Posts Tagged ‘trillion’

CBO Report: ObamaCare To Gut U.S. Growth, Destroy 2.3 Million Jobs, Add Over Trillion To Deficit (Just Like We TOLD You Would Happen)

February 4, 2014

This just in: Democrats are demon-possessed liars who destroyed America during that two-year period when they fascistically OWNED the White House, the Senate and the House (now they merely fascistically own the White House and the Senate, and you’d think they have no power or responsibility at all given the way they blame the House under GOP leadership for basically all the hell that has resulted from Democrat rule).

One of my very favorite Democrat-Obama lies from hell is actually one of the earliest: the lie that it was BUSH who somehow drove up the deficit in the year AFTER he left office and Obama has been reducing it ever since.

Here was one of my earlier responses to that one:

That is such bullcrap it is beyond unreal.

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who passed the $862 billion stimulus on February 17, 2009 is it?

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who did that $79 billion bailout for Government Motors and their union Democrats in 2009?

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who signed that $410 billion Omnibus bill in March of 2009?

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who left $350 billion in TARP money to President Damn Bush who spent it in early 2009???

It is your assertion that it was President Damn Bush who rammed that damned $2.6 trillion ObamaCare - Ooh, I’m sorry, GorgieCare bill – down our collectivist throats?

It’s really amazing to me what a lousy bunch of Marxists you liars truly ARE.  Obama passes all these things, takes credit for them, but when it’s time to be financially responsible for his own damn bills it’s more “Bush did it! Put all the garbage I did and took credit for on Bush’s bill!!!”

George Bush actually HAD a budget for FY-2009.  It was of course decried by you cockroach Democrats for its CUTS.  It had a deficit of $400 billion, you lying weasel.  And It didn’t have any of the above crap that you seem to think Bush was responsible for.

Obama cynically and ruthlessly exploited the technical fact that most of a new president’s first year is under the budget of his predecessor to LOAD UP THE DEFICIT in 2009.  Obama BLEW UP the deficit, which had been $10 trillion under Bush and is now well over $17.3 trillion.  Bush added over $4 trillion to the deficit over eight years, which of course was bad; Obama is on pace to more than TRIPLE that such that he will add over $12 trillion to our unpayable and unsustainable deficit before he leaves office in disgrace.

Even the liberal Washington Post fact checked that and gave it the Liar-in-Chief the maximum number of Pinocchios for his lie.  But like Hitler, Obama merely keeps telling his “Big Lie” over and over and over again.

Of course, our true debt is way north of $225 trillion now.  America is doomed.  It WILL collapse under the weight of Democrat debt.  And please don’t be so stupid and so depraved not to realize that 99.9 percent of all our debt has come from DEMOCRAT programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and now ObamaCare that just exploded federal spending far beyond the realm of sanity.  And the night before it all goes to hell, the media talking heads will be assuring you that everything will be fine.

Also, of course, the Demagogue-in-Chief has been so blatantly dishonest and hypocritical about the debt ceiling that it is beyond amazing.  That’s the man’s style.  Lie, lie, lie – and then demonize his opponents when the truth finally emerges.

And, of course, we’re only now BEGINNING to see just how truly awful and truly evil ObamaCare truly is.

Please understand that this latest CBO report STILL doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface as to how simply godawful ObamaCare will be to America.  Remember when it passed, laden with budget gimmickry designed to lie to the American people so they wouldn’t have any clue how demonic this piece of fascist garbage law truly would be?  They reported that ObamaCare would be “deficit neutral.”  And then the budget estimates just kept getting worse and worse as time passed.  Do you think now, with the ObamaCare monster only one-third out of its hellhole, that they’ve figured out how truly bad it is yet???  Not even CLOSE.

The UPI  article reporting on the latest ObamaCare fiasco today implicitly points out how truly bad the CBO has been in estimating the damage of ObamaCare:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) — The White House Tuesday disputed claims a Congressional Budget Office study concluded the Affordable Care Act would cost millions of U.S. jobs.

The CBO study — which also said the ACA is projected to reduce the federal deficit by more than $1 trillion in 10 years — said the healthcare reform law is expected to reduce employment by about 2.3 million jobs during the same period. The new estimate nearly triples the previous CBO estimate of 800,000 jobs that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was to have cost the economy, the Hill newspaper reported.

The law is expected to slow the economy and cause many people to leave the workforce, the impact being felt mostly by low-wage workers, the Washington Post said.

From “this fascist ObamaCare takeover is going to wipe out 800,000 jobs” to “this Nazi ObamaCare law is going to destroy 2.3 MILLION jobs.”  You almost get the sense that panicked CBO economists are desperately throwing darts at a board to try to get their hands on some kind of number to relay just how catastrophically horrible this thing is going to be.

I remember Nancy Pelosi boasting that her messiah’s ObamaCare would create 4 million jobs, with 400,000 jobs occurring immediately.  That depraved, dishonest witch ought to be in PRISON right now for her crime of lying to the American people.  Just like her false messiah Obama ought to be in prison right now.

The Washington Post piece on the CBO bombshell of the fascist ObamaCare takeover of healthcare also underscores the CBO’s inability to comprehend just how bad this lawless “law” truly is:

The Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by more than 2 million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday, a finding that sent the White House scrambling to defend a law that has bedeviled President Obama for years.

After obtaining coverage through the health law, some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. Low-wage workers are the most likely to drop out of the workforce as a result of the law, it said. The CBO said the law’s impact on jobs mostly would be felt after 2016.

Republicans quickly pointed to the report’s findings as more evidence of the health law’s flaws, one of their major themes ahead of this year’s mid-term elections. Republicans see the Affordable Care Act as a political boon this year, after the disastrous launch of the law’s Web site last fall.

The CBO report said those rocky beginnings of the federal online marketplace would suppress enrollment this year, though not in the future. The agency predicted that the number of Americans who buy private health plans through the new insurance exchanges before a March 31 deadline for coverage in 2014 will be 6 million, while the number of low-income people who join Medicaid this year will be 8 million.

Both figures are one million fewer people than the CBO had forecast the last time it issued such a prediction, nine months ago.

Off by a million people in only nine months.  Because after all, what’s a million people between friends?  It’s kind of like Obama’s totalitarian big-government socialist buddy Joseph Stalin put it: one death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.  Under messiah Obama, we’re all just “statistics” now.  And, of course, as the next Democrat president would have  you believe, “What difference does it make?”

But you see how the estimates just keep getting worse and worse???

Notice the description of the moral hazard of people who will simply abandon TRYING to get a low-wage job and simply skate on the dole with their free Medicaid.  This was a job-destroying act in every possible way you can slice it.

Barack Obama is the worst liar and the most amply DOCUMENTED liar in the history of the United States.  If he says good morning, the man is lying.  President “If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan.  Period.  End of story” has proven that.  A pit viper has more credibility than Obama and is far less dangerous to your health.

Take a trip down memory lane.  Conservatives have been ACCURATELY PREDICTING exactly what has happened under ObamaCare.  And Democrats viciously and rabidly demonized us in every way imaginable for telling the thing they hate the most – the TRUTH.  Because if you are a Democrat you hate the truth and call people who tell the truth “racist.”

People like me tried to warn America.  But the American people overall have become ignorant and depraved and frankly pathetic.  I think of Nazi Germany and a man who tried to warn that nation:

I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

That’s YOU, America.  YOUR country has been “fundamentally transformed” by the very worst kind of liar.  By the time most of you people finally wake up to your sobering senses, your country will have imploded under the weight of its own debt and moral stupidity and you will have nothing.  And of course what will you do?  Being wicked, you will keep rejecting the God whom you have already rejected with your love of abortion and sodomy and you will instead put your trust in total socialism.  And that’s when the beast prophesied in Revelation will come to finish the job Obama started.

The Fiscal Generation Gap Fiasco And Everything That’s Racist And Hypocrite With Liberalism In One Smarmy Liberal Editorial

October 28, 2013

Ronald Brownstein, liberal ideologue from the überliberal National Journal wrote an editorial that also appeared in the also überliberal Los Angeles Times.  Brownstein begins:

One reason a serious budget negotiation seems unlikely this fall is that any meaningful assault on the federal deficit would require each party to confront the contradictions between its fiscal agenda and its electoral coalition.

Two long-term trends are creating this tension. One is an electoral reshuffling: Republicans increasingly depend on support from older whites, even as Democrats rely more on the youthful-tilting minority population. The second is the federal budget’s shift in focus from children (almost half of whom are now nonwhite) to seniors (about four-fifths of whom remain white). The intersection of these dynamics has left each party advancing budget blueprints that collide with the self-interest of their core supporters.

Heading into budget negotiations, the top priority for many Republicans remains limiting Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe Social Security, the Big Three senior entitlements. The contradiction they face is that the people benefiting from those programs now comprise the core of their electoral coalition.

The GOP presidential nominee has carried most white seniors in four consecutive presidential elections, and by greater margins each time. In 2012, whites over 45 supplied Mitt Romney with nearly three-fifths of his votes, even though they made up about only two-fifths of all voters. Census figures show that children constitute about the same share of the population (just under one-fourth) in House districts represented by Republicans and Democrats. Yet whites 55 and older are nearly 22 percent of the population in Republican-held districts, compared with less than 15 percent in those Democrats control. Even more strikingly, 164 House Republicans represent districts where the share of 55-plus whites exceeds the national average. That’s true for only 74 House Democrats.

These older whites deeply resist any changes in Social Security and Medicare, which most consider insurance they have paid for, not a government benefit (although studies show older Americans receive much more in lifetime benefits than they pay in taxes). In United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection polling this month, fully four-fifths of whites over 50 opposed any reductions in either Social Security or Medicare. These older white voters are much more passionate about cutting programs that transfer resources to the poor, such as food stamps (three-fifths of older whites would cut the program at least somewhat) and President Obama’s health care law.

The GOP’s fiscal agenda has partly reflected these priorities. The party continues scorched-earth opposition to Obamacare, and House Republicans recently voted for deep cuts in food stamps (almost half of whose benefits flow toward children). The plan from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to convert Medicare into a voucher, or “premium support,” system would shelter the staunchest GOP voters by exempting anyone over 55.

Three things immediately jumped out at me as I scanned over his drivel:

Fact 1) Do you know why these middle-class whites are such bad people (in liberal’s wicked minds)?  Because they believed the lying, demon-possessed bovine feces that is the promise of liberalism.

Tell me: did Democrats sell Social Security and Medicare as something that they would yank away from middle class whites?  Tell you what: you show me FDR with Social Security or LBJ with Medicare telling the American people that they were going to demand a clawback on these programs for white middle class families, and I’ll buy you a Ferrari.  You show me where Democrats said, “As soon as white middle class people have nothing else to fall back on because we seized control of retirement benefits (Social Security) and medical insurance for retired people (Medicare), we’re going to lower the boom on them and call them racist if they refuse to give back what we PROMISED them.”  You show me.

The fact of the matter stands as this: Democrats are dishonest liars.  And the only way you can be truly evil is if you believe the lies in the next fascist hijack attempt (e.g. ObamaCare) by the federal government to impose still MORE control over benefits that it will later denounce and try to claw back after Democrats made still more bullcrap promises.

That was the first thing that shot through my mind as I read the product of a truly demon-possessed brain.

Fact 2) The vicious, racist, anti-white bigotry of liberalism is once again on display.  And just as Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew who despised Jews, Brownstein is a self-hating white person – and very likely a self-hating Jew akin to Karl Marx for that matter – who KNOWS as a liberal that he is a truly terrible human being, but BEING a truly terrible human being he wrongly concludes that he’s a terrible human being because of the color of his skin rather than because his ideology is depraved and evil.  Let me demonstrate that fact this way: I’m going to replace the word “white” with “black” in Brownstein’s paragraph, and you tell me if it’s still just as true or not:

These older blacks deeply resist any changes in Social Security and Medicare, which most consider insurance they have paid for, not a government benefit (although studies show older Americans receive much more in lifetime benefits than they pay in taxes). In United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection polling this month, fully four-fifths of blacks over 50 opposed any reductions in either Social Security or Medicare.

For the record, the only poll I found was “generational” and did NOT cite differences in race.  I welcome Brownstein to show me that “older blacks” would be perfectly happy – in marked contrast to “older whites” – to have THEIR benefits that they were promised over their entire working lifetimes suddenly seized away by a government that wanted to take back its lie to them after their earning years are behind them so it could hoodwink an entirely new generation on a whopping lie from the same liars who lied to the (now) elderly.

So, Democrat who wants to racebait, YOU SHOW ME THE POLLS THAT DOCUMENT BLACKS BEING HAPPY TO HAVE THEIR PROMISED BENEFITS – AGAIN PROMISED TO THEM OVER THEIR ENTIRE WORKING LIFETIMES – GUTTED SO YOU CAN DEMONIZE “OLDER WHITE PEOPLE.”  YOU SHOW ME, YOU DEMON-POSSESSED LIARS.

Fact 3) Liberals are hypocrites who ONLY have the ability to see the speck in their opponent’s eye WHILE IGNORING THE GIANT MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR LOG IN THEIR OWN.  Again, I’ll document this fact in Brownstein’s own words:

These older whites deeply resist any changes in Social Security and Medicare …  These older white voters are much more passionate about cutting programs that transfer resources to the poor.

How has EVERY Democrat tax and entitlement program been sold?  One and the same way every time: don’t you worry: we’ll raise somebody ELSE’S taxes and force SOMEBODY ELSE to pay for your new entitlement program.

When was the last time Democrats said, “This is a government takeover that will benefit the poor, so let’s force the poor to bear the burden of paying for it”???  Try “NEVER.”

But, oh holy hell, “older middle class white people” who are in fact not one tiny bit different than “older middle class BLACK people” are evil because they want to keep the entitlement that they were promised and – for the record – were promised that it wasn’t even an “entitlement” but that they had EARNED it with all those payroll tax deductions that the federal government seized from them over the course of their entire lifetimes.

I’m also trying to think of the last time the people who were collecting welfare and food stamps ever voted to have their welfare and food stamp benefits – you know, which unlike those middle class whites they DIDN’T pay for every couple of weeks for going on fifty years – yanked away from them.  Again, try “NEVER.”

Don’t you DARE act like a Democrat and expect to keep what your Democrat federal government promised you and taxed out of you your entire life to pay for.  Don’t you DARE want to hold on to YOUR program.  Because, you see, that’s fascist and it’s only “fascist” when Republicans do it.

The appalling ObamaCare fiasco ought to be all the proof that any carbon-based life form with an IQ above a stinkbug needs to know to realize that liberalism is truly evil.  But if you DON’T think so, all you have to do is understand that the very programs that Brownstein now condemns (at least for white people) were Democrat creations that were GUARANTEED to run up giant deficits just as ObamaCare is guaranteed to run up giant deficits.

Do you know what our actual fiscal gap truly is?  That’s okay.  Because thanks to liberal shenanigans and accounting dishonesty NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER.

The debt we keep hearing about is $17 trillion.  Barack Hussein Obama – quintessential liar that he is – demonized George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” and “a failed leader” when that debt was $9 trillion.  Now, slandering hypocrite demagogue liar that he is, he sings a different tune even though by the end of his presidency, HE will have led America to higher and insanely unsustainable debt than every previous president (including George W. Bush) COMBINED.

But your share as an “American household” of that $17 trillion debt is $140,000.  And if you can’t pay your share, then America is in deep doo-doo which it keeps shoveling itself more deeply into every fraction of a second.  In point of fact, it is going up $2.28 billion per day, or $86,400 every single second.

But the International Monetary Fund published the academic article in its peer-reviewed journal by one of its members stating that it was in excess of $200 trillion back in 2011.  And our real debt is going up by about one trillion dollars every single MONTH.

Democrats and the lies they sold to impose their lies are ENTIRELY responsible for this guaranteed collapse of the United States of America.  A vote for the Democrat Party is not merely a vote for the murder of 55 million innocent babies and counting, and it’s not just a vote for bringing the wrath of God according to Romans chapter one: it is a vote for dodo-bird EXTINCTION.

We cannot even theoretically pay these debts that Democrats and NO ONE BUT DEMOCRATS saddled us with.  And who is Brownstein blaming for that?  Republican older white people because they are callously demanding that Democrats actually HONOR one of their wicked demonic lies.

And what is it that liberals want to do now?  They want to claw back on their previous lies on the basis of their self-serving racism and they want to now issue a whole NEW package of lies that will DWARF THE COST of their last load of demonic lies.  That’s what they want to do.

That leads me to:

Fact 4) Brownstein implies that Republicans who have spent their lives opposed to Social Security and Medicare are somehow hypocritical for now demanding they get their benefits.  He says “the [white Republican] people benefiting from those programs now comprise the core of their electoral coalition.”

Think about it: when the government seizes retirement insurance and retirement medicine, and forces you to pay into their Ponzi scheme year after year after year, what the hell are you supposed to do when you retire BUT take your Social Security and Medicare benefit that you were forced to buy into your entire life even though you didn’t want to???

The notion from Brownstein is that these “white” Republicans are somehow bad people for taking a benefit they were forced to purchase their entire lives so that freeloading welfare couch potatoes might have a harder time collecting the benefits they never paid so much as a damn DIME into.  Who are the bad people here?  The people who want the benefits they were promised and were forced to buy one paycheck at a time for fifty freaking years or the people who want somebody else’s money???

Medicare and Social Security are and always WERE truly evil programs.  Like I’ve said many times – and like Brownstein openly acknowledges in his attack against white middle class people that “studies show older Americans receive much more in lifetime benefits than they pay in taxes.”  Here’s my question: WHEN THE HELL WASN’T THAT THE CASE???  Is Brownstein actually trying to claim that it isn’t EQUALLY TRUE FOR BLACK MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE???  Only WHITE people collect more than they pay into this stupid system???  Seriously???  And for the damn record, CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN POINTING OUT THAT FACT AND CALLING SSI AND MEDICARE THE PONZI SCHEME THAT IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THAT FACT FOR DECADES.  And here’s a liberal moral idiot now finally acknowledging it just so he can say it’s whitey’s fault???

These two Democrat programs have run America into certain bankruptcy and financial implosion and an end to the American way of life and frankly the mark of the beast and the worship of the Antichrist.  We are so many trillions of dollars in debt because of these two unfunded mandates that it is beyond insane.

I have ALWAYS been opposed to Social Security.  My parents were also opposed to a system that they were FORCED to “contribute” to over their entire working careers.  Social Security crowded out every private alternative that would have been able to pay out HIGHER returns than SSI.  My parents were also opposed to Medicare because they didn’t want to be force-fed socialized medicine.  In both cases, there could have been and should have been private sector programs, but the government forced them out of business.  The private market could have done better for less on both fronts (as was proven by Chile’s highly successful privatized social security system) – but when the government crowded everybody else out and forced itself in, those options were as aborted as an innocent little baby by Democrats.  Liberals say that if you don’t like SSI or Medicare, don’t use it.  But an analogy would be for a liberal to be opposed to having a strong military; the only way that liberal could actually ACT on his or her opposition would be to move forever away from the United States.  Because otherwise you are covered by the protection of that strong military you are opposed to whether you oppose it or not.  To demand that somebody be forced to “contribute” to a system their entire lives and then to brand that person a hypocrite because they use the benefits that they were forced to pay for is literally demon-possessed EVIL.  There is no other way to put it.

There are also no other options for this generation of retired middle class “white people” after the Democrats imposed government on what should have been private systems.  That’s the dilemma for aforementioned “white” people.

And Brownstein’s answer to the dilemma that Democrats and ONLY DEMOCRATS created is to screw white people, renege on the promise that was made to them over the course of their entire working lives, and leave them to die while Democrats now repeat the same sort of pandering politics through the even BIGGER BOONDOGGLE of ObamaCare.

