PDA

View Full Version : Legislation: Oppose the Obama budget! Action needed TODAY!




sluggo
04-01-2009, 08:54 AM
Carbon taxes, government healthcare, trillions more added to the deficit, take your pick. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama's budget proposal.

The Obamatrons have mobilized and are flooding the Congress with calls in favor of it.

Please call, email, and fax your reps and let them know that you don't want anymore government spending, programs, or taxes. They need to be shrinking the scope of the Federal government, not trying to inflate it even more at our expense.

Toll Free #'s to The Capitol Hill Switchboard:
1-877-851-6437
1-800-828-0498
1-800-614-2803

Downsize DC action item:
http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/day+of+ruin

sluggo
04-01-2009, 09:07 AM
Walstreetpro2's take on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/user/walstreetpro2

Caution: he uses some very colorful language.

TruthisTreason
04-01-2009, 09:09 AM
Walstreetpro2's take on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/user/walstreetpro2

Caution: he uses some very colorful language.

Got to love Walstreetpro2!!!! :D

Pepsi
04-01-2009, 12:25 PM
The American people want President Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget DEAD... a stake driven through its heart. The American people do not want any "compromises." The American people do not want any superficial cuts or revisions. No amount of lipstick will make this pig of a budget palatable to the American people.

President Obama’s budget is more than irresponsible. It is evil. According to the Associate Press: “President Barack Obama’s budget would produce … more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency.” The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has warned that it will add nearly $10 trillion dollars to the national debt. Freedom Works says it "taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much." They are right.

We cannot sustain this debt. Our children cannot sustain this debt. This budget is nothing more than a recipe for socialism. Lance Fairchok, a blogger with AmericanThinker.com perhaps said it best: "Obama's budget multiplies the deficit so far beyond any reasonable level one must assume he is purposely trying to destroy the economy." I couldn't have said it better.

President Obama’s trillion dollar budget would usher in massive tax hikes-including the imposition of a global warming carbon tax, a doubling of the publicly held national debt, and a permanent expansion of the federal government.

Given the dire straits of our economy, and the heavy burden already placed upon U.S. taxpayers, I urge you to resist this budget and any other attempts to increase our tax burden.

We cannot simply tax and spend our way back to financial well-being. Instead, I’m counting on you to take a leadership role in restoring fiscal responsibility and accountability to Capitol Hill.

Pepsi
04-01-2009, 01:21 PM
The American people want President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget DEAD... a stake driven through its heart. The American people do not want any "compromises." The American people do not want any superficial cuts or revisions. No amount of lipstick will make this pig of a budget palatable to the American people.

President Obama's budget is more than irresponsible. It is evil. According to the Associate Press: "President Barack Obama's budget would produce … more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency." The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has warned that it will add nearly $10 trillion dollars to the national debt. Freedom Works says it "taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much." They are right.

We cannot sustain this debt. Our children cannot sustain this debt. This budget is nothing more than a recipe for socialism. Lance Fairchok, a blogger with AmericanThinker.com perhaps said it best: "Obama's budget multiplies the deficit so far beyond any reasonable level one must assume he is purposely trying to destroy the economy." I couldn't have said it better.

His budget would also ulsher an imposition of a global warming carbon tax.

A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission.

Judi McLeod's excellent article for Canada Free Press, which she expanded from a Fox News piece, highlights how years before he became president, Obama helped directly fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the proposed cap-and-trade carbon reduction program.

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were "instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself "North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide."

Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to steer through Congress.

McLeod also notes that The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

Gore's investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

While McLeod's article highlights the cronyism and corporate dealings behind this set up, we should also add the fact that both Gore and Strong come from a stable of elite groups that have long sought to use the environmental movement to advance their agendas.

Strong, who was groomed by David Rockefeller to eventually serve as Director of the Rockefeller Foundation, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Club of Rome.

Gore too comes from the Club of Rome clique.

Lets take a look at the connections these groups have to the environmental movement.

In 1990, writes veteran reporter Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. "Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense."

The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism approach will solve the world's "problems", in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill," the book states. "All these dangers are caused by human intervention," and thus the "real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, expanded on this topic in his article, State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era. According to Haass, a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming and terrorism, both invented as the Club of Rome suggested.

"Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change," writes Haass. "The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy."

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called Limits to growth. The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

Two years ago, During the secretive Trilateral Commission group meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

Why is this so concerning? Because groups such as the Club of Rome are contracted out by our own governments and the UN to prepare 'Policy Guidance Documents' which they use in formulating their policies and programs. How come the Club of Rome gets the gig? Simply because many high ranking UN and government officials are also CoR members, or have direct corporate ties to members. The same goes for the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

A recently unearthed documentary that sought to expose this agenda at its inception is George Hunt's excellent research piece on the environmental movement.

Considering the information unearthed concerning Obama's links to all of this, it is not surprising that he is now pushing the "cap-and-trade" carbon tax program, which in reality represents a war on the middle and working classes.

Prior to the election, Obama called for drastically reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.

The 80 per cent figure is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute last year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media - a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.

such a move would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man's return to the stone age

Given the dire straits of our economy, and the heavy burden already placed upon U.S. taxpayers, I urge you to resist this budget and any other attempts to increase our tax burden.

We cannot simply tax and spend our way back to financial well-being. Instead, I'm counting on you to take a leadership role in restoring fiscal responsibility and accountability to Capitol Hill.

Pepsi
04-01-2009, 01:42 PM
Obama wants to pay you to support global warming regulation. What he isn’t saying, however, is that his enticement won’t come close to covering what the regulations will cost you.


the President proposed a so-called cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the proposal, 100 percent of the permits to emit greenhouse gases would be auctioned to coal and natural gas-burning electric utilities, industrial plants and other emitters-to-be-designated. The proceeds from the auctions would then distributed to individual Americans “to help the transition to a clean energy economy,” according to his budget proposal.

But what does this proposal mean for the average person in terms of actual dollars and cents?

Maybe the economics of Obama’s cap-and-trade rip-off don’t bother you, but the fact that the rip-off will accomplish nothing should give you pause.

It’s difficult to work out the precise financial impacts, but you can get an idea by doing some back-of-the-envelop calculations with some of the facts and figures that have recently been bandied about.

Based on past global warming legislation, like the Lieberman-Warner bill that failed in the Senate last June, a cap-and-trade plan would probably cover about 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — about 5.8 billion tons based on a total of 7.3 billion tons emitted during 2007.

Assuming that permits are auctioned at a price of $12 per ton — a safety valve price included in past climate bills — the Obama plan would raise about $70 billion in its first year. Given that President Obama has proposed to spend about $15 billion per year of the auction proceeds on “clean energy” projects, about $55 billion would be leftover for distribution to individuals– in other words, every American with a Social Security number. Dividing the $55 billion among more than 300 million Americans, then, works out to about $180 per person and $720 per family of four per year.

It’s not like winning the lottery, but it’s better than nothing — or is it?

The liberal think tank Center on Budget Priorities and Policy estimated this week that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would cost the poorest families in America $750 per year as higher energy prices ripple through the economy affecting all goods and services. So if the poorest families, who use far less energy than the rest of America, are in a financial hole under the president’s plan, one can easily imagine how the rest of us will end up. Consider the potential consequences on just your electric bill.

The proposed Lieberman-Warner bill would have auctioned only 25 percent of the permits — not 100 percent as President Obama is proposing. The remaining 75 percent of the credits would have been distributed for free to electric utilities and other designated greenhouse gas emitters. But even under that scheme, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers told The New York Times last summer that electricity rates would rise by 40 percent in the first year to cover his utility’s $2 billion outlay for credits. So a 100 percent auction could increase electricity bills for Duke’s 4 million customers by 160 percent — meaning a $100 monthly electric bill becomes, perhaps, a $260 monthly bill. Based on these calculations, a family of four that pays more than $40 per month for electricity — that is, every family — is a net loser under President Obama’s plan.

And those are the potential increases for just your electric bill. Not included are other likely price hikes for goods and services — gasoline, food, travel, etc. — that will necessarily be passed along to consumers. As you can readily see, your share of President Obama’s auction proceeds don’t come close to breaking even on greenhouse gas regulation.

Maybe you’re thinking that these extra costs are worth it as they will be dwarfed by the environmental benefits of tackling the much-dreaded global warming.

Think again. There will be no detectable or tangible benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

First, carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas targeted by regulation is invisible, colorless and odorless. Since it exists in the atmosphere at levels measured in the parts per million, unless you’re a plant that needs CO2 to live, you’re not going to notice it.

Next, there is no evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing detectable changes, much less any harm, to the climate.

This means, of course, that there is no evidence that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have any detectable changes on climate.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that man made carbon dioxide emissions were changing climate, Obama’s cap-and-trade bill will still have no detectable impact. First, EPA projects that a maximum clamp down on future U.S. emissions would reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by about 5 percent or less — a trivial change no matter what you believe about carbon dioxide. Moreover, China and India have vowed not to harm their economies because of global warming — so their emissions can be expected to soar as they develop and more than make-up for our reductions.

Maybe the economics of Obama’s cap-and-trade rip-off don’t bother you, but the fact that the rip-off will accomplish nothing should give you pause.