include $500 billion in cuts to the Department of Defense. The FY2013 defense budget would be reduced 11%, from $525 billion to $472 billion, after already having been cut from $571 billion in the first installment of cuts in the Budget Control Act. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta initially gave the total cut figure as 23%. The planned cuts include reductions in troop levels, a modest limit in pay raises for soldiers starting in 2015, an increase in health fees for veterans, delays in the construction of new naval ships and in the purchasing of new fighter aircraft such as the F-35, and the possibility of a round of base closings within the United States, but cuts to special operations, cyberwarfare, and intelligence programs were avoided. Initial reports had also suggested that the number of carrier battle groups might be reduced from 11 to 10, although it was later determined that the number of aircraft carriers would not in fact be cut. Some Republicans in Congress advocated reversing the cuts to the military, citing the effect on national security, and Secretary Panetta has opposed the cuts, calling them “devastating” and raising “substantial risk of not being able to meet our defense needs.” President Obama has promised to veto any legislation seeking to avoid the cuts, and House Speaker John Boehner also indicated his commitment to following the cuts in the Budget Control Act. According to the Center for American Progress, several Presidents have significantly reduced defense spending after wars, without compromising national security. Defense spending in 2011 remained high by historical standards, adjusted for inflation.
The Budget Control Act also specifies automatic cuts of 7.8% to domestic programs and 2% to Medicare, while Medicaid and Social Security will be unaffected. These entitlement programs were protected from cuts in return for the absence of new revenues in the Budget Control Act.
The automatic cuts to domestic programs would include cuts of up to 11% to science research and development agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, NASA, and the U. S. National Laboratories run by the Department of Energy. It is anticipated that this could cause federal grant acceptance levels to fall into the single digits, a consequence which has been called catastrophic for academic institutions by Michael Lubell of the American Physical Society. The cuts could also endanger politically controversial research such as climate change research programs in NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Due to the role of scientific research in economic growth and job creation, and given international competition in this field, the cuts have been opposed by professional and academic organizations, and federal support of research and development has been called “an area of U.S. investment too critical to be cut” by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Annual rates of increase in major revenue categories budgeted for the 2012-2022 period were:
- Individual income taxes: 8.4%
- Corporation income taxes: 8.2%
- Social insurance (mainly payroll) taxes: 6.6%
- Total tax revenues: 7.6%
Annual rates of increase in major spending categories budgeted for the 2012-2022 period were:
- Defense: 1.8%
- Non-defense discretionary: 1.6%
- Social Security: 5.8%
- Medicare: 6.6%
- Medicaid: 8.5%
- Net interest: 14.2%
- Total spending: 5.0%
Changes in revenues primarily represent a return to the long-run average. Tax revenues historically have averaged around 18% GDP. The subprime mortgage crisis resulted in significant declines in revenues due to high unemployment and reduced economic activity, with revenue falling to a record low 15% GDP. President Obama’s budget preserves the Bush income tax cuts for couples earning below $250,000, while eliminating some tax exemptions and deductions (tax expenditures).
Defense and non-defense discretionary expenses are essentially frozen in real dollar terms for the 2013-2022 period, growing at or below the rate of inflation. Department of Defense spending rose at an annual rate of 8% between 2000 and 2011; this amount includes both the baseline and war spending. Non-defense discretionary spending rose at an annual rate of 6.6% between 2000 and 2011. Mandatory spending is mainly driven by demographic changes (i.e., an aging population, with fewer workers per retiree), healthcare cost increases per capita, and Social Security cost of living adjustments. Interest costs represent a return to more typical interest rates as the economy recovers along with the growing public debt.
Total revenues and spending
The Obama administration’s February 2012 budget request contained $2.902 trillion in receipts and $3.803 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $901 billion. The budget projects a reduction in the deficit to $575 billion by 2018 before rising to $704 billion by 2022.
Total receipts (in billions of dollars)::
|Individual income tax
|Corporate income tax
|Social Security and other payroll tax
|Estate and gift taxes
|Deposits of earnings and Federal Reserve System
|Other miscellaneous receipts
Total outlays by agency (in billions of dollars):
|Department of Defense including Overseas Contingency Operations
|Department of Health and Human Services including Medicare and Medicaid
|Department of Education
|Department of Veterans Affairs
|Department of Housing and Urban Development
|Department of State and Other International Programs
|Department of Homeland Security
|Department of Energy
|Department of Justice
|Department of Agriculture
|National Aeronautics and Space Administration
|National Intelligence Program
|Department of Transportation
|Department of the Treasury
|Department of the Interior
|Department of Labor
|Social Security Administration
|Department of Commerce
|Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
|Environmental Protection Agency
|National Science Foundation
|Small Business Administration
|Corporation for National and Community Service
- ^ Riley, Charles (February 13, 2012). “Obama unveils $3.8 trillion budget”. CNNMoney. Retrieved February 13, 2012.
- ^ Hensarling, Jeb (November 22, 2011). “Why the Super Committee Failed”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 9, 2011.
- ^ Murray, Patty. “Deficit-reduction chair says she’s not done working for compromise”. Retrieved December 14, 2011.
- ^ Lisa Mascaro; Kathleen Hennessey (July 31, 2011). “U.S. leaders strike debt deal to avoid default”. Los Angeles Times.
- ^ a b Steinhauer, Jennifer; Cooper, Helene; and Pear, Robert (22 November 2011). “Panel Fails to Reach Deal on Plan for Deficit Reduction”. The New York Times: p. A18. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
- ^ President Obama-The Budget Message of the President-February 2012
- ^ OMB-President Obama’s 2013 Budget-Summary Tables S5 and S6
- ^ OMB-President Obama’s 2013 Budget-Summary Table S-6
- ^ OMB-President Obama’s 2013 Budget-Summary Table S15
- ^ Dinan, Stephen (16 May 2012). “Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate”. Washington Times. Retrieved 16 May 2012.
- ^ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/
- ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (1 August 2012). “Leaders Reach Tentative Deal on Spending to Avoid Fight Before Election Day”. The New York Times: p. A11. Retrieved 1 August 2012.
- ^ Weisman, Jonathan (14 September 2012). “House Republicans Welcome Back Ryan, and His Vote, on a Spending Measure”. The New York Times: p. A13. Retrieved 21 September 2012.
- ^ “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 2nd Session: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 117)”. United States Senate. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
- ^ “Status of Appropriations Legislation for Fiscal Year 2013″. Library of Congress. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
- ^ Weisman, Jonathan (2 August 2012). “House Approves One-Year Extension of the Bush-Era Tax Cuts”. The New York Times: p. A12. Retrieved 21 September 2012.
- ^ Weisman, Jonathat (21 December 2012). “Boehner Cancels Tax Vote in Face of G.O.P. Revolt”. The New York Times: p. A1. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
- ^ Hernandez, Raymond (29 December 2012). “Senate Passes $60.4 Billion for Storm Aid; Bill’s Fate in House Is Unclear”. The New York Times: p. A15. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
- ^ Weisman, Jonathan (1 January 2013). “Senate Passes Legislation to Allow Taxes on Affluent to Rise”. The New York Times. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
- ^ Hook, Janet; Hughes, Siobhan (1 January 2013). “Fiscal-Cliff Focus Moves to House”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
- ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer; Weisman, Jonathan (1 January 2013). “G.O.P. Anger Over Tax Deal Endangers Final Passage”. The New York Times. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
- ^ a b Bumiller, Elisabeth (23 November 2011). “Despite Threat of Cuts, Pentagon Officials Made No Contingency Plans”. The New York Times: p. A20. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
- ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth; Shanker, Thom (27 January 2012). “Defense Budget Cuts Would Limit Raises and Close Bases”. The New York Times: p. A12. Retrieved 3 February 2012.
- ^ Stewart, Phil (21 January 2012). “U.S. won’t cut carrier fleet to fix budget, Panetta says”. Reuters. Retrieved 3 February 2012.
- ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (23 November 2011). “Automatic Military Cuts May Stand in Congress”. The New York Times: p. A20. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
- ^ Center on American Progress-A Historical Perspective on Defense Spending-July 2011
- ^ Bendavid, Naftali (21 November 2011). “Congress’s Deficit ‘Bomb’: Scary or Not?”. Washington Wire. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
- ^ Hand, E. (2011). “Debt deal sets day of reckoning”. Nature 476 (7359): 133–134. doi:10.1038/476133a. PMID 21833060. edit
- ^ Ham, Becky (25 November 2011). “Science, Engineering Groups Urge Lawmakers to Protect R&D”. Science 334 (6059): 1079. doi:10.1126/science.334.6059.1079.
- ^ “Open Letter to the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction”. Stand With Science. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
- ^ OMB-President Obama’s 2013 Budget-Summary Table S4 and S5
- ^ a b CBO-Long Term Economic Outlook-January 2012
- ^ a b “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government”. United States Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
- ^ Weisman, Jonathan (2012-02-10). “Obama Budget Bets Other Concerns Will Trump the Deficit”. New York Times. Retrieved 2012-04-22.
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama
Body Language of Narcissistic and Psychopathic Abuser
The truth about “pathological liars”
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
MittvMitt.com: The story of two men trapped in one body
Mitt Romney Has A Truth Problem
The REAL Mitt Romney: Flip-Flopper Extraordinaire
Rush Limbaugh: “Romney is not a conservative”
SA@TAC – No Excuse: Mitt Romney’s Case for American Empire
Wrestling is Fake – So is Politics by the Southern Avenger
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
Mitt Romney Owns Most of Fake Conservative Radio Hosts?- Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage, Levin
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
Jack Cafferty Rips Obama on Failed Openness Pledge: ‘Just Another Lie Told for Political Expediency’
Obama’s LIES about Health Care debate LIVE on CSPAN
Obama Lies Again – Secret Agreement with PhRMA
Obama’s Health Care Lies And Reversals
7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes
Obama’s Insane Lies
The Obama Fail – Lies and Deception
Barack Obama Lies To America
Why is no one offended by Obama’s lies?
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
“What needs emphasis today is the political significance of the family. A people whose marriages and families are weak can have no solid institutions.”
“Behind every progressive policy lies a single moral value: empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy.”
How bad is narcissism in todays society?
Who Deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? Should we even care?
President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, won the 1906 Peace Prize for using his office as a mediator between Russia and Japan resulting in a peace treaty between the two nations in September 1905.
Theodore ~ A Tribute to Teddy Roosevelt
President Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat, won the 1919 Noble Peace Prize for his Fourteen Points peace program and his efforts in achieving the League of Nations in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles:
“In accepting the honor of your award I am moved not only by a profound gratitude for the recognition of my [sincere and] earnest efforts in the cause of peace, but also by a very poignant humility before the vastness of the work still called for by this cause.
May I not take this occasion to express my respect for the far-sighted wisdom of the founder in arranging for a continuing system of awards? If there were but one such prize, or if this were to be the last, I could not of course accept it. For mankind has not yet been rid of the unspeakable horror of war. I am convinced that our generation has, despite its wounds, made notable progress. But it is the better part of wisdom to consider our work as one1 begun. It will be a continuing labor. In the indefinite course of [the] years before us there will be abundant opportunity for others to distinguish themselves in the crusade against hate and fear and war.
There is indeed a peculiar fitness in the grouping of these Nobel rewards. The cause of peace and the cause of truth are of one family. Even as those who love science and devote their lives to physics or chemistry, even as those who would create new and higher ideals for mankind in literature, even so with those who love peace, there is no limit set. Whatever has been accomplished in the past is petty compared to the glory and promise of the future.
I have been reading George Lakoff’s book, Whose Freedom, The Battle Over American’s Most Important Idea, an edifying, confusing, and in the end a misleading book.
Authors@Google: George Lakoff
Lakoff is very proud to be what Americans call progressive and Europeans social democrats.
If Lakoff were Norweign and on the Noble Peace Prize Committee he would have fit right in and have voted for President Obama receiving the award.
By awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, the committee would show European empathy for the challenges and demands faced by the newly elected and inexperienced President calling for the nurturant family of nations to provide him a motivational incentive to succeed in uniting us all under world progressive socialism.
Beside, it would really stick it to former President George W. Bush, or so they believe:
Saturday Night Live Mocks Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize Win
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Prize for being a progressive radical socialist just like the majority of the Nobel Peace Prize committee.
Progressives tend to come from a nurturant family where “..the job of a parent is to nurture his or her children, and to raise the children to be nuturers of others! Nurturance involves empathy and responsibility (for both oneself and others), as well as everything that responsibility requires strength, competence, endurance, and so on.”
Conservatives tend to come from strict father families.
Interesting dichotomy but what kind of family does Barack Obama come from. His father abandoned both him and his Mother when he was an infant. His Mother in turn abandoned Barack when he was ten and left him to his grandparents to care for and raise.
While parents or lack of parents and their style and substance of raising children are important, there are more than two types of families and I am skeptical that this determines one’s political philosophy or worldview. Lakoff knows this. Hence the concept of biconceptuals who are strict father family in some things and nuturant family in others.
The Left, the Right, and the Family View of Government
If you listen to talk radio hosts and callers and view Youtube videos, the recurring description of President Obama is he is a liar, narcissistic, weak and an ideologue.
Using Lakoff research approach I Googled and YouTubed narcissism:
narcissistic personality disorder
Narcissistic Personality Disorder pt 1
Narcissistic Personality Disorder pt 2
Narcissistic Personality Disorder pt 3
Borderline – Narcissistic Personality Disorder (BPD-NPD)
Gestures of Aggression & Narcissism: narcissistic arms poses
Does Obama Have Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
“…The term narcissism’ refers to the personality trait of self-esteem, which includes the set of character traits concerned with self-image or ego. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others.
Freud believed that some narcissism is an essential part of all of us from birth. Andrew P. Morrison claims that, in adults, a reasonable amount of healthy narcissism allows the individual’s perception of his needs to be balanced in relation to others.
While most people possess some degree of narcissistic traits, higher levels of narcissism can be dysfunctional, and may be classified as pathologies such as narcissistic personality disorder and malignant narcissism. …”
“…Healthy narcissism has to do with a strong feeling of “own love” protecting the human being against illness. Eventually, however, the individual must love the other, “the object love to not become ill”. The person becomes ill, as a result of a frustration, when he is unable to love the object. In pathological narcissism such as the narcissistic personality disorder and schizophrenia, the person’s libido has been withdrawn from objects in the world and produces megalomania. The clinical theorists Kernberg, Kohut and Millon all see pathological narcissism as a possible outcome in response to unempathetic and inconsistent early childhood interactions. They suggested that narcissists try to compensate in adult relationships. …”
“…Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.” …”
DSM IV-TR criteria
“…A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
- has a grandiose sense of self-importance
- is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love (megalomania)
- believes they are “special” and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also “special” or of high status
- requires excessive admiration
- has a sense of entitlement
- is interpersonally exploitative
- lacks empathy
- is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
- shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes ..”
Like families there are various types or sub-types of narcissistic individuals:
“Theodore Millon identified six types of narcissist:
- normal narcissistic type – by nature a competitive and self-assured person who believes in himself or herself. Charming, clever, confident and ambitious, such a person often becomes an effective and successful leader.
- unprincipled type – the charlatan – is a fraudulent, exploitative, deceptive and unscrupulous individual. Although people displaying this type of narcissism are usually succesful in society and manage to keep their activities within the accepted norms, they can also be found in drug rehabilitation programs, jails and prisons.
- amorous type – the Don Juan or Casanova of our times – is erotic, exhibitionist and seductive, aloof, charming and exploitative, and reluctant to get involved in deep, mutually intimate relationships.
- compensatory type – has illusions of superiority and an image of high self-worth, but with an underlying emptiness, insecurity and weakness. This type is sensitive to others’ reactions and prone to feeling ashamed, anxious and humiliated.
- elitist type – the achiever – corresponds to Wilhelm Reich’s “phallic narcissistic” personality type, with excessively inflated self-image. The individual is elitist, a “social climber”, superior, admiration seeking, self-promoting, bragging and empowered by social success.
- fanatic type – is a severely narcissistically wounded individual, usually with major paranoid tendencies who holds onto an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting the reality of their insignificance and lost value and are trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition of support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission. These people can be found amongst sect leaders, in mental hospitals if their delusions become sustained and extensive, or in prison, if their missions counteract those of society. …”
Former President Clinton appears to fit the amorous narcissist type and President Obama appears to fit both the elitist and fanatic types.
The lack of empathy in early childhood from an absent father figure may lead to a narcissistic personality disorder which in turn results in an unconstrained progressive vision and worldview.
According to Lakoff all progressive values come from empathy and responsibility including security, attachment, protection, fairness, happiness, fulfillment, freedom and opportunity.
While empathy is certainly a valuable ability or capacity to have, empathy is not an ability of either progressives or conservatives per se.
What Lakoff fails to mention or leaves out is that many early progressives, both Democrats and Republicans believed in eugenics and/or racial superiority including President Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
War on the Weak: Eugenics in America
Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report
Glenn Beck: Eugenics, Progressives, Hitler, The Economy & Barack Obama [1/2]
Did either Woodrow Wilson or Theodore Roosevelt have an narcissistic personality disorder.
Wilson most likely did, but Roosevelt was closer to borderline narcissistic personality disorder.
Thomas Woodrow Wilson adored his father and followed his advice except when it came to choice of profession. Wilson’s father wanted Tommy to become a minister, Tommy did not. Freud wrote a whole book on Woodrow Wilson and a Narcissistic personality disorder seems a fit description.
Theodore Roosevelt described as energetic seems to fall near the borderline type when it comes to narcissism.
Behind The Presidency: Theodore Roosevelt Part 1
President Theodore Roosevelt
Behind The Presidency: Theodore Roosevelt Part 2
Politically, I am what Europeans would call liberal and Americans, libertarian and consider myself to be a movement conservative.
Lakoff would describe me as a biconceptual conservative from a nurturant family.
A more precise label of my politcal philosophy would be a traditional libertarian conservative–an individualist.
In describing economic freedom Lakoff captured my point of view:
“…Conservatives who speak of economic freedom are usually concerned with making and keeping money–that is, with the freedom to acquire and maintain further freedoms (the ones that money can buy). The government is, in Grover Norquist’s term, “the beast”–to be shrunk to be small enough to drown in a bathtub. Their gripe against government is that government takes away their money (through taxes), gives it to other people (through social programs), gets in the way of making it (through) regulations and laws), and wastes it (through inefficiency). In doing so, they see government as taking away not only their freedom but also their freedom to acquire and maintain other freedoms. They also believe that private wealth creates more wealth through investment and that govenment taxation and regulation inhibits the creation of more wealth and thus more freedom. The only legitimate role for government is to protect their freedom–their lives and property (the military, the police, and the criminal justice system)–and to provide order in their everyday lives (through law enforcement and institutions that promote social order, like churches). …”
What is a continuing and direct threat to the American family, whether it is a conservative strict father family or the progressive nurturant family is government–the beast, at all levels–city, state, and Federal.
The beast has an insatiable and growing appetite that must be feed with tax dollars.
The progressive radical socialist Democrats led by Obama promised no new taxes for anyone earning less than $250,000.
Barack Obama’s version of “read my lips NO NEW TAXES”
Obama lied, the economy dies.
Current proposals include both a cap and trade energy tax and a health insurance tax if you do not obey the Federal Government and buy a government approved health insurance plan.
It would seem that the progressive radical socialist elites of both political parties have lost their capacity of empathy assuming they ever had a capacity of empathy in the first place.
They could care less that the taking from families of their incomes and wealth to support and expand the commonwealth–government, is the root cause of many of society’s problems.
The unconstrained vision of the progressive radical socialists not empathy is the real problem.
Good intentions, caring and empathy are simply not enough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ideas have consequences both intended and unintended.
Let us use immigration as an example to illustrate some points.
Illegal aliens are criminal aliens and are employed by businesses that are criminal enterprises.
Both immigrants and businesses are breaking the law massively each and every day and the political class or elites want to use words to do away with the problem.
Comprehensive immigration reform is amnesty for criminal aliens and rewards criminal aliens, criminal enterprises and corrupt politicians who refuse to enforce immigration laws.
Both the Republican and Democratic Party led by progressive radical socialists in both parties favor comprehensive immigration reform and open borders–no fences or border patrols.
The American people support immigration law enforcement not amnesty for criminals whether they be immigrants, businesses or politicians that aid and abet the criminals in exchange for campaign contributions and votes.
The American people also support limited controlled legal immigration of about 200,000 people per year from around the world, the full assimiliation of these immigrants into our nation and English as the official language of the United States.
There are between 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 illegal immigrants living in the United States.
Between 15,000,000, and 25,000,000 of these illegal immigrants are working, mostly in low pay unskilled jobs.
These type of jobs were and are performed by American citizens as well.
Currently there between 15,000,000 to 26,000,000 American citizens seeking full time employment.
The criminal aliens should be removed from their place of employment and replaced by American citizens seeking a full time job.
The progressive elites of both political parties lack empathy when they but their needs for power and control over the needs of American citizens to earn a living.
Lakoff is absolutely correct that whoever frames the debate on the issue, wins the debate, if not the election:
“…Deep frames are where the action is.
The deep frames are the ones that structure how you view the world. They characterize moral and political principles that are so deep they are part of your own identity. Deep framing is the conceptual infrastructure of the mind: the foundation, walls, and beams of that edifice. Without deep frames, there is nothing for the surface message frames to hang on. …”
You also will usually win the election if the candidate nominated truly believes and acts on their conservative moral and political principles and can effectively communicate them.
Now the above is an example of what Lakoff calls framing, both deep and surface framing:
“Deep frames structure your moral system or your worldview. Surface frames have a much smaller scope. They are associated with particular words or phrases, and with modes of communication with .”
A progressive would reframe the illegal issues as comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship:
Barack Obama slams John Mccain’s immigration flip flop
Obama Double Talk, Caught In A Lie, Illegals and Healthcare Health Care, Immigration Reform Fox
Note the substitution of undocumented workers instead of illegal immigrants or criminal aliens in the above video. Also note the statement that we have a broken immigration system.
The Federal Government both under Presidents Bush and Obama have not been vigorously enforcing the immgiration laws contrary to both their oath of office and the rule of law. Instead both political parties have broken the system and want to “fix it” by giving a “pathway to citizenship” or amnesty for criminal aliens and criminal enterprises that employ they.
Lakoff would call this reframing, others spinning, many lying to the American people and shows the deep corruption of the political class, especially the progressives of both parties.
There are currently over 26,000,000 Americans seeking full time employment.
The President of the United would give amnesty to criminal aliens and refuses to enforce immigration laws and require the use of E-Verify to determine the legal status of a person to work in the United States.
Furthermore, he wants to provide health insurance to criminal aliens by first making them citizens of the United States.
The American people know that President Obama is a notorous liar and no longer believe or trust what he says.
Collection of Obama Lies 2 of 477
Why Some of Us Don’t Like Obama
Many have stopped listening to him.
Once you lose a person’s trust, you almost never get it back, no matter what word or frames, deep or suface you use.
Ideas matter, but character, credibility and trust matter even more.
In America today, the polticians of the left liked to be called progressive or what in Europe would be called social democrats, I view them all as collectivists and most are socialists or fascists and just will not admit it in public.
The progressives in America have captured both big media and academia.
The conservatives of all types are alive and well on talk radio and on the internet in blogs, podcasts, videos and web sites.
The American people are waking up to what the progressives are up to and they do not like it.
Frame it or spin however you like, but lying is lying.
When the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party led by Barack Obama passes plans and programs affecting families or taking money out of their wallets, the American people will not knowingly vote for liars from any political party in the next election.
Trust, integrity and character not good intentions and empathy are paramount.
You’re So Vain
“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments. “
Background Articles and Videos
Olympic Gold for Narcissism
by George Will
“…Presidents often come to be characterized by particular adjectives: “honest” Abe Lincoln, “Grover the Good” Cleveland, “energetic” Theodore Roosevelt, “idealistic” Woodrow Wilson, “Silent Cal” Coolidge, “confident” FDR, “likable” Ike Eisenhower. Less happily, there were “Tricky Dick” Nixon and “Slick Willie” Clinton. Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is “vain.”
“…An ideology is a set of aims and ideas that directs one’s goals, expectations, and actions. It can also mean for what someone thinks to be important to him/her. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society. The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought (as opposed to mere ideation) applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. …”
Michael Savage On Barack Obama’s Narcissism
Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
By Ali Sina
“…Pathological narcissism, is not akin to typical narcissism—someone with a hedonistic or self-centered sense of self —but rather someone with a very weak sense of self. Obama’s narcissism is pathological.
Narcissists seek power. That is the whole purpose of their existence. Power for them is the elixir of life. Those who know about NPD can’t help but notice it in Obama’s posture, the tone of his voice, his demeanor and particularly his grandiose claims and unscripted adlibs.
Narcissim has degrees. When it is extreme it shows in the posture and the way the narcissist walks and talks. Obama’s posture, exudes haughtiness. He is all puffery. Compare his posture to those of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam.
According to Vaknin, Obama displays the following behaviors, which are among the hallmarks of pathological narcissism:
- Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and “ideals” (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, refuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy.
- Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking. Obama already sees himself as president because he is firmly convinced that his dreams, thoughts, and wishes affect reality. Additionally, he denies the gap between his fantasies and his modest or limited real-life achievements (for instance, in 12 years of academic career, he didn’t publish a single scholarly paper or book).
- Feels that he is above the law.
- Talks about himself in the 3rd person singluar or uses the regal “we” and craves to be the exclusive center of attention, even adulation
- Has a messianic-cosmic vision of himself and his life and his “mission”.
- Sets ever more complex rules in a convoluted world of grandiose fantasies with its own language (jargon)
- Displays false modesty and unctuous “folksiness” but is unable to sustain these behaviors (the persona, or mask) for long. It slips and the true Obama is revealed: haughty, aloof, distant, and disdainful of simple folk and their lives.
- Sublimates aggression and holds grudges.
- Behaves as an eternal adolescent (e.g., his choice of language, youthful image he projects, demands indulgence and feels entitled to special treatment, even though his objective accomplishments do not justify it). …”
Theodore D. “Teddy” Roosevelt (October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919; pronounced /ˈroʊzəvɛlt/), also called “T.R.“, was the 26th President of the United States. He is well remembered for his energetic persona, his range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his “cowboy” image. He was a leader of the Republican Party and founder of the short-lived Bull Moose Party. Before becoming the 26th President (1901–1909) he held offices at the municipal, state, and federal level of government. Roosevelt’s achievements as a naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier are as much a part of his fame as any office he held as a politician.
Born to a wealthy family, Roosevelt was a sickly child who stayed at home studying natural history. In response to his physical weakness, he embraced a strenuous life. He attended Harvard, where he boxed and developed an interest in naval affairs. A year out of Harvard, in 1881 he ran for a seat in the state legislature. His first historical book, The Naval War of 1812, published in 1882, established his reputation as a serious historian. After a few years of living in the Badlands, Roosevelt returned to New York City, where he gained fame for fighting police corruption. He was effectively running the US Department of the Navy when the Spanish American War broke out; he resigned and led a small regiment in Cuba known as the Rough Riders, earning himself the Medal of Honor. After the war, he returned to New York and was elected Governor; two years later he was nominated for and elected Vice President of the United States.
In 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated, and Roosevelt became president at the age of 42, the youngest age of taking office of any U.S. President in history. Roosevelt attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. Roosevelt coined the phrase “Square Deal” to describe his domestic agenda, emphasizing that the average citizen would get a fair shake under his policies. As an outdoorsman, he promoted the conservation movement. On the world stage, Roosevelt policies were characterized by his comment, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. Roosevelt was the force behind the completion of the Panama Canal; he sent out the Great White Fleet to display American power, and he negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Roosevelt declined to run for re-election in 1908. After leaving office, he embarked on a safari to Africa and a trip to Europe. On his return to the US, a rift developed between Roosevelt and his anointed successor as President, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt attempted in 1912 to wrest the Republican nomination from Taft, and when he failed, he launched the Bull Moose Party. In the election, Roosevelt became the only third party candidate to come in second place, beating Taft but losing to Woodrow Wilson. After the election, Roosevelt embarked on a major expedition to South America; the river on which he traveled now bears his name. The trip damaged his health, and he died a few years later, at the age of 60. Roosevelt has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents. …”
Can you recognize a narcissist?
“…Lubit compared ‘healthy’ and ‘destructive’ narcissism in relation to their long-term impact on organizations. The following is an extract from his comparison table.Ref
||High outward self-confidence in line with reality
|Desire for power, wealth and admiration
||May enjoy power
||Pursues power at all costs, lacks normal inhibitions in its pursuit
||Real concern for others and their ideas; does not exploit or devalue others
||Concerns limited to expressing socially appropriate response when convenient; devalues and exploits others without remorse
|Ability to follow a consistent path
||Has values; follows through on plans
||Lacks values; easily bored; often changes course
||Healthy childhood with support for self-esteem and appropriate limits on behaviour towards others
||Traumatic childhood undercutting true sense of self-esteem and/or learning that he/she doesn’t need to be considerate of others
It is rare for a narcissistic individual to be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder because those who really should be don’t seek help and so don’t get clinically assessed; it is usually members of their family or work colleagues who seek help to cope with them.
Here are a few pointers that may help you identify one:
- Their lack of empathy colors everything they do. They may say, “How are you?” when you meet, but they are working from memory. They are not interested in how you are.
- Virtually all of their ideas or ways of behaving in a given situation are taken from others, people they know and perhaps think of as an authority (mirroring).
- Their sense of self-importance and lack of empathy means that they will often interrupt the conversations of others.
- They expect others to do the day-to-day chores as they feel too important to waste their time on common things.
- Listen for the constant use of “I”, “me” and “my” when they talk.
- They very rarely talk about their inner life, for example their memories and dreams.
- They feel that the rules at work don’t apply to them.
- They will always cheat whenever they think they can get away with it.
- If you share workload with them expect to do the lion’s share yourself.
- They love to delegate work or projects, then interfere by micro-managing it. If it goes well, they take the credit, if it goes badly they blame the person they delegated it to.
- There tends to be higher levels of stress with people who work with or interact with a narcissist, which in turn increases absenteeism and staff turnover.
- They get impatient and restless when the topic of discussion is about someone else, and not about them. …”
Bill O’Reilly on Barack Obama 2009 Nobel Peace Prize — “Obama is a Predator Drone Kind of Guy”
FOX’s Chris Wallace Reacts To President Obama Winning Nobel Peace Prize – 10/9/2009
World War I Documentary Vol3- 6/8 Wilson & Peace pt1
World War I Documentary Vol3- 6/8 Wilson & Peace pt2
World War I Documentary Vol3- 6/8 Wilson & Peace pt3
Narcissistic Personality & Borderline Personality – Loved Ones Can Create Change
Narcissism, NPD & Aggression : Sam Vaknin takes the NPA test
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( 13 so far )
President Obama Stands Behind His Man--Tom Daschle--Limousine Liberal Lobbyist
Tom Daschle’s Tax Problem
Obama’s Goon Squad Glen Beck 2.2.09
Will President Obama be changing his tune for the Limousine Liberal Lobbyist, Tom Daschle, from Stand By Your Man to D-I-V-O-R-C-E?
STAND BY YOUR MAN TAMMY WYNETTE
Tammy Wynette – D-I-V-O-R-C-E
Looks like the theme song for this ethically challenged administration should be either:
Bad Boys 2 Song!
Barbra Streisand – People
Given former Senator Daschle’s past record of opposing President Bush’s qualified nominees with no issues, the Republican Senators should oppose Senator Daschle’s confirmation for his questionable integrity on taxes alone as well as his past record.
If the Republican Party and Senators fail to do so they will lose again the support of the conservative movement base.
Remember the Chicago way:
The Chicago Way
The conservative base is wathcing this one.
We want Senator Daschle confirmation opposed on Party lines.
We are watching.
Time for some steel.
Join the second American Revolution:
Background Articles and Videos
Senator Tom Daschle telling jokes
“Thomas Andrew Daschle (born December 9, 1947) is a former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from South Dakota. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He is President Barack Obama‘s nominee to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Obama’s Cabinet.
On January 30, 2009, while his nomination for the position of HHS Secretary was still awaiting Senate confirmation, tax issues came to light involving income and the use of a limousine and chauffeur that Daschle failed to properly disclose on his income-tax statements for the years 2005 through 2007, as well as charitable contributions he improperly claimed as deductions. Daschle reportedly paid back taxes and interest in the amount of $140,167 as a result.
Tom Daschle’s Golden Rule
By Emily Yoffe
“…There was the day job at the law firm Alston & Bird that must have been blessedly free of the kind of dull legal minutiae that makes up many a billable hour, since Daschle is not a lawyer. That paid $2.1 million over the past two years. The consulting position at InterMedia Advisors, a private equity firm, paid him $1 million a year. A senior partner there told The Post that Daschle did “a lot of helpful work,” which he declined to enumerate. A stream of speeches to businesses that had business with the government earned Daschle $500,000 during the past two years. There were directorships on several boards — BP Corp. alone paid him $250,000. As practitioners of Bokononism, the religion created by Kurt Vonnegut in the book “Cat’s Cradle,” like to say when contemplating the complicated machinery of life: “Busy, busy, busy.”
So busy must Daschle have been dashing from one job to another — understandable to anyone who has to moonlight after the day shift ends — it must have merely seemed like a sensible efficiency to say yes when the founder of InterMedia put a Cadillac and a driver at his disposal. It’s easy to understand how natural such a gift must have seemed. At a farewell party in his honor after he left the Senate, The Post reports, Daschle told a joke about how on the way to the party both he and his wife got into the car and sat and sat until she said to him, “If this car is going to get us there, you better get in the driver’s seat.” Of the InterMedia-funded car and driver, Daschle’s spokeswoman told The Post that Daschle “naively” believed “it was nothing more than a generous offer from a friend.”
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ”
By Michelle Malkin
Who cares about Daschle’s tax-cheating hypocrisy?
Well, he’s “apologized.” So all can be forgiven now. Right?
Thomas A. Daschle, fighting to defend his nomination to be secretary of health and human services, released a letter early today apologizing to the top lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee for mistakes on his personal income tax returns that resulted in $146,000 in back payments.
“I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns,” he wrote to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). “I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them.”
Well, hey, it worked for Geithner and it looks like it’s going to work for Holder. Screw up, say sorry, move up. …”
“Limousine liberal (also latte liberal, limousine leftist, learjet liberal, lakefront liberal, Lexus liberal, MasterCard Marxist, parlor pink, white wine socialist or champagne socialist) is a pejorative North American political term used to illustrate perceived hypocrisy by a political liberal of upper class or upper middle class status, such as calling for the use of mass transit while frequently using private jets (ergo ‘learjet liberal’)  or claiming to be highly environmentally conscious but driving a gas-hungry SUV.
Democratic New York City mayoral hopeful Mario Procaccino coined the term to describe Republican Mayor John Lindsay and his wealthy Manhattan backers during a heated 1969 campaign. It was a populist epithet, carrying an implicit accusation that the people it described were insulated from all negative consequences of their programs intended to benefit the poor, and that the costs and consequences of such programs would be borne in the main by working class or lower middle class people who were not so poor as to be beneficiaries themselves. In particular, Procaccino criticized Lindsay for favoring unemployed blacks over working-class whites.
One Procaccino campaign memo attacked “rich super-assimilated people who live on Fifth Avenue and maintain some choice mansions outside the city and have no feeling for the small middle class shopkeeper, home owner, etc. They preach the politics of confrontation and condone violent upheaval in society because they are not touched by it and are protected by their courtiers“. The Independent later stated that “Lindsay came across as all style and no substance, a ‘limousine liberal’ who knew nothing of the concerns of the same ‘Silent Majority‘ that was carrying Richard Nixon to the White House at the very same time.” …”
“Lobbying is the practice of influencing decisions made by government. It includes all attempts to influence legislators and officials, whether by other legislators, constituents or organized groups. A lobbyist is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby. Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying. …”
Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy
BY Charles Krauthammer
“…Leo and Al then portentously announced that for the first time ever, the Academy Awards ceremony had gone green. What did that mean? Solar panels in the designer gowns? It turns out that the Academy neutralized the evening’s “carbon footprint” by buying carbon credits. That means it sent money to a “carbon broker,” who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce carbon emissions somewhere on the planet equivalent to what the stars spewed into the atmosphere while flying in on their private planes.
In other words, the rich reduce their carbon output by not one ounce. But drawing on the hundreds of millions of net worth in the Kodak Theatre, they pull out lunch money to buy ecological indulgences. The last time the selling of pardons was prevalent–in a predecessor religion to environmentalism called Christianity–Martin Luther lost his temper and launched the Reformation. …”
“…The other form of carbon trading is to get Third World companies to cut their emissions to offset Western pollution. The reason this doesn’t work–and why the carbon racket is a farce–is that you need a cap for cap-and-trade to work. Sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. were capped, and the trading system succeeded in reducing acid rain by half. But even the Kyoto treaty doesn’t put any cap on greenhouse gases in China and India, where billions of these carbon credits are traded. Sure, you can pretend you’re offsetting Western greenhouse pollution by supposedly cleaning up a dirty coal plant in China. But China is adding a new coal plant every week. You could build a particularly dirty “uncapped” power plant, then sell hundreds of millions in carbon credits to reduce it to a normal rate of pollution. The result? The polluter gets very rich. The planet continues to cook. And the Gores of the world can feel virtuous as they burn up the local power grid.
If Gore really wants to save the planet, he can try this: Turn off the lights. Ditch the heated pool. Ride the subway. And spare us the carbon-trading piety. “
Daschle Delayed Revealing Tax Glitch
“…Thomas A. Daschle waited nearly a month after being nominated to be secretary of health and human services before informing Barack Obama that he had not paid years of back taxes for the use of a car and driver provided by a wealthy New York investor.
Daschle, one of Obama’s earliest and most ardent campaign supporters, paid $140,000 to the U.S. Treasury on Jan. 2 and about two days later informed the White House and the Senate Finance Committee, according to an account provided by his spokeswoman and confirmed by the Obama administration.
Although Daschle had known since June 2008 that he needed to correct his tax returns, he never expected the amount to be such a “jaw-dropping” sum and “thought it was being taken care of” by his accountant, spokeswoman Jenny Backus said.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said last night that Obama stands behind his friend and confidant. “The president believes nobody’s perfect but that nobody’s hiding anything,” Gibbs said.
Senators Question Daschle’s Late $128K Tax Payment
“…Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he was surprised that Daschle had not paid his taxes properly but would not say whether he thought the nomination was in trouble. He said the committee will make a recommendation to the full Senate. “I think I’m going to just wait until they give me their opinion,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the problem could disqualify Daschle but that he wanted to learn more about the matter.
“It’s disheartening, obviously. People are struggling to pay taxes on a very small amount of income and he’s got this huge amount,” DeMint said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, also said the tax problem was a concern and needed more explaining, telling CNN’s “State of the Union” that it involved “an awful lot of money” but that she had not decided to vote against confirmation.
On the Democratic side, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska called it “a tough issue” and said he was waiting to hear the results of the meeting between Daschle and the Finance Committee. …”
Obama stands by his man Daschle
By Michelle Malkin
“…Cue Tammy Wynette. President Obama is standing by his man, Tom Daschle. And why not? The Senate Republicans aren’t going to demand that he throw one of their dear old chums under the bus over a silly little “glitch.” Senatorial privilege has its perks. …”
Questions to Tom Daschle (#1)
Obama Selects Daschle for Cabinet Post
Daschle urges Americans to join grassroots reform
Charlie Rose Interview with Tom Daschle
Joe Biden: Wealthy Paying Higher Taxes Patriotic Thing To Do
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( 1 so far )