If you’re going to take away or reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits, take them away from the depraved idiot fools who were stupid enough and evil enough to have bought all the lies and set America up for this fiscal gap fiasco: take them away from DEMOCRATS.

Personally, I would be willing to forego my full Social Security benefits THAT I WAS FORCED TO PAY FOR BY DEMOCRATS if and only if: if Democrats officially admitted that they had destroyed America with their idiot socialism; if the Democrat Party were criminalized, such that anybody EVER AGAIN suggesting ANY FORM of socialism immediately be hauled away to either prison or to the looney bin; and if we passed the “hunt every Democrat down with dogs and burn them alive Act.”  Until then, don’t you DARE suggest I give up one nickel of the benefits that Democrats swore up and down (the same damn dishonest lying way that Barack Obama swore that if you liked your insurance plan and your doctor you could keep them.  PERIOD. by the way).

Obama’s exact words:

“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.”

History now proves that Barack Obama to be the most documented liar in the entire history of the entire human race.  He said that over and over again to millions of people as thousands of cameras rolled.  And he told a thousand other socialist lies that were every bit as blatant.

And no one can argue that Obama didn’t know about this: THE VERY NATURE OF OBAMACARE MADE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN’S HEALTHCARE PLANS “ILLEGAL.”  The man sold his “signature legislative accomplishment” under an ocean of lies, pure and simple.  You want proof?  Here it is: the White House knew at least as early as July of 2010 that what Obama had repeatedly said and CONTINUED TO SAY AFTERWARD was a demon-possessed lie.  I quote:

In a June 2009 speech to the American Medical Association, Obama said that “no matter how we reform healthcare, we will keep  this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able  to keep your doctor, period. If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to  keep your healthcare plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter  what.”

Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch  McConnell’s, R-Ky., questioned whether that promise had been kept.

“Remember: The President didn’t say if you like your plan and we approve it you  can keep it,” Stewart wrote, the Post reported. “He promised that if you like  your plan, you can keep it, period— “no matter what.”

Yet the NBC report  said the government knew that wasn’t true, saying that buried in regulations  from the July 2010 law was an estimate that because of normal turnover in the  individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to  keep their policy.

And because many policies will have been changed  since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing  grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people  in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the  rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” Robert Laszewski of Health Policy  and Strategy Associates, told NBC.

He estimated 80 percent of those in  the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will  have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally  requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

George  Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, told NBC he was “perfectly happy” with his plan  from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly  premium. But this past September, he got a letter saying his policy was no  longer available.

The “comparable” plan the insurance company offered  him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible. And the best  option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium,  to $948 a month.

“The deductible is less,” he said, “But the plan  doesn’t meet my needs. It’s unaffordable.”

See also here for more on that story.  The bottom line is that the White House KNEW they were lying but continued to deceive the American people.

We’ve seen these demon-possessed lies from these same demon-possessed socialist liars before.  And we have proven that we are damn-fool and depraved enough to fall for the same lies from the same liars all over again.

As I write, the comics are absolutely SHREDDING ObamaCare.  NO ONE can access the colossally failed ObamaCare website, but millions of young people have seen Kathleen Sabelious mocked (whom everyone on earth holds responsible for this failure BUT Obama).  Trust me that ObamaCare is no longer cool and young people will NOT be enrolling in something that they don’t need but would have to pay up the whazoo to have.  ObamaCare needed to have nearly 3 million “young invincibles” sign up to avoid an “actuarial death spiral” as only the sick and uninsurable enrolled in ObamaCare which would quickly send premiums through the stratosphere.  The Obama administration touted the half that half a million had “applied” for ObamaCare; but that isn’t the same as “enrolling” and we’re learning that the numbers are a sick joke.  And what we’re finding is that across the states that are providing ObamaCare enrollment figures, those who are enrolling in “free” Medicaid (i.e., overwhelming the system with people who are NOT paying in) outnumbers those who will be paying anything at all by three- and even FOUR-to-one.  As many as over 80% of enrollees are applying for “free” Medicaid rather than paying for the system as the system requires to not plunge America off the fiscal cliff.

Again, FAR MORE people are getting termination/cancellation notices from their insurance companies – proving that Barack Obama is an abject LIAR who BETRAYED the American people – than are paying for insurance through ObamaCare.  The vast majority of the people who are “enrolling” are signing up for the taxpayer-funded Medicaid expansion that will cost the nation untold TRILLIONS.

Obama lied to you.  Democrats lied to you.  The Democrat Party is a moral disease that is killing America.

As an example, the Obama regime and the Democrat Party are saying that the ObamaCare web site crashed because nearly three million people tried to access it the first day.  Well, how the hell do they know how many people tried to access a site that CRASHED when they’re at the same time telling us that they have no idea how many people actually ENROLLED???  (and see here)???  How could you EVEN POSSIBLY know the former but not the latter???  These people are pure, distilled LIARS without shame, without integrity, without virtue and without honor.

This is a nation that is at – and probably past – a crossroad: we either need to vote conservative Republican or we need to vote Democrat so we can collapse and accept the mark of the beast and burn in hell for all eternity.  It is just as simple as that at this point.

How The United States Of America Will Catastrophically Financially Implode SOON

October 15, 2013

Let’s start with this:

China calls for dollar to be replaced as global reserve currency
Upset that the U.S. fiscal impasse threatens to trigger a default that would roil financial markets worldwide, Beijing suggests ‘building a de-Americanized world.’
By Jim Puzzanghera
October 14, 2013, 5:23 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Five years after the U.S. financial crisis helped cause a deep global recession, foreign leaders are worried that history is going to repeat itself.

The fiscal impasse that has partially shut the federal government now threatens to trigger a U.S. default that would roil financial markets worldwide, leading an agitated China to suggest replacing the dollar as the international reserve currency.

“As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth between the White House and the Capitol Hill without striking a viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world,” China’s official state-run news agency, Xinhua, said in an English-language commentary Sunday.

There is no viable alternative to the dollar as the centerpiece of the global financial system, and there probably won’t be for the foreseeable future, experts said.

But Washington’s debt limit standoff — coming on the heels of similar brinkmanship in 2011 — could accelerate efforts to find an alternative.

“The U.S. remains the core of the global financial system at this point,” said Nicolas Veron, a senior fellow at Bruegel, a think tank in Brussels. “But the sort of thing happening in the U.S. might move people toward a system less reliant on the U.S.”

China echoed calls from world financial officials urging an end to what it called the “pernicious impasse” in the U.S. over funding the government and raising the $16.7-trillion debt limit.

The Treasury Department has said the debt limit must be raised by Thursday or it will run out of borrowing authority. That would leave it dependent on just cash on hand and incoming revenue to pay the federal government’s bills. Given the world financial system’s dependence on the dollar, a default on payments of interest or principal on U.S. Treasury bonds would be catastrophic for the global economy, analysts said.

Treasury bonds and other dollar-based investments are used as the main form of collateral worldwide, so questions about their security would cause more problems than the financial system failures in fall 2008, said Benjamin J. Cohen, an international political economy professor at UC Santa Barbara.

“It would make the Lehman Bros. episode look like a garden party by comparison,” Cohen said.

The U.S. debt limit standoff was the main topic at the recent meetings in Washington of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Global finance ministers are worried that the uncertainty surrounding a U.S. default “would mean massive disruption the world over, and we would be at risk of tipping yet again into a recession,” Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Most countries hold their foreign exchange reserves in U.S. dollars because the currency is viewed as the world’s most stable.

“The very fact that more than 60% of central banks’ reserves are in dollars gives them every reason to be concerned,” Barry Eichengreen, a professor of economics and political science at UC Berkeley and a former senior policy advisor at the IMF, said of foreign governments. “If the bank in which you held 60% of your savings was threatening to default, you’d be concerned too.”

U.S. financial markets rebounded Monday amid optimistic reports from Capitol Hill about negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to end the standoff.

China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, with about $1.3 trillion in Treasury bonds, and probably more in other dollar-denominated investments. So the Beijing government is worried about the effect of a U.S. failure to raise the debt limit on those holdings.

The Xinhua editorial took swipes at the U.S. for claiming “the moral high ground” while “covertly doing things that are as audacious as torturing prisoners of war, slaying civilians in drone attacks, and spying on world leaders.”

Although it slammed the U.S. for the Iraq war and military activity around the world, the article focused much of its fire on the U.S. role in the global economy, saying “the world is still crawling its way out of an economic disaster thanks to the voracious Wall Street elites.”

“Most recently, the cyclical stagnation in Washington for a viable bipartisan solution over a federal budget and an approval for raising debt ceiling has again left many nations’ tremendous dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community highly agonized,” Xinhua said.

The editorial called for a “a new world order” in which “all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing.”

That new order should start with respect for the sovereignty of other nations, the editorial said. It also should include major financial reforms, such as allowing developing and emerging economies to have more say in the operations of the IMF and the World Bank.

China has been pushing since at least 2009 for the dollar to be replaced as the world’s reserve currency. The nation has not only called for a new international currency to be developed but also has been taking steps to make its currency, the yuan, more acceptable as a potential alternative.

“They never lose an opportunity to take advantage of embarrassing behavior by the United States,” Cohen said. China made similar calls in 2011, when a debt limit standoff was resolved at the last minute.

But the Chinese currency and its financial system are not ready to be the world’s reserve currency, experts said. Even the euro and Japanese yen aren’t prepared to do that because they lack the liquidity of the dollar.

Still, the latest Washington crisis could push the world to seek ways to diversify the financial system away from its dependence on the dollar, Cohen said.

“The only thing that can hurt the dollar these days is political dysfunction in Washington. We’re shooting ourselves in the foot,” he said. “The more we play these games in Washington, the less confidence people will have in the dollar and the more incentive people will have to do this diversification.”

The first thing I couldn’t help but notice is how communist China’s demagoguery sounds almost exactly like Obama’s demagoguery.  They’re both talking down America hoping that the worst will happen to this country because each (i.e, China and Obama) believes their political goals will be attained through America’s demise.  But moving on…

I don’t know whether the Los Angeles Times – which is staffed by liberal ideologue propagandists as opposed to actual “journalists” is simply being incompetent in this story or being the propagandists that they are (i.e., the backstory is that the “default” is the Republicans’ fault, and ergo sum the global meltdown over the “default” will be all the Republicans’ fault, too).  But here’s a fact that kind of pees all over some of the main assertions in this story:

From November 24, 2010 (the money quote is boldfaced at the end):

China and Russia have agreed to allow their currencies to trade against each other in spot inter-bank markets.

The motive is to promote the bilateral trade between China and Russia, facilitate the cross-border trade settlement of [the yuan], and meet the needs of economic entities to reduce the conversion cost, according to Chinese officials.

This latest move — a continuation in a series of efforts by both countries to move away from  U.S. dollar usage in international trade — further threatens the dollar’s reserve currency status.

The dollar has this status because it is currently the currency of international trade.

For example, when Malaysia and Germany exchange goods, the transaction is often denominated in dollars.  In particular, oil — something that all modern economies need — is denominated in U.S. dollars, so the currency is almost as indispensable as oil itself.

The dollar reserve currency status allows the U.S. to run up high deficits and have its debt be denominated in the U.S. dollar, which in turn enables it to print unlimited dollars and inflate its way out of debt. America, understandably, wants to protect these privileges. [...]

Meanwhile, China and Russia are gradually revolting against the U.S. dollar. This latest move to shift bilateral trade away from it is significant in itself because China-Russian trade — previously denominated in dollars — is currently around $40 billion per year. For Russia, trade with China is larger than trade with the U.S.

Moreover, as this policy extends to Russian exports of oil and natural gas to China, it threatens the global petro-currency status of the U.S. dollar.

According to the International Energy Agency, China is already the largest consumer of energy,  although the U.S. is still the largest consumer of oil. However, China, now the largest automobile market in the world, is expected to rapidly increase oil consumption.

Russia is already the second biggest oil exporter and the biggest natural gas exporter in the world.

In other words, the growing importance of Russia and China in the global energy picture — and their phasing out of dollar usage for trading energy commodities — would marginalize the status of the dollar.

Russian ambitions against the dollar for energy exports go back to 2006. That year, former President Vladimir Putin made plans to set up a ruble-denominated oil and natural gas stock exchange in Russia.

So, in fact and contrary to the Los Angeles Times “reporting,” the movement away from the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency in fact PREDATES the financial crisis – and goes back to at least 2006 (I would argue it goes back even further than that, but I’ve proven my point: the financial crisis happened in late 2008).  So the LA Times is simply wrong in its thesis that the debt ceiling issue – which they over and over again hype as a “default” – is just plain bogus.

When we consider that Barack Obama demonized George Bush and ostentatiously voted against his debt ceiling (and didn’t bother to even show up and vote when the debt ceiling was raised other times during the Bush years - such that HE NEVER DID VOTE FOR A BUSH DEBT CEILING INCREASE other than when he voted for TARP – you also see the deceitful and dishonest propaganda that is going on.  It’s always “that was then” with these people; it’s always “It’s only fascist when THEY do what we did” with them.  Such as the fact that Obama did a press conference demonizing the GOP for not voting for his debt ceiling hike without ever bothering to so much as mention the fact that Obama did the exact same damn thing and how could the Republicans be anything but just as evil as the man who was now demonizing them???

Nor will that same blatantly dishonest media point out that Democrats shut down the government over the debt ceiling EIGHT TIMES during the Reagan presidency.  Because that would prove the lie to Obama’s “this has never happened before” and “no party has ever been this bent on destroying America” load of garbage.

Nor will they point out that it has largely – if not exclusively – been OBAMA who has fearmongered the debt ceiling rather than the Republicans.

The dishonesty of the mainstream media is simply breathtaking.

Having said that, let’s continue and examine this “default.”  Because it, too, is just a lie of propaganda:

Black’s law dictionary has this to say about “default”: The omission or failure to fulfill a duty, observe a promise, discharge an obligation, or perform an agreement [or observe a promise or discharge an obligation (e.g. to pay interest or principal on a debt when due ].

Come October 17 if our dysfunctional Washington hacks do not raise our debt ceiling, ominous forecasting of imminent default on our $17 trillion burden pound the airwaves. Prevarications foisted by the progressive press-corps regarding the United States becoming delinquent on its Treasury debt are as preposterous as they are disingenuous.  Whether premeditated lying or, equally likely, out of a stark darkness of matters economic the result is the usual fear mongering we have come to expect from their rumor mills.

Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming “prioritization of payments”.

Democrats are truly evil to fearmonger a “default” to falsely demonize and slander their opponents at the expense of the U.S. economy.  And Barack Obama is the most recklessly irresponsible president in the entirety of American history to join them in their lies.

To wit, we could easily pay our debt and NOT default.  And we could do that for not months but for years to come, if necessary.

If that isn’t enough, Republicans have already done the leg work to prevent any kind of “default”:

Sen. Pat Toomey and more than 30 Senate colleagues will introduce the “Ensuring the Full Faith and Credit of the United States and Protecting America’s Soldiers and Seniors Act.”

The bill is meant to offer a stop-gap if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling and the Treasury Department thus falls short of having enough cash to pay all the government’s bills in full and on time.

Toomey’s proposal would require that revenue going to Treasury first be used to pay interest on U.S. debt, Social Security benefits and active-duty military pay.

If there’s not enough revenue available to cover those payments when they’re due, the bill would also give limited authority to Treasury to raise the debt ceiling just enough to borrow the difference between revenue on hand and what’s owed on the priority payments.

I’ve pointed out the fact: if there IS a “default,” it will be because Barack Hussein refused to allow the Treasury to make the interest payment that the United States could in fact make.  He has already demonstrated that he is a genuinely evil man who is trying to make the political impasse as harsh and as painful as he possibly can in order to falsely demonize Republicans.

There is one and only one genuine fact in the Los Angeles Times piece: that of China’s demand that the United States be replaced as the reserve currency of planet earth.

That WILL happen soon.  Because Democrats WILL NEVER REIGN IN THEIR DEMONIC SPENDING.

The true debt of the United States is not the “paltry” $17 trillion that we keep hearing about; it is actually well WELL over $222 TRILLION.  Our actual debt, our “fiscal gap” between our debts and our ability to actually pay for all the crap Democrats keep imposing on America, is going up about one trillion dollars every single MONTH.  Because politicians are liars who paper over debts with more debts and then cover those debts up with still more debts.

Democrats are the worst addicts who ever existed.  Heroin, coke, crank, meth, crack addicts got NOTHIN’ on Democrats.  Because Democrats are addicted to money and the power that their money buys them – and they are addicted to it TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT A TIME.

The only reason Democrats can keep this insane game of insane spending going is because America is the world’s reserve currency.  The fact that all commodities such as oil are bought and sold in U.S. dollars has given us an unprecedented ability to basically just print money and keep escaping the consequences.

We have been just plain flat-out DEPRAVED in our spending.

As an example, do you know what triggered to insanely-titled-by liberals “Arab Spring” in which Arab regimes fell to be replaced again and again by terrorist-sponsored governments?  Food riots induced by Obama’s Fed as they kept printing more and more money and basically just adding more and more zeroes to the Federal Reserve computers.  As we printed more money, the Arab states that depended on the stability of the dollar saw massive inflation (because THEY can’t print more dollars their dollars became worth less = worthless).

Well, as Obama’s reverend once said, the chickens are about to come home to roost.  And they will roost on a collapsed, doomed, dead former United States of America.  And very soon.

One day, soon, the world will have had enough.  One day, soon, our stint as being the reserve currency and maximally exploiting that status with reckless and immoral spending that we can’t possibly afford will be ended FOR us.

And China will step in and take ownership.  And kick you and our family out of your home in the cold if you can’t pay their “damned American imperialist” rent surcharge.

Our time is coming.  We’ll get ours.  We’ll get what we deserve as a nation for being wicked enough to elect and then re-elect Obama: we’ll get Dodo bird extinction just like we deserve.

The United States is nowhere mentioned in Bible prophecy; that’s because America will have collapsed and simply be irrelevant as we enter these last days just before the beast of the Book of Revelation comes to impose his mark and doom the world to suffering and hell.

Let’s Reflect On The History Of Social Security: On The Government Takeover And Of The FAR Better Privatized Option We Should Have Had

February 3, 2012

I begin by quoting from Burton Folsom, Jr.’s New Deal Or Raw Deal? to illustrate the history of the disaster that is otherwise known as “Social Security”:

Roosevelt’s social security plan created an array of problems. First, it retarded recovery from the Great Depression by contributing to unemployment. From 1937 to 1940, employers and employees were docked for social security, and that money was out of private hands and lying fallow in the treasury. Lloyd Peck of the Laundryowners National Association concluded, “The burden of this proposal for employers to carry, through a payroll tax, will act as a definite curb on business expansion, and will likely eliminate many businesses now on the verge of bankruptcy.”

Second, social security was unsound financially.  Unlike life insurance policies, workers had to live to age sixty-two to collect anything.  Life expectancy in 1930, the year of the most recent census, was almost sixty years, which meant that most people of that time would lose money from their paycheck every month for thirty to forty years, and neither they nor their children would ever receive a return on it.  In the case of black Americans, who had only a forty-eight-year life expectancy in 1930, most contributed to pensions that would disproportionately go to whites.  What’s more, the payroll tax was regressive – Henry Ford and Andrew Mellon paid in the same amount as their employees who earned $3,000 a year.

While some Americans were soaked by social security, others, especially the first retirees, rolled in benefits after making only minimal payments.  Ida Fuller, for example, a legal secretary in Ludlow, Vermont, paid a total of $24.75 into social security from 1937 to 1940, when she retired at age sixty-five.  Her first monthly social security check of $22.54 almost matched her entire contribution.  At her death in 1975, she had received $22,888.92 from social security, a payout of roughly $1,000 for every dollar she paid in.

When an accountant quizzed Roosevelt about the economic problems with social security, especially its tendency to create unemployment, he responded, “I guess you’re right on the economics, but those taxes were never a problem of economics.  They are politics all the way through.”  Roosevelt explained that “with those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”  That’s why, as Roosevelt admitted, it’s “politics all the way through.”  Most politicians, following Roosevelt’s lead, have taken delight in raising social security payouts and using that gift to plead for votes from the elderly at election time.

In the original debate in the Senate on social security, Senator Bennett Champ Clark of Missouri wondered if private pensions for retirement might outperform the government pensions proposed in the social security bill.  He introduced the Clark Amendment, which would have allowed private employers to opt out of social security.

The key provision in the Clark Amendment was that employers had to at least match the government’s social security program in benefits to the employee and in premiums extracted from the employee.  The employer also had to agree to place the premiums with an insurance company – to an approved alternative – and to give all employees the right to choose the government-run program instead of the private alternative.

When the Clark Amendment was debated before the Senate in 1935, the advocates of a government monopoly were on the defensive.  On of them, Senator Robert La Follette, Jr., of Wisconsin complained: “If e shall adopt this amendment, the government having determined to set up a federal system of old-age [insurance], will provide in its own bill creating that system, for competition, which in the end may destroy the federal system.”  La Follette was perceptive.  If private insurance or mutual funds were allowed to compete with the government, no one might choose the government plan.  The Senate decided that workers ought to have a choice and voted 51-35 to make the Clark Amendment part of the social security law.

President Roosevelt was furious at the Senate, and threatened to veto the social security bill if it came to him with the Clark Amendment attached.  When the House passed a social security bill without the Clark Amendment, Roosevelt and his supporters used a parliamentary tactic to gain victory.  The House-Senate conference committee met to work out a compromise bill, and naturally the Clark Amendment was the main point of debate.  The committee decided to submit a final bill to Roosevelt with the government monopoly intact.  But they agreed to appoint a special joint legislative committee to study the Clark Amendment and report to Congress the next year on how best to provide for competition.  but after the government monopoly was instituted, the promised meeting in 1936 was never held.  Given that many private pension plans over the last sixty years have returned around 8 percent a year, and that social security benefits have averaged less than a 2 percent return, Senator Clark’s alternative showed much wisdom, but he couldn’t overcome Roosevelt’s political skill. — Burton Folsom, Jr., New Deal Or Raw Deal?  How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America, 2008, pp. 116-118

Can we document the fact that FDR massively undermined workers and created devastating unemployment with his stupid and immoral policies?  To quote Obama, “Yes we can!”  For one thing, economists can now calculate that FDR prolonged the Great Depression and all the misery that accompanied it by seven years.

Don’t believe those economists?  Okay, then allow me to quote Henry Morganthau, FDR’s close personal friend and Secretary of the Treasury:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

In April 1939, for the record, unemployment was 20.7%

Don’t believe the economists or FDR’s own treasury secretary?  The how about Barack Obama’s former chief economic advisor?

Larry Summers blasphemy: Hitler saved FDR’s ass
by Lee on July 23, 2011 21:16 pm

Larry Summers is often quotable and Charlie Rose is occasionally watchable. Put ‘em together and you get the very definition of a blind sow finding an acorn.
 
The whole clip is interesting, but the money quote begins a hair after the 21:30 mark when Summers says something about left wing icon FDR that will undoubtedly result in fewer dinner invitations in the Hamptons this summer:

“Never forget, never forget, and I think it’s very important for Democrats especially to remember this, that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed.”
 
Why next thing you know Summers will be saying that Keynesian economics don’t work.

Clip here to watch the video: CharlieRose.com
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11777

You might also be interested in finding out what Obama’s former chief economic advisor had to say about the massive and massively failed $862 billion (and actually, according to the CBO, $3.27 TRILLION) stimulus.

It is a documented fact that FDR and the Democrat Party failed America.

Now consider one country that tried what that Democrat Senator (Bennett Champ Clark) proposed achieved:

Chile’s Privatized Social Security Program is 30 Years Old, and Prospering
Written by Bob Adelmann   
Tuesday, 03 May 2011 16:40

As a quiet example of how privatizing Social Security works in the real world, Chile’s 30-year experiment is succeeding beyond expectations. Instead of running huge deficits to fund the old “PayGo” system, private savings now exceed 50 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.

Prior to May 1, 1981, the Chilean system required contributions from workers and was clearly in grave financial trouble. Instead of nibbling around the edges to shore up the program for another few years, José Piñera, Secretary of Labor and Pensions under Augusto Pinochet, decided to do a major overhaul of the system:

We knew that cosmetic changes — increasing the retirement age, increasing taxes — would not be enough. We understood that the pay-as-you-go system had a fundamental flaw, one rooted in a false conception of how human beings behave. That flaw was lack of a link between what people put into their pension program and what they take out….

So we decided to go in the other direction, to link benefits to contributions. The money that a worker pays into the system goes into an account that is owned by the worker.

The system still required contributions of 10 percent of salary, but the money was deposited in any one of an array of private investment companies. Upon retirement, the worker had a number of options, including purchasing an annuity for life. Along the way he could track the performance of his account, and increase his contribution (up to 20 percent) if he wanted to retire earlier, or increase his payout at retirement.

How well has the system performed? John Tierney, a writer for the New York Times, went to visit Pablo Serra, a former classmate and friend in Santiago a few years ago, and they compared notes on how well their respective retirement programs were doing. Tierney brought along his latest statement from Social Security, while his friend brought up his retirement plan on his computer. It turned out that they both had been contributing about the same amount of money, so the comparison was apt, and startling, said Tierney:

Pablo could retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. OR

Pablo could retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would almost triple the $25,000 pension promised [to me] by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. OR

Pablo could retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and [in addition receive] a one-time cash payment of $223,000.

Tierney wrote that Pablo said “I’m very happy with my account.” Tierney suggested that, upon retirement, Pablo could not only retire nicely, but be able to buy himself a vacation home at the shore or in the country. Pablo laughed it off, and Tierney wrote: “I’m trying to look on the bright side. Maybe my Social Security check will cover the airfare to visit him.”

According to Investors Business Daily, the average annual rate of return for Chilean workers over the last 30 years has exceeded 9% annually, after inflation, whereas “U. S. Social Security pays a 1% to 2% (theoretical) rate of return, and even less for new workers.”

As expected, the capital accumulated in these privatized accounts have generated substantial growth in Chile’s economy. As noted by Wikipedia, “Chile is one of South America’s most stable and prosperous nations, leading Latin American nations in human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.” [Emphases added.]

High domestic savings and investment rates helped propel Chile’s economy to average growth rates of 8% during the 1990s. The privatized national pension plan (AFP) has encouraged domestic investment and contributed to an estimated total domestic savings rate of approximately 21% of GDP.

This was anticipated by Piñera when the plan was originally designed and implemented in 1981. In reviewing the success of the plan after just 15 years, Piñera said, “The Chilean worker is an owner, a capitalist. There is no more powerful way to stabilize a free-market economy and to get the support of the workers than to link them directly to the benefits of the market system. When Chile grows at 7 percent or when the stock market doubles … Chilean workers benefit directly, not only through high wages, not only through more employment, but through additional capital in their individual pension accounts.”

All of which should resonate with American workers who have been forced to contribute to a failing Social Security system for years. And yet when given the opportunity to support any sort of privatization, as during the Clinton and Bush administrations, the idea gained little traction. And now that Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Road Map” offers the chance for those same workers to contribute just one-third of their Social Security taxes to similar private accounts, the idea continues to fall on deaf ears.

However, according to Rasmussen Reports, that may be changing. Nearly half of those polled now correctly understand ‘that making major long-term cuts in government spending will require big changes” in Social Security, Medicare, and defense. That figure, adds Rasmussen, “suggests a growing awareness of budgetary realities among the American people.”

To privatize Social Security makes nothing but sense, as in dollars and cents. The ownership of private property has always propelled economic prosperity, higher wages and improved standards of living. Only those whose goals are to impoverish the American worker and reduce his ability to manage his own affairs and control his own future would resist such an attractive alternative. As noted by Piñera,

This is a brief story of a dream that has come true. The ultimate lesson is that the only revolutions that are successful are those that trust the individual, and the wonders that individuals can do when they are free.

I think of the misery that FDR inflicted upon every single American worker for the sake of a Democrat-controlled boondoggle that would “progressively” rob one generation of Americans after another compared to what they could have had if a privatized system (such as Chile’s or such as Clark’s) had been implemented instead.

But it is not enough to say America could have had much more than what Franklin Delano Roosevelt afflicted us with as a result of his partisan political takeover to give government a sole monopoly of something it never should have involved itself with in the first place.  The simple fact of the matter is that ENTIRELY because of FDR and the increasingly despicable Democrat Party that would follow, America is now in a situation in which it is guaranteed to economically implode.

Social Security was ALWAYS a Ponzi scheme and it was ALWAYS guaranteed to ultimately fail and result in the collapse of the American dream and the very nation itself.

Consider what Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, discovered:

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.”

We don’t hear more about this enormous number, Kotlikoff says, because politicians have chosen their language carefully to keep most of the problem off the books.

“Why are these guys thinking about balancing the budget?” he says. “They should try and think about our long-term fiscal problems.”

According to Kotlikoff, one of the biggest fiscal problems Congress should focus on is America’s obligation to make Social Security payments to future generations of the elderly.

“We’ve got 78 million baby boomers who are poised to collect, in about 15 to 20 years, about $40,000 per person. Multiply 78 million by $40,000 — you’re talking about more than $3 trillion a year just to give to a portion of the population,” he says. “That’s an enormous bill that’s overhanging our heads, and Congress isn’t focused on it.”

“We’ve consistently done too little too late, looked too short-term, said the future would take care of itself, we’ll deal with that tomorrow,” he says. “Well, guess what? You can’t keep putting off these problems.”

To eliminate the fiscal gap, Kotlikoff says, the U.S. would have to have tax increases and spending reductions far beyond what’s being negotiated right now in Washington.

“What you have to do is either immediately and permanently raise taxes by about two-thirds, or immediately and permanently cut every dollar of spending by 40 percent forever. The [Congressional Budget Office's] numbers say we have an absolutely enormous problem facing us.”

Democrats want to self-righteously lecture us about the giant spending of Reagan or Bush.  But don’t just consider that Barack Obama demonized George Bush for increasing the debt by $4 trillion in eight years before he increased the debt by $6 trillion in only three years.  Go beyond that and divide Bush’s debt by the $211 trillion that Democrats have saddled us with after giving us toxic boondoggles loaded with lies and pork.  I come up with 1.9 percent; what do you get?

Virtually every single penny of toxic, staggering, insurmountable, unpayable debt that we have been saddled on us by Democrats.  And they have done so while giving us massively inferior boondoggles such as Social Security and Medicare.

Democrats And Crack Cocaine Addicts: Two Kinds Of The Same Vile Species

July 30, 2011

It’s Obama’s Economy. Hold Him Responsible For It.

June 8, 2011

June 8, 2011 12:00 A.M.
It’s Obama’s Economy, Stupid
Jonah Goldberg
No president “runs” the U.S. economy, but this president talks like he does.

Now, my administration has a job to do as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet,” President Obama declared on July 14, 2009, in Warren, Mich. “That’s my job, and it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, well, this is Obama’s economy. That’s fine. Give it to me.”

OK. It’s yours.

The unemployment rate then was 9.5 percent. It’s now 9.1 percent, well above the 8 percent cap that the administration’s advisers projected under the stimulus bill. But that’s not the amazing part. According to a White House report written by economic advisers Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer in January 2009 in support of the bill, if we had passed no stimulus package at all, the unemployment rate would have topped out at around 8.8 percent in the last quarter of 2010.

If only.

Instead, we got Obama’s vital “investments.” Since his speech in Warren, we’ve spent another $2.8 trillion in borrowed money. Presumably, we could have cut the unemployment rate by four-tenths of a percentage point more cheaply than that?

Meanwhile, we’ve accrued a total of $3.7 trillion in debt on Obama’s watch, while losing 2.8 million jobs. That doesn’t sound ideal either.

But what do I know?

The more salient point is that Obama acts like he knows everything. From Day One, this White House has been cocksure about how to get us out of the economic ditch. In every major relevant speech, Obama has stuck with a consistent message: We know what to do and the Republicans don’t. “I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs,” Obama insisted yet again in his April budget speech.

So what does this guy have to do to get the blame for the bad economy? Mark Halperin, an analyst for MSNBC and Time magazine, was asked on the Today show over the weekend about the political impact of the bad economy. He assured viewers that the president was totally engaged in the need for job creation. “The Republicans, though, have the onus on them to come forward with some ideas. The president’s ideas are still a little bit up in the air.”

A little bit up in the air? They’re in concrete. From his April 14, 2009, “New Foundation” speech at Georgetown University to his latest campaign stop, Obama has insisted he knows exactly what he’s doing. He stands by “Obamacare” as a boon for the economy. He still sees the “green revolution” — and all the crony capitalism that comes with it — as the solution to our woes. (That’s why he nominated John Bryson, a former utility CEO, subsidy-seeking entrepreneur, and environmental activist, to be his next commerce secretary.)

But is there any evidence it’s helped create jobs? Consider that when President Reagan oversaw a huge jobs boom, the media recycled the untrue claim that these were all low-paying “hamburger flipper” jobs.

Well, McDonald’s alone may be responsible for a quarter to a half of the new jobs created in the last month. And that hiring probably wouldn’t have happened if Mickey D’s hadn’t been given a waiver from Obamacare.

And then there’s the stimulus, which the White House still touts as an unqualified success. Well, during Obama’s first year in office, more than half (119,000) of all the new jobs in the United States were created in business-friendly Texas, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If Obama created those jobs, why’d he put so many of them in, of all places, George W. Bush’s home state?

No president “runs” the U.S. economy, but this president talks like he does more than any I can remember. And yet, none of his economic promises or predictions has panned out. (Remember the long, hot “recovery summer” when 250,000 to 500,000 new jobs a month that the vice president promised turned out to be mirages?)

How does the media react? Not by taking him at his word when he says he wants it to be “Obama’s economy.” Instead, they’re ferociously truth-squadding Sarah Palin’s comments on Paul Revere and following her bus around like they’re in a remake of It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

And maybe it is.

Remember, Raising The Debt Ceiling Is A Failure Of Leadership. Vote No.

May 31, 2011

Democrats say that if Republicans don’t go along with their reckless spending increases, the world will end.

But let’s not forget what the messiah-in-chief lectured us a few years ago:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

And, of course, Americans DO deserve better.  They deserve better than a hypocrite, a demagogue and a disastrous failure.

As I previously pointed out about this:

“America has a debt problem,” Obama said in 2006.  That year, Republicans passed their last budget before losing power to Democrats until this year.  It had a deficit of $161 billion.  The next year the Democrats virtually tripled that deficit to $459 billion.  And in two years of Obama it has soared to $3 TRILLION.

The AP correctly pointed out that “It was a blast by the freshman lawmaker against a Bush request to raise the debt limit to $8.96 trillion.”

It was a personal attack by an evil fool against a president which history now proves knew what he was doing versus the current moral idiot who clearly does not.

That’s right, boys and girls.  The last time a Republican Congress passed a budget, it had a deficit of $161 billion.  And Republicans have been doing mea culpas ever since about their fiscal recklessness.  Meanwhile, the Democrats in Congress have heaped up $5.34 TRILLION MORE in debt – and they do nothing but continue to point the finger at Republicans who actually spent less by a rather silly percentage.

This is a game that has to end.  And now is frankly long past time.

I propose that we treat Obama as though he is/was a sane and honest human being and do what he said:  Vote AGAINST the debt ceiling.  Vote like Obama said we should vote.  Otherwise we should frankly treat Obama as a dishonest fool who needs to resign in disgrace.

And any vote to increase the debt ceiling should be a) temporary (i.e., valid for no more than six months) and b) accompanied by spending cuts that exceed the amount of any increase.

If I Budget Like Liberals, I Can ‘Save’ A Billion Dollars And Go Bankrupt At The Same Time

April 12, 2011

I decided to buy a $1,700,000 Bugatti Veyron.  But instead I borrowed a ton of money to purchase a Lamborghini Reventon which costs only $1,600,000.

Ka-ching.  In Obama math, I just saved my family $100,000.  I think I’ll go buy myself some Versace suits to reward myself for my fiscal discipline.

How did I justify this car purchase?  Well, every day, I write myself a budget and allocate funds.  I don’t actually have the money, but that’s no big deal these days.  I allocate huge sums to myriad accounts.  And then I tally up the unspent portion and see how much I “saved.”  And if I re-allocate that money to another pet project, I count it as a “cut.”  And that way I’m justified to do basically whatever the hell I want.

You might say, “That’s crazy.  They don’t do that.”  But you’d be wrong:

Budget tricks helped Obama save programs from cuts
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press – 4/12/2011

WASHINGTON – The historic $38 billion in budget cuts resulting from at-times hostile bargaining between Congress and the Obama White House were accomplished in large part by pruning money left over from previous years, using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs President Barack Obama had targeted anyway.

Such moves permitted Obama to save favorite programs — Pell grants for college students, health research and “Race to the Top” aid for public schools, among others — from Republican knives, according to new details of the legislation released Tuesday morning.

And big holes in foreign aid and Environmental Protection Agency accounts were patched in large part. Republicans also gave up politically treacherous cuts to the Agriculture Department’s food inspection program.

The details of the agreement reached late Friday night just ahead of a deadline for a partial government shutdown reveal a lot of one-time savings and cuts that officially “score” as cuts to pay for spending elsewhere, but often have little to no actual impact on the deficit.

As a result of that sleight of hand, Obama was able to reverse many of the cuts passed by House Republicans in February when the chamber approved a bill slashing this year’s budget by more than $60 billion. In doing so, the White House protected favorites like the Head Start early learning program, while maintaining the maximum Pell grant of $5,550 and funding for Obama’s “Race to the Top” initiative that provides grants to better-performing schools. Food aid to the poor was preserved, as were housing subsidies.

Instead, the cuts that actually will make it into law are far tamer, including cuts to earmarks, unspent census money, leftover federal construction funding, and $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can’t be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation. Another $3.5 billion comes from unused bonus money for states that enroll more uninsured children in a program providing health care to children of lower-income families.

More money was actually borrowed and spent in the time it took Congress to negotiate this package ($4 billion a day) than was actually “saved.”

And only in Washington can a budget which spends far more and borrows far more than the year before be seen as “cutting.”

In the movie “City Heat,” Mike Murphy’s (Burt Reynold’s) partner was killed over an extortion deal by gangsters who threw him out of a window.  Asked how he died, Murphy said, “Suddenly.”

That’s how the United States of America is going to die, too.  Suddenly.  Very suddenly.

The U.S. debt exceeds the gross domestic planet of the entire human race.  Eventually a few big lenders in that class known as “the rest of the world” are going to want their money.  And then it’s Great Depression Part Duex – only this time bigger and scarier than ever – coming to your town soon.

And most Americans are like ants, busy at work (well, the half of the country that actually works and pays taxes, anyway) scurrying around, only dimly aware that there’s a gigantic can of toxic pesticide labeled “U.S. Debt” poised over our thriving little colony.

Democrats WILL NOT actually cut money or spend less.  The best we can hope for – and that only after a knock-down drag-out fight in which we played chicken with our political system – is a charade of baits and switches.

A more precise anaology (than ants) for Democrats would be termites.  They have been busily eating away at the fabric of American society for decades.  The wood of our economic system is almost entirely gone now, leaving only a hollow shell that could completely collapse with a particularly large gust of wind.  But they are merely redoubling their efforts to just eat faster.

The word “trillion” has become a household word just in the last three years.  Yes, occasionally when talking about the national debt (and few people ever really bothered to do that prior to 2008), the word “trillion” came up.  But we all routinely hear that number thrown around now: a trillion.  A thousand billion.

Liberals love to argue that we had balanced budgets under Democrat Bill Clinton.  But a little history (contained in this article) would demonstrate Congress, and NOT the president, writes the national budget; that Bill Clinton and the Democrats were thoroughly defeated for their terrible policies in 1994, and that it was the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS which controlled the House and the Senate from that point on which actually balanced the budget; and that the Republicans actually massively cut spending largely over Bill Clinton’s objections.  You’d know that the very first platform on that incoming 1994 House Republican Congress was A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.  Bill Clinton didn’t “balance” anything; Republicans did.

Liberals also love to say it’s the Republicans whose policies have led us into now-almost-certain bankruptcy and national implosion (even as they keep recklessly spending while Republicans plead with them to stop being insane).  But here’s the reality from the same article cited above:

For the record, the last budget from a Republican President AND a Republican Congress – FY-2007 (passed in 2006) – resulted in a$161 billion deficit at a time when unemployment was 4.6%.  That’s what happened the last time the GOP was in control.

What happened when the Democrats took control in January 2007?  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi passed a FY-2008 budget that had a $459 billion deficit – nearly three times the deficit in the immediately previous Republican-passed budget.  Three times.  And this before the financial crisis that somehow “necessitated” all this massive spending.

Now, that’s a pretty crazy increase under Democrat control.  But you aint seen nothin’ yet.

The Democrats passed a FY-2009 budget with a staggering, mind-boggling, totally reckless $1.42 TRILLION deficit.

The FY-2010 budget approved by Reid and Pelosi and signed by Obama had an estimated $1.6 TRILLION deficit.

The deficit has increased from $161 billion in the last budget before Democrats took control of the Congress (FY 2007) to $1.42 trillion in the most recent fiscal year (FY 2009)—an increase of $1.26 trillion or 782%.

With three months remaining in the fiscal 2009 budget, the federal deficit just officially passed the $1 trillion mark.  Worse yet, Obama borrowed more than forty cents for every single dollar he spent.

We also suffered a budget shortfall of $94 billion in the month of June, which marks the first June in more than ten years (read, “encompassing the entire Bush presidency”).  Bush’s success in raising revenues is bookended by two Democrat presidents who failed.

And now the Democrats aren’t even bothering to pass a budget for the next fiscal year, so they can simply spend without any accountability whatsoever.

The old annual deficits under Republicans have now   become the monthly deficits under Democrats:

In the 12 years that Republicans controlled the   House, the average deficit was $104 billion (average of final   deficit/surplus FY1996-FY2007 data taken from Table F-1 below).  In   just 3 years under Democrats, the average deficit is now almost $1.1   trillion (average of final deficit/surplus FY2008 and 2009 data   taken from Table F-1; FY2010 data taken from Table 1-3).  Source: CBO January 2010 Budget and Economic Outlook

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Minority Whip) rightly pointed out on ABC’s “This Week”:

“If you look at the kind of deficit that we’ve incurred over the last  three years that the Democrats have been in control of Congress, 60% of  the overall deficit from the last ten years has occurred in that period.  And frankly with the incurrence of the debt, we’ve seen very little  result. That’s why we think we ought to choose another way.”

And yet the media falsely blame BUSH and Republicans for that spending, rather than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, even though factually speaking the Democrats were ENTIRELY to blame for every single penny that was spent from January 2007 on.  Because our Constitution forbids a president from spending; it is CONGRESS that spends.

Right now, liberal newspapers such as the New York Times are decrying the Republicans for “holding America hostage.” How DARE Republicans demand spending cuts?  Don’t they care about all the children they’re murdering? ask the liberals who are responsible for 53 million dead babies since 1973.

Liberals also incessantly say, “If we don’t spend more, America will collapse.”

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”

And you just try that at home and see how it works out, kids.

Democrats are morally and fiscally insane.  And all they have done – along with an ideological propagandist mainstream media’s assistance at every turn – is to redefine insanity as “sane” and sanity as “insane.”

If we do not initiate massive cuts now, America itself is 100% guaranteed to collapse within just a few more years.  And when it collapses – and mark my words it will fall like a house of cards in a way that will stun Americans because they’ve believed liberal lies – it will be the poorest who will suffer the most.

All the budget gimmicks and phoney tricks aside, when America implodes, it will be because Democrats spent too much, not because Republicans cut too much.

GOP Or Democrats: Who’s To Blame For the Budget, Spending And Shutdown Mess We’re Now In?

April 8, 2011

As we face an impending government shutdown, it becomes an interesting question to ask, “How did we get here?”  And why are the Democrats literally scheming to shut down the government over the Republicans’ demand to cut just 2% of our massive deficit?  Why do Democrats want to hurt our troops and their families by denying the pay of soldiers who barely make it month to month?  Especially when Republicans have passed a stopgap measure that would fund the troops for the year and keep them out of any budget squabbles?

First, let’s get one fact on the table: this entire “shutdown” mess is the result of Democrats’ pathetic failure to pass a budget when they controlled the White House, the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives last year.

What is being fought over is the FY-2011 budget.  We are now SIX MONTHS into that fiscal year thanks to Democrat incompetence.  And the reason Democrats didn’t bother to pass a budget when they were in total control of the government was because it was an election year, and Democrats didn’t want the American people to see how morally and fiscally insane they truly were.  Bottom line: if Democrats had passed the kind of reckless budget that Democrats invariably pass, the election would have gone even worse for them than it did.

You need to understand the magnitude of the Democrats’ failure last year.  It marked the FIRST TIME in the history of our republic that the party in power failed to pass a budget.  And Democrats were in TOTAL control of all three branches of government at the time.

Furthermore, as soon as the new Republican House took over, they immediately went to work on the budget for this year that Democrats had refused to bother with last year when they were supposed to do so as the most basic part of their duties.  They sent that budget to the Democrat-controlled Senate.  And Harry Reid sat on it and did nothing.

And, for the record, Senate Democrats STILL don’t have any kind of a budget whatsoever.  The only thing they’ve got is a big can of deceitful demagoguery.

Those are the documented facts.

The mainstream media – as they sharpen their knives to carve up Republicans and make them the culprits – are simply lying to you.

That’s one.

Two, let’s consider the budgets passed by the last several Congresses, and then see who passed those budgets.  Let’s see which party is responsible for the shocking deficits that now plague us:

For the record, the last budget from a Republican President AND a Republican Congress – FY-2007 (passed in 2006) – resulted in a$161 billion deficit at a time when unemployment was 4.6%.  That’s what happened the last time the GOP was in control.

What happened when the Democrats took control in January 2007?  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi passed a FY-2008 budget that had a $459 billion deficit – nearly three times the deficit in the immediately previous Republican-passed budget.  Three times.  And this before the financial crisis that somehow “necessitated” all this massive spending.

Now, that’s a pretty crazy increase under Democrat control.  But you aint seen nothin’ yet.

The Democrats passed a FY-2009 budget with a staggering, mind-boggling, totally reckless $1.42 TRILLION deficit.

The FY-2010 budget approved by Reid and Pelosi and signed by Obama had an estimated $1.6 TRILLION deficit.

The deficit has increased from $161 billion in the last budget before Democrats took control of the Congress (FY 2007) to $1.42 trillion in the most recent fiscal year (FY 2009)—an increase of $1.26 trillion or 782%.

With three months remaining in the fiscal 2009 budget, the federal deficit just officially passed the $1 trillion mark.  Worse yet, Obama borrowed more than forty cents for every single dollar he spent.

We also suffered a budget shortfall of $94 billion in the month of June, which marks the first June in more than ten years (read, “encompassing the entire Bush presidency”).  Bush’s success in raising revenues is bookended by two Democrat presidents who failed.

And now the Democrats aren’t even bothering to pass a budget for the next fiscal year, so they can simply spend without any accountability whatsoever.

That’s your history lesson.  Anyone who wants to blame the reckless spending on Bush or Republicans is either lying, or ignorant, or an ignorant liar.

Three, we need to chop TRILLIONS of dollars in spending if we don’t want our entire nation to collapse and our children to starve in front of our eyes in a depression that will make the 1930s look like a nice day at the beach.

Consider that according to the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the United States faces an unfunded liability of $200 TRILLION dollars.

Democrats are literally fighting to the death over a few billion dollars in this FY-2011 budget that they did nothing about when they had the chance.  At the same time, they are loudly demonizing Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget (notice how, unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are actually being responsible and passing a budget?) that will save $6.2 trillion compared to Obama’s budget over the next ten years – even as it spends more than $40 trillion (as compared to Obama’s $46 trillion).  Ryan’s budget is called “The Path to Prosperity.”  Obama’s out-of-control budget is now the status quo.  Which looks better to you?

There is absolutely NO WAY the nation will do anything but collapse if Democrats are allowed to play any role whatsoever in its governance at this point.

If you vote Democrat, this is your basic posture: “I don’t care about the next generation.  I do not give one DAMN about America.  I want everything that I and my union special interests can get, and screw everybody else.”

And my response is that Democrats are a greater threat to America than al Qaeda or China.  They are a fifth column destroying America from within so our worst enemies don’t have to bother.  We must crush Democrats before they can crush America.

Four, it is an absolute LIE that Republicans are shutting down the government.  The fact is, Republicans just passed another stopgap that would fund the government for a week and fund military operations (as in Obama’s military operations that he’s now placed into three wars) for the remainder of the year.

Consider reality for a change.  From the Associated Press:

US House defy veto threat, pass stopgap spending

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Defying a White House veto threat, the Republican-led US House of Representatives on Thursday passed a stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown as a deadline looms.

US President Barack Obama’s budget office had vowed to reject the measure, dubbing it “a distraction” from difficult, ongoing negotiations on funding the US government for the rest of the fiscal year that ends September 30.

And Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had vowed to block the measure, calling it a “fantasy” and “a non-starter.”

The bill, which cleared the House by a mostly party-line 247-181 vote, would also have funded US military operations for the rest of the year.

Republicans, relying on the measure to gain leverage in the spending cut battle, used that to argue that Democrats and the White House opposed funding for US troops in harm’s way.

And, with all due respect, that is precisely what the rat bastard Democrats are doing; opposing funding for US troops in harm’s way. 

Democrats don’t want to allow the troops to be funded.  Like the terrorists whose side they routinely take, they want to hold America’s ability to defend itself hostage; they want “leverage” over Republicans.  Cave in to our demands or else we’re destroy the military.  Allah Akbar!

Obama and Democrats do not WANT to prevent a government shutdown.  Obama and Democrats are enraged that Republicans give a damn about our troops and their ability to sustain operations.

What Obama and the Democrats want is to force a government shutdown over Republican attempts to prevent one and then use the power of the most propagandist media since Goebbels ran Hitler’s “mainstream media” to blame the GOP.

Because that is the kind of vermin the Democrats have become.

Harry Reid is refusing to allow the Republicans’ stopgap to even come up for debate in the Senate – even though there is no sane alternative.  In fact, the ONLY alternative Reid proposes is a Senate measure that would require a unanimous vote of all 100 Senators.  Which is to say that Harry Reid is forcing a government shutdown.  Period.

Go back and look at the past.  Consider that, under Democrats’ leadership, the federal budget has gone from $161 billion to $1.6 trillion a year with no end in sight until we get these bloated Democrat leeches off our backs.  Understand that a “trillion” is a thousand billion.  That makes the Democrats’ $1.6 trillion deficit a hundred times worse than what the Republicans left us with the last time they controlled Congress.

Consider our present situation.  Deficits skytocketing out of control.  Two hundred trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that we can never possibly repay.  Interest payments alone soon exceeding $700 billion a year.

And Harry Reid can’t find enough money to pay for his sacred cowboy poetry festival in a $1.6 trillion a year deficit.  And that is not a joke.  It is a dangerous mental disease called “the Democrat Party.”

And consider that Democrats are doing everything they can to shut down the government and cause as much suffering for ordinary Americans as they can with the cynical belief that their liberal mainstream media allies will report the lie every single day that the Republicans are to blame until an ingorant population believes their Big Lie.

I believe we are in the last days before the Tribulation that God forewarned us about nearly 2,000 years ago.  I believe the beast is coming – and that beast will be a big government totalitarian fascist who will be the fulfillment of everything the Democrats have been trying to push America toward for most of the last century.

God didn’t decree the coming Antichrist and the terrible hell on earth that would result from his “government as God” rule; God merely knew that in the last days of the human race we would make the kind of terrible mistakes that would cause the coming of the beast and his seven coming years of hell.  And that is precisely what we have been doing.

We COULD do the right thing and avoid the hell that awaits us.  But we won’t.  And, amazingly, America will be the nation that starts the “beast” ball rolling; when America catches a cold, they say, the rest of the world catches the flu.  And because of the morally and fiscally insane policies of Democrats, America now has flesh eating disease.  You can already see the clear “last days” signs that have resulted from Obama’s wicked and foolish policies.

The beast is coming.

Obama Causes Official End Of The Nation Of Makers

April 4, 2011

This is something that conservatives saw coming from the very fist days of the Obama administration.  From Cato, February 26, 2009:

Cato begins that article with a quote from Obama from a couple of days previous: “As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day… Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.”

But like virtually everything else, it was a lie.  Obama’s own proposed massive increase in federal spending proved that.  And since Obama took office, he has spent as no government has ever spent in the history of the human race.

And thus is it utterly no surprise at all to anyone but ignorant fools that we are now here:

APRIL 1, 2011
We’ve Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers
More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.

By STEPHEN MOORE
If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Every state in America today except for two—Indiana and Wisconsin—has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees—twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida’s ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York’s.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.

Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world—at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That’s less than half of the state’s 1.48 million government employees.

Don’t expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren’t willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn’t pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we’ve gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

President Obama says we have to retool our economy to “win the future.” The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things.

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

California?  Unions?  Consider this from the Los Angeles Times:

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
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.
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.

The People’s Republic of Kalifornia was cursed with a R.I.N.O. governor who championed abortion, a $6 porker giveway for stem cell research, gay marriage, and a whole bunch of other liberal crap.  And the legislature is one of the most overwhelmingly Democrat in the country.  And the only things that have changed is that the People’s Republic is now officially under a Democrat Governor (Jerry Brown) and they actually added a Democrat seat in the legislature.

Illinois was described by NBC as having the worst unfunded pension crisis in the country.  Maybe they didn’t know how bad California’s really was when they reported that.  But more likely, they probably had no idea how bad Illinois’ problem truly was and is, either.

The United States is so screwed it is absolutely unreal.  And that is largely due to unions and the Democrats who support those unions in exchange for votes.  It’s an unAmerican scheme that works like this: labor unions give Democrats big campaign donations and provide the muscle and infrastructure for the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.  And in exchange, Democrats give unions other peoples’ money to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.  They don’t give a damn about the 88% of Americans who AREN’T in unions.

Unions are parasites that have sucked the blood out of every industry they have ever seized their vile little talons onto.  Autos, airlines, manufacturing, education government at every possible level – you name it; they’ve ruined it.  And the rest of America is the host that the parasites feed off of.  And Democrats care about the parasites, and not one damn about the rapidly dying host.

And Barack Obama is far and away the most pro-union president ever.  And that was true BEFORE he signed three new hard-core union-agenda executive orders into law.

Obama has just gotten caught red-handed using his ObamaCare to give huge payouts to unions and corporations that advanced his agenda (fascism alert).  Remember that G.E. – one of the corporate beneficiaries of ObamaCare, not only paid zero taxes but actually got money from the taxpayers.

Do you remember Obama’s preacher for over twenty years said, “No, no, no, not God bless America.  God DAMN America.”  And then said that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”???

You need to understand our actual situation and look at our real debt to understand that AMERICA is the chicken – and Obama has cut its head off and thrown it into a pot of boiling water:

News from globeandmail.com
The scary real U.S. government debt
Wednesday, October 27, 2010

NEIL REYNOLDS

Ottawa — reynolds.globe@gmail.com

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says U.S. government debt is not $13.5-trillion (U.S.), which is 60 per cent of current gross domestic product, as global investors and American taxpayers think, but rather 14-fold higher: $200-trillion – 840 per cent of current GDP. “Let’s get real,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “The U.S. is bankrupt.”

Writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, Prof. Kotlikoff says the IMF itself has quietly confirmed that the U.S. is in terrible fiscal trouble – far worse than the Washington-based lender of last resort has previously acknowledged. “The U.S. fiscal gap is huge,” the IMF asserted in a June report. “Closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 per cent of U.S. GDP.”

This sum is equal to all current U.S. federal taxes combined. The consequences of the IMF’s fiscal fix, a doubling of federal taxes in perpetuity, would be appalling – and possibly worse than appalling. [...]

Without drastic reform, Prof. Kotlikoff says, the only alternative would be a massive printing of money by the U.S. Treasury – and hyperinflation.

As former president Bill Clinton once prematurely said, the era of big government is over. In the coming years, the U.S. will almost certainly be compelled to deconstruct its welfare state.

Prof. Kotlikoff doesn’t trust government accounting, or government regulation. The official vocabulary (deficit, debt, transfer payment, tax, borrowing), he says, is vulnerable to official manipulation and off-the-books deceit. He calls it “Enron accounting.” He also calls it a lie.

Every single one of these massive entitlements that is poisoning America they way Japan’s tsunami has poisoned her nuclear reactors with toxic meltdowns came from the vile minds of DEMOCRATS.  And it is DEMOCRATS who will cause the once mighty America to shortly go the way of the Dodo bird.

Social Security was a ponzi scheme from the outset.  And the only thing that has kept it going was that it is a really, really BIG ponzi scheme.  We find out that FDR – who wanted a massive takeover of the private sector by the federal government – worked hard to kill an amendment offered by a Democrat (Senator Bennett Champ Clark): ” It would have allowed workers to go with the new government system or, if they wished, to have their money put into a private-insurance plan. Either way, the contributions would be mandatory.”  Had that amendment been allowed to pass, it would have forced the government’s filfthy paws off the “trust fund” that they subsequently ripped off for the next seventy years and beyond:

We wouldn’t be saddled with today’s fiscal disaster. Hundreds of billions of dollars that politicians have “borrowed” from the Social Security trust fund for all sorts of pork spending would not have disappeared. Instead, all that capital would have been invested in the economy, leaving us a lot more prosperous. Moreover, the Clark Amendment would have been a model for state pension plans, which are now bankrupting local governments, as well as for other nations.

There was a much better idea from the private sector – but in the end Democrats wouldn’t have it.  They wanted their government fascist control instead.  They didn’t care about the American people; they wanted to be able to raid those retirement funds for their own partisan ideological ends.

Then there was the much more colossal failure known as Medicare.  Ronald Reagan famously warned America about that fraud in 1961:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Medicare now represents the largest share of our unfunded liabilities today.  The private market could have done a much better job at a much lower cost, but again, Democrats wanted socialism, and they were hell bent upon getting their socialism.

Now we face collectivist bankruptcy.  We were previously told that if current trends held, Medicare would go broke by 2017.  But current trends didn’t hold, because Obama robbed Medicare of $500 billion to fund the ObamaCare boondobble that bears his name.

As the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  And voilà, here we are.

When it comes to how John F. Kennedy viewed the socialist redistribution of wealth via “progressive taxation policies,” you will find that Kennedy was solidly on the side of fiscal conservatives today.  As it stands, today’s vile Democrats are fundamentally at odds with the man widely recognized to be the greatest Democrat president.

As we speak, Republicans are trying to cut a tiny fraction of the bloated, totally-out-of-control federal budget.  And Democrats are demonizing them at every turn for it.  Because Democrats have been using government spending to massively pad the coffers of the government-sector unions who make their elections possible.  And to be a Democrat means you don’t give a damn about America’s future; you only selfishly want – to put it in John F. Kennedy’s famous words – “what your country can do for you.”

God HAS damned America in the person of Jeremiah Wright’s parishoner for 23 years.  And the most ignorant generation in America’s history voted for it.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers