“Change we can believe in” have been amended!

In the last US debt deal, “promisses” were made! In earlier posts, I already found articles and viewpoints that made those promisses look less promissing than originally stated. Well, here is a birthday present from President Obama, announced yesterday. His first policy “Yes we can” and his second policy “Change we can believe in” have been amended!

See an excerpt of a speech he gave at his Chicago fundraiser recently. It was reported in the site TheBlaze:

“You had to see this coming.

After Obama quipped earlier this summer that shovel-ready jobs weren’t as shovel-ready as “we expected,” it seemed that a central tenet of the 2012 campaign was probably going to be something along the lines of, we just haven’t had enough time. At his Chicago fundraiser last night, that’s exactly the stance he took, even going back to blaming George W. Bush:

Real Clear Politics has the transcript:

“It’s been a long, tough journey. But we have made some incredible strides together. Yes, we have. But the thing that we all ought to remember is that as much as good as we have done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet. When I said ‘change we can believe in’ I didn‘t say ’change we can believe in tomorrow.’ Not change we can believe in next week. We knew this was going to take time because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy,” President Obama said at a campaign fundraiser in Chicago on Wednesday night.”

I was under the impression that it meant “Change we can believe in NOW, DURING HIS PRESIDENTIAL TERM”!

Any more hope?

Debt limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments

Social Security payments in the near future have been a concern for people who have kept themselves up to date with our government policy changes and national debt limit management.

Robert Kyosaki has given a very extensive analysis and simple to understand presentation of this situation in his book “The Profecy”.

My understanding is that we are at the point where inflation in our country is about to turn to hyperinflation. But could it be avoided? What could be done and by whom to get our economy and particularly our Social Security payments pgm back on a sensible and sustainable path?

Please leave your comments below.

Here is an article posted in USA Today By Bradley C Bower, AP entitled “Debt limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments”

“Analysis shows the government would be unable to make payments due Aug. 3 to Social Security recipients.”

“WASHINGTON — Social Security payments to millions of retirees and people with disabilities could be threatened if President Obama and Congress can’t agree to increase the government’s debt limit by Aug. 2, a new analysis shows.

While the Treasury Department likely could avoid delaying Social Security checks, the analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center points up the depth of the cuts that would be needed if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling isn’t raised.
It shows that in August, the government could not afford to meet 44% of its obligations. Since the $134 billion deficit for that month couldn’t be covered with more borrowing, programs would have to be cut.
If Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, payments to defense contractors and interest payments on Treasury bonds were exempt, that would be all the government could afford for the month. No money for troops or veterans. No tax refunds. No food stamps or welfare. No federal salaries or benefits.
Want to protect the social safety net? That would be possible — but only if Treasury stopped paying defense contractors, jeopardizing national security. Plus virtually every federal agency and employee.
“We should be honest with ourselves what this would be like, and the answer is it would be chaotic,” said Jay Powell, a former top Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush’s administration. “There is no way to avoid really serious pain.”

The Bipartisan Policy Center studied Treasury Department receipts and spending for August 2009 and 2010 and found that the government likely would not have enough revenue to make the full $23 billion payment to Social Security recipients due Aug. 3. That’s the first Wednesday of the month, when a majority of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income checks go out.
Things wouldn’t improve much as the days pass. The first major interest payment to creditors would be due Aug. 15 — $29 billion, more than the $22 billion due to arrive in revenue.
On that day, Treasury would have to roll over nearly $500 billion in maturing debt — necessitating an auction which, by that time, might have fewer takers than usual. If demand declines, interest rates would rise.
As the center foresees it, the picture would get worse: Layoffs and lawsuits. Global market reaction and media glare. A possible downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, perhaps followed by the loss of market access.
The effect on the country, said former Republican senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, would be ‘irretrievable’.”

Please leave comments with your views about our national debt limit mamagement and what will/could happend to our Social Security payments in the coming months.

Charitable organizations should have the right to employ those who share their groups’ values.

Should charitable organizations have the right to employ those who share their groups’ values? Should they be allowed to discriminate and tell an applicant “We don’t hire your kind”?

Former President George Bush took a stand about 10 years ago, and now President Obama in confronting changing it.

What do you think? Who was/is right? Should the gvt have a say in faith-based hiring issues?

Please read this article and leave a comment.

“Critics push Obama to change faith-based hiring rules
By Lauren Markoe, Religion News ServicePosted 5d 15h ago | 243 | 9
WASHINGTON (RNS) A group of clergy and lawmakers is trying to overturn a nearly decade-old policy that allows faith-based organizations that receive federal funds to hire and fire employees on the basis of religion.

Critics say President Obama has reneged on a campaign promise to repeal the policy, which was put into place by President Bush in 2002.
“It is shocking that we would even be having a debate about whether basic civil rights practices should apply to programs run with federal dollars,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va.
“There is just no justification for sponsors of government-funded programs to tell job applicants, ‘We don’t hire your kind.'”
Scott has sponsored legislation to repeal the policy. But advocates for the change say the most effective route would be for Obama to issue a new executive order to overturn Bush’s, Scott told reporters on Tuesday (June 21).
Bush introduced the policy to advance what he deemed a more faith-friendly federal approach toward charitable organizations that receive federal contracts for social services. Previously, groups that received government money were forbidden to consider religion in their employment decisions.
Bush, however, argued that while an organization accepting federal support could not refuse to help people based on their religion, it should be able to take religion into account when hiring and firing employees.
Many religious organizations — particularly conservative ones — hailed the overall initiative and continue to support it.
“We will do whatever we can to make sure this stays,” said Michele Combs, spokeswoman for the Christian Coalition, saying charitable organizations should have the right to employ those who share their groups’ values.
“That’s our freedom,” she said, “to hire and fire people of our faith.”
More liberal religious leaders, who typically toe a strict line on church-state separation, said the lingering Bush order undermines a century of progress in civil rights.
“Tax dollars should not be used to discriminate,” said Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
Scott and others referred to a speech Obama gave on the campaign trail four months before his 2008 election in which he promised to reform Bush’s faith-based program. Obama said a group receiving federal money shouldn’t be able to “use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”
Asked for comment on Wednesday, a White House spokesman said “the Justice Department continues to examine this issue on a case-by-case basis.”

What do you think? Who was/is right? Should the gvt have a say in faith-based hiring issues?