Most Red Ink Ever: Congratulations On Your ‘Historic’ Presidency, Obama

Virginia Slims used to run an ad campaign called, “You’ve come a long way, baby.” The ads for the women’s-marketed cigarette brand ran on the theme that it was hip and modern for women to smoke. But the hidden subtext of the campaign was, “Look how far you’ve come: now you can die a nasty preternatural death of cancer just like the men.”

In a lot of ways, Barack Obama is the new “You’ve come a long way, baby” poster boy.  He was marketed as the historic first black president in American history – but now that we’ve come this far, we’re going to see our nation perish to a cancer of “Marxist-red” ink.

A couple of truly terrifying articles who just what an unmitigated – and historic – disaster Barack Obama’s presidency has been in just six short months:

Obama’s 09 deficit exceeds all eight years of Bush red ink
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/25/09 3:08 PM EDT

How much is President Obama boosting federal spending? The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl puts a little perspective on the numbers made public today:

· This year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President Bush.
· The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.

· The 2009 budget deficit will be larger than all budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.

· One would expect the post-recession deficit to revert back to the $150 billion to $350 billion budget deficits that were typical before the recession. Instead, by 2019, the President forecasts a $917 billion budget deficit, a public debt of 77 percent of GDP, and annual net interest spending of $774 billion.

· The White House projects $10.6 trillion in new deficits between 2009 and 2019—nearly $80,000 per household in new borrowing.

· None of these estimates include the cost of health reform.

· The White House underestimates future budget deficits by trillions of dollars by (1) assuming that discretionary spending will be frozen to inflation for the next decade, (2) assuming that cap-and-trade revenues will be available to finance a Make Work Pay credit (the House-passed bill allocates those revenues elsewhere), (3) assuming health care reform will be deficit-neutral, and (4) assuming certain tax increases that are unlikely to be enacted.

Exceeding eight years of Bush deficits in just six months?  You’ve come a long, way, baby.

Most red ink ever: $9 trillion over next decade

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – In a chilling forecast, the White House is predicting a 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America’s founding. And it says by the next decade’s end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy.

But before President Barack Obama can do much about it, he’ll have to weather recession aftershocks including unemployment that his advisers said Tuesday is still heading for 10 percent.

Overall, White House and congressional budget analysts said in a brace of new estimates that the economy will shrink by 2.5 to 2.8 percent this year even as it begins to climb out of the recession. Those estimates reflect this year’s deeper-than-expected economic plunge.

The grim deficit news presents Obama with both immediate and longer-term challenges. The still fragile economy cannot afford deficit-fighting cures such as spending cuts or tax increases. But nervous holders of U.S. debt, particularly foreign bondholders, could demand interest rate increases that would quickly be felt in the pocketbooks of American consumers.

Amid the gloomy numbers on Tuesday, Obama signaled his satisfaction with improvements in the economy by announcing he would nominate Republican Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. The announcement, welcomed on Wall Street, diverted attention from the budget news and helped neutralize any disturbance in the financial markets from the high deficit projections.

The White House Office of Management and Budget indicated that the president will have to struggle to meet his vow of cutting the deficit in half in 2013 — a promise that earlier budget projections suggested he could accomplish with ease.

“This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter,” said Obama economic adviser Christina Romer.

Let’s go back to a couple of Wall Street Journal articles to see the patent falsehood to the claim that Obama didn’t know how bad things really were:

1)Obama Budget Relies on Rosy Economic Forecasts” – February 26, 2009.  Liberals have tried to assure everyone, “Nobody could have known…”  But to quote Obama’s campaign rhetoric, “Yes, we can.”  At least if you write for the Wall Street Journal or a similar publication that doesn’t get it’s talking points from the Obama White House.  People with half a brain (which understandably excludes the overwhelming majority of liberals) knew that Obama was pumping manure and offering one false promise based on one false assumption after another.

The truth is that there were plenty of dire forecasts and claims that Obama’s numbers didn’t jive with reality; the fact that the White House didn’t listen isn’t anyone’s fault but Obama’s.

2)Obama’s Rhetoric Is The Real Catastrophe” – February 13, 2009.  Barack Obama repeatedly fearmongered the economy by comparing it to the Great Depression in order to force his ill-fated $3.27 trillion stimulus fiasco through Congress.  The porkulus package was rushed through the legislative branches so quickly that no one actually even had a chance to read the darn thing – and then Obama took four days to sign the damn thing so he could have fun in Chicago.

Obama promised that if his stimulus was passed he would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and keep unemployment under 8% – and the reality has been an even bigger dud than the most conservative Republican predicted it would be.

Obama and his apologists are trying to argue that they didn’t know that the economy was so bad, but that is the most transparent and pathetic excuse given the fact that they repeatedly compared the state of the economy to the Great Depression.  Here’s the question, when they did that, were they simply demonizing, demagoguing, and fearmongering – thinking all the while that they were actually lying – or were they telling the truth as they understood it (i.e. that things were catastrophically bad)?  If the latter, their excuse that they didn’t know things were actually so bad simply vaporizes – because how could our present economy be worse than the Great Depression which they were comparing it too?  If the former, then Obama is literally a demon who cynically hurt tens of millions of Americans by driving down the economy merely to sell his self-serving political agenda.

That Obama and his Democrat allies are liars is already a given, it’s simply a question of when they lied.  And we can only hope that he is incompetent in his governance, rather than despicable in his deceitful and cynical manipulation.

As for unemployment “heading for 10%,” I personally agree with respected analyst Meredith Whitney: I see unemployment going to 13% or HIGHER.  By 2011, nearly half of the mortgages in our nation will be “underwater,” with owners owning more on the homes than the homes will be worth.  Obama has done virtually nothing to address the fundamental problem underlying why our economy crashed in the first place; and we’re going to pay dearly for that failure.

Let me tell you, as someone who pointed out that Barack Obama was woefully and terribly inexperienced and not up to the job over a year ago, the community-organizer-in-chief is simply not up to the job.  And neither are the radical leftwing punks that he has primarily surrounded himself with.

The liberals began to shrilly claim that Bush was incompetent during his second term over the issue of his handling of Iraq; but it needs to be pointed out that Bush ultimately DID succeed in Iraq – and by pursuing the “surge strategy” that Democrats and Obama himself demonized.  Bush won the war in Iraq even while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was wailing, “I believe that this war is lost.”

But now, only months into his presidency, even the LEFT is starting to distrust Obama’s competence.  This isn’t a partisan issue anymore – liberals are beginning to doubt Obama’s competence to accomplish his liberal agenda.  Democrats themselves are pointing out all the things Obama’s done wrong, and failed to do right.  And – while I cheer Obama’s inability to succeed in his socialism – that’s still bad, because we have no real leader, and we’re going to increasingly start drifting as a nation.

Yeah, you’ve come a long way, Barry Hussein.  You’ve come all the way from the “historic presidency of the first African-American in the White House,” to the most historic failure that the White House has ever seen.  And your policies are proving to be such a historic failure after only six months that this nation may literally not survive the remaining 3 1/2 years of your term until we can vote you out of office and be finally rid of you.

It is a terrible and tragic shame that the mainline media propagandists fixated so much on the color of Barack Obama’s skin that they failed to look at the color of his failed ideology or his complete lack of necessary experience to lead this country.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Most Red Ink Ever: Congratulations On Your ‘Historic’ Presidency, Obama”

  1. despicable Says:

    With the propaganda unleashed about political ideology that is so confusing that it is amusing, I believe it becomes necessary to define what is so blatantly misrepresented so as to add light onto the ignorance of “IDEOLOGY”
    The definition of “Fascism” ” The dictatorship of the Capitalist Class!”
    When the threat of an overthrow of “Capitalism” becomes apparent it becomes necessary to do away with any pretense toward democracy.
    “Fascism” signals the end of the right to freedom of speech! Freedom to assembly! The end of civil rights! , Etc. The strict enforcement of “Law and Order”
    Nazi philosophy is that part of fascism that is “Racist and bigoted!
    “Socialism” is defined by having a nation that is ruled by “The Dictatorship of the Working Class!” This “Proletariat dictatorship was regarded as necessary to keep the former capitalist class from regaining power and overthrowing the dictatorship of the Working Class!”
    “Communism” is defined as that which is built on a foundation of socialism.
    Under communism you have a planned economy that has created the material conditions of enough abundance to allow the distribution of goods and services to be equally distributed to all of it’s citizens without discrimination. “From each according to their ability! “To each according to their need!” Under communism cooperation replaces competition. Under a system of “material cooperative abundance” a new type of human nature will be born out of this type of secure environment. A social scientific being that becomes their own leader and their own follower and does not need a political government or state apparatus to tell them what to do. Consequently the “State Apparatus” withers away and you only have an administration of things, … not an administration of people.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    “NAZI” was an acronym for the “National Socialist German Workers Party” or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

    The fact of the matter is that fascism and communism were both rival forms of socialism. One could say that fascism was the right of the very extreme left. Fascism was national socialism, and communism was class-based socialism. Fascism presented itself as a “third way.” It ostensibly sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

    The communists redefined “fascism” as the polar opposite of communism. If communists were good, fascists were evil; if Marxism is progressive, then fascism must be conservative; if fascism is left wing, then fascism must be right wing; if Marxism champions the proletariat, then fascism must champion the bourgeoisie; if Marxism is socialist, then fascism must be capitalist. The very simple fact is that Marxist scholarship – and those very much influenced by it – has altered our understanding of fascism. Fascism is very much from the left. It was embraced by leftists, and its philosophical underpinnings are leftist. For instance, it most CERTAINLY was not the “right wing” that embraced Martin Heidegger or his philosophy. It was rather the left. And now we know that Heidegger was a Nazi. Same with a lot of other thinkers and their ideas.

    While Nazism was in fact racist and bigoted under Hitler, neither racism nor bigotry is necessary to fascism. For example, Benito Mussolini, the FATHER of fascism, forged a fascist state that was neither. Many of the early Italian fascists were in fact Jews.

    Was fascism in any way part of the right, or conservatism, or capitalism? Absolutely not.

    Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, Hitler’s “revolt against reason.” All these fed into a movement that believes action is more important than ideas. Deconstructionism, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all these ideas had the same purpose–to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancient regime still fought and persevered. These were ideologies of the “movement.” The late Richard Rorty admitted as much, conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project.

    No top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee of Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger. All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment–John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke–and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism. Meanwhile, the ranks of the leftwing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition. And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents. The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values–even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of what are clearly fascist arguments.

    One of the things I hear is that corporations and financial entities in Germany followed Hitler. So therefore Nazism and fascism are “right wing.” No, what it means is that the corporations and financial institutions were a) cowards and b) interested only in making money and staying in business. Just like today. Look at what’s gone on in the US: Our chief corporations (the auto industry) meekly followed Obama; our financial industry has meekly followed Obama. Does that somehow prove that Obama is “right wing”? That’s crazy!!! And since Reagan stood for the opposite of Obama, and Obama’s right wing, then Reagan is LEFT WING? Your whole model for fascism is clearly way off base.

    Your phrase, “a new type of human nature will be born” reminds me of a phrase that H.G. Wells – the progressive who coined the term “liberal fascism” – described as being PART of fascism.

    H.G. Wells summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

    “These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fasicsts of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

    Sheldon Richman (of the Foundation for Economic Education) provides a definition of fascism in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics in his entry on “Fascism”:

    Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”–that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

    Under the socialism of the fascists there was no facade of free markets or capitalism, whatever you want to call it. Everything was just nationalized, and the economy was just a government operation. Under fascism – under Mussolini in Italy and then under Hitler in the 30s with the Nazis – they left intact what looked like private businesses; the government just dictated all the terms. But in both cases – in fascism and socialism – the market was effectively abolished. There was no marketplace. There was no bidding, there was no haggling, because there was no free (capitalist) market.

    Just thought I’d offer that as a correction to your many factual errors concerning fascism.

    I’m always rather astonished at people who want to romanticize and follow an ideology that resulted in the murder of over 100 million of its own people during peacetime.

  3. despicable Says:

    Nothing on the planet stays the same! Everything changes quantitatively and when it can no longer change quantitatively, the change will become qualitative.
    Capitalism has gone through stages of development and like everything that exists everything has a life span and eventually capitalism like everything else that exists will go out of existence and will be replaced by the diametric opposite of what capitalism represents.
    Because life is a learning experience, we ultimately learn from our mistakes the opposite that occurs when revolutionary change takes place is an opposite that is not the same as the change what occurred in the past. In other words history does not repeat itself, but progresses, becomes refined, and streamlined, … and like a spiral, moves upward and forward. Eventually history as we know it will go out of existence and a new form of history will come into being.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    The only problem with your argument is that Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were saying the exact same thing a hundred years ago. Dialectical materialism, the theory of revolution, class struggle – all in the name of working toward “the diametric opposite of what capitalism represents.”

    A bunch of people actually bought these terrible arguments – and then they unleashed the ugliest hell ever seen on earth.

    If you want to live in Oceania, live under the constantly watchful eye of the totalitarian state, live with a tiny fraction of the quality of life that you COULD have had under a capitalist system, and receive the fruits of a system that fundamentally crushes the human spirit at every turn, embrace communism. It has a 100% track record of genocide and failure.
    To paraphrase Nancy Reagan, “Just say no to socialism.”

  5. Household ideas Says:

    Thank you very much and wish you more of Excellence

  6. despicable Says:

    The reason all societies and everything that exists evolve eventually to an advanced stage of development than what formerly existed is the fact that life is a learning experience. If you understand science you will know that science has discovered that matter in motion is a interaction between opposite poles and that all forms of matter and all that reflect matter in motion follows a similar path as they evolve. The evidence of the way all things evolve are similar so it should be no surprise that the stage of Feudalism gave birth to capitalism, and it will be followed by the stage of socialism and than a system of communism will evolve out of the system of socialism. It is inevitable! It has been written in the stars and into everything that ever existed. You may not like what the future will bring, but it will happen because it is the only thing that can happen! …IT”S EVOLUTION!
    PS. …What will happen in the future will not revolve around your likes or dislikes. The future does not give a damn about you.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    Your statement that “everything that exists evolve eventually to an advanced stage of development” does not jive very well with “understanding science.”

    There’s the 2nd law of thermodynamics – also known as entropy – that rather contradicts your view. It is like believing that every time you fall, you will fall UP rather than down.

    In history, it is a farce. Think of Marx and Engels who framed this argument. They proposed their communism, and then proceeded to say that they had come up with an idea that would inevitably and inexorably advance as a logical product of evolution.

    In 1989 they were utterly refuted as the ugly walls their system had built came crashing down.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: