Posts Tagged ‘stimulus’

Barack Obama, The Worst Of Nixon, The Worst Of Carter, The Worst President In History – And You’re Going To Pay For It

May 30, 2014

Something occurred to me as I watched yet another massive Obama administration scandal develop and saw yet another dishonest, incompetent response to it.

Barack Obama is truly a historic figure.

But in a really, really BAD way.

Barack Obama manages to unite the very worst of the two worst presidents in modern America.  And in so doing he becomes easily the worst president we’ve ever had.

It occurred to me that Obama manages to combine the very worst of Jimmy Carter AND the very worst of Richard Nixon.

How so?

Well, Richard Nixon was corrupt, but he wasn’t incompetent.

Jimmy Carter was incompetent, but he wasn’t corrupt.

Barack Obama is easily every bit as incompetent as Jimmy Carter and easily far more corrupt than Richard Nixon.

As for Carter-level incompetence, all I have to do is say “ObamaCare website.”  Here was THE signature legislative accomplishment of Obama, and we find him to be completely uninvolved, completely ignorant, and completely incapable of reacting and making ANY changes.  The damn website is STILL fundamentally screwed up, with the “back end” nonexistent and all kinds of security issues.

Again and again and again, Obama has fallen back on the same pathetic strategy of essentially pleading ignorance and incompetence.  He was supposed to know, as president, but he was caught off guard by his own admission again and again.

Nixon merely TALKED about using the IRS to target his political enemies; Barack Obama actually DID it.  What we already know about the IRS scandal is that the orders DID come from Washington – contrary to Obama’s repeated lies – and in fact came from AN OBAMA APPOINTEE (one of only two in the entire IRS organization).  We know that the IRS targeted “anti-Obama rhetoric.”  We know that this targeting was preceded by Obama bitterly demonizing the Supreme Court for its Citizens United verdict (because how dare they “open the floodgates” for the same kind of unholy billion-dollar-money that Obama himself had raised for his election when he was the FIRST presidential candidate from either party to refuse the public matching funds program that had been implemented BECAUSE OF NIXON’S CORRUPTION?

Barack Obama has been a more unholy WHORE for money than any of the last FIVE presidents combined.

Obama massively outspent McCain in 2008:

How did Mr. Obama use his massive spending advantage?

He buried Mr. McCain on TV. Nielsen, the audience measurement firm, reports that between June and Election Day, Mr. Obama had a 3-to-2 advantage over Mr. McCain on network TV buys. And Mr. Obama’s edge was likely larger on local cable TV, which Nielsen doesn’t monitor.

A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states.

Obama outspent Romney in 2012 by a 2-1 margin:

Obama spent $52,006,072 compared to Romney’s $26,230,293. The $52M Obama spent is about $12 million more than it cost to build the Lincoln Memorial and $26 million more than Romney spent.

But this demon-possessed man – the essence of “Democrat” is “DEMOn possessed burueaCRAT” – was rabidly furious that the Supreme Court would allow the Republican Party to be the same kind of whore for money that Obama had been.  And he set about to exploit his own power as the Führer-in-chief to countermand the Supreme Court’s verdict and punish his enemies for exercising rights the Supreme Court of the United States declared they had.

The result was the IRS scandal, in which hundreds of conservative groups were targeted and systematically threatened and harassed into silence.  No liberal groups were damaged, according to the Treasury IG.  I repeat, NO liberal groups.  Versus the 300 who were attacked for being conservative.  And “anti-Obama.”

Punish your enemies and reward your friends,” Obama advised his cockroach army.  That has been his political philosophy throughout his corrupt presidency.

Obama began this dishonest thug practice immediately upon taking office with his massive $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) “stimulus” that he ultimately admitted wasn’t “shovel-ready” after all as he had dishonestly promised the American people it would be when he sold the lie to them.  Call him “Captain Obvious” for that admission.  It is a sad and cynical fact of history that money overwhelmingly went to blue states and areas that voted for Obama and was denied to red states and areas that voted for McCain as a political club rather than as an economic engine.  Nixon never came anywhere CLOSE to that level of political corruption.

Similarly, eighty percent of ALL the money Obama doled out for “green energy” projects was nothing more than cynical and corrupt payoffs to LIBERALS who supported Obama:

The Solyndra President.  Well, make that the Solyndra-EverGreen-SpectraWatt-First Solar-Solar Trust-Abound Solar-BrightSource-LSP Energy-Ener1-SunPower-Beacon Power-ECOtality-A123-Uni Solar-Azure Dynamics President.  Not to mention all the other now-bankrupt green energy crony-capitalist businesses that have stolen more than $2 billion dollars of the American people’s money.

And few Americans have any idea whatsoever how transparently corrupt Barack Obama is.

Eighty percent of all green energy loans provided by the American people’s stimulus money were given to crony capitalist-fascist Obama donors.  Obama is using the American people’s money as a political slush fund to reward his friends:

A new book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer details the startling extent of the cronyism that has pervaded President Obama’s “green jobs” push. According to Schweizer, 4 out of every 5 renewable energy companies backed by the Energy Department was “run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.”

“Nixonian” doesn’t BEGIN to describe the magnitude of corruption that has been business-as-usual in the Obama White House.

And as we speak, the Obama Department of Justice has been dishonestly targeting LEGITIMATE businesses they don’t like by exploiting a law that allowed them to go after corrupt business (see also here and here):

Back in March 2013, the Obama Administration unveiled Operation Choke Point, a collaborative effort between the Department of Justice, the FDIC, and the Federal Trade Commission aimed at rooting out bad money; think con artists, drug traffickers, and money launderers who have checking accounts. According to a report filed by the Washington Times, however, it appears that Operation Choke Point is now being used to target legitimate gun retailers.

Take for instance the case of Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply, a Miami retailer that just got dropped by BankUnited N.A. last month. Then there’s the case of McMillan Group International, a successful 12-year-old firearms manufacturer from Phoenix that got dropped by Bank of America in 2012. This despite the fact that the company never missed a single payment or bounced a check.

So why is this occurring? The original goal of Operation Choke Point was to closely monitor “high risk” clients. It basically gives the government permission to use a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to request that a bank give up all the info it has on a particular client. Well, it just so happens that the mammoth regulation that is Operation Choke Point is a huge burden. As a result, bankers allegedly feel the need to choke off “high risk” clients to save themselves from any potential hassle.

Imagine the hell that would emerge if a conservative president were similarly dishonestly exploiting a law to attack pro-liberal businesses such as abortion clinics or ObamaCare businesses, etc.  Imagine Bush going after pro-liberal businesses.  If you are a Democrat, you frankly deserve to have your business seized, your home seized, hell, your children taken away as PAYBACK because of what you allowed your Thug-in-Chief to get away with.

This is THE most corrupt presidency America has ever seen, bar NONE.

We saw not only a cover-up, but a cover-up of the cover-up in the Benghazi scandal, where Obama falsely lied to the American people and claimed that he had broken al Qaeda (which we now know is stronger than its ever been and commands more territory than it has ever commanded, contrary to Obama’s dishonest, partisan ideologue lies from hell).

Obama KNEW he was lying:

As President Obama ran to election victory last fall with claims that al Qaeda was “decimated” and “on the run,” his intelligence team was privately offering a different assessment that the terrorist movement was shifting resources and capabilities to emerging spinoff groups in Africa that posed fresh threats to American security.

Top U.S. officials, including the president, were told in the summer and fall of 2012 that the African offshoots were gaining money, lethal knowledge and a mounting determination to strike U.S. and Western interests while keeping in some contact with al Qaeda’s central leadership, said several people directly familiar with the intelligence.

The gulf between the classified briefings and Mr. Obama’s pronouncements on the campaign trail touched off a closed-door debate inside the intelligence community about whether the terrorist group’s demise was being overstated for political reasons, officials told The Washington Times.

And what’s happened since proves the FACT that he materially lied to the American people:

Such that:

Al Qaeda in Iraq’s ranks doubled after the Obama pullout. They have since increased fivefold.

Under Obama, Al Qaeda has not only rebuilt, it has made gains that put it vastly beyond where it was before September 11. All the sacrifices and hard work were undone in a matter of years by Obama.

And:

(CNN) — From around Aleppo in western Syria to small areas of Falluja in central Iraq, al Qaeda now controls territory that stretches more than 400 miles across the heart of the Middle East, according to English and Arab language news accounts as well as accounts on jihadist websites.

Indeed, al Qaeda appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.

Well, since Obama made his false and despicable lie to the American people in order to get fraudulently re-elected that al Qaeda was “on the run” and “decimated,” al Qaeda just held it’s largest meeting ever – and did so IN BROAD DAYLIGHT to mock a weakened America.

And what did Obama immediately do after cynically lying about national security – THE most sacred thing a president deals with?  He immediately framed ANOTHER lie to cover up his first gross and disgusting lie.  That the pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound was NOT because of a “broader failure of policy” but rather because of an American citizen who made a Youtube video that somehow caused a “spontaneous uprising” that the administration somehow couldn’t figure out was coming.  Even though it happened on 9/11 and terrorists LOVE anniversaries.

Obama and his entire administration claimed that the talking points they’d sent administration stooge Susan Rice out with had come from the CIA.  But we know that was a LIE:

Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows two days later and on each show, she falsely claimed that an internet video caused a “spontaneous” demonstration that eventually erupted into the deadly violence in Benghazi.

But that never made sense, because the CIA memo never mentioned anything about a video.

So where did she get that completely erroneous information?

Straight from the Obama White House, that’s where.

Mike Morell – a political hack who proved he is a political hack by working for a Hillary Clinton think tank -

Before Mike Morrell left the CIA, he disclosed to the Wall Street Journal his interest in “advising future presidential campaigns.” Morrell then joined Beacon Global Strategies, a firm founded by Phillippe Reines, who has been described as Hillary Clinton’s  “principal gatekeeper.” Morrell is currently a paid contributor for CBS News.

- was forced to admit that the “Youtube video” claim did NOT come from the CIA analysts (who also admitted had completely ignored ALL the field reports that flooded in):

Why, the letter asks, did “Susan Rice… claim that the attacks on our compounds were caused by a hateful video when Mr. Morell testified that the CIA never mentioned the video as a causal factor and made no reference to the video in any of the multiple versions of the talking points?” (Source: CBS News)

In former Deputy CIA Director Morell’s own words:

“When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts had attributed this attack to.”

Mind you, in pretty much everything else, this dishonest political hack lied like the weasel he is.

We also know that, contrary to the White House’s ocean of lies, yes they WERE TOO the ones who edited the Benghazi talking points for cynical political reasons.

This was WORSE than Watergate because the last I heard, no one was abandoned and left to die horribly during Watergate, versus the first American ambassador since the failed CARTER years to be tortured and murdered along with three heroes who tried to do what Obama refused to do and save their ambassador.

It also shouldn’t therefore surprise you that this “government-as-God” president has spent more borrowed money and thereby risked the bankruptcy of the United States of America than all of America’s presidents COMBINED.  There are a lot of enemies to punish and a lot of friends to reward.  It costs money to be the most corrupt human being who ever lived in all of human history.

Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s “reverend” for 23 years – spoke as a prophet.  He declared, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

We’re seeing a collapse of America in only a few years that is simply mindboggling.  I remember when I first became interested in Bible prophecy in the late 1970s/early 1980s that my biggest “sticking point” was the fact that America was nowhere mentioned in prophecy.  And how could the mightiest nation in the history of the world not be mentioned in the Bible’s description of the very last days?  And now I have the answer: because America is going down and going down HARD.

And this corrupt, incompetent, disgraceful LIAR is at the very heart of that collapse.

God is damning America.  It’s like the Book of Amos, where God declared that in judgment He would destroy one region with savage drought and another with terrifying floods  (and see here and here).

Now read Amos 4:7-8:

“I also withheld rain from you when the harvest was still three months away. I sent rain on one town, but withheld it from another. One field had rain; another had none and dried up.  People staggered from town to town for water but did not get enough to drink, yet you have not returned to me,” declares the LORD.

There’s nothing new under the sun, the Word of God declares.  Including divine judgment of a nation for the wickedness of the corrupt and incompetent and dishonest and disgraceful king who slanders God and His character in every act he undertakes as president.

Obama just gave a speech on national security that was universally panned as incoherent by the right and by the left as LUDICROUS.  He kept asserting that America had NOT become weaker, stupidly refusing to understand that if you have to say you’re not getting weaker, IT’S BECAUSE YOU’RE GETTING WEAKER.  There is no country on earth that has a better, closer relationship with the United States than when George W. Bush was president; there are NUMEROUS countries that hate us more than ever.  And as you look across the Middle East, such as Syria – where more than 160,000 people are dead and millions displaced along with Obama’s “red line” fiasco – the entire region is in stunning disarray.  Meanwhile Russia and China are either seizing territory as has not happened since Hitler and Stalin and World War II, or they are threatening to do so as their militaries grow more powerful while ours grows weaker.  And the fool actually claimed that our greatest enemy was “climate change.”  When our greatest enemy is a stupid and arrogant commander-in-chief who has made GOD America’s enemy.

I have a feeling I know just how the end will come for America.  Because Obama has recklessly and wickedly and foolishly borrowed so much and devalued the dollar so much, and because he has economically and militarily weakened America so much, it is only a matter of a (probably short) time before America is replaced as the world’s reserve currency.  Already, most of the world’s economic powers are on board to dump the dollar.  When that happens, America won’t be able to print money any more than any other nation is – and we will catastrophically economically implode overnight.  It will be a fitting end to God damn America (see here and here for articles on that).

Realize that when you voted for Obama – and particularly when you voted to actually re-elect him – you voted for the wrath of God on yourselves according to Romans chapter one.  You participated in the holocaust murders of more than fifty-five million innocent human beings and the destruction of marriage and the family in your vote.  You participated in the reckless and demonic devaluation of America’s creditworthiness and military and economic clout that made us a force in the world that could not be bypassed until Obama ruined us.  And as Jeremiah Wright put it, “your chickens have come home to roost.”

The Hell With It. Let’s Just Go Off The Damn Fiscal Cliff. Because You Just Can’t Negotiate With These People.

November 17, 2012

I just got through writing an article calling for a compromise on the tax hike Obama is demanding.  I already have to eat my words.

It is frankly hard to believe how pathologically Democrats prove themselves to be on a constant basis, even as much as I distrust Democrats and call them liars to their faces.

Realize that Democrats – and particularly Obama – have been saying that we need to hike taxes on the rich.  In order to do what?  In order to reduce the deficit, they said.  A nice, noble-sounding reason.  I mean, how can you possibly be against wanting to reduce the deficit???

Here’s a headline of Obama demagoguging tax hikes on the rich under the pretense that it would be to reduce the deficit:

Obama proposes $1.5tn tax hike to cut deficit
US president announces a number of measures aimed at reducing deficit in next 10 years, saying rich should pay more tax.
Last Modified: 19 Sep 2011

Here’s Obama over a year later, preaching the same message:

Obama says deficit plan must include higher taxes for wealthy
By Amie Parnes and Russell Berman – 11/09/12 03:51 PM ET

President Obama called on Congress on Friday to reduce the deficit in “a balanced and responsible way” in his first public remarks since winning reelection.

The president said Congress should extend the current tax rates for 98 percent of Americans, but raise taxes on households with annual income of more than $250,000.

Obama did not talk about higher tax rates in his speech, but said he would not accept a deal that cut spending and entitlements but did not ask wealthier households to pay more taxes.

“If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes,” Obama said. “That’s how we did it in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president, that’s how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy.”

But Democrats are LIARS and you simply cannot do a deal with these liars because they have no integrity at all in any way, shape or form.

Take a look at this:

Senate Democrats say deficit package must include stimulus
By Alexander Bolton – 11/14/12 01:42 PM ET

Senate Democrats, feeling confident from their net gain of two seats in last week’s election, say any deficit-reduction package negotiated in the coming weeks must include stimulus measures.

They have yet to decide which prime-the-pump measures to push, but are mulling options such as new infrastructure spending and an extension of the payroll tax holiday.

Some Republicans are likely to balk at the notion that a package to cut the deficit would include new spending. But Democrats argue the No. 1 concern for voters is job creation and that the government needs to take a more aggressive role in spurring the economy.

“We need to do something on stimulus as part of the overall fiscal cliff,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist. “We have to do something because the economy is not growing fast enough in the first year or two.”

Democrats are liars, and they are particularly liars ANYTIME they say ANYTHING about cutting government spending.  Period.

Obama is the selfsame president who promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and instead tripled that deficit.  And now they’re already at it again just days since they ran a campaign based entirely on lies.

Democrats are now implicitly acknowledging that the “hike taxes so we can pay down the deficit” was a lie and a ruse from the deceitful party of lies and ruses.  Now they’re saying, “People who believe what we say are fools, so we have no qualms about lying in every single ‘promise’ we make.  We’ll promise one thing and then do another, and if you’re dumb enough to believe us then doom on you!”

Here’s another headline to show you just how damn far Obama is from “compromise” while he demonizes the Republicans for not compromising:

Obama Demands $1.6 Trillion More In Taxes Posted
by Adam English on the Wealth Wire
Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

President Obama will begin budget negotiations on Friday morning but moving twice as far away from Republican interests. Instead of the $800 billion in extra federal revenue from tax hikes,Obama will be calling for a whopping $1.6 trillion.

On the other side of the table, House Speaker John Boehner hasn’t specified a revenue target, but he has said he would be willing to accept new tax revenues. He is still unwilling to consider higher tax rates.

As a condition for the possible concession, Boehner continues to insist that Democrats accept structural changes to entitlement programs which are causing long-term budget concerns.

President Obama just attended a meeting with union officials and other activists and will be meeting with CEOs of a dozen companies today. Many executives have already voiced grave concerns about the consequences of the looming standoff over the fiscal cliff.

73% of participants of a Wall Street Journal CEO conference earlier this week said their primary concern was the fiscal cliff.

How the hell do you actually move TWICE as far away to the left from your previous bargaining posture while simultaneously self-congratulating yourself for “compromising” and demonizing the party that HASN’T moved twice as far to the right on their bargaining position?  I don’t know, but with the help of the worst media propaganda since Goebbels, Obama has managed to do it.

Statement of fact: “The offer is twice as high as a deal Obama scuttled last year, suggesting he may be prepared to let talks fail again.”  That deal – which took Boehner to the breaking point – called for $800 billion in tax hikes.  Now Obama is demanding tax hikes that will be TWICE as high as last time.  While somehow trying to simultaneously claim that HE is the one willing to compromise!

Republicans – you know – “the obstructionists” – have offered Obama revenues that match what he says he needs by eliminating and/or capping deductions.  And it turns out that Obama HIMSELF has argued that what the Republicans are proposing is a solution:

The idea of curbing tax breaks isn’t new. Tax policy experts have touted it for  years and Democrats, including President Obama, have proposed it in one form or  another. That’s why it may offer a key to resolving the fiscal cliff.

So this isn’t about raising revenue; this is about targeting one group of people to punish them for daring to try to be successful in America.  This is about an out-of-control government demanding more and more control.  This is about pure demagoguery, pure and simple.

The fact of the matter is that Obama has DOUBLED DOWN on his demand while the Republicans have offered a surprising concession in being willing to increase government revenues.  But because we live in a world that Joseph Goebbels would love, the media STILL portrays Obama as the man who is “compromising” even though he is in fact demanding TWICE as much and the Republicans as “obstructionists” even though they are massively compromising.

I’m not the only human being who can see the massive, galling, astonishing hypocrisy and dishonesty from the Democrat Party, am I?

It doesn’t matter if the Republicans come to the table willing to compromise or not; they are demonized anyway, just the same.  So why compromise?

If Democrats want tax hikes, let’s give them to EVERYBODY.  If you want somebody else to pay more taxes, dammit, YOU should pay higher taxes.

I was looking for some way forward for Republicans and some way out of this fiscal cliff mess.  But let’s just go off that damn cliff.  Because there is no possible way to negotiate with people as deceitful and dishonest and disingenuous as Democrats have proven themselves to be.  And because “the cliff” can’t be any worse than the direction Obama wants to take America, anyway.

Obama Says Economy A Lot Worse Than He Thought When He Took Office. Which Is To Say He’s Incompetent And Clueless And Shouldn’t Be Trusted Now.

October 3, 2012

That’s a central part of Obama’s case now.

Back then, he said that if his $862 billion stimulus (which is actually a $3.27 trillion boondoggle) was passed, unemployment would never exceed 8 percent and we’d have 5.4 percent unemployment by now.  It became obvious very quickly even to he lefties at CBS News that the Obama administration had made completely bogus claims.  Which is a polite way of saying they either completely lied out of their asses or that they were incompetent beyond belief.  Obama also said back then that he had three years to fix the economy and he wouldn’t deserve to be reelected and his presidency would therefore be a one-term proposition if he couldn’t get it done.

Of course, history now records that Obama didn’t actually make the economy better; he simply changed his bullcrap to a slightly different brand of bullcrap in the hopes you won’t be able to smell the bullcrap.

Four years of bogus promises later, Obama is now saying that the economy was far worse than he thought it was and of course you therefore can’t hold him responsible for what he said back then.  Let’s put aside that when Obama took office, he kept saying this was the worst situation since the Great Depression, which would imply he understood it was pretty much REALLY, REALLY BAD given the obvious rhetorical question, “And what the hell is worse than the Great Depression?”  Let’s also put aside the fact that the economy would have come ROARING back if an incompetent bureaucrat hadn’t kept throwing monkey wrenches into it while claiming he was fixing it.

Okay.  So how are we going to be able to EVER hold him responsible?  I mean, he’s saying he’s made the economy better now and he’s on the right track to fix everything.  Maybe he’s just as wrong as he was back then when he was also wrong, wrong, wrong.  Obama by his own lame excuse didn’t know jack squat back then and he still doesn’t know jack squat now.  So the world’s squirmiest political weasel says the only thing that a squirmy political weasel can say now that four years of his policies have failed: namely that it wasn’t his policies that failed; it was the rest of the world around him.  So how can you hold a liberal president responsible for not understanding the real world???

We just found out that our spending is actually escalating.

October 2, 2012
Congratulations Barry: 2012 budget deficit exceeds 2011 shortfall
Rick Moran

It  was close. A lot of us didn’t think he could do it. But we should have realized by now that when it comes to spending money we don’t have, Barrack H. Obama is the  champion.

CNS  News:

According to the U.S.  Treasury, the debt of the U.S.  government climbed by a total of $1,275,901,078,828.74 in fiscal 2012, which  ended yesterday.

That means  the federal government borrowed approximately an  additional $10,855  for each household in the United States just over the  past twelve  months.

The  total debt of the United States now equals approximately $136,690 per  household.

In  fiscal 2011, the debt increased by about $10,454 per household–$401  less than the $10,855 per household increase of 2012.

The  $1.2758 trillion that the debt increased in fiscal 2012 was about  $47.18  billion more than the $1.2287 trillion that the debt increased  in fiscal  2011.

The  federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30.

At  the close of business on Sept. 30, 2011, the total debt of the  U.S. government  was $14,790,340,328,557.15, according to the Treasury.  At the close of business  on Sept. 28, the last business day of fiscal  2012, it was  $16,066,241,407,385.89

That  meant the debt increased in fiscal 2012 by  $1,275,901,078,828.74.

At  the close of business on Sept. 30, 2010, the debt had stood at   $13,561,623,030,891.79.  Over the course of fiscal 2011, it increased by   $1,228,717,297,665.36 before closing at 14,790,340,328,557.15 on Sept.  30,  2011.

The  fiscal 2012 increase of $1,275,901,078,828.74 exceeded the fiscal 2011 increase  $1,228,717,297,665.36 by $47,183,781,163.38

Excuse  me, math is not one of my strong subjects but shouldn’t the budget deficit be,  like, you know, going down every year instead of going  up?

Sorry  – my bad. For a minute, I thought we were living in an alternate reality where  people actually took things like trillion dollar deficits seriously. I will now  return to La-La Land and make happy faces because President Obama has the  situation well in hand.

Obama – the man who demonized George Bush for adding $4 trillion in debt over eight years – has run up $6 trillion in four.  A full third of the entire US debt accumulated over the nation’s entire history has come under Obama’s presidency.

We’re like Europe now for the first time in American history under Obama: our economy is smaller than our debt and while our economy keeps shrinking because of the fool-in-chief’s stupid policies, our debt keeps heading straight up into space like a rocket.

We’re paying $9 billion a damn WEEK in interest servicing our debt – and most of that is going to China.  Just imagine that: if you had just one lousy day’s worth of America’s INTEREST payment, you’d be a billionaire and one of the richest people on the planet.  And even Obama’s own budget states that the interest on the national debt is about to quadruple.

CNN had an interesting article on how Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a deadbeat debtor nation way back in late 2009 after Obama’s spending rampage:

$4.8 trillion – Interest on U.S. debt
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writerDecember 20, 2009: 7:37 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Here’s a new way to think about the U.S. government’s epic borrowing: More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that Uncle Sam is expected to build up over the next decade will be interest.

More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.

If that’s hard to grasp, here’s another way to look at why that’s a problem.

In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due – $533 billion – is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year, said Charles Konigsberg, chief budget counsel of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.

[...]

Let’s go over Obama’s spending in 2009: there was the $862 billion stimulus (which again will ultimately cost America $3.27 TRILLION); there was the $410 billion Omnibus he passed a couple of months later; there was the $79 billion GM auto bailout which broke contract law and robbed the guaranteed secured bondholders to give the farm to Obama’s union allies; oh, and there was the $350 billion in TARP money that Obama voted for and requested that Bush leave for him that he spent.  And of course Obama spent that entire year fighting to pass his $2.6 trillion ObamaCare debacle that he promised would cut insurance premiums by $2,500 a year but instead raised them by $3,000 a year.

The stimulus that was sold on the promise of “shovel-ready jobs” ended up, even in Obama’s own words, being “not as shovel-ready as we thought” as it completely and utterly failed to do anything but bankrupt America and transform this nation into debt-slaves.

Obama has been wrong about absolutely everything he ever said.  Now he’s implicitly arguing, “I was wrong about the lies I told you back then, but why don’t you trust my current lies now?”

Because Obama Radically Failing, Desperate Fed Will Soon Be Radically Bailing While Mainstream Media Is Wildly Flailing

August 24, 2012

The economy is going to hell under Obama far faster than anybody short of Cloward and Piven ever dared think.

If at first QEI doesn’t succeed and then QE2 doesn’t succeed to make up for the worst and most wicked president in American history, why try, try, try again.

Bernanke and the rest of the Federal Reserve Board keep trying to magically create enough money to keep up with Obama’s deranged socialist spending and no matter how determined they are to get the job done it just won’t go their way.  I have a feeling the Federal Reserve, in trying to deal with Obama, can relate to this scene of Cameron Diaz trying to deal with her bong:

They keep trying to add zeros to the Federal Reserve computers but they can’t seem to add the damn numbers fast enough to keep up with their psychotic president.  And they keep saying, “SERIOUSLY?!?!”

Federal Reserve leaning toward more stimulus
By Paul Handley | AFP – Wed, 22 Aug, 2012

Policy makers at the US Federal Reserve are leaning toward more stimulus action “fairly soon” unless economic data turns around, minutes from their meeting three weeks ago showed Wednesday.
 
The minutes revealed most members of the Federal Open Market Committee were concerned about slowing growth and the vulnerability of the economy to external threats, particularly economic instability in Europe.
 
“Many members judged that additional monetary accommodation would likely be warranted fairly soon unless incoming information pointed to a substantial and sustainable strengthening in the pace of the economic recovery,” the record of the July 31-August 1 FOMC meeting said.
 
“A number of members noted that if the recent modest rate of economic growth were to persist, the economy would be less able to weather a material adverse shock without slipping back into recession,” it added.
 
Fed members discussed the merits of different approaches to sparking more drive in the economy, from signalling that they would keep their benchmark interest rate at the current all-time low longer than currently understood, to undertaking more bond purchases aimed at pulling long-term interest rates down further.
 
Some said that a new Fed program to purchase Treasury and other bonds, pressing down their yields, “might boost business and consumer confidence”, while demonstrating that the committee remains focused on lowering unemployment while keeping inflation under control.
 
In the end, the FOMC put off any new action, but the minutes show the policy makers closer to moving on a new stimulus plan at their next meeting on September 12-13.

 Yes, it’s pretty crazy to keep trying quantitative easing over and over and over again – the definition of insanity being what it is and all – but you’ve got to see things from the Fed’s perspective: all Obama can do is fail, and fail, and then fail some more while blaming absolutely everything but his failed leadership and his failed policies for said failure.  So no matter how totally nuts QE3 is at this point, that’s pretty much all we got until we get ourselves a new president who isn’t a Marxist.

But, you know, if it makes you feel any better, Obama is spending all that money to keep losing more jobs for America:

U.S. Weekly Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise To 372,000
8/23/2012 8:37 AM ET

(RTTNews) – First-time claims for U.S. unemployment benefits unexpectedly showed a modest increase in the week ended August 18th, according to a report released by the Labor Department on Thursday.

The report showed that initial jobless claims edged up to 372,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 368,000. The modest increase came as a surprise to economists, who had expected jobless claims to slip to 365,000 from the 366,000 originally reported for the previous week.

Additionally, the Labor Department said the less volatile four-week moving average crept up to 368,000 from the previous week’s revised average of 364,250.

by RTT Staff Writer

Unexpected!  Drink, ye few dying-of-cirrhosis-of-the-liver-zombies who are still left alive in this the fourth year of the mainstream media trying to cover for Obama almost as desperately as the Federal Reserve is.

One of the factoids that Obama doesn’t want you to think about is the fact that, given our population growth, ten million Americans have actually entered the work force during Obama’s presidency.  And Obama is so far behind in creating jobs for them that it is beyond unreal.  Which is why our labor participation rate is getting to the point that you just want to crawl into your own toilet and flush yourself before Obama does it for you.

Compare Obama’s abject failure and his abjectly failing “solutions” to Ronald Reagan.  And then vote like you AREN’T stupid.

Just to make sure you understand what’s going on, liberals will do whatever they’ve got to do to somehow gin up the markets before the election. Democrats will do whatever it takes to create the illusion that the country isn’t going to hell prior to election day. They’ll bankrupt the country and make our children and their children ad infinitum debt slaves to the Chinese if that’s what it takes.

For the record, I predicted that we’d be at this very point nearly a year and a half ago:

In the market itself, two things are happening: one is that banks are able to borrow money at nearly a zero percent interest rate and then reinvest it in bonds for a safe and easy profit without those risky and pesky loans to small businesses. The other thing is that there are virtually zero bankruptcies of major business and financial sector entities because they can borrow money at the aforementioned artificially low interest to keep themselves alive no matter “artificial” that life is. The moment we start to see interest rates go to their natural levels, you are going to see a giant swath of reorganizations (which is a fancy word for bankruptcies). It’s coming.

I’ve also watched as QE2 (that’s Quantitative Easing, the Obama Fed plan to manipulate interest rates by creating bogus money based on the government essentially borrowing from itself) has fed this big player stock market gluttony with artificial money creating artificially low interest rates. The last time quantitative easing ended, the market lost about 16% of its total value in about two weeks. QE2 is scheduled to end in June. You do the predictive math about what’s going to happen in June/July.

I am reminded of a rather chilling 7 minute video about a fictional scenario which is starting to look more and more like a prophecy:

The plot of the highly realistic video is that Obama’s announcment of QE4 is met with the world market finally realizing that Obama is a clueless idiot. And it proceeds to detail the unravelling of the entire financial system.

We are almost certainly going to see QE3. The only way we WON’T see QE3 is if the “experts” rename what will be virtually exactly the same thing. The liberal/progressive/socialist powers that be simply don’t have any other plan. And whether it’s QE4 or QE5, at some point the world markets will come to the same conclusion that they arrive at in the fictional video above.

Is America completely screwed in this God damn America presidency?

To answer Cameron Diaz’s thrice asked question, yes, seriously.

Obama: ‘My Biggest Mistake Was Not Being A Good Enough Liar, I Mean Storyteller.’

July 16, 2012

You need to know what the “Storyteller-in-Chief” said before I can start expose the demon-possession behind the words.  So here it is:

Obama: Biggest mistake was failing to ‘tell a story’ to American public
Posted by David Nakamuraat 05:27 PM ET, 07/12/2012

As he campaigns for re-election, President Obama is ruminating over the biggest mistake of his first term — and it might surprise supporters and critics alike.

In the president’s view, he has not been a good enough storyteller, putting policy goals ahead of laying out a clear narrative for the American public.

“The mistake of my first term. . .was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important,” Obama told “CBS This Morning” anchor Charlie Rose in a White House interview that will be broadcast Sunday and Monday.

“But the nature of this office,” the president added, “is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

Mitt Romney made sure Obama’s chin was at precisely the correct angle when he responded:

“President Obama believes that millions of Americans have lost their homes, their jobs and their livelihood because he failed to tell a good story. Being president is not about telling stories. Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead. No wonder Americans are losing faith in his presidency.”

Even to cast Obama’s latest “storytelling” in its very best possible light, what Obama is really saying is that his policies are wonderful, but the American people are simply too damn stupid to understand it.

Give me a little time to warm up as I provide my own response to Obama, because I’ve got a lot to say on my way to past-the-boiling-point.

It’s amazing.  This is a man who will never understand that his policies have failed.  He has already doubled-down – having first rammed through his $862 stimulus (which will actually cost the American people $3.27 TRILLION) and then doubled-down with his $447 billion son of stimulus - and now he wants to triple-down, quadruple down, quintuple down, until America is utterly bankrupt.

Obama demonized Republicans for refusing to vote for his massive stimulus.  He called them “obstructionists” who dared to resist the will of messiah who would lower the oceans and heal the planet

Consider this from The Hill, 02/15/10:

Republicans are keen to tie any new jobs efforts to a stimulus bill that has become unpopular. A New York Times/CBS poll found that just 6 percent of Americans believe that it created jobs, even though independent economists estimate that it has saved or created more than 1 million jobs.

What The Hill refuses to tell you is that plenty of “independent economists” predicted it would wildly fail:

Cato has just published a full-page ad in the New York Times with the names of some 200 economists, including some Nobel laureates and other highly respected scholars, who “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance” — contrary to widespread claims that “Economists from across the political spectrum agree” on a massive fiscal stimulus package.

But let’s get back to the fact that only 6% of Americans believed the $3.27 trillion Stimulus actually created any jobs.  Understand, that comes from a CBS/New York Times Poll that featured the following:

Obama was a “storyteller,” all right.  But the thing was his stories were lies.  Obama’s economic plan has wildly failed.  According to Obama’s “storytelling,” unemployment ought to be 5.6 percent now because that’s what he said it would be by this time if we passed his stimulus.  That was his “story.”

Obama, of course, once started on the “storytelling” that the Republicans were “obstructionists” never quit telling that story.  It didn’t matter that Democrats COMPLETELY OWNED ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE ENTIRE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA REGIME.  It didn’t matter that in fact Democrats had owned two of the three branches – both the House and the Senate – since November 2006 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress.  It didn’t matter that since Democrats took over Congress food stamp dependency has soared 70 percent and under Obama crippling poverty and food stamp dependency has skyrocketed 53 percent (3o million in 2008 to 46 million now).  If the Republican Party didn’t go along with the Democrat Party’s and messiah Obama’s radical failure and misery they were “obstructionists” even when their “obstructionism” clearly did not prevent the Obama agenda from being implemented.

Obama had previously sold a different “story,” mind you.  Prior to his being the most demagogic and hatemongering president in American history, Obama’s “storytelling” had been of a president whose “core promise” –  instead of constant fingerpointing and demonizing – would be to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  But again, as we found immediately, Obama’s “storytelling” was a complete and utter lie from hell.  We see that particularly now, as Obama relies more on negative ads to demonize and attack and “frame” Mitt Romney with lies and hate than ANY president in American history by far and away (see also here).  In fact, Obama is shattering his own record for negative demagogic demonic attack ads that he himself set in 2008.  And that is, of course, because of his wildly failed presidency and his wildly failing record.

That solemn promise that Obama made to the American people that he would rise above the negativity and bitterness and partisanship and hate was itself nothing but the most hateful “story” ever told by the most cynical demagogue ever to hold office.

Obama had PLENTY of “storytelling” with his ObamaCare takeover of the American health care system.

Obama told the “story” over and over again that ObamaCare was NOT a tax no matter what the facts said at the time:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

[....]

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

The Supreme Court literally rewrote ObamaCare to replace the word “tax” with Obama’s cynical and dishonest political “storytelling” of “mandate” and ruled that ObamaCare could ONLY be seen as “constitutional” if and ONLY if it was in fact a TAX.  From the Supreme Court majority decision:

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

Obama has – after “storytelling” that ObamaCare was NOT a tax and then demanding his lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that it WAS a tax – now returned to his “storytelling” that it isn’t a tax no matter what the hell the Supreme Court said.  I mean, after all, they’re not “constitutional scholars” the way messiah Obama is.  And the Supreme Court Justices certainly aren’t “storytellers” the way Obama is.  Few people can ever become that rabidly personally dishonest.

Obama as “storyteller” promised the American people over and over and over again that he would not raise taxes on the American people:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

But here is the fact according to the CBO: Seventy-five percent of ObamaCare TAXES will fall on those making less than $120,000 a year:

There are actually TWENTY-TWO new taxes created by ObamaCare that add up to $670 BILLION. The mandate/penaty TAX is actually not a big deal when compared to the rest of this monstrosity.

Obama also did his best “storytelling” to assure the American people that:

 “no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”

That was, of course, quite a story.  It was also quite a demonic lie.  Fully 83% of doctors are seriously considering quitting medicine because of demonic Obama’s “fixing what’s broken and building on what works.”

83 Percent of Doctors have Considered Quitting over Obamacare
by SALLY NELSON July 10, 2012

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.

And Obama’s “storytelling” wasn’t just a lie about doctors. He lied about being able to keep your health care plan, too:

Now, even the Administration admits that this isn’t the case, stating that “as a practical matter, a majority of group health plans will lose their grandfather status by 2013.”

Another “story,” another damn lie.  I guess Obama’s “storytelling” didn’t include things as silly as “practical matters.”

I can go on and on and on and on with this demon-possessed liar and his demonic “storytelling.”  He demonized Bush over Gitmo and promised the American people that he would close it down within one year of the start of his presidency.  But his “storytelling” was an abject lie and Gitmo is still open because Bush was right in opening Gitmo and Obama is from hell.  Obama demonized Bush with “storytelling” about Bush’s use of rendition to deal with terrorists.  But four years later, guess what?  Bush was right about rendition and Obama was a “storyteller.”  Obama slandered Bush with “storytelling” about Bush “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”  He has air-raided more villages and killed more civilians than Bush could have waved a stick at.  Obama told “stories” about how Bush messed up the world and all the terrorism and violence were Bush’s fault.  Four years later I yearn for the world that Bush created, with Syria in flames and the regime getting their WMD ready for use while Egypt turns to the Islamic Brotherhood for leadership and Iran will have a nuclear damn bomb any day now.  Obama gave us one “story” after another on how he was going to win the war in Afghanistan and that Afghanistan was where Bush should have been fighting all along.  Now we’re doing everything possible to crawl out of that country with our tails between our legs in a way that won’t interfere with Obama’s re-election.  On the domestic front, Obama gave us “storytelling” about how Bush was a failed leader for raising the debt ceiling and literally un-American for increasing the debt when he’s blown Bush away on both categories.  Obama offered “storytelling” about how he would cut the deficit in HALF by now when he has now produced FOUR budgets – the first four budgets in the history of the entire human race – that exceeded $1 trillion.  Obama offered us “storytelling” that his ObamaCare would only cost $900 billion; now the CBO is saying the damn demonic turd will cost three times that much at $2.6 TRILLION and the criminally insane boondoggle STILL HASN’T EVEN BEEN IMPLEMENTED YETObama told Hispanic groups the “story” of how giving them what they wanted would be un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional to give them what they demanded only to literally do what he had previously said was un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

Because storytelling = lying to this dishonorable weasel. 

And for Obama to tell you the damn STORY that he hasn’t told you enough “stories” amounts to his saying that he failed to understand how pathologically stupid you people were.  BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE LIED TO YOU MORE THAN HE ALREADY HAS.

We are going on four years into God damn America now.  And God will surely continue to damn this nation that was once “under God” more and more and more until Obama is either driven out of office or until we simply collapse under the weight of our failed and demonic policies.

‘The Other Side Will Tell You’ (The Truth): The Worst President EVER Tries To Inoculate His Followers Against Reality

June 15, 2012

As carried by Yahoo News:

In an Ohio campaign event, President Barack Obama described the kind of ads he foresees the GOP running against him during the election cycle.

“From now until then, both sides will spend tons of money on TV commercials. The other side will spend over a billion dollars on ads that tell you the economy is bad, that it’s all my fault; that I can’t fix it because I think government is always the answer, or because I didn’t make a lot of money in the private sector and don’t understand it, or because I’m in over my head, or because I think everything and everybody is doing just fine,” Obama said at Cuyahoga Community College Metropolitan Campus in Ohio on Thursday.

Notably, Obama did not refute the hypothetical accusations.

“That’s what the scary voice in the ads will say; that’s what Mr. Romney will say; that’s what the Republicans in Congress will say. Well, you know, that may be their plan to win the election. But it’s not a plan to create jobs. It’s not a plan to grow the economy. It’s not a plan to pay down the debt. And it’s sure not a plan to revive the middle class and secure our future.”

It’s interesting.  Obama first says, “The other side will spend over a billion dollars…”  Do you know which side first brought up the real possibility that it would be able to raise over a billion dollars?

Obama’s side.

Let’s consider a few facts.  Barack Obama became the first politician – as young and as inexperienced as he is – to raise over a billion dollars in the entire history of the human race.  Obama’s favorite source of money was the very Wall Street financiers he demonized as greedy and cynical fat catsObama is the slick pathological political weasel who has now held more fundraisers than the last five presidents COMBINED. As of March 27, Obama had attended 191 fundraisers – FAR EXCEEDING ANY PRESIDENT EVER RECORDED IN HISTORY.  In 2008, Obama outspent John McCain by at least 3-1 and by as much as 5-1 after breaking his promise to accept the public campaign matching funds that every previous party nominee had accepted until Obama.

Now this pathological weasel is following the liberal script to whine about the huge sums of money that HE HIMSELF OPENED THE DOORS TO HELL IN RAISING.  There never would have BEEN a Citizens United case that the left so demonizes had Obama accepted the same matching funds that every major party candidate for president had accepted before him.  Obama is the pathological weasel who started a war over campaign money and used that war chest to annihilate the other side and then actually complained that the other side was actually fighting back.

Obama says they’re going to tell you “that tell you the economy is bad, that it’s all my fault.”  Well, that’s a shocker.  We thought Obama knew that he’d been the president for the last four years and that the president was responsible for his economy.  That’s been true in the past, but not in this case, because Obama is a pathological weasel and a malignant narcissist to boot.  So Obama has never once accepted so much as a scintilla of blame for ANY of his four years of failure.  Rather, he’s literally still blaming Bush – and if you want four more years of failure along with four more years of excuses and four more years of blaming Bush, you know who to vote for.  Rather, he’s blaming the Republican Party for “obstructionism” – as if the two years of utter Democrat obstructionism in which Democrats controlled both the House AND the Senate during the period between 2006 and 2008 when the economy went to crap, during which a Senator named Barack Obama and a Senator named Joe Biden participated in obstructing absolutely everything George Bush tried to do while personally demonizing him on a constant basis, and the first two years of the Obama administration when he had total control of the White House, the House and the Senate but got NOTHING done to help the economy, mattered.

I ask you:

Further, Obama and the Democrats – in trying to demonize Republicans for their “obstructionism” – are demanding that Republicans vote for what is essentially the son of the son of Obama’s first massive and massively failed stimulus. Remember that first massive stimulus that was officially $862 billion but which the CBO said would actually cost $3.27 TRILLION when it was all said and done? Remember that second stimulus program for $447 billion that will likewise cost far more than that? How many more stimulus programs should Obama get? How many trillions of dollars in government spending is enough?

But that’s exactly what Obama is doing: demanding more of what he has already done and which has already failed.  Obama demands that America bash its head against a reinforced brick wall until it is a brainless collectivist socialist state like Europe.  Nothing will stop him from turning America into a failed state except an election.

So yeah, Barry Hussein, we DO blame you for your four years of mess.  Consider this summary of Obama’s record:

Few things are more difficult in politics than confronting failure and learning from it. It is especially difficult when a leader you have championed, and in whom you have placed your highest hopes, turns out to be less than he seemed.

Such is the dilemma facing liberals in the age of Obama. Barack Obama entered the presidency with his sights and standards very high, and many liberals believed he could be the transformative figure they had been awaiting for generations. But by now it is clear that, by any reasonable measure (including those set out by Obama himself at the beginning of his term), his presidency has been a failure.

Consider the economy. President Obama has overseen the weakest recovery on record. He is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. The standard of living for Americans has fallen more dramatically during his presidency than during any since the government began recording it five decades ago. As of this writing, unemployment has been above 8 percent for 38 consecutive months, the longest such stretch since the Great Depression. Home values are nearly 35 percent lower than they were five years ago. A record 46 million Americans are now living in poverty.

The economist Michael Boskin has listed some of the post–World War II records set during the Obama years: among them, federal spending as a percentage of GDP at 25 percent, the federal debt as a percentage of GDP at 67 percent, and the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP at 10 percent. The United States has amassed more than $5 trillion in debt since January 2009, with the president having submitted four budgets with trillion-dollar-plus deficits. (Prior to Obama, no president had submitted even a single budget with deficits in excess of a trillion dollars.) In addition, government dependency, defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is the highest in American history.

Add to this the fact that the president’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, is among the most unpopular major domestic policies passed in the last century; and that the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, widely known as Obama’s stimulus package, is so unpopular that his aides have virtually expelled the word stimulus from their lexicon.

And yeah, add to that the fact that Obama keeps trying to same trick under different names – it’s no longer a “stimulus,” it’s an investment  The “S” word is a dirty word, so Obama has to use another dirty word to sucker the American people into doing the same fool thing all over again.  It’s no longer “shovel-ready jobs,” it’s “construction workers ready to get dirty”.  And, you see, the fact that Obama is not talking about construction workers ready to get dirty “right now” means we can’t consider his infamous confession that “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.”

Obama most certainly cannot run claiming that the American people are better off under his presidency than they were.  We just found out that the average American household lost a whopping forty percent of their wealth.  Liberals want to blame some of that loss on Bush, but guess what: the median household income is down more after Obama’s first three years of failure (down $4,300 since assuming office)  than it was under the entire Bush presidency (down $2,000 over eight years):

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W. Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened.

The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even those who are employed.

[...]

As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing that median income for working-age households — those headed by someone younger than 65 — had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.

One of the interesting things that comes from these facts is that Americans have actually lost more in household income SINCE “the recession officially ended” ($2,900) than they had during the recession ($4,300 – $2,900 = $1,400).  Obama’s “recovery” is a “wreckovery” – which is the term conservatives like Michelle Malkin coined in predicting that Obamanomics would be a colossal and wildly expensive failure.  It is literally true to state that Obama’s “recovery” has been harder on American families economically than the recession that he keeps claiming he inherited was for those families.

There are more Americans living in poverty under Obama than any time during the 52 years the government has been publishing figures for that statistic.  There are more grown-ups living with their parents than any time during the last sixty years.

Pardon us for telling the world about what a profound failure you are, Barry Hussein.  Sorry it bothers you.  Truly sorry you are a pathetic and inadequate man in a job that is clearly way over your abilities to perform.

Obama says the Republicans are going to say “that it’s all my fault; that I can’t fix it.”

Obama himself once talked about “If I can’t fix the economy”:

Obama in 2009: If I can’t fix the economy in three years, you can call me former President Obama
by editor on June 16, 2011

Don’t you hate it when your own words come back to bite you in the butt? Back in February 2009 President Obama told Today Show host Matt Lauer that he’d be a one-term president if he didn’t fix the economy in three years.

“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Obama at the time he made that remark clearly believed that his Obamanomics held the answer, and that he could turn the economy around with his Obamanomics.  His was the administration that predicted that if his stimulus was passed – by which I mean the first $862 billion one, not the second $447 billion dollar one that he demanded follow it – unemployment would not go above 8% and that in fact unemployment would be less than 6% by now.  And he was saying if I’m wrong I’ve got no business holding this job and I should be voted out of office.

Question: DID OBAMA FIX THE ECONOMY? Please consider the above section on the economy before you provide an asinine answer, liberal.

Obama predicts we’ll going to say that “the economy is bad, that it’s all my fault; that I can’t fix it because I think government is always the answer.”

As Dinesh D’Souza points out:

Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government’s control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama’s approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

Not only has Obama enacted spending that DWARFS anything ever before seen in the entire history of the human race, and not only is Obama literally spending $2.52 in bucks seized from taxpayers or borrowed from the Chinese for every $1 he gets in bang, not only are Obama’s budgets so insane than not even one single DEMOCRAT would vote for them for the last two years in a row, but the actual Obama spending is even worse than the official numbers:

Real federal deficit dwarfs official tally
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules to compute the deficit, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Under those accounting practices, the government ran red ink last year equal to $42,054 per household — nearly four times the official number reported under unique rules set by Congress.

A U.S. household’s median income is $49,445, the Census reports.

The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits. Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules.

The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules. The official number was $1.3 trillion. Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government’s books.

America’s real debt is not the on-its-face massive $16 trillion; it is well over $211 trillion.  And virtually every penny of that debt is due to Democrat policies.  And what we are looking at now is a coming $600 trillion collapse.  Again, mostly created by liberals and liberal policies.

Yeah, Barry Hussein, you believe that government is God, and you are as determined as any true believer to force all Americans to bow down before you as the god of your Government and render you sacrifices and offerings otherwise known as “taxes.”  You DO believe “government is always the answer.”

And as was pointed out, in your demagogic attack that masqueraded as a “major policy speech” and yet offered nothing, NOTHING, you “did not refute the hypothetical accusations” that you literally levied against yourself. 

Rather, you state them as a rhetorical device to suggest that they now somehow can’t be used against you – no matter how true they are and no matter what a failure you are.  And when we do in fact say the facts that you predicted we’d say – and why wouldn’t we? – you want your worshipers to disconnect the logical side of their brains and instead say, “Obama was right!  Scary voice man said exactly what Obama predicted!”

Obama says that the GOP will go after him “because I didn’t make a lot of money in the private sector.”  That isn’t true, and if you claim it is, find me a major conservative source that argues that Obama didn’t make enough money to be deemed a fit candidate for president.  It’s a straw man demagogic argument like most all of his other arguments that doesn’t have a scintilla of truth to it.

Our argument isn’t that Obama isn’t “rich” and so he shouldn’t be president (Obama IS rich, by the way: his books made him so); our argument is that Obama has basically NEVER had a real job in the private sector and has absolutely no idea whatsoever how the private sector works.  In fact, when Obama came the closest he ever would in his career to having such a job, he was so radical and so anti-business that he wrote, “I felt like a spy behind enemy lines.”  Obama’s real love was for socialist community agitating and undermining the private sector.  Our argument is also the fact that Obama has an administration that is almost as clueless in actual world business experience as he is:

The Obama administration is truly one of the blind leading the blind.

Obama predicts his opponents will say he should not be president “because I think everything and everybody is doing just fine.”  Again, Obama demagogues his opponents by offering a straw man.  Unlike Obama, we don’t have to invent false statements to demonize our opponentWE CAN RELY ON OBAMA’S VERY OWN WORDS:

“The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government,” President Obama claimed on Friday. His solution to fix the public sector was more government spending.

Nobody is arguing that Obama says “everybody and everything is doing just fine.”  That is simply typical lying demagoguery from a lying demagogue weasel.  Obama wants to slander and demonize the truth so that when his followers hear it, they will be inoculated against it and turn their brains off.  The fact is that Obama said that the private sector is doing just fine, and that ought to be quite a surprise to the vast majority of Americans.  According to US News and World Report, about 22 million people work in the American public sector.  The OTHER 291 million Americans are in the private sector.  And let me assure you that things aren’t nearly so rosy for those 291 million Americans as Barack Obama claims they are.

I document that the labor participation rate clearly proves that Barack Obama has destroyed jobs at a terrifying rate.  For men, the labor participation rate is now 70% – the lowest it has EVER been since records started being kept in 1948.  The American work force has massively evaporated during the Obama years, with millions of jobs simply vanishing, and if the U.S. unemployment rate were calculated using the labor participation rate that Barack Obama inherited from George W. Bush, the official unemployment rate would be on the order of 11.6%.  I also document that a whopping 88 million working age Americans are completely out of the labor force under Obama’s regime.

“The private sector’s doing fine” is a lie from a genuinely evil man.

Many people have admired Obama’s speaking ability.  Allow me to point something out: the gift of great public speaking can be a blessing or a curse.  In the case of Winston Churchill, it was a blessing, as his courage and clarity of speech rallied the free world to fight and to keep fighting.  In the case of Adolf Hitler, it was a curse as an demon-possessed man used the power of lies to ignite the unholy passions of a nation that had succumbed to a spirit of deception.  I’m not trying to claim that Barack Obama is Adolf Hitler; I’m merely pointing out the fact that the gift of speech can be used not to illuminate the truth, but to deceive, not to reveal reality, but to distort it, not to untangle the truth, but to tangle it up into knots.  Barack Obama does the latter on a constant basis.

When the revelations came out about Rev. Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s self-acknowledged spiritual leader and mentor for over 20 years – I realized that this man was an order of magnitude more evil than any president who had ever sat in the Oval Office, and that America would suffer terribly under him.  History documents that I have not been wrong.

So when Obama says, “They’re going to say this about me,” what he’s really saying is, “They’re going to tell you the truth about me.  Don’t believe it.  Believe my lies instead.”

Obama Campaign Falsely Quotes Mitt Romney Saying: ‘We Don’t Need Any More Teachers. We Don’t Need More Any Firefighters.’ YOU LIARS!!!

June 13, 2012

I heard Obama’s top campaign guru TWICE directly quote Mitt Romney as saying, “We don’t need more teachers.  We don’t need more firefighters.”  Here’s one of those:

AXELROD: Governor Romney chose to jump on the word, but what was most interesting is how he reacted to the spirit of the thing, because his statement was we don’t need any more teachers, we don’t need any more firefighters or police. The president is out of touch. Out of touch? We have lost 250,000 teachers in the last 27 — couple of years. Every community in the country is feeling it. It’s bad in the short term for our economy, because those are good middle-class jobs, and it’s bad in the long term for our economy because we’re not going to win and our kids aren’t going to win unless we invest in education.

So I would suggest he’s living on a different planet if he thinks that’s a prescription for a stronger economy.

As soon as Axelrod said that, I knew it was a pure lie from a pure liar.  I knew that there was no way Mitt Romney said, “We don’t need any more teachers.  We don’t need any more firefighters or police.”

For the record, when Axelrod said “Governor Romney chose to jump on the word,” “the word” he was referring to was Barack Obama’s incredibly stupid and incredibly wrong statement that “the private sector’s doing fine.”  And because Barack Obama said an incredibly stupid thing, David Axelrod decided to deceitfully and falsely attribute a bogus remark to Romney so that he could demonize him for the lie that Axelrod fabricated.

This is what Mitt Romney actually said:

Romney said in Iowa that Obama “wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

Two very different statements.  There is a rather huge difference between saying “We can’t afford what Obama has already TWICE tried and which the American people have now clearly flatly rejected” and “We don’t need more teachers.”  Romney accurately points out the fact that Barack Obama says we need to do the son of the son of stimulus – yet another massive government spending program that has already twice failed America – and pointed out that Obama justifies expanding government and expanding the (liberal union) government workforce by citing firemen, policemen and teachers.  It’s basically that scam that cities use when they have bloated budgets: you never hear them say, “If you don’t pay more taxes we’ll fire all our bureaucrats!”  Rather they say we’re keeping every single bureaucrat but we’ll fire all the policemen and firemen and teachers and then you’ll be sorry.  And Romney also points out that if you look at Wisconsin, if you look at San Diego, if you look at San Jose - uberliberal places ALL – you will see that the American people are now OVERWHELMINGLY rejecting what Obama is demanding.

In San Jose, fully 70% of the residents voted to cut back pensions that allowed firefighters to retire at the age of 48 with 90% of their salary – which is consistent with California public sector workers.  These benefits DWARF what private sector workers have any chance of ever receiving.

Wisconsin “public workers” get on average $14,500 more than their private sector counterparts with similar qualifications; they receive more than twice the health care benefits than their private sector counterparts, and they get 4.5 times more in pension.

It is frankly immoral.  If the left actually wanted more policemen, firefighters and teachers THEY WOULD CUT THESE UNSUSTAINABLE BENEFITS AND FREE UP FUNDS TO ALLOW GOVERNMENTS TO HIRE MORE POLICEMEN, TEACHERS AND FIREFIGHTERS

As it is, take a look at the unfunded liability of California according to the Los Angeles Times:

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
April 06, 2010|By David Crane

The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.

The state of California’s real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That’s the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University’s public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

Note to anyone who has a functioning brain cell: we’re bankrupt.  We don’t have the money.  We can’t keep allowing Democrats to give public unions fat contracts in exchange for those public unions giving back the Democrats a kickback in the form of campaign contributions.  Our children will starve and die in the burning streets if we keep doing that.  And I mean that very literally.  The United States of America is going to collapse.  And first there will be riots and then we will descend into complete anarchy.  And our children will very much starve and die in the burning streets.

America’s actual debt is no trivial $16 billion (it was $10 trillion when Obama took office, with George Bush having grown it by $4 trillion over eight years); it is now way, WAY over $200 TRILLION.  And Democrats have saddled us with 99.9 percent of that unpayable debt bomb that is waiting to explode.

I keep trying to warn people.  It’s right out of the Bible.  There is a spirit of delusion on us that is going to kill us just as it has killed other nations before us.  We think we’re fine, that everything is fine, and that we can go on doing what we’ve done before.  One day soon we’re going to collapse – and when that collapse comes it’s going to happen with staggering, stunning speed and it’s going to catch nearly all Americans completely off guard.  Your money will be virtually worthless literally overnight.  And your family is going to suffer horribly in the ensuing chaos.

There’s a line from a song: “You can’t always have what you want.”  That idea is completely foreign to liberals, who believe with Obama that he can slash the size of government and massively expand the size of government at the exact same time.  But under Obama, people are buying the lie that we can have mutually exclusive things that fundamentally contradict one another.  Mitt Romney isn’t saying, “We don’t need any more teachers.”  Mitt Romney is saying, “We can’t afford any more Obamanomics.”

I was watching Neil Cavuto’s program, and a liberal was arguing that not only should the public sector and the unions that give 95% of their campaign contributions to Democrats continue to receive these out-of-control and unsustainable benefits, but private sector workers ought to have them too.  And instead of cutting public sector employee benefits to be more in line with private sector workers, we should instead force every business in America into bankruptcy by forcing them to pay the kind of insane benefits that we’re paying Obama’s government class of elites.  And Cavuto kept repeating versions of “you are completely insane.”

The liberal was basically saying that if you can’t get that square peg to fit into that round hole, you use a bigger government-powered hammer until you force your peg to fit wherever the hell you want it.  Government is God, and our God can do anything He wants.

Cavuto kept asking, “Where are you going to get the money?”  And that dose of reality simply didn’t matter: because liberals are as immune from reality as you can get.  Liberalism is ultimately the incoherent intolerance of reality.  They live in their little world of “isms” and talking points.

David Axelrod is a liar without shame.  And so is the evil president he is pimping for.

Blaming Republican ‘Obstructionism’ For America’s Economic Problems Is A Demonic Lie. Let’s Look At The REAL Obstructionists.

June 11, 2012

A picture is worth a thousand words.  So here is a picture of our blithering messiah unable to understand reality:

“The private sector’s doing fine.”

“Michael Eden is the Grand Poobah over all of the spacetime Multiverse.”

Both statements are equally true.  Or rather equally false.

Even back in April when Obama was claiming that his policies were working, the fact was that median wages for the middle class were plummeting far more than they were when Obama was demonizing George Bush over the decline in median wages.  Median wages have declined 10.2% under Obama’s regime.  It’s down by $4,300 – way over TWICE as much as it was under Bush.  Since then the bottom has fallen out of Obama’s claims, with not only the GDP revised downward, but job figures for the preceding three months likewise being revised downward.

“Revised downward” is actually a good metaphor for the entire Obama presidency: fully 63 out of the last 64 “official” jobs reports have been revised downward under this propaganda presidency.  You have to go to North Korea today to find a government that is lying to its people more than our government under Obama.

Democrats are celebrating Obama’s 27 months of job growth.  They wouldn’t be abject hypocrites had they not demonized George Bush for 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Normally, when a president calls a press conference he has something major to announce; he’s actually accomplished something.  In this case, Obama calls a press conference to do nothing more than grandstand and continue his “the one and only person who must be above blame is the president – unless that president happens to be a Republican in which case he is the only person who must be blamed.”

I remember coming across a statement from the Soviet Union not long before its collapse in which Soviet big government totalitarians actually blamed seventy-two years of bad weather after their policies resulted in perpetual famine – having executed all their other viable scapegoats.  That’s the true audacity of hope: hope that the benighted people will continue to believe the utterly asinine lies of the left even after it is beyond obvious that they have failed.

While blaming Bush is a fountain that will never run out as long as Obama has one last breath of air in his lungs, apparently it is worn out enough that Obama had to find new scapegoats, such as Europe (but all Spain and France and Greece are saying is that they want to be like Obama and make other people pay for their reckless government spending) and the Republican House for refusing to pass everything Obama wants.  Never mind that explorers had actually discovered the continent of Europe even previous to the Bush years and never mind that when the U.S. economy went from wonderful to terrible during Bush’s final two years in office the Democrats not only controlled the House but also controlled the Senate as well.  And never mind that Obama had complete control of the government for his first two years given that he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to go with a massive majority in the House – and wasted it passing his soon-to-be-found unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate over an angry nation that overwhelmingly knew it was unconstitutional.

 The unemployment rate was 4.4% when the Democrat Party swept the Congress with Nancy Pelosi ruling over the House and Harry Reid running the Senate.  What about Democrat Party obstructionism?  Regarding bipartisan compromise, Nancy Pelosi, the physical embodiment of fingernails raking across a chalkboard, had this to say when she was asked when the Democrats would produce their own plan while demonizing Bush’s plan: “Never. Is that soon enough for you?”  For the official record, Pelosi was right: Democrats never DID produce any kind of plan while successfully filibustering Bush.  The Democrats governed entirely by demagoguing Bush over everything under the sun and blocking him in everything he tried to do.

By the way, Barack Obama was one of those obstructionist Democrats.  On the debt ceiling, Obama took a hard-core position and not only voted against it, but demonized Bush as a failed leader for needing one.  And this is the same cynical lying weasel who has since demanded the three largest debt ceiling increases in the history of the entire human race.

The Democrats actually blockaded Bush time and time again.  Do you know why our economy collapsed in 2008?  You can answer the question in three words: “Fannie and Freddie.”  As much as Democrats want to demonize the private sector and George Bush, the fact of the matter is that Fannie and Freddie – which controlled over half of the mortgages in America – were the VERY FIRST entities to collapse and triggered the collapse of firms such as Lehman Brothers for the primary reason that Lehman suddenly found itself holding Fannie Mae-bundled mortgage backed securities that were suddenly known to be toxic.  Barney Frank in 2005 brushed off a question of whether the government’s push to increase home-ownership rates might result in people buying more home than they could afford and inflating the housing market by barking, “We’ll deal with that problem if it happens.”  But we find that not only would Democrats NOT deal with it, but they wouldn’t let Bush or Republicans deal with it either.

We find that this crisis created by Democrat policies began to build not under George Bush but under and in fact because of Bill Clinton late in his presidency:

“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”

In that year 1999 you had financial experts clearly warning that this new DEMOCRAT policy was going to have a bad end:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

George Bush began trying to seriously deal with the looming housing bubble which was guaranteed to create a mortgage meltdown as early as 2003:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

You can read how Barney Frank responded in that same article:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. (New York Times, September 11, 2003)

We find that George Bush tried not once, not twice, but SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to their collapse.  Did you read that?  SEVENTEEN TIMES.

John McCain warned that America was on the verge of an economic meltdown created by Democrats in 2006.  He said:

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

And it came to pass exactly as John McCain warned.  And now we KNOW who would actually pay for it: YOU.

Even the New York Times FINALLY began to be concerned over the impact of a collapse by Fannie and Freddie as these words from July 2008 document (I cited that in a piece available here):

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so big — they own or guarantee roughly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market — that the thought that they might falter once seemed unimaginable. But now a trickle of worries about the companies, which has been slowly building for years, has suddenly become a torrent.

Just before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac completely went belly up and started the economic wrecking ball crashing into America, Barney Frank as the powerful Democrat Chairman of the Financial Services Committee had this to say:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

I document the process by how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operated here, explaining:

[That] the Los Angeles Times on May 31, 1999 describes how this process turned into a bubble, as more begat more, and then more and more begat more and more and more:

Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more. . . .

In a nutshell, Fannie and Freddie, in their role as Government Sponsored Enterprises, bought tens of millions of mortgages, and then repackaged them into huge mortgage-backed securities that giant private entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman Brothers purchased. What made these securities particularly attractive to the private banking entities was that these securities were essentially being sold – and had the backing – of the United States government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, again, are Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Here’s the process:

The Role of the GSEs is to provide liquidity and stability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets. Step 1 Banks lend money to Households to purchase and refinance home mortgages Step 2 The GSEs purchase these mortgage from the banks Step 3 GSEs bundle the mortgages into mortgage-backed securities Step 4 GSEs sell mortgage-backed and debt securities to domestic and international capital investors Step 5 Investors pay GSEs for purchase of debt and securities Step 6 GSEs return funds to banks to lend out again for the issuance of new mortgage loans.

Now, an intelligent observer would note a primary conflict: the GSE’s role was to “provide stability,” and yet at the same time they were taking on “significantly more risk” in the final year of the Clinton presidency. What’s wrong with this picture?

The GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were designed to bundle up the mortgages into mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private market.

Fannie Mae is exempt from SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] regulation. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them. This allowed Fannie Mae to bundle up mortgages, which were then rated AAA with no requirement to make clear what is in the bundle. Which screams why Bush wanted to regulate them.

This is what allowed the toxic instruments that have been sold across the world to proliferate. And then to explode. It also created a situation where money institutions did not know and could not find out whether potential inter-bank business partners were holding these “boiled babies on their books, complete with a golden stamp on the wrapping,” rather than safe instruments. This then inclined banks to a natural caution, to be wary of lending good money to other banks against these ‘assets’. And thus banks refused to lend to one another.

And it was Democrats, not Bush, and not Republicans, who were all over this disaster that destroyed our economy in 2008.

We were led by a pathologically dishonest media to believe that Republicans had created this mess, when it fact it had been Democrats. And so we gave the very fools who destroyed our economy total power.

And what have they done in the two years since?

They made bad far, far worse.

I added the last link to point out that we’re looking at a $600 TRILLION problem and Barack Obama’s supporters are COMPLETELY BEHIND that $600 trillion problem.

You find that Barack Obama took more money in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a shorter period of time than any politician in history.  Fellow Democrat Chris Dodd’s money came over twenty years; Obama took all of his money from the GSEs in just three years.  And Lehman Brothers and AIG that led the private sector into collapse?  Yeah, Obama took more money from THEM than anybody else, too.

If you believe the Democrat Party, the fact that Fannie and Freddie controlled over half of all the mortgages in the United States, and the fact that Fannie and Freddie went completely bankrupt and precipitated the financial crash of 2008, and the fact that economic experts predicted Fannie and Freddie would cause an economic collapse, and the fact that even the New York Times admitted concern over a “torrent of worries” caused by Fannie and Freddie’s massive exposure shortly prior to the economic collapse, all somehow go to prove that Fannie and Freddie were in no way responsible for the 2008 economic collapse.  As insane as that is, that is what they have to say.

Let me put it bluntly: if you don’t understand that Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s 2008 collapse created the financial crisis, you are a fool.  If you don’t acknowledge that the Democrat Party engineered that collapse and then refused to allow George Bush or anyone else to reform these massive GSEs to prevent that collapse from happening, you are a liar.  Which is why I routinely label Democrats as lying fools.

Democrats essentially said, “We’re going to destroy America and then we’re going to use our mainstream media propagandists to blame the Republicans for what we did.  The extent of the historic bias in the media is astonishing.

So Obama and the Democrats continually demonize Republican obstructionism and the mainstream media refuses to put that story into any kind of context of DEMOCRAT obstructionism.  Why is it a valid charge that the Republican House should be blamed as “obstructionist” given that DEMOCRATS had both the House AND the Senate when the economy went bad under Bush?  When have you heard about such a challenge in the media?  Democrats have blamed Republicans and Bush for four years now about destroying the economy.  Where has the media ever even so much as questioned that premise, let alone provide the facts I document for you here?  Further, Obama and the Democrats – in trying to demonize Republicans for their “obstructionism” – are demanding that Republicans vote for what is essentially the son of the son of Obama’s first massive and massively failed stimulus.  Remember that first massive stimulus that was officially $862 billion but which the CBO said would actually cost $3.27 TRILLION when it was all said and done?  Remember that second stimulus program for $447 billion that will likewise cost far more than that?  How many more stimulus programs should Obama get?  How many trillions of dollars in government spending is enough?  Have you heard these questions from ABC, NBC or CBS???

Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority leader, made an interesting observation.  He basically said, “The president keeps accusing the Republicans of wanting America to fail.  That’s not true.  If Republicans wanted America to fail, they would SUPPORT the president and his failed policies.”

Because they ARE failed policies.  They have wildly failed and they have even failed according to Obama’s own White House.  Obama’s team predicted that if Obama’s $862 billion stimulus was enacted unemployment would not go over 8%.  They were clearly wrong.  Obama again and again promised that his stimulus was filled with “shovel ready jobs,” only to later laugh and say that it wasn’t as “shovel-ready as we expected.”  That admission after having made repeated claims that it WAS creating all kinds of shovel-ready jobs.  Is the fact that Obama just admitted that his entire economic policy was based on lies a joke to you?  And when Obama demanded yet another of the same massively expensive policy failure as before he merely made the same bogus promises in slightly different words.  Are you really that stupid?  The Obama team predicted that unemployment would be under 6% by now if his FIRST stimulus passed, let alone his SECOND massive stimulus and now the THIRD one that he demands.  In fact unemployment is a full point higher right now than team Obama predicted it would be if we had NOT passed his stimulus, which is to say that by Obama’s own math his administration was WORSE than nothing along with costing us trillions of dollars we now can’t get back.

And what is the Democrats response to that?  A fantasy story based on counterfactual claims: if we hadn’t passed the stimulus things would have been worse.  Don’t remember what he said back then because they turned out to be a sack of lies; remember our new lies now.  And if George Bush hadn’t been president, space aliens would have destroyed the entire human race.  Prove that one wrong.  Obama’s own projections prove that to be false; but the lies they keep a changin’ because that’s what hope and change means – keep telling changing lies and hope the people buy them.

We have now repeatedly found that EVERYTHING Obama promised and predicted has been a LIE.  Obama has failed across the board.  Now he’s either telling the same lying predictions about his leadership all over again or replacing them with new lying predictions.

If you want to know what is “obstructing” jobs in America, look no further than Barack Obama and the Democrat Part and their anti-business, anti-growth policies.

The biggest “obstruction” of all facing America is the one shoved up Democrats’ rear ends.  Sorry to end on such a crass note, but the truth is invariably an unpleasant thing where Democrats are concerned.

Lying Obama Claims He Didn’t Increase Spending As USA Today Points Out Real Obama Deficits Actually $5.6 Trillion A Year

May 25, 2012

Every time I’ve mentioned the massive Obama stimulus on this blog – and just use my search engine to look up “stimulus” for the proof that I’ve said it over and over and over again – I have pointed out that the cost WASN’T “$800 billion”; the actual cost of Obama’s stimulus was – according to the CBO – actually $3.27 TRILLION:

All of the major news outlets are reporting that the stimulus bill voted out of conference committee last night has a meager $789 billion price tag. This number is pure fantasy. No one believes that the increased funding for programs the left loves like Head Start, Medicaid, COBRA, and the Earned Income Tax Credit is in any way temporary. No Congress under control of the left will ever cut funding for these programs. So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below [visit link], the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 trillion.

The actual cost of the Obama stimulus was simply completely unreported by the mainstream media which is now merely the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.  The numbers reported were pure lies.

So, as I’ve said over and over and over again, the “real” cost of the Obama stimulus was actually 308.75% higher than it was deceitfully sold to the American people as costing.

And now we see that that was a common theme of the Obama deception: because we find that the real Obama deficit wasn’t $1.3 trillion; no, it was actually $5.6 trillion.  Which is, for the record, 330.77% higher than what we were told.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a picture of the the contrast between Obama’s bullcrap and actual reality:

From USA Today:

Real federal deficit dwarfs official tally
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules to compute the deficit, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Under those accounting practices, the government ran red ink last year equal to $42,054 per household — nearly four times the official number reported under unique rules set by Congress.

A U.S. household’s median income is $49,445, the Census reports.

The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits. Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules.

The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules. The official number was $1.3 trillion. Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government’s books.

Deficits are a major issue in this year’s presidential campaign, but USA TODAY has calculated federal finances under accounting rules since 2004 and found no correlation between fluctuations in the deficit and which party ran Congress or the White House.

Key findings:

•Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. That’s $9.5 trillion more than was needed in 2004.

•Deficits from 2004 to 2011 would be six times the official total of $5.6 trillion reported.

•Federal debt and retiree commitments equal $561,254 per household. By contrast, an average household owes a combined $116,057 for mortgages, car loans and other debts.

“By law, the federal government can’t tell the truth,” says accountant Sheila Weinberg of the Chicago-based Institute for Truth in Accounting.

Jim Horney, a former Senate budget staff expert now at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says retirement programs should not count as part of the deficit because, unlike a business, Congress can change what it owes by cutting benefits or lifting taxes.

“It’s not easy, but it can be done. Retirement programs are not legal obligations,” he says.

In California, Democrat Governor Jerry Brown is talking about the “crisis” of the official state deficit of billion.  That’s not even CLOSE to the truth; the actual deficit of just the Democrat-passed unfunded pension liabilities for their union allies is $500 billion ALL BY ITSELF.

From the Los Angeles Times:

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
April 06, 2010|By David Crane

The state of California’s real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That’s the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University’s public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

It’s great if you’re in a government employee union and give all your campaign contributions to Democrats to keep the pork coming.  It sucks if you’re the vast majority of Californians.  Meanwhile, these same California voters keep falling for the same trick, namely, Democrats keep promising that they’ll redistribute the wealth of others and give it to people who vote Democrat.

Until California collapses under the weight of Democrat lies and burns in hell.

There’s only one term to describe this sheer lunatic deception: demon possessed.  The Democrat Party today is the party of hell.  One day soon Democrats will worship the Antichrist who will promise the big government Utopia of their dreams and take his mark and ultimately end up in the eternal fire that they truly deserve.

As bad as California looks, the actual debt picture of the United States as a country makes that $500 billion in uncounted unfunded liabilities to pro-Democrat labor unions look like nothin’.

Understand, this article was written in August 2011 when the national debt was “only” $14 trillion.  It’s going to be $16 trillion by the end of the year.

Look at the actual debt faced by the United States.  You’re on the hook for this:

A National Debt Of $14 Trillion? Try $211 Trillion
by NPR Staff
August 6, 2011

When Standard & Poor’s reduced the nation’s credit rating from AAA to AA-plus, the United States suffered the first downgrade to its credit rating ever. S&P took this action despite the plan Congress passed this past week to raise the debt limit.

The downgrade, S&P said, “reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.”

It’s those medium- and long-term debt problems that also worry economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff, who served as a senior economist on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. He says the national debt, which the U.S. Treasury has accounted at about $14 trillion, is just the tip of the iceberg.

“We have all these unofficial debts that are massive compared to the official debt,” Kotlikoff tells David Greene, guest host of weekends on All Things Considered. “We’re focused just on the official debt, so we’re trying to balance the wrong books.”

Kotlikoff explains that America’s “unofficial” payment obligations — like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits — jack up the debt figure substantially.

“If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, including defense expenditures, and you subtract all the taxes that we expect to collect, the difference is $211 trillion. That’s the fiscal gap,” he says. “That’s our true indebtedness.” [...]

There is no possible way in hell we can pay these debts.  And all we’re doing now is having the Federal Reserve add zeros to the money supply which is now a fantasy that only exists in computers.  That’s what “quantitative easing” is: we’ve done it twice now under Obama, and we’re going to be doing it again soon.

Quantitative easing is a hidden tax; the government inflates the currency which deflates the value of the existing dollars.  The dollars systematically become worth less and we get inflation – which is actually running out of control (see here, here, here, here and – for the antidote – here).

For the record, Obama’s massive regulations which have largely been passed by executive decree, are another massive form of hidden taxation.  To the tune of $1.75 trillion taken out of the private economy in forced compliance costs every single year.

Democrats love to blame Republicans for our debt.  They are, as I have said before, demon-possessed liars.  The programs that the Democrat Party rammed down our forcibly collectivist throats such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for 99-plus percent of our massive unsustainable unpayable debt that will necessarily implode America.

I wrote about this earlier this year: it didn’t have to be this way: there were superior alternatives to both Social Security AND Medicare that were ignored and falsely demonized.

If you want to put it in honest terms, the agreement the Democrats – the party of baby genocide – was this: “You vote for us, and we’ll give you benefits that we’ll sell the next generation into slavery to pay for.”  And Democrats said, “Good!  That’s what we want!”

Republicans can’t end Social Security or Medicare now; millions of Americans (including my own parents) count on these programs – even as bad as they are –  for survival.  Democrats made sure that there were no rivals and no possible alternatives.  But we were right all along that it was a terrible program for America and we were right all along pointing out that there were FAR better alternatives.

If that isn’t bad enough, Democrats as we speak are trying to ensure that these programs – beginning with Medicare – go bankrupt.  Because the Republicans who said these programs were a mistake to begin with are doing their best to try to sustain them, while Democrats are refusing to allow ANY of the fixes that will prevent them from GOING BANKRUPT NO LATER THAN 2017.  Democrats are demanding that we keep these programs exactly as they are: and “exactly as they are” equals CATASTROPHIC BANKRUPTCY and collapse.

And just to help shove Medicare into the grave, Democrats stole $500 billion from Medicare funding and then double-counted it.  As if you can create two dollars by tearing a dollar bill in half.

And fot further go on with the sheer deceit of the Democrat Party, we now know that ObamaCare was sold on such a whopping load of lies it is beyond unreal – such as a SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR FUNDING GAP between the ocean of lies and the actual reality.

As sick and as frankly terrifying the implications of all the above are, can I end on a hilarious note?

Barack Obama, the man who demonized George Bush for raising the debt by four trillion dollars over eight years only to himself increase the debt by SIX TRILLION IN ONLY FOUR YEARS, is now demonically claiming that his spending spree never really happened:

“And by the way, we’re going to pay down our debt in a way that is balanced and responsible.  I inherited a trillion dollar deficit; I signed $2 trillion in spending cuts.  My opponents won’t admit it because it runs contrary to, I guess, the only argument they have — but since I’ve been President, federal spending has actually risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years.  (Applause.)  It usually takes a Democrat to fix these problems after they have run up the tab.”  (Applause.) — Barack Obama, May 24, 2012

In order to justify this demonic lie, Obama assumes a baseline that simply blames George Bush for all 2009 debt – INCLUDING OBAMA’S MASSIVE $3.27 TRILLION STIMULUS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH GEORGE BUSH AND WHICH NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR.  Obama’s “baseline” further assumed that emergency programs such as the TARP – which Obama himself approved of and voted for – was now something that America had to repeat every single year in perpetuity as opposed to being what it was (a one-time emergency event).  And so the following year when Obama didn’t spend another $700 billion in TARP, he was actually SAVING money.  Oh, and to complete the point about how ridiculous this is, OBAMA ASKED FOR AND RECEIVED HALF THE $700 billion TARP funds.  So Obama voted for it, Obama asked for it, and Obama spent it.  But it’s Bush’s fault and so blame Bush.

Oh, and Obama actually supermassively expanded his $350 billion in TARP funds to at least $16 TRILLION.  And put $23.7 trillion in taxpayer money at risk according to the TARP inspector general.  Obama does it.  Blames Bush for it.

Obama is artificially and demonically jacking up the “baseline” and then pointing to a lie to say “I’m only increasing spending by a little tiny bit.”  He uses a bogus contrived statistic to claim he’s the lowest-spending president in sixty years when the actual reality is that he’s the highest-spending president in the history of the entire human race.

Here’s the reality of Obama’s spending:

The only way you can explain Obama telling these “big lies” or Democrats actually believing them comes down to one thing: demon possession.

Openly Socialist Hollande And Obama Share SAME Major Policies – So Obama Isn’t A Socialist WHY, Exactly???

May 8, 2012

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

I have frequently on this very blog demanded liberals to explain in detail just how exactly Barack Obama isn’t for the same thing (i.e., the major economic element of communism).  But let’s start with the French and get to Obama later.

Planet France is a place where fools have pretty much run things ever since 1789.  Two words that define France today are “socialism” and “surrender.”

Who did Planet France just elect?  And just what is this particular cheese-eating socialist surrender-monkey saying he’s going to do?

Hollande defeats Sarkozy in French presidency vote
Updated 04:05 p.m., Sunday, May 6, 2012

PARIS (AP) — Socialist Francois Hollande defeated conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy on Sunday to become France’s next president, heralding a change in how Europe tackles its debt crisis and how France flexes its military and diplomatic muscle around the world.

Exuberant, diverse crowds filled the Place de la Bastille, the iconic plaza of the French Revolution, to fete Hollande’s victory, waving French, European and labor union flags and climbing the column that rises at its center. Leftists are overjoyed to have one of their own in power for the first time since Socialist Francois Mitterrand was president from 1981 to 1995.

“Austerity can no longer be inevitable!” Hollande declared in his victory speech Sunday night after a surprising campaign that saw him transform from an unremarkable, mild figure to an increasingly statesmanlike one.

Sarkozy is the latest victim of a wave of voter anger at government spending cuts around Europe that have tossed out governments and leaders over the past couple of years.

In Greece, a parliamentary vote Sunday is seen as critical to the country’s prospects for pulling out of a deep financial crisis felt in world markets. A state election in Germany and local elections in Italy were seen as tests of support for the national government’s policies.

Hollande promised help for France’s downtrodden after years under the Sarkozy, a man many voters saw as too friendly with the rich and blamed for economic troubles.

Hollande said European partners should be relieved and not frightened by his presidency.

“I am proud to have been capable of giving people hope again,” Hollande told huge crowds of supporters in his electoral fiefdom of Tulle in central France. “We will succeed!”

Hollande inherits an economy that’s a driver of the European Union but is deep in debt. He wants more government stimulus, and more government spending in general, despite concerns in the markets that France needs to urgently trim its huge debt.

Sarkozy conceded defeat minutes after the polls closed, saying he had called Hollande to wish him “good luck” as the country’s new leader.

Sarkozy, widely disliked for budget cuts and his handling of the economy during recent crises, said he did his best to win a second term, despite widespread anger at his handling of the economy.

“I bear responsibility … for the defeat,” he said. “I committed myself totally, fully, but I didn’t succeed in convincing a majority of French. … I didn’t succeed in making the values we share win.”

With 75 percent of the vote counted, official results showed Hollande with 51.1 percent of the vote compared with Sarkozy’s 48.9 percent, the Interior Ministry said. The CSA, TNS-Sofres and Ipsos polling agencies all predicted a Hollande win as well.

Hollande has virtually no foreign policy experience but he will face his first tests right after his inauguration, which must happen no later than May 16.

Among his first trips will be to the United States later this month for summits of NATO — where he will announce he is pulling French troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year — and the Group of Eight leading world economies.

Hollande’s first challenge will be dealing with Germany: He wants to re-negotiate a hard-won European treaty on budget cuts that Germany’s Angela Merkel and Sarkozy had championed. He promises to make his first foreign trip to Berlin to work on a relationship that has been at the heart of Europe’s postwar unity.

Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, congratulated Hollande on Sunday night and said both countries will keep on cooperating closely in driving the European Union’s policies and be “a stabilizing factor and a motor for the European Union.”

At home, Hollande intends to modify one of Sarkozy’s key reforms, over the retirement age, to allow some people to retire at 60 instead of 62. He also plans to increase spending in a range of sectors and wants to ease France off its dependence on nuclear energy. He favors legalizing euthanasia and gay marriage.

Sarkozy supporters call those proposals misguided.

“We’re going to call France the new Greece,” said Laetitia Barone, 19. “Hollande is now very dangerous.”

Sarkozy had said he would quit politics if he lost, but was vague about his plans Sunday night.

“You can count on me to defend these ideas, convictions,” he said, “but my place cannot be the same.”

His political allies turned their attention to parliamentary elections next month.

People of all ages and different ethnicities celebrated Hollande’s victory at the Bastille. Ghylaine Lambrecht, 60, who celebrated the 1981 victory of Mitterrand at the Bastille, was among them.

“I’m so happy. We had to put up with Sarko for 10 years,” she said referring to Sarkozy’s time as interior and finance minister and five years as president. “In the last few years the rich have been getting richer. Now long live France, an open democratic France.”

“It’s magic!” said Violaine Chenais, 19. “I think Francois Hollande is not perfect, but it’s clear France thinks its time to give the left a chance. This means real hope for France. We’re going to celebrate with drink and hopefully some dancing.”

Planet France is a place where liberalism lives forever.  Planet France is a place where foolishness is wisdom, where night is day and where evil is good.

The markets already plunged on the fear that Hollande could win; now he’s won.  And the finance markets aren’t happy with “we will spend other people’s money until there is no more of other people’s money left to spend” policies:

Euro falls to three and a half year low amid market jitters at French and Greek elections
The Euro hit a three and a half year low against the pound as financial markets reacted to the election of Francois Hollande as France’s first Socialist president for 17 years and the new threat to a eurozone break-up posed by the post-election turmoil in Greece.
By Roland Gribben, Henry Samuel and Bruno Waterfield
11:24AM BST 07 May 2012

The Paris stock exchange CAC 40 index dropped 1.52pc in early trading with investors nervous about the growing pressure for a eurozone economic policy switch from austerity to growth, reflected in the French and Greek election results and President Hollande’s priorities.
 
The euro fell heavily across the board on Monday. Traders said the euro’s losses, which saw it hit a three-month low against the dollar, its lowest in 3 and a half years against the British pound and a 2 and half month trough versus the yen, were likely to be extended in coming days.
 
Stocks in Italy fell 2.2pc, the main Madrid index slipped 1.76pc while a 2.02pc drop in the DAX index of leading German shares was blamed on a local election setback for Chancellor Angela Merkel.
 
Political stalemate in Greece after the failure of any party to gain a majority saw shares on the Athens market slump 7.6pc.
 
The strength of the opposition to the Greek bail-out programme has raised fresh questions about continued eurozone membership.

Alexis Tsipras leader of the Syriza party, a coalition of the radical left which emerged as the second biggest after winning 16pc of the Greek vote, immediately drew the battle lines declaring: “The people of Europe can no longer be reconciled with the bailouts of barbarism.”
 
The euro fell its lowest level for almost four months to $1.2954 before showing signs of a rally to $1.301 while the interest rate on France’s benchmark ten year bonds rose.
 
Traders said there was no panic but the rising yield is increasing concerns about a run on French debt and a threat to the French deficit reduction programme. A widening in the spread between French and German bonds was seen as a ‘flight to safety.’
 
Germany’s 10-year yield fell to as low as 1.552pc, the second record in consecutive trading days.
 
Ratings agency Standard and Poor’s said President Hollande’s victory would have no immediate effect on its French rating.
 
The agency infuriated former President Sarkozy when it stripped France of its top triple-A rating in January.
 
A number of analysts felt markets had already taken account of a Hollande victory while others argued that a combination of the French and Greek results would increase pressure on eurozone debt.
 
World stock markets hit as France votes for first Socialist president in 20 years and Greece chooses a parliament with a majority of MPs from anti-bailout parties.

Some say that the market has already taken a Hollande win – i.e. a win for socialism, a win for liberalism, into account.  These are pretty much saying that Hollande will govern far more pragmatically than his liberal rhetoric suggests.  They’re saying that the world financial markets will prevent true socialism from emerging in France, and that Hollande will have to face reality given that he’s simply boxed-in by simple reality.   But even those people are saying, “We are quite pessimistic about the euro area in the short-term. We think that the GDP contraction will amplify in the second quarter. So, things will get worse in the coming weeks.”

I think that’s hogwash.  I think that Hollande will now believe he’s got a mandate to export his brand of socialist-liberal belief in unicorns and fairy dust to Germany and to the world financial markets.  His win was by about the same margin that Obama won by, interestingly, and both Obama and Democrats sure as hell thought THEY had a mandate which they foolishly exploited until the voters gave them a historic ass-kicking in 2010.  I also think that Hollande’s “Our way out of our massive debt is for our government to pretend we’re not in debt and quadruple down on our reckless, insane spending” mantra is the way to ruin.  And that ruin will surely ensue.  And, lastly, I think that the Eurozone’s complete and utter collapse is all but guaranteed now.

I said “quadruple down on our reckless, insane spending” in honor of our own socialist fool: Barack Hussein Obama.  Because Obama has spent FOUR TIMES AS MUCH AS BUSH DID:

“Austerity can no longer be inevitable!”

Our socialist fools in the Democrat Party in America are as determined to ignore reality as the sociliast fools on Planet France.

Compare and contrast openly socialist Hollande’s major policies to Obama’s: both want huge government stimulus programs; both oppose any constraints on government spending; both demand that we tax the rich; and both want a special tax on banks.  That’s because Barack Obama is a damn SOCIALIST!!!

The French election previews the U.S. November election contest between incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney in the following four ways:

1). Both Obama and Hollande offer almost identical leftist platforms (details on this below).

2) The bland challengers (Hollande and Romney) ignite electoral passions less than their more colorful opponents (playboy Sarkozy with his celebrity wife and Obama, the first black president).

3) The sorry state of the economy gives both challengers a hefty leg-up.

4) The French and American elections are foreshadowed by electoral disasters for the incumbent party in off-year races in 2010 and 2011. In both, the incumbent party lost long-held majorities in one house of Congress or parliament.

Read more…

And it’s no surprise that America under Obama is looking more and more like Europe and having the same long-term problems that Europe has had:

EDITORIAL: Obama’s euro-style unemployment
Welfare-state mentality fosters permanent joblessness
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Tuesday, June 14, 2011

It’s no secret that President Obama wants America to look more like Europe. He desires expanded powers for labor unions, higher gas prices for commuters and a diminished role on the world stage. So far, he’s been effective in fostering the conditions for European-style unemployment on these shores. [...]

As we speak the unemployment rate just went down.  Why?  Because 115,000 jobs were created – nowhere near enough to even keep pace with population growth, mind you – and 342,000 gave up trying to find a job in complete despair.  We live in our own version of planet France when nobody could have a job and our president could boast of a 0% unemployment rate.

George Will pointed out a couple of facts as to just how terrible Obama is managing our economy this week on ABC’s “This Week”:

JAKE TAPPER: George, the president kicked off his campaign yesterday. Thoughts?

WILL: He kicked it off a day after we saw the emblematic achievement of the Obama administration, which is to make a decline in the unemployment rate bad news. It ticked down from 8.2 percent to 8.1 percent because 342,000 of Americans succumbed to discouragement with the Obama economy and left the economy.
 
Male participation rate in the economy today is lower than it has been at any time since we began keeping this statistic in 1948. Indeed, if the workforce participation rate were the same today as it was when Mr. Obama was inaugurated, the real unemployment rate would be measured at about 11 percent. That’s no record to run on.

Barry Hussein has been a jobs holocaust.

Bay Buchannon later made a statement about the planet France-like FOOLS who were instrumental to Obama’s 2008 victory: college students.

People who are graduating from college, 53 percent, do not get jobs when they graduate. We are going to lose that whole generation because, you know, when the jobs do come back, they’re going to hire college graduates just coming out.

Those idiot socialist fools deserve to suffer; it’s too dang bad the rest of the nation has to suffer along with them because of their vote for Obama four years ago.

I point out how simply godawful Obama has been for America.  Two years ago, due to Obama’s wildly failed policies, the labor participation rate measuring how many working-age Americans are actually WORKING was at a 25-year low.  Last year that participation rate had decreased to a 27-year low.  This year it decreased to a 31-year low.  Millions and millions of jobs have simply been vaporized under Obama and there is no sign that they will be coming back.

If you vote for Obama’s version of planet France, I can guarantee you that that rate measuring how many working-age Americans have any chance whatsoever of getting a job will continue to plunge.

P.S. The funniest damn thing of all is what I read after I got through writing this article but before I published it: that Obama is advising Hollande NOT to raise taxes and increase spending for the sake of the European economyWHILE OBAMA HIMSELF IS CAMPAIGNING ON DOING THE VERY THINGS HE’S TELLING HIS FELLOW SOCIALIST NOT TO DO.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 519 other followers