Posts Tagged ‘Clinton’

Democrats Screaming About ‘Fake News’ CREATED ‘Fake News’, And Ran ‘Fake News’ Non-Stop Throughout Election Cycle And Obama Years.

December 20, 2016

So where is all this “fake news” about that I’m hearing about all the damn time now as Democrats try to explain why their candidate won 487 counties out of the 3, 141 counties in the United States???  And SERIOUSLY, the “fake news” angle is that somebody somewhere looked a map and stated she only won 57?

What about the “fake news” angle that Hillary Clinton laughingly represented “the people” when those few counties she won were only and all the damn BIG MONEY counties???

According to the Brookings Institution analysis, the less-than-500 counties Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America’s economic activity in 2015, the Washington Post reported.

The more-than-2,600 counties President-elect Donald Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country’s economic activity last year.

When you look at a map of the counties, look at the not sea but OCEAN of Trump victories versus the tiny number of Hillary county wins:

2016-election-map-by-county

Consider the fact that the states where Clinton won decisively were “port states” that feature by mere factoid of geography the largest and most economically powerful ports on planet earth where all the commerce in the world must pass through to get to or from the American people.  Consider that that is more than a damn gold mine; it is guaranteed money and with that kind of institutional wealth a man or a party can be complete and total morons and STILL be rich beyond imagination.

Just imagine California, with the Ports of Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland.  Do you have any idea how powerful these ports are in global trade?  And its the same back east where Clinton also did well.  Do you have any idea how much of a total, utterly-divorced-from-reality MORON and FOOL you can be and STILL MAKE BILLIONS when you have these assets in your pocket???  When you have a major port under your control, you can impose ANYTHING and still make money – especially if all the OTHER major port cities are as irrationally leftist as you are.  And that is the case in California.  It is a LIE that the Democrats represent “the people” who are oppressed and harassed by wealthy Republicans; the reality IS JUST THE DAMN OPPOSITE.  As I just easily demonstrated in the article above and the election-by-county above.

How is it not “fake news” to have not covered that fact that IS the Democratic Party, that they are and have been the party of the rich and the powerful who exploit the rest of us???  I hear that demonically untrue statement all the damn time.  To not cover the FACT that the Democratic Party is the Party of rabid sociopathic cockroaches who are living in some disconnected reality and can only do so because other people built wealth FOR them that they took over to fund their operations???

What about the “fake news” angle that Hillary was going to win this damn election to begin with, given all the damn hideously and embarrassingly wrong media polls that were so terrible skewed in her favor in a rather blatantly “fake news” manner if hindsight and factual reality have anything to say???  How about the fact that these fake news polls generated by our “legitimate news media” consistently hyped a fact racial angle disproven by the fact that Trump won more blacks than they said, more Hispanics than they said and more women than they said???

Why do these people who keep being so damn WRONG insist on our respect???  Especially when they’re so wrong because they are such intolerant, narrow-minded BIGOTS who despise everybody in what they call “flyover country” as they look down on them in every way one can look down on other people???

Harkening back to my last article, the hard-core racist angle that the media and the Democratic Party pimped is the worst “fake news” story of all.

Bill Clinton – in his excuse-making for his wife’s failure to put his adulterous woman-abusing ass back in the White House – said this of Donald Trump:

He doesn’t know much,” Clinton said when asked if Trump was smart. “One thing he does know is how to get angry, white men to vote for him.”

Do you want to know who the “angriest white man” of ALL is?  Look in the mirror, Slick Willy!!!

And this race-baiting angle again: Bill Clinton is the one who said that “a few years ago, this guy [Obama] would be getting us our coffee” to Ted Kennedy when he was a rival to his wife’s political aspirations.  And Bill Clinton is the one who said in eulogy of the last Senator to ever hold the titles of Ku Klux Klan “Exalted Cyclops” and “Grand Kleagle”:

“He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected,” former President Bill Clinton said of Sen. Robert Byrd.

So hard-core, Klan racism is fine – as long as it helps a Democrat to get elected.

It’s only when “angry white men” vote REPUBLICAN that it’s somehow evil.  At least to Democrats like Bill Clinton who are the poster boys for “evil.”

But we’ve got so many stories of liberal Democrat “white shaming” going on it is beyond unreal.  In MANY of our universities, including the ones that WHITE PEOPLE are forced to pay for with their tax dollars.  And we just had MTV come out with a white shaming ad titled “2017 Advice for White Men”which is simply in-your-face-RACIST and MISANDRIST as Democrats target a group of people entirely based on their skin and their gender.

In a similar vein, you’ve got a leftist black lives matter turd named Tariq Nasheed who is going after Trump in the most hateful ways, calling him a racist, etc. ad nauseum.  The ONLY problem with this guy – okay, NOT the only problem, ’cause he’s got PROBLEMS – is that this self-righteous hypocrite wrote a book out of his profound hostility to women: how to lie to them, trick them, hell, RAPE them.  Whatever it takes for Tariq Nasheed to manipulate or coerce or force women to do the only thing he thinks they’re good for.

What about the “real news” angle that Democrats very much seem to composed of people who have no empathy whatsoever for anyone who is not directly like them???  What about the “real news” angle of the hypocrisy of these people who scream about the very things that they themselves do FAR MORE than the people they are always screaming at???

You tell me the major conservative media source – and I want the link that has the text or the video and if you show me the video include a transcript of what was said that was specifically in-your-face-offensive – in which we have black women being targeted for shame.  Because the right has nothing even CLOSE to this.  Just so you can see how blatantly hypocritical this is.

Where is the news media directing outrage the way they directed outrage when a two-bit nobody white supremacist endorsed Donald Trump and the media literally blamed Trump for a guy he’d never even heard of???  Where’s that kind of “righteous outrage” from the “journalists” when we publicly witness in your face, blatant racism???

What about the “fake news” angle of the electoral college vote yesterday.  The same media that generated so much hype with the intent of undermining and delegitimizing Donald Trump’s presidency before the man even takes office now acknowledges that there was absolutely no way in hell that 37 Republicans were going to vote against their president elect against the will of the people whose will they had sworn to represent.  In “fact,” since we talk about “fake news,” when that actual electoral college vote occurred, only two Republican electors voted against Trump versus FIVE who voted against Hillary Clinton.

What about the fact that the Clinton campaign (through campaign chairman John Podesta) was publicly trying to engineer an attempt to get electors to switch their votes???  Let’s understand this through the eyes of REAL news: if we have an election, and the people vote, and then ANYBODY gets the electors to switch their votes in a manner that contravenes the results of the election, you just contravened the will of the people.  Which is fascism.  Which from what even the left has led me to understand is supposed to be evil.

Kind of like the recount “fake news” where Donald Trump in the Clinton-endorsed recounts actually GAINED votes:

The recount, requested and paid for by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, produced a net gain of 131 votes for Trump out of nearly 3 million cast in the state.

It also ended any lingering uncertainty about the outcome of the presidential race, giving Trump a clear victory over his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton that the Electoral College is expected to affirm when it convenes next week.

Again, given hindsight and actual reality, it was “fake news” for the mainstream media to have covered this damn story the way they did, but they covered it in a blatantly “fake news” manner anyway.  Because they are CHEAP SHOT artists and that is ALL they are.

What about the “fake news” angle of Hillary winning the so-called “popular vote?  For one thing, to say that Trump not winning “popular vote” somehow makes him “illegitimate” is akin to claiming that Barack Obama taking the oath of office on a cloudy day made him illegitimate.  The popular vote doesn’t and never has had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM FOR ELECTING OUR PRESIDENTS.  But aside from that “fake news” bull crap, how about the REAL NEWS FACT that if you take out crazy whackjob California – which Californians and Oregonians (they have a major port too) now actually WANT so they can get the hell out of America now that Trump is the president of the American peopleit is Donald TRUMP who won the “popular vote” by near two million votes.

So, we’ve got the “fake news” meme that Hillary “won” the popular vote – even though that is entirely irrelevant to anything other than whiners’ whining.  But what about the REAL news fact that just three voting regions – California, New York and the District of Colombia – accounted for 13.6 million votes for Hillary Clinton versus 7.3 million for Donald Trump.  And that is a margin of 6.3 million votes.  Given that Democrats want to fascistically overturn our Constitution’s electoral college in favor of a “popular vote” that our founding fathers specifically rejected, and given that more than TWICE Hillary’s so-called “popular vote” victory came in less than six percent of our fifty-one electoral contests, is it not “real news” to point out the totalitarianism of the left???  But nope!  Instead the frame is of Trump “losing” the popular vote and therefore being undermined and delegitimized by “journalists” who have taken ideological sides and spin their stories in an incredibly and blatantly partisan manner.

Every single legitimate journalist is out there screaming in story after story about this shameful episode from Hillary Clinton and from the Democratic Party.  And since the silence is deafening, THERE ARE NO LEGITIMATE JOURNALISTS.

In addition to the wealthy coastal areas (due to PORTS not governance), Hillary dominated in the dense urban areas, the big cities, but did appallingly in the rural (less densely populated) areas.  You ought to soberly reflect what this means: Democrats want to be able to control where you live and how you live (because they own the buildings and dominate assisted housing projects); they want to control where you go and how you get there (because they are constantly working to undermine and delegitimize and ultimately criminalize private vehicles in favor of public transportation).  They want to crowd everyone into these dense urban cities where THEY control you.  And you compare that to the giant ocean of red that voted for Donald Trump who said, “Hell NO!”

If you favor totalitarianism, you voted for Hillary.  Otherwise you voted for Trump.

Have you ever seen that slant, that twist, that “spin” in ANY mainstream media presentation???  Of course you haven’t.  Because everything they write or say is framed through their partisan liberal ideological prisms.  It’s that Orwell line from Animal Farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

How about this, liberal: “White Lives Matter!”  “Men’s Lives Matter.”  “Rural Lives Matter.”  We are branded “intolerant” and “racist” and “misogynist” and hell, let’s just admit it, “racist” is their favorite word so it’s always their go-to play.  But they get to do the opposite and in their hypocrisy it’s fine.

Believe it or not, I’m actually STILL not done with the “fake news” from the mainstream media over the election!  What about what both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said about “rigging the election” prior to the election:

  • “Every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found,” Mr. Obama said. “There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.” — Barack Obama
  • “There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved,” Obama said.  “There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time,” he continued. “And so, I ‘d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.”
  • President Barack Obama has a blunt message for Donald Trump: “Stop whining.”
  • “I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes,” Obama said. “And if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government, and it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he said about me, or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to the Capitol, in which there would about peaceful transfer of power.”
    “That’s what Americans do,” Obama said.
  • Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him.” — Hillary Clinton
  • “We know the difference between leadership and dictatorship, and the peaceful transition of power is one of the things that sets us apart,” Clinton told a rally in Cleveland, Ohio, one of the key swing states up for grabs on November 8.  “Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.  By doing that, he’s threatening our democracy.”

What about the “real news” angle that Hillary Clinton is so demented and so in a fake reality that she actually called Donald Trump on election night and asked him to concede the race that he was about to win???

What about the fact that Hillary Clinton gave her “threat to democracy” speech in a state that Donald Trump won by the most lopsided damn victory in 28 years????

And then she has the elephant balls to join the scam recount that she herself said amounted to a threat to democracy???

What about all the crap about accepting the damn results and welcoming the incoming president???

What about the real news angle that WHO THE HELL IS THE BUTTHURT WHINING THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY NOW???

Why is the media not EXCORIATING Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their abject and immoral hypocrisy in which they have condemned themselves as worthy of conviction of treason by their own damn previous words before the election they thought they had in the damn bag???

As SOON as the election was over, the Democrats IMMEDIATELY began to organize their “resistance” that during the Obama years amounted to racist treason when one Republican said his goal was to make Obama a one-term president.  As SOON as the election was over, Democrats began to try to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election win by suggesting that the election had been “hacked” by Russia.

For the “real news” angle, first let me say that the term “hacked” is a loaded and baked term of slander: NO ONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED that ANY of the Clinton or Podesta or DNC emails leaked to WikiLeaks had been “hacked.”  They were NOT CHANGED.  There has NEVER BEEN A SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE WIKILEAKS HAS EVER CHANGED THE CONTENTS OF ANY EMAIL OR SECRET THEY HAVE PUBLICIZED.

And in fact – for all the crap about Russia – the Washington Times has revealed that the source of the LEAKS of Hillary Clinton was a DEMOCRAT WHISTLEBLOWER who was disgusted of Hillary Clinton’s appalling dishonesty:

A WikiLeaks figure is claiming that he received leaked Clinton campaign emails from a “disgusted” Democratic whistleblower, while the White House continued to blame Russian hackers Wednesday for meddling in the presidential election and asserted that Donald Trump was “obviously aware” of Moscow’s efforts on his behalf.

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.

He said he received a package in a wooded area near American University.
“Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,” Mr. Murray told the British newspaper. “The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”

WikiLeaks published thousands of emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, providing a steady stream of negative news coverage of the Democratic presidential nominee during the final weeks of the campaign. Mr. Murray said the leakers were motivated by “disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.”

On that one, we KNOW that Democrats are perfectly capable of “rigging” an election; because that is precisely what Hillary and the DNC and numerous “journalists” actually did to Bernie Sanders!!!

And while I’m asking these questions, let me ask just what kind of rabid, morally schizophrenic fool ARE you not to believe that the Democrats who were PROVEN to have rigged an election against Bernie Sanders would rig an election in a damn heartbeat against a man they despise far, FAR more than Bernie Sanders???

Amazingly, Kool-Aid-drinking, screaming, hysterical, rabid Democrats are now pointing to the very emails that prove they themselves rigged an election to claim that the election was somehow rigged.  Because apparently to tell the truth or to allow the truth to be revealed amounts to “rigging” for these lying slandering perverts.

To whatever the hell extent Russia was involved, they were GIVEN access first to Hillary Clinton, and then through her to her campaign manager John Podesta, and from them to the DNC, by Hilary Clinton’s illegal and immoral use of a secret private server that she didn’t bother to protect.

What about THAT “real news” angle about the avalanche of FAKE NEWS that the Democrats, that Barack Obama, that Hillary Clinton, that the DNC, had been falsely perpetuating for MONTHS regarding Hillary’s email scandal where they claimed over and over again that there was no way the Russians had “hacked” a CRIMINALLY and TREASONOUSLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND RECKLESS HILLARY CLINTON SECRET SERVER.  And now these same cynical, lying fascists are out there screaming as they try to exploit Hillary’s criminal, treasonous reckless irresponsibility as their primary mans to undermine the presidency of the man who won the election???

What about the “fake news” of reporting this story purely from the eyes of the leftist roach and NEVER from the vantage point of the TRUTH???

All this “fake news” crap about Russia being responsible for this and Obama and his handpicked “intelligence professionals” refusing to allow Congress to see any “evidence” of that – when we have credible reports that no, it was NOT Russia, but a whistleblowing DEMOCRAT – have another “real news” angle that in their zeal to publish “fake news” report after “fake news” report the mainstream media has completely omitted:

What traitor to America allowed this disgrace to HAPPEN in the FIRST PLACE???  His name is Barack Hussein Obama, and at best the man is so incompetent that he should have been removed from office for mental deficiency.

Do you have any damn idea how many times the Russians hacked the Obama regime???  And what did our Disgrace-in-Chief DO about it????

This Washington Times headline says it all:

Obama Shrugs Off Russian Hacking – Until Donald Trump Elected President

I mean, gosh, that makes Obama’s pathetic response sound rather blatantly political, doesn’t it???

Russia played Obama for a fool and Obama was the fool who got played.  What Russia did – again, if they actually even DID anything at all – was to take the candidate who was leading in all the mainstream media’s “fake news” polls and who was therefore supposed to win the election and tell the truth about this evil sociopathic witch to undermine her presidency.  And, of course, in the crazy chance that Trump could win, count on the Democratic Party to treasonously undermine the Trump presidency.  It was win-win.  Which is to say that all the Russians needed for their master plan to succeed was to count on two things that were safe bets: the wickedness and the incompetence of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

Let me ask you a question, Democrat: if the next U.S. president is delegitimized – as you are so desperately trying to do with your every tactic since he won no matter how hypocritical or disgraceful by your own previous standards it is – do you or do you not realize that Russia benefits from a delegitimized American presidency???

You are HELPING Russia, you fools.  While screaming just the damn OPPOSITE.

And where is the reporting on THAT bit of “real news”???

I could go on and on and ON about “fake news.”  I could point out that Mark Zuckerberg of FaceBook is vowing to tackle fake news with “fact-checkers” notwithstanding the damn fact that Zuckerberg and his FaceBook were caught RED-DAMNED-HANDED creating “fake news” when it came to targeting and censoring pro-conservative news articles in favor of liberal ones.

Which makes it an amazing act of chutzpah that the primary generator of fake news would tackle “fake news.”

Why don’t we just allow the rapists and the child-molesters to police themselves, while we’re at it???  And as horrifying as that thought is, it still wouldn’t be as destructive to our democracy and to our very civilization as allowing “journalists” to police themselves given what they’ve been busted for doing.

I could talk about Obama and his “fake news” about his ObamaCare disaster that created giant increases in health care premiums amidst less actual health care even as Obama boasted about bogus “insurance” that meant NOTHING; about his failed economy that left millions and millions of middle-class Americans freezing in the mud even as Obama boasted about bogus economic statistics that had no connection to reality; about his failed strategy to cope with terrorism that will have increased by one-thousand, nine-hundred percent by the time he leaves office.

You want to avoid “fake news”?  Then disregard everything Obama says.  Disregard everything ANY Democrat says.  Disregard whatever the New York Times, or the network news stations, CNN, or pretty near anyone else, “report.”

To the extent that we have a problem with “fake news” misleading Americans, it comes down to this: the liberal, mainstream media destroyed all credibility in legitimate reporting due to their constant, over-the-top, partisan, ideological, biased “reporting.”

To the extent that you give liberals control over ANYTHING, they will destroy that thing.  And so we have the examples of health care, education, national security, and yes, most assuredly journalism.  I recall the George Orwell observation, “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.”  And so in their “good intentions” they fail to understand that the road to hell is paved with their damned good intentions and they burn down everything they touch.

If you want to know why “fake news” has become so prominent, look no farther than Democrats and the propagandists who today staff the overwhelming majority of our “news” coverage.  Look at how outrageously dishonest and partisan they are as a matter of routine.

But the heart of liberalism is intolerance, fascism and totalitarianism: and so it’s not that Democrats who still celebrate the “Liar of the Year,” Barack Obama; it’s that THEY want to be in solitary control of all the “fake news” they pump out.  They want to rival voices to be heard.  Just as they don’t want rival STATES to be heard in the electoral college which they therefore want to abolish.

As Obama himself said at the beginning of his presidency, I now say: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Donald Trump won.”

As Obama himself said – never realizing that his own words would apply to himself and his failed (bowel) movement – “Stop whining,” you pathetic losers.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Barack Obama – Following The WORST And Most ARROGANT And Most NAIVE President In History – Just Betrayed America To WWIII Armageddon And To HELL

July 23, 2015

One of the little known facts – because the mainstream media is the political propaganda arm of the Democrat Party – is that Obama’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran actually proves that Barack Obama and the entire Democrat Party circa 2008 were abject FOOLS who told us that Iran was NOT a nuclear weapons threat. As I have previously documented.  By making this deal, Obama states that Obama was pathologically unfit to EVER be commander-in-chief.

The fool couldn’t have been more wrong.  And the wicked fool CONTINUES to be more wrong than any human being has ever been.  It is frankly astonishing to watch this demonic dumbass deliver Armageddon one piece of hell at a time.

I heard a little snippet about the arrogance and naivety of FDR and what a complete, abject fool that Joseph Stalin made of a president so adored by Democrats.  I actually had a hard time believing it was true.  I mean, how could any man be so arrogant, so stupid?  Anyway, I looked up a couple of phrases I recalled and found this straight from the Central Intelligence Agency writing based on actual recorded statements from one Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I want you to read this CIA article with me and replace in your mind the names “Franklin Delano Roosevelt” with “Barack Hussein Obama” and replace the name “Joseph Stalin” with “Ayatollah”; when you see “Bolshevik dictatorship” read it as “Islamic dictatorship” and when you see “US-Soviet relations” read it as “US-Iranian relations”:

In recent years, the statesmanship of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in particular his handling of Soviet affairs, has come under attack in historical studies. The situation has reached such a pass that even a psychiatrist who examined FDR’s medical records has opined that toward the end of World War II the US President ceded the better part of Eastern Europe to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin because he was “gripped by clinical depression.1

Certainly the President’s moves can be questioned, but questionable policy can be founded on factors other than low spirits—which, in point of fact, were not generally observed in FDR at the time. Rather, the operant factors were: the President’s supreme confidence in his own powers of persuasion, his profound ignorance of the Bolshevik dictatorship, his projection of humane motives onto his Soviet counterpart, his determined resistance to contradictory evidence and advice, and his wishful thinking based on geopolitical designs—mindsets supported and reinforced by his appointed advisors. Taken together, these factors produced a false view of US-Soviet relations and inspired policy that had only superficial contact with reality. As an instance in point, they induced the President of the United States to do the unthinkable: walk into a surveillance trap, not once, but twice, and willingly.

Normally, in order to avoid the possibility of intelligence leaks and personal embarrassment, as well as to ensure physical safety, traveling US presidents stay in their own country’s embassies or other diplomatic buildings, whose tables and walls have been swept by instruments able to discover listening devices. But when Roosevelt went abroad to meet Stalin, he wanted very badly to please him, holding him to be a key figure in the postwar division of powers, and so did not insist on such accommodations. Consequently, at the conference in Teheran (November 1943) and again at Yalta (February 1945), he stayed in Soviet quarters and was bugged like no other American president in history.

FDR’s Acquaintance With Bugs

Roosevelt was no stranger to technical surveillance. In 1939, piqued by an incident in which he believed that the press had deliberately misquoted him, he had a secret recording system installed in the White House as a means of self-protection. Since German tape-recording technology had not yet found its way to America, something had to be invented. FDR’s assistants took the problem to David Sarnoff of the Radio Corporation of America. In June 1940, Sarnoff personally presented the President with a “continuous-film recording machine” that made use of motion-picture sound film. Set in a wire cage in a room beneath the Oval Office, the device was activated either by the President using a switch inside his desk drawer or by his technician down below throwing a switch on the machine itself. A single microphone poked out through a lamp on FDR’s desk.

Between 23 August and 8 November, 1939, during his campaign for an unprecedented third term, the President recorded fourteen of twenty-one press conferences held in his office, plus a number of private conversations, the latter possibly by mistake. It seems that he never used the system to entrap anyone, and no one knows why he stopped it. Relatively innocent by today’s standards of invasion, it nevertheless demonstrates that the President was acquainted with listening devices before his conferences with Stalin.2

In the very year of the Teheran conference, he was reminded of hidden microphones when watching Mission to Moscow, a movie based on a book of that title by Joseph E. Davies, America’s second Ambassador to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 3 Produced in 1943 with the President’s blessing, possibly even at his explicit request, this blatant piece of propaganda was designed to drum up public enthusiasm for a political shotgun wedding: It colored Stalin as a simple, practical man with whom one could do business; rhapsodized about Soviet construction, government, and politics; and justified the Soviet blood purges, the Moscow show trials, and Stalin’s two-year pact with Hitler, which had ended when Hitler turned the tables on Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.

Attempting to forestall any criticism of the Soviet system, Davies even contrived to make a brief for bugging. In one scene, set in the American Embassy in Moscow, the Ambassador’s assistants warn him of listening devices, but he rebukes them severely:

I say nothing outside the Kremlin that I wouldn’t say to Stalin’s face. Do you? . . . We’re here in a sense as guests of the Soviet government, and I’m going to believe they trust the United States as a friend until they prove otherwise. Is that clear?

When the assistant persists that still, after all, there may be microphones, Davies, played with aplomb by FDR’s favorite actor, Walter Huston, cuts him off: “Then let ’em hear! We’ll be friends that much faster!”4

This cinematic scene was based on an actual incident. In 1937, when a bug was discovered directly over the Ambassador’s desk at the US Embassy in Moscow, the real Davies laughed it off. If the Soviets wanted to listen in, he told his incredulous staff—which included George Kennan, Charles Bohlen, and other skilled State Department diplomats—they would only obtain proof of America’s sincere desire to cooperate with them.5

FDR strongly approved of the film. In his assessment of Soviet politics, he was much closer to Davies, his second Ambassador, than to his first, William C. Bullitt.6 Contrary to Davies, Bullitt never missed an opportunity to warn FDR of Stalin’s treachery. In a typical exchange, Roosevelt responded:

Bill, I don’t dispute your facts; they are accurate. I don’t dispute the logic of your reasoning. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he’s not and that he doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.7

FDR’s hunch, Hopkins’ glowing reports on Stalin, and Davies’ boundless trust in the Soviet regime were the President’s counters to the admitted facts about Hitler’s recent ally, history’s greatest mass-murderer, and the sole ruler of a party and state dedicated to worldwide communism.8

[…]

And it is amply footnoted and documented, with said footnotes for the above passage here:

1. John Harlow, “Depressed FDR Handed Stalin Victory at Yalta,” The Sunday Times (UK), 24 February 2002.

2. The FDR Tapes,” American Heritage, No. 2, 1982.

3. Joseph Edward Davies, Mission to Moscow (New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster, 1941).

4. David Culbert, ed., Mission to Moscow [Warner Brothers Screenplay] (Madison, WI:  Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1980), pp. 109-110.  When the film was shown to the Soviet public, all the scenes about bugging were cut.

5. Elizabeth Kimball MacLean, Joseph E. Davies: Envoy to the Soviets (Westport, CT:  Praeger, 1992), p. 40.

6. Bullitt served as US Ambassador to the USSR from 1933-1936, Davies from 1936-1938.

7. William C. Bullitt, “How We Won the War and Lost the Peace,” Life, 30 August 1948, p. 94.

8. Hopkins described the 5’ 3” Stalin as “an austere, rugged, determined figure in boots . . . built close to the ground, like a football coach’s dream of a tackle”—see his article, “The Inside Story of My Meeting with Stalin,” in American Magazine (Springfield, Ohio), No. 132, December 1941, pp. 14-15; Davies once said that the Bolshevik word of honor was “as safe as the Bible,” according to William C. Bullitt, citing the Daily Worker of 25 and 28 February 1942, in The Great Globe Itself (New York, NY:  Scribner’s Sons, 1946), pp. 22, 255, 256.

I don’t think it’s coincidental that FDR revealed what an abject fool that he was in Tehran, the capital of Iran.

Because of the incredible, stunning arrogance, foolishness, willingness to compromise with pure evil, and the naivety that FDR believed he could actually negotiate with pure evil and win the upper hand in his dealings, TENS OF MILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS WERE SEIZED BY THE MOST DEPRAVED, THE MOST WICKED, THE MOST EVIL POLITICAL SYSTEM AND WORLDVIEW IN THE HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had died and was already burning in hell and as the Bible points out, “The dead know nothing,” but Joseph Stalin almost immediately after the end of World War II proved that FDR was the worst and most unmitigated fool in the history of the world by seizing ALL of Eastern Europe and the tens of millions of souls that he would crush.  And the United States was thrust into the costliest war in the history of planet earth – the Cold War – because of the abject moral idiocy of one man, FDR.  The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and numerous other conflagrations stemmed from FDR’s complete moral idiocy and his refusal to understand the nature of evil and the fact that you can’t appease a Stalin any more than you can appease a cockroach.

And Barack Hussein Obama, a man even MORE arrogant, more foolish, more willing to compromise with pure evil, and more stunningly naïve in his belief that he could negotiate with pure evil and someone win the upper hand in his negotiations because of his malignant narcissistic belief in his own superiority, just guaranteed that America would face World War III and the Armageddon prophesied in the Holy Bible that he has so much naked contempt for.

This is a criminal agreement that fundamentally and profoundly betrayed the interest of the United States of America.  Obama caved in on EVERY SINGLE major negotiating position he promised he would hold to to the tune of a dozen massive cave-ins that cave Iran everything while giving America NOTHING but empty, hollow, meaningless rhetoric.

As bad as the actual agreement is, we are beginning to learn of the existence of we have no idea how many secret side agreements in which Obama further betrayed America.

Iran was caught illegally purchasing nuclear weapons technology just last month while they were “negotiating” with Obama.  Anybody who believes Iran has ANY intention of not following the LAST TIME Democrats betrayed America by allowing North Korea to become a nuclear weapons state while promising they were doing the opposite is a true-blue FOOL.

But Democrats don’t care about history or facts or truth or reality; they piss on all of them the same way they pissed on Christ and continue to piss on Christ.

That fact is even MORE obvious now that Obama has betrayed America and its Constitution further by taking his wicked deal to the United Nations as if the Congress of the United States of America was completely irrelevant (which it IS under this wicked fascist).  Because the Ayatollah just said the deal means NOTHING in just about every way he could:

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told supporters Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s. The speech in a Tehran mosque was punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said.

Who would trust such a man?  Only the greatest and worst fools who ever lived.  Only Obama.  Only John Kerry.  Only Hillary Clinton.  Only the Democrat Party.  History has proven time and again that no one else and no other Party would be so vile, would be so arrogant, would be so evil, to appease and compromise with evil the way Democrats do.

Iran WILL get nuclear weapons and because of this wicked deal it will be ENTIRELY the wicked Democrat Party’s fault.  But even more unimaginably, Iran will actually get the ballistic missiles it has never had to deliver its nuclear warheads BECAUSE OF THIS WICKED DEAL.

History has a way of repeating itself.  And whenever Democrats are able to affect history, you can COUNT on the fact that that history will be GODAWFUL.  And that millions of people will miserably perish as a result of that history.

Every single major war we have fought – EVERY SINGLE ONE – was fought because of Democrats.  The Civil War was started by the Democrats after the nation elected Abraham Lincoln.  And Democrats sought in vain to kill their way to slavery.  World War I was fought as a result of the moral idiocy of Woodrow Wilson, Democrat (and see here, also).  Then World War II managed to catch the already described arrogant, naïve fool otherwise named FDR completely by surprise.  Then we had Harry Truman, Democrat, fall asleep at the wheel and literally entice North Korea to attack South Korea by act of monumental stupidity

In January 1950, American Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave an important speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. He vowed that the United States would always be the best ally for those in Asia who sought “their own national independence,” arguing that anyone who sought aid from the USSR would end up dominated by the totalitarian Soviets. During the same speech, however, Acheson made a fateful announcement. The United States had a vital “defensive perimeter,” he said, a line that the Soviets could never cross without threatening America’s core national security interests. In the Pacific, Acheson said, that line ran from the Aleutian Islands off Alaska to Japan, through the Ryukyu Islands between Japan and Taiwan, and south to the Philippines. Conspicuously left outside the American “defensive perimeter”: Korea.

It’s not clear that Acheson meant to send a signal to Moscow that the United States wouldn’t fight to preserve Rhee’s government in South Korea, but that’s exactly what Soviet dictator Josef Stalin interpreted Acheson’s remarks to mean.

– and American weakness after we had built the most powerful military  in the history of the world because of the mistakes of the last fool Democrat president.  The once all-powerful United States became WEAK under Democrat turd Truman.  Then we had Vietnam – otherwise known as Democrat LBJ’s War.  That was a war fought so stupidly and in such a self-defeating manner that no matter how many military victories the American serviceman won, he could not win a war that was lost by the Democrat Party politically.

Democrats ultimately would turn on their own damn war and pulled out like the cowards they are to murder millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians.  Democrats just walked away.  The same way they have walked away since from their own damn previous votes to oppose wars they voted for.  Millions perished because of Democrats’ – and therefore America’s – betrayal and abandonment.  What is ironically funny is that LBJ saw his own party becoming communist-possessed if not demon-possessed from within as this caught-on-tape quote reveals:

LBJ to Sen McGee (D-WY): “They’re going into the colleges and the faculties and the student bodies, and trying to get them to send wires that come right out of Communist headquarters.” — LBJ, Thursday, April 29, 1965, 4:29 p.m.

What was morally cancerous within the Democrat Party in 1965 is far, FAR more evil and more vile now.  We’ve got a freaking communist turd occupying the White House itself, now.  Even LBJ saw it coming.

If you were to consider actual history and consider the wars that Democrats have gotten us into, the costs and the causalities, and then compare their grim toll to the wars that Republicans have gotten us into, it is frankly beyond OBSCENE how bloody Democrat presidencies have been.  Democrats leave us wildly unprepared for war because it is their nature to spend billions – and now trillions – on anything and everything but the ONLY THING (yes, the MILITARY) that the Constitution DEMANDS the federal government spend money on.  They are pathological in their projection of weakness which encourages and emboldens our enemies to do things that will ultimately goad us into a war we wouldn’t have had to fight if we had been strong and powerful.  Then, even if we manage to win these wars, we disarm, nod off to sleep again, and repeat the cycle when Democrats are in power.  These are things called “facts.”

And the vile tendency of the Democrats to walk away from their own prior commitments (for the record, sixty percent of Senate Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer voted to authorize the Iraq War) just happened in Iraq when Obama walked away from a hard-fought war that American troops WON.  It is very likely to happen again the same damn way in Afghanistan.

The US Senate now has sixty days to examine the Iran nuclear deal Obama “negotiated” – which will put it right smack dab in the middle of the next prophetic blood moon cycle that stands as a grim prophetic harbinger to Israel (please see here and here for the articles I’ve written about the Blood Moons).  The next Blood Moon will reach its zenith on September 28, 2015.  God is warning Israel, God is warning Christians, that Barack Obama is the very worst kind of wicked fool that there is; but because of the mystery of lawlessness – prophesied in the Bible for the last days – we live in a bizarre, apocalyptic world in which evil is transcendent and the righteous can only sit in stunned dismay as they can do nothing to stop it.  As the Bible describes it, the mystery or secret power of lawlessness has been at work all along, but it was being held back, restrained by God through His Spirit or through His Church.  But God told us that in the last days “perilous times would come” as God would begin to remove that restraint on evil so that evil would triumph.  And that ascendancy of evil would be at its zenith as the world embraces and worships a politician who will impose the ultimate form of socialist, totalitarian government onto the world in place of God.

I just want to point out that we have seen the ultimate satanic trifecta in the history of the world in the last three weeks because of Barack Obama and because of the Democrat Party which has become the most evil the most monstrous genocidal regime, the most unholy government in the history of the planet.

Democrats – and I mean every single Democrat will one day stand before a just and holy God as flames of white-hot wrath billow out of His chariot throne as He demands of them, “WHY did you murder My babies?” – are personally and individually responsible for the genocidal murder of more than sixty million innocent human beings just in the United States (the Party of Wickedness has also transported and sanctified the murder of hundreds of millions of more babies around the world).  Psalm 139 is a proof of the fact that it was GOD who formed that life in the womb that Democrats in their arrogant spirit of hate for humanity callously and brutally murder:

“You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb.  Thank You for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous–how well I know it.  You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.  You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in Your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.” — Psalm 139:13-16

Every single Democrat voted to abort GOD in their wicked abortion machine.  Further, the murder that abortion is is further documented in the Bible in the person of John the Baptist – who leapt in his mother’s womb for joy when a pregnant Mary the mother of Jesus was near him.

We have the scientific technology of ultrasound, with 78% of women determined to have an abortion having their baby after the obvious humanity of their child is revealed to them.  We have the medical fact that babies feel the agony of abortion – and that the most innocent human beings are not merely murdered by abortion – they are actually tortured to death by abortion.  We have the documented medical proof of “The Silent Scream” that is abortion as a helpless baby is agonizingly torn apart by vicious Democrat murderers:

We have the greatest indictment of the moral criminality of Democrats at all in the Person of Jesus.  A teenage girl was pregnant and in a dire state because of her pregnancy.  And because of the Democrat Party she aborted her baby.  And one day Jesus will tell Democrats, “I never knew you, because you viciously tortured and murdered Me in the womb.  Like millions of other babies, I never lived to fulfill the mission that God gave Me to save you from your sins.  I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness!”

I declare to you that we have seen the utter, abject, unholy horror of the vicious, hateful callousness of the abortion of the soul of every single Democrat.  We now can safely testify that Democrats KNOW the humanity of the babies they are murdering by the millions, because they are trafficking in the human body parts of their murder victims. We are talking about a level of barbarity and callousness for human life that is straight out of the heart of Nazism.  Oh, yes, Democrats are every bit as evil as the Nazi doctor Mengele.

If these babies aren’t human, then how the hell can they possibly have human body parts???  That are being sold with the callousness of produce???

I have pointed this fact out before: Science is actually crystal clear on what abortion kills: we have a rigorous system called “taxonomy” that classifies every single living thing.  If it is biological, it has a classification.  And from the very moment of conception when a man and a woman first produce a child, that zygote in the womb is classified as follows: Kingdom-Animal, Phylum-Chordata, Class-Mammalia, Order-Primate, Family-Hominid, Genus-Homo and Species-Sapiens.  It is classified as homo-sapiens, just as you and I are classified as homo-sapiens.  Logic and philosophy are just as clear: that tiny little baby in the womb is human by virtue of her parents, she is a being by virtue of the fact that she exists: she is a human being.  The Word of God, religion, science, philosophy and logic all intersect here to uphold the sanctity of innocent human life in the womb.  But in these last days we are no longer a society capable of caring about such things.  Abortion is a grave moral evil; it is the genocide of the very most innocent of human life in the very place where it ought to be the very safest: in mommy’s womb.

Democrats snarl in their contempt for God and for everything that is decent and holy that they’re not murdering a “human being,” but merely a POTENTIAL human being.  Well, you butchers, then THOSE HUMAN ORGANS YOU WERE JUST CAUGHT TRAFFICKING IN ARE MERELY “POTENTIAL HUMAN ORGANS” AND THEREFORE GOOD FOR NOTHING IN THIS ACTUAL WORLD.   You are ACTUALLY murdering an actual human being.

Abortion is the vile, evil, callous, rabid hatred of human life.  And every single one of the people who support it with their votes or their actions are nothing short of future citizens of hell.

And Planned Parenthood – a vile, demonic, satanic entity created by Democrats and supported by Democrats – that just got busted trafficking in the for-profit murder of babies and then harvesting their organs for resale much the way a slaughterhouse would do with herd animals – is also THE most racist organization in the history of the world, bar NONE.

Recently I documented the pure heart of evil that is Hillary Clinton and her feverish support for racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger who said this of blacks:

“Colored people are like weeds and are to be exterminated.”

And:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Is the EXACT same organization that Democrats today vow to continue funding no matter how obviously and blatantly and demonically evil it is proven to be.

It is a FACT that Planned Parenthood CONTINUES to target black populations in their location of baby-murdering factories.  It is a FACT that 6 out of 10 black babies are murdered by the Democrat Party.  It is a FACT that black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.

But the very mass murderers of blacks – Democrats – are demonically and hypocritically slandering everyone but themselves as they scream “black lives matter” when in actual fact they rabidly hate black lives more than any other people on the face of the earth, Ku Klux Klan – (an organization created as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party after Democrats lost a vicious war they started to keep black people in slavery) – included.

The ugly, hateful, cockroach soul that is the soul of the Democrat Party was captured when a Democrat was booed – and actually forced to apologize – for saying the unforgivable words that:

“Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.”

The fact is that NO LIFE matters to Democrats.  The Democrat Party is the Party of the Extermination of Human Life.  Only the most wicked political party in the history of the world would have booed a statement like that.  But that’s what Democrats did when one of their own said it.

But back to that article I cited linking racist baby murderer Hillary Clinton to racist baby murderer Margaret Sanger.  I pointed out how EVIL the Democrat Party was and how they were no different than Islamic State monsters because both groups exalted in the wanton destruction of history and historic sites.  Well, guess what, the Democrat Party is just like Islamic State barbarians in another way: because both groups viciously murder human beings and then traffic in their human organs for profit.

Radical terrorist Muslims want to create a totalitarian sharia state in which they rule over everyone and everything in the name of Allah; Democrats want to create a totalitarian system in which they rule over everyone and everything based on their religion of godless secular humanism.  Atheism is every bit as much as a religion as Islam (which has been correctly defined as a political system masquerading as a religion).  The ends are identical; only the means to that end slightly differ.  Or maybe you’d argue that liberalism is a religion masquerading as a political system.

Anyway, that was JUST exposed, bringing to light the full horror of sixty million abortions in the United States that the Democrat Party is ENTIRELY responsible for and the hateful and unconstitutional decision to legalize infanticide imposed by Democrats in 1973.

Then we had the pure, satanic evil that is the approval and celebration of homosexuality that came out of the Party Of Rabid Hate For God otherwise known as the Democrat Party.

It is still a shock to me that Obama IMMEDIATELY celebrated sodomy when he lighted up his White House – not MY White House, not the American People’s White House, but the illegitimate house of a wicked man – but refused to lower the flag to half mast in mourning of five US servicemen who were murdered by what Obama just as despicably refused to acknowledge was a terrorist act.

The Word of God could not be more clear: as evil as anything we did before (even abortion), we reached our true absolute rock bottom when we stuck our national middle finger up at God and screamed, “Bring on Your wrath, God!  We all deserve to burn in hell and we want what’s coming to us!”

This is a truly morally depraved man representing a truly morally depraved disgusting sex Party that worships perverted sodomy while despising the men and women who serve the nation Obama is killing.

It is this wicked man who made that wicked treaty with wicked Iran.

And now we have the abandonment of Israel, the Death-to-America desire, underlying this Satan-inspired deal.  The ONLY reason America hasn’t already collapsed yet is that we have been Israel’s greatest ally in the world.  That historic and sacred relationship has been broken by your Traitor-in-Chief.

Given the fact that Democrats have naked contempt for the Word of God and worship homosexual sodomy on an altar of murdered babies in spite of the crystal clear ordinances of God, there is no reason that they would have any less contempt for what the Bible says prophetically.  But what it decreed 2,600 years ago is that in the last days, there would be an end-times confederation between Gog and Magog – otherwise known as Russia – and Persia – a.k.a. Iran – along with a host of nations that today are ALL Islamic states.  And this coalition will attack Israel and ignite what will ultimately be known as Armageddon.  This is described in Ezekiel 38 and 39 right after Ezekiel 37, which famously prophesied that Israel would become a nation once again literally from dead, dried-out bones.  Which was fulfilled in May, 1948 whether godless liberals want to believe it or not.  It is a miracle of divine foreknowledge that the PRECISE coalition that Ezekiel prophesied exists as we speak.

And Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat Party and Democrats have guaranteed that all of this will take place.  Whether they believe it or not.  And they will burn in hell for their unbelief and for their insanely wicked deeds.

The United Stats of America WILL fall as no other nation in the history of the world has EVER fallen.  It will be a more devastating fall because we were once a nation that called upon the God whom we now have betrayed and reviled.  Our collapse will be worse and more agonizing than any nation that has come before us.  And we will deserve it because of Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s and Democrat voters’ demonic trifecta.

Obama Says ‘We Don’t Need A Balanced Budget Amendment.’ What We Don’t Need Is This Fool-In-Chief

July 16, 2011

Barack Obama is on the record saying, “We don’t need a balanced budget amendment,” he said. “We simply need to make these tough choices and be willing to take on our bases.”  Obama says, “I think it’s important for everybody to understand all of us believe we need to get to the point where we can balance the budget,” Mr. Obama said at a White House press conference. “We don’t need a constitutional amendment to do that.”

We desperately need a balanced budget amendment.  What we DON’T need is Barack Hussein Obama and his endless rhetorical posturing.

The national debt that is acknowledged is currently more than $14.5 trillion.

Let’s take a brief trip down national debt memory lane.  Now, let’s see.  When Ronald Reagan left office, the national debt was $2.6 trillion.  By the time Bush I left office, the national debt was $ trillion.  By the time Bill Clinton left office, the national debt was $5.6 trillion (which is quite strange, given the constant claim that Clinton balanced the budget).  By the time Bush II left office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion.  It is currently at over $14.5 trillion, and Obama is not even through his first term yet.  He wants it increased to more than $16 trillion now.  Again, before the end of his first term.

And, of course that’s actually NOTHING.  $14.5 trillion, or even $16 trillion, is actually really chump change to how much the United States REALLY owes.  Read this figure published in a peer reviewed International Monetary Fund publication article that provides the grim reality:

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.

Prof. Kotlikoff says: “The IMF is saying that, to close this fiscal gap [by taxation], would require an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal income taxes, our corporate taxes and all other federal taxes.

“America’s fiscal gap is enormous – so massive that closing it appears impossible without immediate and radical reforms to its health care, tax and Social Security systems – as well as military and other discretionary spending cuts.”

He cites earlier calculations by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that concluded that the United States would need to increase tax revenue by 12 percentage points of GDP to bring revenue into line with spending commitments. But the CBO calculations assumed that the growth of government programs (including Medicare) would be cut by one-third in the short term and by two-thirds in the long term. This assumption, Prof. Kotlikoff notes, is politically implausible – if not politically impossible.

One way or another, the fiscal gap must be closed. If not, the country’s spending will forever exceed its revenue growth, and no one’s real debt can increase faster than his real income forever.

Prof. Kotlikoff uses “fiscal gap,” not the accumulation of deficits, to define public debt. The fiscal gap is the difference between a government’s projected revenue (expressed in today’s dollar value) and its projected spending (also expressed in today’s dollar value). By this measure, the United States is in worse shape than Greece.

Prof. Kotlikoff is a noted economist. He is a research associate at the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research. He is a former senior economist with then-president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. He has served as a consultant with governments around the world. He is the author (or co-author) of 14 books: Jimmy Stewart Is Dead (2010), his most recent book, explains his recommendations for reform.

He says the U.S. cannot end its fiscal crisis by increasing taxes. He opposes further stimulus spending because it will simply increase the debt. But he does suggest reforms that would help – most of which would require a significant withering away of the state. He proposes that the government give every person an annual voucher for health care, provided that the total cost not exceed 10 per cent of GDP. (U.S. health care now consumes 16 per cent of GDP.) He suggests the replacement of all current federal taxes with a single consumption tax of 18 per cent. He calls for government-sponsored personal retirement accounts, with the government making contributions only for the poor, the unemployed and people with disabilities.

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. Here is an economist who speaks plainly, as the legendary straight-shooting film star Jimmy Stewart did for an earlier generation.

But Prof. Kotlikoff’s economic genre isn’t the Western. It’s the horror story – “and scarier,” one reviewer of his book suggests, than Stephen King.

And what’s Obama’s response to all of this?

 

We are so screwed it is absolutely unreal.

And that’s just what the UNITED STATES government owes.  Let’s consider the leftist People’s Republic of Californication and see what IT’S actual debt is:

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

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

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

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

Most other states are facing catastrophic implosion due to government union workers massive unfunded pension liabilities.  Take Obama’s own state of Illinois, for instance.

Yeah, you’re right, Mr. Fool-in-Chief.  We don’t need a balanced budget amendment.  Let’s go with your plan instead.  Let’s dig our own graves, slit our own throats, and then fall into a hole never again to crawl out.  Let’s sacrifice our children’s children’s children’s children and put the weight of a debt they will never be able to possibly repay as we continue to selfishly and wickedly vote ourselves benefits at their expense.  Let’s guarantee that the United States becomes a banana republic in the next fifteen years.

We’re going to collapse soon.  When it happens, it will seem to come out of the blue, but we will have been working steadily toward our own doom for generations.

Obama’s Keynesian approach has utterly and completely failed.  And only fools refuse to see that by now.

The beast is coming.  And Barack Obama, the Democrat Party and every single fool who votes for these fools, will be his useful idiots.

You Call It ‘Obamanomics,’ I Call It ‘The Jobs Holocaust’

July 12, 2011

Quote:

The total number of people who were truly unemployed in June was 25.3  million.

And man that sucks (with “sucks” meaning, “swallowing everything in its path,” like a black hole of doom).

Real Unemployment Rises to 16.2% in June — 25.3 Million People
Friday, July 08, 2011
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – The real unemployment rate rose to 16.2 percent in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported on Friday, marking a return to levels not seen since January 2011.

The “real” unemployment rate is technically a combination of three measures of unemployment: the unemployment rate, the number of people working part-time who want full-time work, and the number of people “marginally attached” to the workforce.

Those who have left the workforce but would still like to be employed are considered marginally attached.

This figure is considered a more complete measure of unemployment because it captures a broader spectrum of those affected by the weak economy. Merely counting those who apply for unemployment benefits as “unemployed” does not fully account for everyone who is out of work or underemployed.

This real unemployment rate – known as the U6 rate – has been climbing since February 2011 when it was at 15.9 percent. Real unemployment peaked in October of 2009 at 17.4 percent, before falling into the 16 percent range for much of 2010.

It now appears that the real unemployment rate is returning to its 2010 levels, trending upward after staying slightly below 16 percent from February to May.

The total number of people who were truly unemployed in June was 25.3 million — the 14.1 million who were unemployed, the 2.7 million who were marginally attached to the workforce and the 8.6 million who were underemployed.

Here’s an official statistic from the BLS for all of you “Bush-blamers”:

 

Oh, yeah, that Bush was a real job murderer, he was.  Good thing we’ve got Obama now righting all those Bush wrongs.

The problem is that Obama isn’t “right” about ANYTHING.  Which leaves the American people pretty much screwed.

Understand something: the Obama administration assurred us that his $3.27 TRILLION stimulus boondoggle would have unemployment down to 6.5% by now.  But rather than acknowledging that Keynesian economics just dug its own grave, hopped in, and covered itself up with dirt where it should remain for all eternity, we are instead met with statements of fanatic religious faith that “the stimulus saved us from a depression.”

This from the same bunch of geniuses who damn Bush for his overall 5.26% unemployment rate and absolving Obama for his 9.3% unemployment average during his three years to date.

5.26%.  Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, we are all told.  And HIS unemployment rate average was 5.2% (i.e., pretty much the same as Bush’s).  And then consider the fact that George Bush also had to deal with the Dotcom bubble collapse that began under Bill Clinton (which wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq stock exchange and vaporized $7.1 TRILLION in wealth) to go along with the 9/11 attacks and the two wars they necessitated.

Bush really doesn’t look bad at all, in hindsight to the failure Obama has brought America.  But a failed demagogue Big Brother needs to have an Emmanuel Goldstein to bear the blame.  That trick has been around since failed leaders have been around.

This is God damn America.  And I suppose you can think of it this way: in God damn America, you DO have a job.  In God damn America the only job you really need is the one you’ve got bearing the wrath of God for voting for the most evil president in American history.

Unemployment Rises To 9.8% – When Will Obama Failure Quit Being ‘Unexpected’?

December 4, 2010

“Unexpected” is the very favorite adjective of the mainstream media these days.  And it will continue to be their favorite adjective until Obama is finally driven out of office in the same spirit of disgrace and abject failure that Jimmy Carter left under.

When a Democrat – and most especially when a liberal Democrat – is president, every single new negative economic report is an utter surprise that no one could possibly have every expected.

When a Republican is running the country, by contrast, no matter how good things might be, it’s actually a bad thing.

The media’s bias is simply mindboggling.  As I have frequently documented:

Media’s Bias, Dishonesty Re: Reagan Vs. Obama Unemployment Bodes Ill For America

And as researches have proven with media studies:

Partisan Bias in Newspapers?  A Study of Headlines Says Yes

An article titled, “Stocks Fall… Unemployment Rate Rises… Factory Orders Down” sums up the Obama economy:

NEW YORK (AP) — Stocks have begun the trading day down, with a disappointing jobs report souring investors’ mood. The Dow, the Nasdaq and the S&P 500 are all seeing modest declines in early trading.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Economists had expected better, but the Labor Department reports the nation’s employers added only 39,000 jobs last month. That was a sharp drop from the 172,000 created in October. It also pushes the nation’s unemployment rate to 9.8 percent. It’s now been above 9 percent for 19 straight months, the longest stretch on record.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Commerce Department reports orders to U.S. factories fell 0.9 percent in October. That’s the biggest drop since May. Plunging demand for commercial and military aircraft was the biggest factor. Excluding transportation, orders were off 0.2 percent.

But here we are.  With our most current “Unexpected Update To Unexpected Unemployment News.”

A Labor Department report released today reveals job creation in November was down by 133,000 jobs from October, bringing the total unemployment rate up to 9.8 percent.

This was a declared the most recent Unexpected Development in our long unemployment saga by the media.  Private-sector job creators are facing massive tax hikes, which the President and his Party say they will defend to the bitter end.  The cost of labor has skyrocketed due to a poorly designed, constantly mutating health care bill, which keeps spitting out unforeseen, but universally expensive, consequences.  Somehow there are “analysts” who think they will respond to these factors by expanding their operations and hiring more people.  Such analysts now live in a constant state of surprise.

Only 39,000 jobs were added in November, which makes it the sixteenth consecutive month in which unemployment has remained above 9.5%, the worst record since the Great Depression.  You may recall that the Democrats predicted 7% unemployment by now, after a peak below 8%, if their trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill was passed.  The Republican House Ways & Means Committee certainly does, and put out a press release to that effect this morning.

The ABC News report of the new unemployment figures contains an interesting quote from Daneil Pedrotty, director of the AFL-CIO’s Office of Investment, who thinks employers are squeezing more work out of few people by exploiting a “climate of fear”: “There are five applicants for every opening.  You have to work harder, or your job either will be done away with or outsourced.  Companies would just as soon open a factory in India as Peoria.”

No, they wouldn’t, or they already would have done so.  No CEO looks at pins in Peoria and Calcutta on a world map, shrugs, and says “Whichever.  I don’t know, flip a coin.”  They choose Calcutta because they have to.  They outsource when hiring American workers, or building facilities on American soil, no longer makes economic sense.  Both sentiment and practical considerations cause them to prefer American locations.  No sane executive would prefer to manage facilities on the other side of the world, commuting thousands of miles for meetings or inspections.  If companies truly would “just as soon open a factory in India as Peoria,” there has been very little stopping them for decades.  Are we supposed to believe America just keeps winning those coin tosses?

Furthermore, the idea of reducing personnel needs by enslaving current employees through a “climate of fear” is ignorant rubbish.  Anecdotal cases surely exist, but the bulk of job creation, on a national scale, is a response to demand. The ABC report makes much of the contrast between falling job creation and rising corporate profits, missing the point that long-term hiring decisions are made in anticipation of future opportunity.  Uncertainty breeds hesitation and thwarts expansion.

Look at it this way: suppose the government simply hired everyone, and guaranteed them a splendid income.  What would they all do? The government could give them make-work jobs, but this would not be a response to demand, so it wouldn’t last very long.  Every aspect of the economy, from consumer prices to interest rates, would be thrown wildly off kilter by a horde of people getting paid $30,000 per year to do whatever a government bureaucrat can think up… or more likely do nothing at all while waiting for the Federal Bureau of Imaginary Jobs to come up with something.  The government would quickly go bankrupt, while citizens waiting in line to buy ten-dollar loaves of stale Wonder Bread.  You don’t have to imagine what this looks like – just crack open a history book and look up “Soviet Union.”

Only demand and opportunity sustain job growth.  People need each other.  The only way government can help them hook up, and generate wealth through commerce, is to get out of the way.  Wise observers will expect robust, sustained job growth when they see signs of that happening.

This marks the nineteenth consecutive month of unemployment being over 9%.  The media continues to vilify George Bush, but do you know how many months the unemployment rate was over 9% during the Bush administration?  Try ZERO.

The worst month for unemployment for George W. Bush was 7.8% – which, interestingly, was the same worst month as Bill Clinton (who, as we all know, paved the streets with gold) had.

Nineteen straight months of 9+ percent unemployment.  Versus zero months.  So we blame the guy with the zero months for the record of the guy with the nineteen straight months.  And this from the very people who constantly harp about “fairness.”

Let’s blame the guy who had an unprecedented 52-consecutive months of job growth, rather than consider the policies of the guy who has clearly imploded our economy.

Let’s blame the guy who had one of the best records for appointing people with private sector business experience, rather than the guy with the worst record in history:

Whatever we do, let’s NOT blame the guy who doubled and then tripled the debt in the most massive spending binge in American history:

This ‘Blame Bush’ Crap Has Just GOT To End

George Bush inherited the policies that led to the 9/11 disaster only months into his presidency.  George Bush inherited the Dotcom disaster that wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq index along with $7.1 trillion in American wealth that was just vaporized as a result of Bill Clinton’s economy.  And rather than spend the next two years blaming his predecessor, Bush cut taxes and turned the economy around.  At least until Democrat policies such as the Community Reinvestment Act and Democrat refusal to reform and regulate Democrat-created Fannie and Freddie brought America crashing down.

Why don’t we blame the president who actually sued banks to force them to make bad loans to people who couldn’t afford the home loans that the banks were forced to provide???

By the standard the Democrats used to demonize George Bush in 2004, Barack Obama is the worst president in American history.

But the media prefers “the unexpected” to “the truth.”

For the record, I am rather fed up with “unexpected” lousy economic news that anyone with a scintilla of common sense saw coming before Obama even took office.

More Proof Democrats Destroyed The Economy In 2008: The Ongoing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Disaster

November 8, 2010

Who destroyed the economy in 2008?  Democrats say it was Bush.  Why?  Well, because he was president, that’s why.

Why – when applying the same logic – Barack Obama STILL isn’t responsible for any of his economic mess fully two years after George W. Bush left office is anybody’s guess.

But stop and think.  The primary cause for the 2008 economic meltdown was a downturn in the housing market and the underlying mortgage market.

At the core of that meltdown was GSEs (that’s “Government Sponsored Enterprises” to you) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has always been that it was – and remains – a social welfare institution masquerading as a financial institution.  And they have made beyond-godawful “financial” decisions because their true loyalty has always been with socialist policies rather than financial ones.

Let’s look at Fannie and Freddie’s current picture:

Fannie, Freddie’s $685B fix
Bloomberg
Last Updated: 11:54 PM, November 4, 2010
Posted: 11:54 PM, November 4, 2010

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage firms operating under federal conservatorship, may cost taxpayers as much as $685 billion as the US covers losses and overhauls the housing-finance system, Standard & Poor’s said.

Costs for resolving the two government-sponsored entities could reach $280 billion, including $148 billion already delivered under a US Treasury Department promise of unlimited support, New York-based S&P said yesterday in a research report. The government may spend an additional $405 billion to capitalize a replacement for the two companies, which own or insure more than half the US mortgage market.

“It appears unlikely in our view that housing and mortgage markets will be able to operate normally without continuing and substantial government involvement,” S&P said, citing the GSEs’ growing portfolio of unsold homes, a sluggish economy, high unemployment, the prospect of rising foreclosures and billions in legacy losses.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who has said there is a strong case to be made for continued US involvement, has promised to deliver the Obama administration’s plan to overhaul the housing-finance system by the end of January. Republican lawmakers, who will take control of the House of Representatives in January, have called for the government to end its support for Washington-based Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, of McLean, Va.

“Although federal authorities have taken no concrete public steps toward sponsoring a GSE alternative, Standard & Poor’s believes that it’s a useful exercise to consider how much such a recapitalization might cost taxpayers,” the report said.

$685 BILLION.  That’s quite a mess.

Did it just happen?  Hardly.  This was going on for years.  This was what caused the subprime crisis that destroyed our economy in 2008.

Let’s survey the record.  According to record provided by The New York Times, Fannie and Freddie were in huge trouble PRIOR TO the economic collapse.  And their holdings were so massive that there is simply no reasonable way that one can maintain that their crisis didn’t directly contribute to the greater crisis to be revealed.  Read the article dated July 11, 2008:

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

A timeline of the subprime loan crisis of 2008 clearly reveals that it was Fannie Mae’s collapse that started the entire mess rolling downhill.  From Wikipedia:

September 2008

    • September 7: Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at that point owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.’s $12 trillion mortgage market, effectively nationalizing them. This causes panic because almost every home mortgage lender and Wall Street bank relied on them to facilitate the mortgage market and investors worldwide owned $5.2 trillion of debt securities backed by them.[151][152]
    • September 14: Merrill Lynch is sold to Bank of America amidst fears of a liquidity crisis and Lehman Brothers collapse[153]
    • September 15: Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy protection[154]
    • September 16: Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s downgrade ratings on AIG‘s credit on concerns over continuing losses to mortgage-backed securities, sending the company into fears of insolvency.[155][156] In addition, the Reserve Primary Fund “breaks the buck” leading to a run on the money market funds. Over $140 billion is withdrawn vs. $7 billion the week prior. This leads to problems for the commercial paper market, a key source of funding for corporations, which suddenly could not get funds or had to pay much higher interest rates.[157]
    • September 17: The US Federal Reserve lends $85 billion to American International Group (AIG) to avoid bankruptcy.
    • September 18: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke meet with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout through the purchase of toxic assets. Bernanke tells them: “If we don’t do this, we may not have an economy on Monday.”[158]
    • September 19: Paulson financial rescue plan is unveiled after a volatile week in stock and debt markets.

Democrats who bother to offer any reason at all why “Republicans got us into this mess” claim that the Republicans refused to regulate and reform the economic sector.

Well, let’s dig a little further.  Was it George Bush who refused to regulate or reform?

Hardly.

From US News & World Report:

Seventeen. That’s how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

That’s right.  George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the agencies at the epicenter of the economic crisis.

When did this thing start?  Under Bush?  Not according to The New York Times, as I have pointed out before in a previous article.

From the New York Times, September 30, 1999:

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

More.  Again from the New York Times, September 30, 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.”

What do we have, even in the pages of the New York Times?  A prediction that as soon as the economy cooled off, the mortgage market would explode like a depth charge and the government would have to step in to prevent a catastrophe.  And from a Clinton program, at that.

The same man – Peter Wallison – who had predicted the disaster from 1999 wrote a September 23, 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess.”

So this disaster began under Bill Clinton.  Specifically, it began in the very final years of the Clinton administration.  Interestingly, at the same time that the Dot-com bubble was getting ready to explode on Clinton’s watch.  Clinton got all the credit for a great economy, and Bush got to watch 78% of the value of Nasdaq destroyed just as he was taking office.  $7.1 TRILLION in wealth was vaporized (43% of the the Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003).  Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive economic disaster (made even worse by the shocking 9/11 attacks), and Bush turned economic calamity into the longest consecutive period of job growth (52 straight months) in history.  In diametrical contradiction to all the lies that you have  heard from Democrats and from a mainstream media propaganda machine that often puts Joseph Goebbels to shame

What did George W. Bush do to deal with the necessary regulation and reform of these government-subsidized behemoths Fannie and Freddie?

Read what the New York Times said back in September 11, 2003:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

So Bush WANTED to regulate and reform the industry that would destroy the economy five years later, again, in contradiction to a blatantly dishonest and ideologically liberal and biased media.  Bush didn’t “refuse to regulate.”  Bush TRIED to provide the necessary regulatory steps that could have averted disaster.

And who blocked those regulations and reforms that Bush tried to provide?  None other than Barney Frank and his Democrat buddies:

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Democrats blocked reform and regulation of Fannie and Freddie.  They threatened to filibuster any attempt at regulation and reform.  Meanwhile John McCain wrote a letter in 2006 urging reform and regulation of the GSEs.  He said:

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

And it came to pass exactly as John McCain warned.

Because of Democrats.  Who were virtually entirely to blame for the disaster that ensued as a result of their blocking of reform and regulation.

What did Democrats do with the mainstream media’s culpability?  They falsely dropped the crisis at the feet of “greedy” Wall Street.  But while examples of Wall Street greed abound, the liberal intelligentsia deliberately overlooked the central and preceding role of Democrat-dominated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Here’s how the mess actually happened:

The New York Times acknowledged that Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.”

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

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

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

Here’s the process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what have they done in the two years since?

They made bad far, far worse.

It Was DEMOCRATS Who Blew Up Our Economy In 2008

October 19, 2010

I’ve been saying this for months: It was DEMOCRATS who destroyed our economy in 2008.

First of all, given all the times that you’ve heard the line, “The Republicans created this mess,” ask yourself a question: when was the last time you heard an explanation as to just precisely what the Republicans did to cause the disaster?

Don’t be a lemming and a tool; read up on how Democrats loaded up GSEs Fannie and Freddie with liberals, massively increased the government ownership of the mortgage industry, engaged in incredibly risky policies even as our housing market was beginning a cyclical downturn, and then refused to allow any regulations or reform whatsoever:

With Eyes Finally Wide-Open, Reconsider Why The Economy Collapsed In The First Place

Who REALLY Exploded Your Economy, Liberals Or Conservatives?

Biden: We Misread The Economy – And It’s All The Republicans’ Fault

Want To Know Why Your Economy Blew Up?

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

This Blame Bush Crap Has Just GOT To End

And here’s the latest fact and the latest explanation as to just how Democrats blew up our economy:

The quotes that explain the entire financial meltdown
posted at 12:10 pm on October 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

For those who want a smoking gun to show the genesis of the financial collapse, this short sequence from a longer video I posted this week will do it. Clinton HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced a settlement of a lending discrimination complaint with Accubanc, a Texas lender whose prerequisites for mortgages came under attack from “community organizers” at the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission and the city of Dallas. I clipped out this sequence to underscore its importance:

Watch the video.

CUOMO: To take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes. To give families mortgages that they would not have given otherwise, yes.

Q: [unintellible] … that they would not have given the loans at all?

CUOMO: They would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.

Q: Are minorities represented in that low and moderate income group?

CUOMO: It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes.

CUOMO: With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages — which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio

Here, in fact, is the genesis of the problem, the ideology that created the monster.  Cuomo, the Clinton administration, and Congress believed they had the right and the power to determine acceptable risk for the lenders, rather than lenders determining it for themselves in a free market.  Even while imposing risk standards on lenders, Cuomo admits that he expects a higher default rate on the new loans — which is why the lenders didn’t want to write them in the first place.

In other words, the CRA didn’t get used to fight discrimination, but to force lenders to give money to high-risk borrowers for political purposes.  And Cuomo knew it.

That was the political arrogance at the heart of the collapse.  However, the CRA was more a sideshow than the actual problem.  When Congress decided that enforcement alone wouldn’t generate enough mortgages to boost their political fortunes, they had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eliminate the risk entirely for lenders through the purchase of the subprime loans.  Without that risk and with almost-guaranteed short-term profits of subprime loans, lenders went wild while Fannie and Freddie repackaged them as quasi-government bonds for investors.

While Democrats like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi keep blaming “greed” for the collapse, it was Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd building that “greed” into the system in order to drive the subprime lending market.  And it was Democrats like Frank, Dodd, Maxine Waters, and Lacy Clay who suggested that regulators like Armando Falcon were racists for blowing the whistle on the Ponzi scheme they created.

The Democrats decided, as Michelle says, that mortgages were a civil right, and wouldn’t cost the American taxpayers a dime.  How well is that working out, America?  And now, the question you have to ask yourselves is this: Do you want the nation’s economic policies run by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Frank for the next two years?

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The problem is that we aren’t a moral or religious people anymore.

We’ve become a bad people.  And bad people allow a climate in which lies dominate, and then they believe the lies they are told.

And that is why we allowed a mainstream media to fabricate an entire culture of lies, and then we believed their narrative that Republicans (who hadn’t been in power for two years in the Congress) were the party to blame.  We blamed Bush – who tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the economic meltdown just in 2008 alone.  And Bush had called for reform and regulation of the GSEs 34 times since 2001.  And we put the very Democrats who blew up our economy by refusing to allow those reforms or regulations until after it was too late in charge of the economy that they ruined.

It was Democrats and the Government Sponsored Enterprise system Democrats created (i.e., GSEs Fannie and Freddie) that created the financial disaster; just as it is Democrats who are in total control of our government who are CONTINUING to undermine our economy now.

We gave Democrats total power.  And in just two years they have so destroyed our economy and our health care system that we may never be able to recover.

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

September 8, 2010

We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again.  As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts.  And that therefore the Republicans will hike the deficit.  The problem is that it’s a false premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account the fact that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.

As bizarre as it might seem, it is seen as perverse these days to suggest that allowing someone to keep more of the money he or she invests would stimulate people to take more risks by investing in businesses and products, and that such increased investment in business and products would in turn stimulate more economic growth.  Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.

Then again, liberals aren’t doing much for rocket science, either.

Let’s take a look at the current facts, and then examine the history of our greatest tax-cutting presidents.

The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes

Democrats say they are cutting taxes on “95% of Americans, but argue that giving the same tax cut benefits to the remaining 5% would hike the deficit and be fiscally irresponsible.

Well, for one thing, the Democrats are flat-out lying when they say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  That can’t possibly be true, because as a matter of simple fact a whopping 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. […]

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

What Democrats are doing – deceitful liars that they are – is giving Americans “tax credits” and calling them “tax cuts.”

tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.  The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers.  A government cannot “cut” a citizen’s taxes unless that citizen had been paying taxes in the first place.

A tax credit is when you give someone money that has been collected from another taxpayer.  It is redistribution of wealth.  It is what Karl Marx described as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  Do you notice that “to” in the middle?  It means, “transferring the wealth from one government-penalized group of people TO another government-privileged group of people.”  It is what Obama described as “spreading the wealth around.”

What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.”  And it is nothing but a lie to call it that.  And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.

That’s the first point.  Democrats are advancing a central tenet of Marxism and deceitfully and even demagogically relabeling it as “capitalism.”  And the media helps them get away with it.

The Falsehood That Cutting Taxes For the Rich – But NOT The Other Classes – Contributes To the Deficit

Next comes the idea Democrats argue that tax cuts for the rich contribute to the deficit.

Let’s say for the sake of argument (just for the moment; I’ll prove it’s wrong below) that tax cuts for the rich raise the deficit.  Let me ask you one question: how then do tax cuts for the rest of us not ALSO raise the deficit???

Why wouldn’t raising taxes on the middle class and the poor not correspondingly lower the deficit?  So why aren’t Democrats going after them?

Are Democrats too stupid to realize that there just aren’t enough rich people to pay off our deficit, especially when this president and this Congress have raised said deficit tenfold over the last Republican-passed budget deficit?  The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007.  That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion; now under Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid it is $1.6 TRILLION a year as far as the eye can see.

Wouldn’t ANY tax cuts raise the deficit?  And shouldn’t we therefore tax the bejeezus out of EVERYBODY to lower the deficit?  Wouldn’t every single dollar collected reduce the deficit correspondingly?

Let me put it concretely: say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a millionaire.  And then say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a poor person.  If I took both bills to a Democrat, would he or she be able to tell the difference?  Would he say, “Ah, THIS bill will lower the deficit because it comes from a rich person; but THIS one clearly won’t because it clearly came from a poor person.”

Update, Sep. 10: A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will lose $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended.  And that sounds bad.  But they also conclude that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period.  If we can’t afford $700 billion, then how on earth can we afford $3 trillion?  And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street?  And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax? [end update].

Hopefully you get the point: if tax cuts for the rich are bad because they increase the deficit, then they are equally bad for everyone else for the same exact reason.  And so we should either tax the hell out of everyone, or cut taxes for everyone.  And a consistent Democrat opposed to “deficit-hiking tax cuts for the rich” should be for raising YOUR taxes as much as possible.

Republicans don’t fall into this fundamental contradiction (see below), because they don’t believe that tax cuts create deficits.  Democrats do.  Which means they are perfectly content with shockingly supermassive deficits – as long as its 95% of Americans who are creating those deficits, rather than 100%.

Joe Biden said it was a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.  And yet Democrats are trying to make 95% of Americans unpatriotic traitors who don’t care about their country?

Now, Democrats will at this point repudiate logic and punt to the issue of “fairness.”  But “fairness” is a very subjective thing, when one group of people decide it’s “fair” for another group of people to hand over their money while the first group pays nothing.  Even George Bernard Shaw – a socialist, mind you – understood this.  He pointed out the fact that “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Which is to say it’s NOT fair at all.  Paul may think it’s fair, but poor Peter gets screwed year after year.

And it is a fundamental act of hypocrisy – not to mention advancing yet ANOTHER central tenet of Marxist class warfare – to claim to oppose tax cuts for the rich in the name of the deficit, but not to oppose tax cuts for everyone else.

And for the record, I despise both hypocrisy AND central tenets of Marxism.  Which is why I despise the Democrat Party, which is both hypocritical and basically Marxist.

[Update, September 20] Brit Hume demolished the Obama-Democrat argument regarding the Bush tax cuts being a “cost” to the government, saying:

But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

And, again, that mindset about government control and in fact government ownership over people’s wealth represents a profoundly Marxist view of the world. [End update].

For what it’s worth, Democrats will only maintain the massive contradiction of “tax cuts for the rich raising the deficit” for so long.  Obama already admitted he was willing to go back on his promise to raise taxes on the middle class.  And his people are already looking to tee off on middle class tax hikes.  In addition, if you have any private retirement funds, they may well be coming after you soon.

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln.  Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people.  Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts.  And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]

Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance.  They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy.  Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means.  Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year.  And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt.  Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage?  But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).

As a result of the Clinton-era Dot-com bubble bursting, the Nasdaq lost a whopping 78% of its value, and $6 trillion dollars of wealth was simply vaporized.  We don’t tend to remember how bad that economic disaster was, because the 9/11 attack was such a huge experience, and because instead of endlessly blaming his predecessor, George Bush simply took responsibility for the economy, cut taxes, and fixed the problem.  The result, besides the above tax revenue gains, was an incredible and unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Update September 12: Did somebody say something about “jobs”?  Another fact to recognize is the horrendous damage that will be done to small businesses and the jobs they create if the tax cuts for the “rich” aren’t continued.  As found in the Wall Street Journal, “According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.” Further, the Tax Policy Center found that basically a third of taxpayers who are expected to be in the top tax bracket in 2011 generate more than half their income from a business ownership.  And while Democrats love to point out that their tax hikes on the so-called rich only impact 3% of small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business reports that that three percent employs about 25 percent of the nation’s total workforce.  “Small businesses that employ 20 to 250 workers are the most likely to be hit by an increase in the top two tax rates, according to NFIB research. Businesses of this size employ more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.”  So if you want jobs and an economic recovery, you simply don’t pile more punishing taxes on those “rich” people.  Especially during a recession [End update].

We’re not arguing theories here; we’re talking about the actual, empirical numbers, literally dollars and cents, which confirms Andrew Mellon’s thesis, and Warren Harding’s and Calvin Coolidge’s, John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, and George W. Bush’s, economic policies.

Harding and Coolidge, Reagan and Bush, with Democrat JFK right smack in the middle: great tax cutters all.

The notion that small- and limited-government conservatives who want ALL Americans to pay less to a freedom-encroaching government are somehow “beholden to the rich” for doing so is just a lie.  And a Marxist-based lie at that.

[Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:

Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).

1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).

So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.

For the middle class:
1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).

The middle class’ tax burden went DOWN by 9%.  They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.

For the bottom 50%:
1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).

So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS.  When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money.  They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed.  When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don’t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more – and improve the economy by doing so – by investing.  If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.

Some articles to read:

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

[End Update, 12/15/10]

This ‘Blame Bush’ Crap Has Just GOT To End

August 23, 2010

Are you sick of Obama and the left unrelentingly blaming Bush for everything that is happening going on two years after he left office?  Do you think that Obama will ever man-up and actually become responsible for his presidency?

Me too, and me neither, respectively.

I went more than a little off on a liberal who dredged up this demagogic rhetorical garbage:

In Europe people laugh at us leaving in false dreams, wall streets spending false money, Bush starting a false war etc.

America is the land of dreams, how come? Idiots like George Bush can get elected to president. If he can Become president, then what can the smart people do? Jump to pluto?.

Do you really expect Obama to fix the worst recession in 80 years in a bit more than 18 months? Which was created by 8 years of Reagan, 4 years by bush, Clinton’s last period and 8 years by Bush? What is he some kind of god?

I didn’t vote for Obama but I expect him to put us in the right direction in this 6 years (he most likely) has left. in 2007-2008 they estimated that the recession will peak in 2012, so there is still a lot left. Just imagine how it would be with Palin/McCain. McCain who wanted to keep Bush’s politics moving and Palin who thought Africa was a country.

Here was my response:

First of all, I must pause to mock you for making Europe the gold standard of measurement. I guess if you like Nazism, fascism, Marxism, socialism, and genocide up the wazoo, Europe must be the coolest place on earth.  I can see why you lefties love it so much.

What was it that Jefferson said? “The comparison of our governments with those of Europe, is like a comparison of heaven and hell.” Not that you give a damn what Jefferson said about anything.

Let me assure you that the Iraq War – which 60% of Democrat Senators voted to authorize (just for the record) – was a REAL war indeed.

Here’s a record of how Democrats were for that war before they were against it:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

And at least Bush had the decency to actually WIN his war. Barack Obama demonized the Iraq War and demonized the surge strategy that enabled us to win it. And Obama made Afghanistan “his war” in order to maintain the facade that he really wasn’t a weakling on foreign policy.  Bush did so well in Iraq that the Obama administration actually tried to take credit for the victory. And now we’re “floundering in Afghanistan” under Obama’s failed leadership.

That Sarah Palin who thought Africa was a country thing? False, you demagogue. It was a made-up “fact” that was reported as truth. And the ONLY documented “source” behind it has been revealed to be a hoax.

Now, you want to see a REAL idiot in action? How about a guy running for president who thinks there are 58 states? This is a man who is so fundamentally ignorant he doesn’t even know jack squat about his own country.

Youtube:

Quote:

It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

So let’s talk about what a total and absolute ideologue you are to condemn Sarah Palin for a bogus fabricated quote that she didn’t even say, and to then defend a guy who is on video saying something about 20 times as stupid.  Because that’s how the Democrat Party operates, in a nutshell.

For the factual record, Obama actually called Europe a country.  How is that not just as stupid as calling Africa a country?

Youtube:

Quote:

“One of the things that is a huge advantage for America compared to countries like Europe is, actually, we’re constantly replenishing ourselves with hungry, driven people who are coming here, and they want to work, and they start a business, and our population is younger and more dynamic, and that’s a good thing!”

Which is to say that Obama is unfit to be president by your own deceitful example.

And as for Bush being an idiot, at least he didn’t need a pair of damn teleprompters to say his name right. Maybe Bush would have sounded more “intelligent” to you if he read absolutely everything he said at every venue he went to off his teleprompters.

Here’s Obama without his teleprompter for one minute:

Which is why he needs to bring one everywhere – even to sixth grade classrooms – to not sound like the gibbering idiot he truly is.

So, oh, yeah, the country is much better off with its “Genius-in-chief,” isn’t it?

You don’t give one damn about the truth; you live in your own self-created reality in which Sarah Palin is stupid for something that she never said, while Barack Obama who said something stupider than Sarah Palin ever said in her life is still brilliant.

You would be completely ashamed of yourself, if you were capable of that attribute of moral character.

I write an article that shows how BY THE DEMOCRATS VERY OWN STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT Obama is the worst president in American history. And you’ve got nothing to say about that. Nothing but more “blame Bush.”

Another demonstration of your rabid leftist ideology that will NOT be fair: the economy goes into an absolute TOILET under Obama, but he’s not responsible for any of his policies.

The unemployment rate was 7.6% when Bush left office. But Obama is not responsible for the fact that it’s near 10% now and by most expert accounts will rise higher after he pissed away $862 billion (actually $3.27 TRILLION) in his boondoggle “stimulus”???

Why is it that you refuse to hold Obama to any kind of standard at all – even the standard he set for himself? The Obama administration said this was a terrible economy, but he had the solution, that his stimulus would keep unemployment from going over 8%. And by his own administration’s standard did he not utterly fail? Wasn’t he elected to make the economy better, instead of far worse?

And what do we say about the fact that unemployment is going up, rather than down?  Wasn’t Obama supposed to make things better rather than worse?

Jobless claims rise to highest level in 9 months
By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer – Thu Aug 19, 2010

WASHINGTON – Employers appear to be laying off workers again as the economic recovery weakens. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits reached the half-million mark last week for the first time since November.

It was the third straight week that first-time jobless claims rose. The upward trend suggests the private sector may report a net loss of jobs in August for the first time this year.

Initial claims rose by 12,000 last week to 500,000, the Labor Department said Thursday.

Construction firms are letting go of more workers as the housing sector slumps and federal stimulus spending on public works projects winds down. State and local governments are also cutting jobs to close large budget gaps.

The layoffs add to growing fears that the economic recovery is slowing and the country could slip back into a recession.

Isn’t Obama kind of going the wrong way, Mr. “Blame Bush”???

We’ve got all kinds of measures showing that things are far worse than they ever were under Bush. But you, total rabid fundamentalist leftist ideologue that you are – can only shout “blame Bush!” all the louder.

Here’s one example from August 21, 2010 in the LA Times:

With consumers and businesses keeping a lid on expenses, more and more small and mid-size restaurants are throwing in their dish towels and closing up shop. […]

Nationwide, the number of restaurants dropped in 2010 for the first time in more than a decade, according to NPD, falling 5,202 to 579,416.

So, wow. That means that things haven’t been this bad since Bill Clinton was president and the Dot-com bubble he created blew up. That means that things were NEVER this bad under George Bush.

Bush inherited a terrible economic situation, too. First of all, the Dot-com bubble that Clinton passed to Bush created huge economic upheaval – to the tune of Nasdaq losing 78% of its value. Trillions of dollars of Clinton economic growth were just blown away like a fart in a hurricane.  The mainstream media didn’t report the facts of Clinton’s recession because they are shockingly biased liberal propagandists. Which is why so few Americans trust them anymore. Clinton took all the credit for the Dot-com build-up; Bush got all the pain when it blew up, suffering a huge recession that was all on Clinton’s tab. Then you add to that the 9/11 attack, which crippled the airline and tourism industry for months, and you should understand how bad Bush had it. But he didn’t blame Clinton a gazillion times; he manned up and solved the problem. He took an economic lemon and made 52 consecutive months of job growth.   In contrast, Obama hasn’t solved anything. All he’s done is blame and demonize.

Here’s another one from the August 21 2010 Associated Press report:

In the wake of news about a spike in new applications for unemployment benefits comes another potentially troubling sign: A record number of workers made hardship withdrawals from their retirement accounts in the second quarter.

What’s more, the number of workers borrowing from their accounts reached a 10-year high, according to a report issued Friday by Fidelity Investments.

Wow. Again, things haven’t been so bad since the last time a Democrat was president. Again, it was NEVER this bad under George Bush’s presidency.

How about trade deficit figures? From November 19 2009 Reuters:

WASHINGTON: The US trade deficit widened in September by an unexpectedly large 18.2 per cent, the most in more than 10 years, as oil prices rose for the seventh straight month and imports from China bounded higher, a US government report showed on Friday.

Hey, again, things weren’t so bad since a Democrat president last ran things. And it was never so bad under George Bush.

How about all the foreclosures? Surely Obama has made that better? Oops. Again, things were NEVER this bad under Bush’s presidency:

US foreclosures up 4%; top 300000 for 17th month on the trot
by Jaspreet Virk – August 12, 2010

Foreclosure crisis doesn’t seem to be loosening its hold on the housing sector. After declining for the last three consecutive months, foreclosure activity is back up in the United States.

As per the ‘Foreclosure Market Report’ released by RealtyTrac, an online marketplace, giving insights into foreclosures, 325,229 houses received foreclosure filings in the nation, 4 percent up from June.

Not only there has been a jump in the number of houses receiving filings, the foreclosures have exceeded 300000 for the 17th straight month. One in every 397 houses received foreclosure notice from the lenders in July.

Hmmm. Obama’s been president for all of those 17 months. And Bush was president for none of them. But it’s all Bush’s fault, anyway, isn’t it? At least if you’re a hypocrite liberal, it is.

Under Obama, and ONLY under Obama, foreclosures are up 75% in the major metropolitan areas:

NEW YORK (Reuters)Foreclosures rose in 3 of every four large U.S. metro areas in this year’s first half, likely ruling out sustained home price gains until 2013, real estate data company RealtyTrac said on Thursday [in its midyear 2010 metropolitan foreclosure report].

Unemployment was the main culprit driving foreclosure actions on more than 1.6 million properties, the company said.

We’re not going to see meaningful, sustainable home price appreciation while we’re seeing 75 percent of the markets have increases in foreclosures,” RealtyTrac senior vice president Rick Sharga said in an interview.

Has Obama done anything to solve this problem – which was why our economy blew up in the first place? Absolutely not.

Obama failed – because he is a failure, and failing is what he does:

WASHINGTON – Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Friday’s report from the Treasury Department suggests the $75 billion government effort is failing to slow the tide of foreclosures in the United States, economists say.

More than 2.3 million homes have been repossessed by lenders since the recession began in December 2007, according to foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc. Economists expect the number of foreclosures to grow well into next year.

The government program as currently structured is petering out. It is taking in fewer homeowners, more are dropping out and fewer people are ending up in permanent modifications,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

There’s “hope and change” for you.  A failed president with failed policies.

As an update (August 24), I add the following headline:

Instant View: Existing home sales plunge to 15-year low
Tue Aug 24, 10:28 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sales of previously owned U.S. homes dropped in July to their lowest pace in 15 years, implying further loss of momentum in the economic recovery.

Existing home sales dropped by a massive 27% in July.  And, again, omigosh.  We haven’t seen terrible numbers like this since the last time a Democrat was president.  We NEVER saw anything like this during the Bush era.

How about budget deficits? Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit in his entire presidency, and the Democrats still blamed him for his spending; but the CBO now says that Obama will run a trillion-plus dollar defict next year, making it three years in a row. And we will have massive trillion-plus dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see because of Obama’s reckless unsustainable spending programs and the debt they will create. How about this? Obama’s deficit for July alone was more than Bush’s entire 2007-year deficit! And how about this one? Obama outspent Bush’s entire eight-year presidency’s deficit in just 20 months – after demonizing Bush for his spending!!!

From The Wall Street Journal, which, unlike the New York Slimes, the LA Slimes, the Chicago Tribune, and other major liberal papers, ISN’T actually financially and morally bankrupt:

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?

Bush’s deficits were 2-3% of GDP.  Obama’s are at 12.8% of GDP – which is five to six times higher and bringing us closer and closer every day to the point of collapse.

Are the people better off under Obama than they were under Bush? I don’t think so:

More Americans are on food stamps now under Barack Obama’s failed presidency than at any time in history. And that certainly includes George Bush’s presidency.

But now Obama and the Democrats are going to raid the Food Stamp program to pay for their pet liberal projects. Because “Let them eat cake.”

How about bank failures? We kind of need banks for a healthy economy unless we want to go back to the barter system, you know:

Banks are failing at double the rate of last year.  During 2009, which the government claims was the peak of the recession, the total number of bank failures at this point in the year was 40.  It is already 83 for this year.

For the record, only 25 banks failed under Bush in 2008.  That number soared to 140 banks under Obama’s watch in 2009.  And now we’re already past 118 bank failures this year in 2010 with four more months to go.

But you can’t hold Barack Obama responsible for the fact that things are far, far, FAR worse under his presidency than they ever were under Bush’s. The ONLY reason you’ve got to “blame Bush” is that the 2008 economic meltdown happened under Bush’s presidency. You don’t even offer an actual reason or state an actual policy reason for the failure; you just blame Bush because he was there.  You don’t consider the fact that things were great until Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate in 2006 and royally screwed up the country (the unemployment rate before Democrats took over Congress in January 2007 was 4.6%).  Nope. Bush was president in 2008, so it was all his fault. Even though he warned SEVENTEEN TIMES that we needed to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae or have an economic disaster on our hands, and even though Democrats were in lockstep refusal to deal with the landmine that caused us to implode in the first place.  But you are way too much of a twisted unhinged ideologue to apply the same argument to Obama now. What happened while Bush was president was Bush’s fault; and what happened while Zero was president is still Bush’s fault.

Do I want to go back to Bush’s “failed policies” when unemployment never got above 7.6% and averaged 5.2% for his presidency? As opposed to “moving forward” with Obama and his 10%-and-rising level? Pardon me, but I’ll take Bush.

Democrats are currently saying, “Do you want to go back to the way things were when Republicans were in control?”

When Republicans were last in control prior to 2007, we had full unemployment with an unemployment rate of only 4.6%.

So, yeah.  I WOULD like to go back to the way things were when Bush and Republicans were in control.  And I frankly want to know what idiot wouldn’t?

As for your question as to whether Obama is some kind of a god, I can’t help but point out that it wasn’t conservatives who kept putting the halo on Obama’s head:

A funny video provides a giant montage of Obama halos.

We weren’t the ones who said “This is the moment when when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal,” either.

We weren’t the ones who said, “You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”  So don’t blame us for Obama not living up to the ridiculous expectations he and his liberal minions fed to the culture.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is such a miserable, total failure that I see that even you can’t admit you voted for him.

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

August 10, 2010

I don’t want to ridicule Barney Frank on account of his weight.  Suffice it to say he is easily able to pull off the two faces he routinely wears, and the two sides he routinely takes.

Here’s the recent side of Barney Frank:

Frank: “well one of my biggest differences with the Bush administration, even with the Clinton administration, was that they overdid that. I have always been critical of this effort to equate a decent home with home ownership. I think we should have been doing more to provide rental housing, my efforts have been to try and get affordable rental housing I was very much in disagreement with this push into home ownership and I think the federal government should not be artificially doing that. The goal is for people to have decent housing and I think beginning in the Clinton administration, exacerbated by Bush, we pushed people too much into home ownership…”
– Barney Frank, May 20, ‘2010 on CNBC.

And here’s Frank from 2005 documenting the fact that Barney Frank in 2010 is a rank liar:

“This is a very important resolution, particularly at this time, because we have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about home ownership and its role in the economy.
Obviously, speculation is never a good thing. But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples, where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems, we are talking here about an entity, home ownership, homes, where there is not the degree of leverage that we have seen elsewhere.

This is not the dot-com situation. We had problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality and people building fiber-optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you will not see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble.

So those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push for home ownership.
– Barney Frank, 2005

link
Video Link

[I found these quotes at US Politics Online].

You’re right, Barney.  It wasn’t the Dot-com situation.  It was a hundred times WORSE than the Dot-com situation, even given as bad as the Dot-com bubble was.  And yeah, you sure were right when you said there wouldn’t be a collapse, weren’t you?

So first of all, we have Barney Frank – liberal Democrat par excellence – acknowledging that the bad policy that led to the mortgage market meltdown was actually a CLINTON policy that Bush merely continued (most likely because he knew he’d be called a “racist” the moment he ended a program that gave billions of dollars to minorities to buy homes they couldn’t afford).

From the New York Times, September 30, 1999:

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

It’s beyond asinine that Democrats blame Bush for ruining the economy, and praise Clinton as having the mostest wonderfulest economy ever, when it was a Clinton program that ruined the Bush economy.  But that’s the mainstream media narrative for you.

It’s ironic that Frank in hindsight so laughably compared the housing mortgage bubble that brought down the economy in 2008 to the Dot-com bubble that brought down the economy just as Clinton was leaving office.  Because that’s TWO giant economy-killers that “Mister Wonderful Clinton” inflicted on George Bush.  The Clinton-era Dot-com crash ultimately destroyed 78% of the Nasdaq composite.  Clinton benefited with a huge market surge, and Bush paid with a huge market collapse that began taking place while the handprint on the Bible from Bush’s oath of office was still warm.

So Barney Frank reminds us that the destruction of the Bush economy was bookended by massive Clinton failures – the Dot-com bubble collapse in 2001 and the housing market bubble collapse in 2008.  And Clinton was never blamed for either of them by the propagandist mainstream media.

The second thing you can notice is that Democrats like Barney Frank – who were so quick to pounce all over the mortgage meltdown and blame Bush for it – were not only the ones who created the problem, but were the ones who defended the problem.

What’s the Democrat-mainstream media-created narrative for why we had the 2008 collapse?  Republicans refusing to regulate?  Read what the New York Times said back in September 11, 2003:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

So Bush WANTED to regulate, in contradiction to all the lies that you heard.

And who blocked those regulations?  Omigosh, it was Barney Frank and his Democrats.

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

You would find if you bothered to look at the facts that Bush demanded reform and regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac SEVENTEEN TIMES during his presidency.  And that Democrats refused to regulate the GSEs and even threatened filibusters against regulation.  Not that the mainstream media is honest enough to report the truth.

You would find if you bothered to look at the facts that financial experts literally predicted that the Clinton-birthed Fannie and Freddie expansion would ultimately explode.

Again from the New York Times, September 30, 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.”

What do we have, even in the pages of the New York Slimes?  A prediction that as soon as the economy cooled off, the mortgage market wold explode like a depth charge and the government would have to step in to prevent a catastrophe?  From a Clinton program?

The same man – Peter Wallison – who had predicted the disaster from 1999 wrote a September 23, 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess.”

The New York Times acknowledged that Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.”

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

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

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

Here’s the process:

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

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

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

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

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

John McCain wrote a letter in 2006 urging reform and regulation of the GSEs.  He said:

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

An of course, they could not pay their debts.  Fannie and Freddie basically went bankrupt and were taken over.  And they took a whopping share of the biggest financial institutions down with them.  Fannie is in the process of devouring nearly 400 billion dollars of bailout money from the American taxpayer.  And now – GREAT GOOGLEY MOOGLEYObama is planning to funnel yet another $800 BILLION through the same Fannie and Freddie who already destroyed us once.

And thus you had a financial disaster created by one William Jefferson Clinton and one Democrat Party.  And now a second act of economic destruction is being planned by Barack Obama.

The 2008 economic collapse that Democrats were elected to fix was itself created by Democrats who will now continue the very policies that created the disaster in the first place.

Democrats then demonized Bush for merely being there when the disaster happened.  When they had created the mess, and when they had refused to allow Bush to do anything to prevent a Democrat-created disaster that he and other Republicans saw coming, but ultimately lacked the courage to stop.