Fact-Checking Obama’s Bogus Bullpuckey Stimulus Claims

Obama’s fearmongering Congress into rushing the stimulus through so fast that no one in Congress could even read it was utterly demagogic.  His continuous dishonest claims since about the “success” of this pork-ridden slush fund have been deceitful and despicable.

Obama doesn’t just lie, he tells giant lies.  Big Lies, to cite a phrase from history.

Here’s one of the Big Lies that Obama told during his stimulus anniversary media blitzkrieg:

“And economists from across the political spectrum warned that if dramatic action was not taken to break the back of the recession, the United States could spiral into another depression.”

But Obama’s claim that economists “across the political spectrum” had sided with him was an utterly contemptible lie a year ago, and it is an even bigger lie now.  Last February I preserved the following.  Please note the title:

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

And there were a whopping load of economists who signed on to that statement – at least a couple hundred, just at a glance.

That’s 200 economists saying, “YOU LIE!”

The truth was rather this: “‘Economists across the Spectrum’ Continue to Flee Stimulus bill.”

Obama supporters provided exactly two names of conservatives whom they claimed constituted their “across the spectrum.”  Both claims were bogus.

Another Big Lie was the invention of the never-before-seen category of “saved or created” jobs.  It’s a load of rotting baloney.  Harvard economics Professor Gregory Mankiw has said, “There is no way to measure how many jobs are saved.” Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University has said “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?” If George Bush had EVER tried to use this same “saved or created” category, he would have been simultaneously mocked as a fool and attacked as a criminal who was trying to deliberately deceive the American people.  But a liberal Democrat did it, so the mainstream media has merely duly reported the totally-made-up self-serving “statistic” as though it weren’t a frankly horrifying lie.

Now, according to a CBS/New York Times poll, only six percent of the people believe that the stimulus has actually created any jobs:

No matter what the truth is about the stimulus act, public perception is the real battle Democrats have to fight politically as 2010 elections loom. And they are fighting that battle hard, based on the amount of e-mail traffic and stimulus promoting events Democrats are holding across the country today. It’s not going to be easy based on a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week that showed just 6 percent of the American public thinks the stimulus created jobs. Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steele ran with that figure yesterday saying that more people believe that Elvis is still alive than believe the stimulus is working.

For the record, Michael Steele is correct: 7% believe that Elvis is alive.  About the same percentage who believe space aliens anally probed them, I imagine.

Unfortunately, that six percent largely consist of the mainstream media.

It’s nice to see someone in the media take him on over some of his claims, particularly an economist with the prestige of a John Lott.  He apparently limits his takedown to the content provided during one particular interview.  But it is still a devastating, point-by-point, presentation of an administration that could care less about the truth, or about reality:

Updated February 19, 2010
Fact Checking Team Obama’s Stimulus Claims
By John Lott
- FOXNews.com

A look at what the White House said about the stimulus and what they didn’t say…

On Wednesday, Fox News Channel’s Bill Hemmer interviewed Austan Goolsbee, the chief economist for the White House Recovery Board, on the one-year anniversary of the stimulus.

Here is a simple fact check of Mr. Goolsbee’s claims:

Hemmer: “What does the White House predict a year from now?”

Goolsbee: Let’s remember, you’re citing the claim that the unemployment rate wouldn’t go above 8 percent, but if you remember in that same projection they said that if we didn’t pass the stimulus it would only go to 9 percent, and it was above that before the stimulus even came into effect. What the administration and everyone else missed was the depth of the recession that was in place at the end of 2008 and at the beginning of 2009 when the President came into office.

In April, President Obama was busy touting the stimulus as having “already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” Press releases from the administration were already being sent out claiming saved jobs on April 1. Even well before that, on January 25, Lawrence Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, promised that the benefits from the stimulus bill would be seen “within weeks” after passage. Yet, despite Mr. Goolsbee’s claim, the unemployment rate did not rise above 9 percent until May, well after these claimed jobs were supposedly being created.

As for the statement that the president was “surprised” by how bad the economy was, during his first radio address to the nation on Jan. 24, Obama claimed, “We begin this year and this administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action.” In Obama’s first national press conference he talked about the United States finding itself in a crisis *12 times* and also took pains to emphasize that it was an “unprecedented crisis.” Given that the unemployment rate in 1983 reached 10.7 percent, if the president believed that we were indeed in an “unprecedented crisis” or at least the worst shape since the Great Depression, it is hard to see how the unemployment numbers could surprise him or those on his team.

The Obama administration has frequently claimed that they didn’t realize how bad the GDP numbers for the 4th quarter 2008 were when their first unemployment predictions were released, but the February 28 estimates were released well after the GDP numbers were out.

Mr. Goolsbee states that the economy was worse than he expected it to be. But there is another alternative explanation and that is that the stimulus created higher unemployment. In fact, my columns in this space predicted that during at the beginning of February 2009 that would be the case. Moving around a trillion dollars from areas where people would have spent it to areas where the government wants to spend it will move a lot of jobs away from those firms that are losing the money to those who are now favored by the government. Since people won’t instantly move from one job to another, there will be a temporary increase in unemployment.

But there’s still more. Here’s this from Hemmer’s interview:

Hemmer: “So you are saying that you are standing by the numbers and you guys were right all along.”

Goolsbee: What I’m saying is that the impact of the stimulus is very much what they predicted it to be. What they missed — and what everyone missed — was the depth of the baseline that was in place as the president came into office, yes.

Two graphs illustrate Obama’s promises versus what actually happened. Whether one uses the president’s predictions when he came into office or his later predictions as provided on February 28, the actual unemployment rate lies well above either of those predictions.

See the figure here.

If one looks at both the number of people unemployed and the number who have left the labor force, “I can’t see any [employment] benefit from the stimulus,” Professor Stephen Bronars, a labor economist at the University of Texas at Austin, told me.

See the figure here.

And then there’s this from Hemmer’s interview with Goolsbee:

Hemmer: [What if you] Use the unspent stimulus of $514 billion to pay down the national debt?

Goolsbee: Well, Bill, I got to tell you when the people who burned down the back half of the house are complaining about how much it costs to rebuild it, I think we’re in a bit of a strange spot. As you know, the deficit was projected, before the president took office, to be $1.3 trillion, and that’s because we were teetering on the edge of a depression and we needed to put the focus — as we did — on getting us away from the abyss. If we hadn’t done that the deficit would be catastrophically worse even than it is this year and than it was projected to be when the president came in. We should not reverse the second half of the stimulus. It’s needed to get us out of the woods. Look out the window, the unemployment rate is near 10 percent. Now, the stimulus was never capable of restoring the 8 million jobs hole that was created by the recession beginning in 2007. It did part of it and the private sector needs to the rest.

During the middle of October, 2008, after the bailout bill had been passed, then-Senator Obama claimed (during the third presidential debate): “we are now looking at a deficit of well over half a trillion dollars.” Virtually all of the huge 2009 budget deficit of $1.4 trillion has been blamed on the Bush administration — as if Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus (over two years) and his $410 billion supplemental spending bill in March had nothing to do with it. Mr. Obama also asked for $350 billion in TARP money to be released by the Bush administration immediately before he entered the White House. Bush had no plans to spend that money, but, by releasing it before he took office, Mr. Obama is able to claim that the spending should be counted towards the Bush administration.

Then there was this:

Hemmer pointed out that the White House is starting a pushing to focus on the deficit. Isn’t that a contradiction from this administration?

Here’s the response:

Goolsbee: [No.] Because you’re getting confused between the short term and the long term. What we need is to put a focus on deficit reduction in the long term. Everyone agrees with that, [and] the president wants to put a focus [on it]. The reason the budget commission failed, as you know, is because 7 Republicans that sponsored the bill turned around and voted against it when it became clear it was going to pass.

Actually, it isn’t clear how the administration can blame Republicans for the defeat of the budget commission. Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate at the time, and they could have approved the commission without a single Republican vote. Sixteen Republicans did vote for the commission (along with 37 Democrats), but 23 Democrats and 23 Republicans voted against the commission. The Republicans voted against it because they worried that the commission would rely heavily on new — and higher — taxes to reduce the deficit.

This came next…

Hemmer noted that a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows that only 6 percent of Americans think that the stimulus has created jobs and 48 percent think that it will never create jobs.

Goolsbee: Well, look, that may be true. I’m just a policy guy. I’m not an expert on spinning and convincing. What I would say is if you go get the data from the private sector forecasters, from the non-partisan congressional budget, or you look at Recovery.gov or the reports coming out of the Council of Economic Advisers, you see they are all hovering around the creating or saving of 2 million jobs thus far. And so the key is [that] the hole was extremely deep. This brought us part of the way up out of this abyss hole. But we need to do more. The president has never said that this is sufficient.

It is a bit of an exaggeration that everyone is in agreement with these claims. Cary Leahey, an economist and senior managing director with Decision Economics, one of the forecasters surveyed by The Wall Street Journal, provided me with one explanation for why the stimulus increased unemployment: “With transitional moves in government spending [from the stimulus], there will be dislocations in the economy that will lead to higher unemployment.” But he emphasized that he thought those effects would be “short-lived, six to nine months, definitely not more than a year.” Of the other three sources, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, or if you look at recovery.gov or the reports coming out of the Council of Economic Advisers, all are controlled by Democrats.

Then there was this…

Hemmer raised the point that only two places in the country have gained jobs during the last year: North Dakota and Washington, D.C.

Goolsbee: Well, certainly, if they’re going to be treated to the kind of rationale that you’re describing, it’s going to be very tough. But if you look at what, as I’m trying to describe, the recession began in 2007 – 8 million jobs were lost. If you restore 2 million jobs, that’s 2 million people who are at work, who would have been out of work had we not done that. But that doesn’t fill the entire 8 million hole. And so for you to say they only created jobs in North Dakota, you’re making the mistake of saying, well, the stimulus should have created more than 8 million jobs or else it didn’t have an impact. But that’s just logically incorrect.

Mr. Goolsbee simply isn’t answering Hemmer’s question. Hemmer was asking about the change in jobs since the beginning of last year to evaluate the impact of the stimulus, while Goolsbee is also discussing job losses from the end of 2007. There was nothing “logically incorrect” with Hemmer’s question.

There is also a simple math error in Mr. Goolsbee’s statement. He claims that things would have been even worse than the 8 million drop in jobs if the stimulus hadn’t been passed. What he may have meant to say is that without the stimulus 10 million jobs would have been lost (the 8 million that were lost plus the 2 million that were saved by the stimulus and would have been lost without it). But if the Obama administration really believes this, the unemployment rate in January would have been 11 percent, not 9.7 percent, and the Obama administration never predicted that the unemployment rate would go to 11 percent without the stimulus.

In any case, Goolsbee’s reluctance to explain why jobs, since the beginning of last year, have only increased in the District Columbia, where a lot of government jobs have been created, and North Dakota is understandable.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of “Freedomnomics.”

The first article that Lott linked to in the link titled “” has the following graph.  I leave you with it, as it pretty much shows at a glance just what a whopping load of failure Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus truly was:

About these ads

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

12 Responses to “Fact-Checking Obama’s Bogus Bullpuckey Stimulus Claims”

  1. The Center Square Says:

    You’re right, and the president is right. To the president’s point, there is no serious economic dispute that government deficit spending in the short term is expansionary. And sure enough, we have a startling turnaround from severe economic contraction to perhaps alarming economic expansion, a $5 trillion increase in the equity markets, and the abrupt end to job losses. By any objective measure, the past year has shown astonishing economic improvement.

    But you’re right too. All of the government’s actions are likely to be, ultimately, no more than moving future economic activity into the present. The long term consequence of deficits, and of the government siphoning the first $13 trillion of available capital out of the economy, is near-universally understood to be a drag on the economy.

    I sincerely wish that right wing critics of the government’s actions would give credit where credit is due (stopping the massive recession dead in its tracks). And I sincerely wish that the left wing would understand that deficits and debt do matter, and that what was necessary in the short term is damaging in the long term.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ll simply respond by quoting myself from a comment I made yesterday, and add a little to it:
    Obama’s lies are so galling that they have to be compared to Hitler’s “Big Lie” theory.

    Yesterday, Obama said, “one year later, it is largely thanks to the Recovery Act that a second Depression is no longer a possibility.”

    That’s just amazing in the sheer massive transparency of deceit. For one thing, in what way is a second Depression no longer possible? How did the Recovery Act fundamentally change the housing mortgage market, such that what happened last year can never happen again? I keep reading that commercial property defaults are exploding, and that things will get really ugly when the federal programs expire in June. How did the Recovery Act make the US completely safe from the same sort of interest rate hike on massive debt levels that killed Greece? They were paying 3.5% interest, and borrowing and borrowing; but when the lenders saw the increasing risk they raised the rates to 5%, and then 7%, and suddenly Greece couldn’t even service their interest, let alone pay their debt.

    And that’s already starting to happen to us now, according to CNBC:

    The government said Tuesday that foreign demand for U.S. Treasury securities fell by the largest amount on record in December with China reducing its holdings by $34.2 billion.

    The reductions in holdings, if they continue, could force the government to make higher interest payments at a time that it is running record federal deficits.

    How high will our interest payments go as lenders realize that we will NEVER be able to repay our debts, according to the CBO??? How high will our interest rates go before we are no longer even able to make the interest payments on our debt and go bankrupt???

    This “second Depression is no longer a possibility” is a giant, stinking lie right out of the flaming pit of hell.

    And on what planet should anyone give the Recovery Act credit for doing anything to prevent a Depression??? That was Bush’s TARP, if it was ANYTHING at all.

    TARP ended up propping up the system with nearly $24 TRILLION in backstopping support. Do you realize how comically absurd Obama’s saying the fraction of his $862 billion to create liberal slush funds saving the world is in comparison to that $24 trillion that actually went into the financial system rather than liberals’ pockets (ala the porkulus)?

    Our GDP has grown for one reason and one reason only: we have filled a hole with so much government deficit spending that it is positively unreal. It might look good for the moment if you ignore a bunch of other stuff, but it is totally unsustainable.

    Of course, this is the SAME administration that is claiming credit for Iraq as “one of the great achievements of this administration” when both Obama and Biden did everything they could to achieve total mission failure in Iraq. I suppose we can’t expect them to give Bush any credit for saving the economy.

    Nope. The fundamentally and profoundly demagogic Obama narrative is the same on both counts: Bush created all the problems, and then Obama rode in on his white horse and saved the day. And the only reason Obama promised unemployment wouldn’t go above 8% if his stimulus passed is he didn’t know how bad Bush screwed up. Obama said over and over again that the economy was the worst since the Great Depression, and that we had to act now. What he didn’t know was that things really WERE worse than the Great Depression.

    If you look, you can see the dust bowl that engulfs entire states just like the 1930s. Everywhere you drive, you see the food lines stretching for miles. Either that, or Obama is full of crap.

    Don’t expect me to give one iota more credit to Obama than Obama gives to Bush. Other than that, it is open war until that lying demagogue quits lying.

    To the extent that the stimulus did ANYTHING, it postponed the suffering that a lot of people are going to feel. It didn’t prevent anything, and it didn’t fundamentally resolve anything; it merely postponed. And that’s the very best case scenario.

    Here’s what Obama’s stimulus has done for employment, in spite of his false promises and lies to the contrary:
    Unemployment with and without stimulus

    Why exactly am I supposed to give Obama credit for a massively failed program that massively added to our debt?

    The Republicans asked the CBO to score the stimulus for what it would cost if just the top 20 programs continued to receive funding. The CBO’s answer was $3.27 trillion. This thing is a black hole. And one day the crying babies who want stimulus milk to suck on are going to find the government tits are empty. And then what’s going to happen???

    The problem is that ultimately there won’t be any “stimulus” anymore, and a lot of stuff that is artificially propped up will come crashing back down.

    Then when the bureaucrats come back to try to fix what’s actually broken (and Obama’s stimulus utterly ignored), there will be an even bigger hole than before, only now we won’t have another $862 billion (not counting interest) to be able to fix anything.

    You want me to be grateful for the Obama stimulus, Center Square? Okay, I’m grateful for this:
    “Within 12 years…the largest item in the federal budget will be interest payments on the national debt,” said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. “[They are] payments for which we get nothing.”

    Thank you for the soon-coming $800 billion-a-year interest payments that will drive this country into bankruptcy, Barry. I give you credit for it.

  3. crisismaven Says:

    I see you are interested in statistical research. I have put one of the most comprehensive link lists for hundreds of thousands of statistical sources and indicators on my blog: Statistics Reference List. And what I find most fascinating is how data can be visualised nowadays with the graphical computing power of modern PCs, as in many of the dozens of examples in these Data Visualisation References. If you miss anything that I might be able to find for you or you yourself want to share a resource, please leave a comment.

  4. HL Says:

    Michael, you should get some kind of reward for patience and restraint in response to some of your commenters. I am dead serious.

    I HATE being lied to and I have never been lied to more than by the MSM Obama and his administration on a daily basis.

  5. Damon Mathews Says:

    I don’t think much of anything could rescue what greed, and unrealistic
    expectations have done to our economy. First, everything we are experiencing has created on the Bush, and Republican watch. Everyone
    sat around thinking the real-estate market would keep going up, up,
    up, making poor investments and adding to it. Did Bush, or the Republicans step in? No! It’s easy to decry the stimulus and debt, when
    what was avoided isn’t readily apparent. As far as the Iraq war is concerned, we could have already wiped out Al Qaeda, finished with
    Afghanistan if we hadn’t have gone to Iraq, also the Iraq war is part
    of the reason we’re in our current financial mess. As for Obama being
    a demagogue, while he does appeal to emotions, as every good leader
    does, he doen’t appeal to prejudices, as many more of your right
    wing conservatives do.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    I get very conflicted responding to some comments HL (fortunately, never yours!). I want to be courteous and polite, but I’ve got the same problem you have when I feel people (knowingly or not) are advancing lies.

    Center Square is trying to present himself as being fair and wanting to tone down the rhetoric the right is firing at the left. For my part, I wish he’d been out there calling for the left to tone down their rhetoric throughout the entire Bush presidency. Unfortunately, he wasn’t. The left attacked day after day. They had the populist movements. They had the media in their pocket.

    And they brought down Bush. They tore him apart, piece by piece, and bloody chunk by bloody chunk.

    That’s the lesson I’ve learned from the left: 1) Their tactics worked; 2) They are going to keep doing what works; 3) If conservatives don’t fight back fire with fire we’ll find ourselves in death camps some day.

    We have to fight back. We have to fight fire with fire. As I once wrote shortly after the election, “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”

    Center Square asks, “Where will the nation be if everyone is screaming at each other?” And my answer, with the history of the last few years behind me, is, “A lot better off than if we just let the liberals scream, and we keep allowing their lies to become the new norm like we’d been doing.”

    The same liberals who spewed against Bush are now seeing their guy and their party going down, and they don’t like it.

    But they waged total war the last eight years. And now it’s time for them to pay the reaper.

    I’d like to be more courteous and more polite, but I realize that the left will NEVER do that. And I realize that someone has got to return fire when the other side goes to war against you.

    We’re currently seeing an incredible cynical and deceitful campaign by the left: they call upon the right for tolerance even as they throw a constant barrage of lies and hate bombs at us.

    Conservatives are finally on the warpath. Some are more polite than others, and some are more hard-core nasty than others. But every conservative has to pick up whatever weapon he or she is able to use and fill the ranks of the conservative army.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    I wish you luck, crisismaven.

    I’ll keep your site in mind, and if your search function yields the particular information I’m looking for, I’ll be visiting you often.

  8. The Center Square Says:

    I have been saying the exact same thing for 25 years, Michael. What I have learned is that if conservatives vanquish liberals in this political season, it only leads to liberals vanquishing conservatives in the next political season. And ’round and ’round we go, with government ever-growing and debt ever-rising. Our nation is fighting on the horizontal axis (left vs right); we need to start fighting on the vertical axis (citizens vs political class).

    What exactly can we hope to accomplish if conservatives take up arms against the liberals? At best, a stalement in Washington. Which means the perpetuation of trillion dollar plus deficits. I’m not ideological, I am very pragmatic. I don’t see any prospect for improvement down that road. Just my opinion, of course.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    “First, everything we are experiencing has created on the Bush, and Republican watch.”

    Let’s look at that.

    First of all, 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

    You do know that the Democrats have had complete control over Congress since 2007, don’t you? And how have things gone during the last three years while they’ve had that control? Goodness gracious, the last time Republicans ran Congress, before the Democrats got elected under their promise to make everything better, the unemployment rate was 4.4%.

    And that rate had been going DOWN.

    The idea that Republicans allowed greed and unrealistic expectations to run rampant until they finally killed us is a lie. What killed us was the collapse of the real estate mortgage market. And in particular, what killed us were the immoral and perverse policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were stuffed full of Democrats and which pursued a hard-core liberal agenda.

    George Bush tried to warn America and Congress of the impending danger of these policies and REFORM them 17 times – and the Democrats ignored and demonized him.

    John McCain tried to warn us in 2006 of this terrible danger:
    I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

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

    Republicans tried over and over again to reform the mortgage finance market, but Democrats blocked them every single time, going back to September 2003. They threatened to filibuster everything. And the Republican leadership was in the same jam Democrat leaders are in now with ObamaCare: united Republican opposition, and not enough Democrat support to withstand a filibuster.

    The only difference was that reforming our broken GSE system would have saved us, whereas passing ObamaCare would destroy us.

    But will you blame the Democrats for not passing the public option, and the government takeover of health care if they fail? Will you not give the Republicans any responsibility at all for the failure to ram down ObamaCare?

    That’s what you have to do to be consistent, if you’re going to blame the Republicans for not having enough votes to save this country from the economic implosion of 2008.

    George Bush saw it coming. John McCain saw it coming. Heck, Peter Wallison saw it coming back in 1999:

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

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

    Your claims are lies. Just flat out, bogus lies.

    As for attacking the Republicans or Bush over deficits, chew on this:

    Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

    Again, you’re just full of lies, intentionally or otherwise.

    For the record, Republicans acknowledge there was WAY too much spending during the last eight years (especially the last three that Democrats were doing the spending). They are saying they have learned their lesson, and vow to return to fiscal sanity. And they are saying this while Democrats want to spend as much as they possibly can, and break this country with debt.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    You are entirely correct about the political climate, Center Square. I agree with you. We are in bitter times. Wish Obama had tried to live up to his promises to transcend the political divide and offer policies that would have appealed to both sides. Instead, we got the hard-core partisan policies of “I won” and Democrats trying to ram home a massive liberal agenda. And it went downhill fast from there.

    Contrary to Glenn Beck’s assertion that the two parties are “just the same,” they fundamentally disagree with one another, and can’t agree on anything. There are fundamental philosophical differences separating the two parties.

    So you’re right, as far as that goes.

    And I’ll tell you what, when you get Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to resign for their rhetoric and demagoguery, and get the Democrat Party to stop throwing the hate bombs, I’ll be willing to lay down my arms.

    You see, I prefer “the stalemate in Washington” that you describe to the total liberal dominance that will happen if conservatives don’t fight back fire with fire.

    The bottom line is a WWI analogy. If they gas your soldiers and firebomb your civilian populations, you do the same thing to theirs until they quit doing it or until the war is over. The Allies never would have dreamed of using these heinous weapons and tactics, but they had the sense to respond by fighting fire with fire. Fortunately, during WWI saner heads prevailed, and both sides stopped using the tactic with the knowledge that it would get turned on them. But what would have happened if the Allies hadn’t fought back – hadn’t used poison gas and hadn’t used total war – on the Germans who started it? The Germans would have just kept on, and on, and on, until the Allies were defeated.

    So go ahead and patiently explain to me – offering all the proof you’ve got – why I should believe that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, tons of Democrats like Alan Grayson, and liberals like Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, etc. etc. etc., will stop demagoguing and demonizing????

    Elizabeth Hasselbeck is hardly a bomb-throwing rightwing attack dog, and yet Janeane Garofalo just the other day tore into her as follows:

    JANEANE GAROFALO, ACTRESS: It’s clear to me that she is anti-intellectual. She is not a — compassionate person. Sure she can cry if the person reminds her of herself.
    ROSIE O’DONNELL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Right.
    GAROFALO: And her ridiculous take on religion which is not about being inclusive. Not about giving of one’s self. You know she prefers the punishing God. And the —
    O’DONNELL: Right. Not very pious —
    GAROFALO: No, no, no.
    O’DONNELL: Christ-like.
    GAROFALO: That’s because she’s just a very limited person.
    She’s anti-intellectual. I have no idea if she’s book smart or not.

    … But it’s clear to me that she’s anti-intellectual. She’s not a particularly compassionate person. Sure she can cry if the person reminds her of herself. And her ridiculous take on religion, which is not about being inclusive, not about giving of oneself. She prefers the punishing god. It’s ’cause she’s just a very limited person, she’s got a lot of limitations, as most people of that mindset do.

    I’m so glad that you’ve figured out a way to make these people lay down their hate and their attacks, Center Square. Maybe one day you can tell me how you did it.

    And what of Democrats just being Democrats?

    Do you remember Harry Reid proclaiming defeat during the Bush years, saying “this war is lost” in Iraq while our soldiers were fighting to secure a victory so great that Joe Biden tried to take credit for it for the Obama administration? Do you remember Jack Murtha demonizing innocent Marines and calling them cold-blooded murderers? Do you remember the vile claims that Cindy Sheehan dished out every single day???

    Do you remember how the Democrats said this stuff when it was in their interests to do so -
    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
    http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
    - and then turned on Bush and turned on the Republicans in what amounted to acts of treason while Bush was trying to fight and win a war that Democrats were for before they were against?

    And I should support these people why, exactly?

    Particularly given the fact that, beg your pardon, I’m actually pointing out FACTS rather than simply spreading hateful lies? Do you bother to SEE all the links I provide, all the sources?

    I’m not going to sit back passively while my enemies (and liberals are my enemies) attack, and attack, and attack. I’m going to fight back – and thanks to the “Bush derangement syndrome” of the last eight years, I’ve better learned how to fight back.

    I got into politics, and into blogging, because of two things, Center Square: 1) An evil man, who came out of 23 years in a racist, anti-American, Marxist church (see also here, and here, and here, and probably most of all here), began to gain power because everybody was too politically correct to point out what was happening. And 2) I had never seen such rabid and demagogic attacks in my life as what I routinely saw during the Bush years. And it was liberals who’d been doing it.

    The liberation theology that Barack Obama immersed himself in for 23 years is hard-core Marxism for black people (also see my own article here). And that was obvious even BEFORE Obama’s “mentor” and “spiritual leader” for 23 years – Jeremiah Wright – acknowledged and embraced his Marxism.

    You’ll have to excuse me for finding Marxism repugnant. You’ll have to pardon me for the fact that I keep noticing that Obama has surrounded himself with people who embrace Marxism at every turn.

    Sorry, Center Square. I am not going to surrender as long as there’s a war going on. I have chosen sides, and I am doing my part to fight back against people and a party that calls me an “evilmonger” just for thinking I have the right to speak my mind.

  11. J.W. Wartick Says:

    Ugh, this is why I’m so cynical when it comes to politics. I just feel like we’re going to crash and burn. The voices that speak up are shouted down. Obama is driving us into an economic disaster, he lies, he cheats, and he wants to kill as many babies as possible (abortion). I just wish I could somehow make a difference.

    Keep fighting the Fight, Michael.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    You CAN make a difference, J.W.

    It used to be that Republicans had little ability to fight back. There were ALL KINDS of grass root liberal organizations (the labor unions, Code Pink, Media Matters being a few), and virtually nothing for Republicans.

    That’s changed. And I hope it keeps changing.

    Now – if nothing else – we’ve got the Tea Party. We’ve got a giant and growing organization that promotes conservative principles. I’ve attended a couple of rallies. And it felt great!

    You’ve also got a blog. And in proclaiming Christian principles, ideas, values – and just the Christian life – you are most definitely fighting the good fight.

    You keep looking for opportunities to get more involved, and continue to be willing TO STAND, and you’ll be doing the work. I don’t even have to tell you to GET OUT AND VOTE, of course.

    And, for the record, I appreciate your comments and support that you’ve given my way in your comments.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers

%d bloggers like this: