Skip to comments.Analysis: Budget Constraints Limit Obama's Second-Term Agenda
Posted on 01/19/2013 9:07:36 AM PST by Biggirl
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama starts his second term in office facing unprecedented budget constraints that will challenge his ability to implement his economic vision.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I’m so sympathetic to him (NOT)
When your "agenda" is to destroy the Country, money is no object!
I doubt the Dems give one little flip about budget constraints. If they had a majority in both houses and the white house, they would be passing trillions in new expenditures and creating new agencies and departments as quickly and boldly as possible.
The absence of a REAL BUDGET shows the Tyrant has
no bounds at all, despite the al Reuters’ nonsense.
Here's Obama's economic vision
The SCOTUS gave them the power to mandate what we spend our money own on.
Budget constraint is an oxymoron in Omamaspeak.
That was a battle lost, but I am not so sure a war lost. Obummercare got redefined as a tax, in the grand Roberts cop out. (Four others, including the problematic Kennedy, agreed in opining that there was no way to salvage this hunk of ordure.) But there is a second chance to approach such taxing: not all taxes are constitutional (you couldn’t tax someone for being a Jew, for instance). That issue didn’t get explicitly brought up before the USSC in that infamous case. Look now at what, say, Hobby Lobby is now being “taxed” into doing for the sake of its owners’ faith. There is still a chance for the USSC to do something sane, after having kicked the can an unseemly distance down the road.
Not “economic vision”...but “economic nightmare”.
Does anyone have the feeling that nobama sees the rest of us as a smelly substance sticking to the sole of his shoe?
“.....facing unprecedented budget constraints....”
Funny line from this article:
” Even as he has pushed through more than $1 trillion in spending increases and tax cuts to fight the deepest recession in 80 years, he has floated deficit-reduction plans that would trim costs over the medium term.”
BWA HA HA HA HA! Not a SINGLE budget proposed by the Assclown has gotten a vote from even DEMOCRATS! And “tax cuts”?? Laughable. The Reuters “journalist” of this piece must be an economic retard.
There is no budget. How can what does not exist be constrained?
You’re right. It is a direct tax on insurance policy ownership status, is not apportioned among the states according to population, and therefore is illegal. But what are the chances it gets struck down? Zero. You and I both know it will be deemed an income tax, and in that world anything goes except something like a Jew Tax like you mention.
There is still the hope it could be struck down on religious grounds of religious freedom. But then they’ll say, hey, the Quakers can’t refuse to pay for taxes that fund wars, so what are you complaining about? You can’t dictate policy from the pulpit. Healthcare is a matter if life and death, blah, blah, blah.
Basically, if Obamacare cab pass because Roberts says, hey, the mandate *could* be a tax, any old reason will do. The mandate was only the most obvious way it was unconstitutional. Did they even hither inquiringly where the Constitution said they nay do whatever else is in the bill? Did they even read the rest of the bill? Doubtful.
This thing is just such a grand counterproductive turkey, that I doubt Roberts would sleep ill if he was brought arguments that it is an unconstitutional tax (the court ordinarily doesn’t look for arguments that have not been furnished to it, which they were not) and agreed with that.
I’ve long suspected that it would be cheaper than the extra costs of Obamacare, just to grant insurance vouchers to the welfare set.
Haven’t you heard? The Democrats have a plan for balancing the budget. All the fed has to do is make a trillion dollar platinum coin! Why didn’t anyone think of that before?