Posts Tagged ‘deficit’

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

February 4, 2014

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

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

Here was one of my earlier responses to that one:

That is such bullcrap it is beyond unreal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

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

November 17, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take a look at this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Brokaw: Obama Is Going To Have To Answer For His Out-Of Control Deficit. And HOW He Is.

October 16, 2012

When even doctrinaire liberal statesmen start saying stuff like this, Obama is in trouble:

Brokaw: ‘Obama Is Going to Have to Answer For’ Exploding Budget Deficit ‘On His Watch’
By Noel Sheppard | October 14, 2012 | 13:00

Criticism of Barack Obama came from a surprising source Sunday.

Appearing on Meet the Press, former NBC Nightly News anchor  Tom Brokaw said the President “is going to have to answer for” the explosion in  the federal budget deficit that “happened on his watch” (video follows with  transcript and commentary):

[See embedded video at Newsbusters for Brokaw saying the following on video]

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: The issue of the debt, the issue of  taxes. I think it’s important to get to one of the big issues here. We have got  to in these final few weeks try to reach some resolution about this revenue  issue, whether we raise revenue to deal with the debt, because whether it’s  Medicare or whether it’s dealing with the debt level at the level that it’s at,  without agreement on both sides, we’re not going to be able to tackle some of  the more difficult issues, Tom.

TOM BROKAW: You know, I think that both campaigns have  failed to say to the American public, “This is going to be hard. This is a real  crisis in America.” You look at the IMF projections about where the global  economy is now. They’re saying you have to get your act together. We could be in  another recession next year at this time. They’ve got to level with the American  people about everyone’s going to have to give something. And there is going to  have to be some revenue raised at some point as well. I do think that the  governor is right, and we’ll expect to hear Governor Romney go after President  Obama this time about, “I want more details about your plan. You keep harping on  me. I haven’t heard the details in your plan as well.”

I looked at that  debate we that talked about a moment ago, it was playing last night on C-SPAN,  and governor [sic], now President Obama was saying, “Look, we’ve got a deficit  of half a trillion dollars. I’m going to get that under control.” Well, this  week, that deficit is $1.1 trillion and it happened on his watch. He is going to  have to answer for that.

Imagine that – Obama is going to have to answer for something.

Of course, the question is whether this is going to happen or if his media  will continue to allow him to not speak to this issue as they press Romney for  answers right through Election Day.

Stay tuned.

I’ve said it over and over and over.  All you have to do is use my blog’s search engine and type in “deficit” or “debt” to find that out.  Conservatives have been saying it.  Republicans have been saying it.  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and the entire Romney campaign have been saying it.

But up to now, the elite media have refused to say it.  Until now.

The fact that it has been the brazen truth for four miserable years is completely beside the point, of course.

Look, the last budget under George W. Bush had a deficit of $455 billion:

Federal deficit hits record $455 billion
The shortfall for fiscal 2008 is larger than was feared. It is likely to be a key issue in the last weeks of the campaign.
October 15, 2008|Richard Simon | Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Compounding terrible economic news, budget officials announced Tuesday that the federal deficit has soared to a record $455 billion, injecting new urgency into the closing days of the presidential campaign about spending in Washington, including efforts to stem the financial disaster.

The final accounting for fiscal 2008 produced a larger shortfall than had been projected, reflecting the start of federal efforts to address the economic emergency. It is certain to become a significant issue in the campaign, confronting the candidates with new questions about their growing slate of proposals for new spending and tax cuts at a time when red ink is surging.

[…]

Democrats blamed Bush and his Republican allies in Congress for wiping out a budget surplus inherited from the Clinton administration through tax cuts that have been criticized for favoring the wealthy and through other spending.

Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, said the deficit was a “warning sign of the immense fiscal challenges just beginning to arise with the retirement of the baby boomers” and should be viewed as a call for Congress to control spending.

Now, I want you to notice that ending: Democrats demonized the other side and blamed them for everything (ignoring the fact that Democrats had controlled both the House of Representatives AND the US Senate for the previous two years, while Paul Ryan said we need to do something to fix our spending crisis or we will be in huge trouble soon.  One side focused on blame and demagoguery, the other side tried to get something done to fix the problem.

Democrats have lied and deceived about the Bush tax cut creating deficits for years, and they are dishonest.  Do you know which year produced the highest federal income tax revenue in American history, kids?  Was it in 1962 when the top marginal rate was over ninety damn percent?  No.  Was it back when we’re told that Bill Clinton paved every street in America with gold?  Nope.  It was the year 2007 thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts that encouraged people to start businesses and increase their investments.  That year, the United States raised a record $1,163,472 in individual income tax revenue and an also-record $370-plus billion in corporate income tax revenue.

That increase in tax revenues began almost IMMEDIATELY because of the Bush tax cut, for the official historic record.  Because Bush’s 2003 tax cut:

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 been 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.

Even the New York Freaking Liberal TIMES was forced to acknowledge that the Bush tax cut had INCREASED FEDERAL TAX REVENUES:

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.

If you claim that the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit and blame Bush for the whopping deficit and stunning debt, you are therefore, henceforth, ergo sum and ipso facto a documented LIAR.  Because the fact is that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue and revenues have since PLUNGED because Barack Obama has spent the last four years demonizing the wealthy and threatening every single year to attack them with punitive tax rates.

By the way, I mentioned the top rate being over ninety percent in the 1960s; do you know that under Obama and his constant demagoguery of higher taxes for the rich, under Obama we’ve suffered the biggest drop in revenues SINCE the 1960s when the top marginal tax rate was over ninety percent and the wealthy were sheltering their money rather than using it to create jobs and increase investment?

Interestingly, in spite of the DotCom recession that Clinton created and handed to George Bush – which vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and which annihilated 78% of the Nasdaq stock index valuation – George Bush that year produced over $160 billion more dollars in revenue than Bill Clinton EVER did in his very best year.  So how the hell is a tax cut plan that INCREASES tax revenues to blame for increasing the deficit other than the fact that being a Democrat is tantamount to being a pathologically dishonest and deranged weasel???

I have documented that every single time we have EVER cut tax rates in American history – EVERY SINGLE TIME – America has increased its federal income tax revenues.  That is what happened when Calvin Coolidge tried it; that is what happened when John F. Kennedy tried it; that is what happened when Ronald Reagan tried it; and that is what the hell happened when George W. Bush tried it.

Barack Obama is a pathologically dishonest liar.  What he did was pile up a massive, enormous load of debt and then blame it on Bush.  Let’s review that Obama spending:

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who passed the $862 billion stimulus on February 17, 2009.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who did that $79 billion bailout for Government Motors and their union Democrats in 2009.  Obama claimed the credit but stuck Bush with the bill because Obama did it in 2009.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who signed that $410 billion Omnibus bill in March of 2009.  Again, Bush’s fiscal year, therefore it must have been Bush who spent that money.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who left $350 billion in TARP money to President Damn Bush who spent it in early 2009.  Because according to actual reality Bush spent half of the $700 billion TARP fund and left the other half for Obama to spend.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who rammed that damned $2.6 trillion ObamaCare – Ooh, I’m sorry, BusheyCare bill – down our collectivist throats at the end of 2009.

Obama made some other incredibly deceitful and frankly demonic assertions in his budget math, too.  Obama asserted that the Iraq War would have gone on FOREVER unless he, the messiah, had ended it.  It didn’t matter that Bush won the Iraq War in spite of Obama’s demagoguery or that Bush negotiated the final status of forces agreement that the US followed when we pulled out our troops to “give Obama his great achievement.”  But Obama claimed that in “ending” the Iraq War on Bush’s timetable, Obama somehow saved $700 billion over Bush.  And of course Obama MASSIVELY increased the war in Afghanistan (something which Bush wisely avoided) such that more than 70% of all the American soldiers killed in Afghanistan were killed under Obama’s four years with fewer than 30% being killed over Bush’s eight years in Afghanistan.  But in Obama’s math, he inherited the war in Afghanistan and it doesn’t matter one wit if he’s the fool who massively escalated that war or not.  Bush gets the blame, regardless of what the subject is, and Obama gets the credit.

So of course by Obama’s logic Bush is somehow responsible for ALL the SPENDING of the two wars (including the nearly twelve-year-long war in Afghanistan that Obama massively escalated before cutting and losing), and Obama is responsible for all the SAVINGS from the same wars.

In any event, Obama managed to turn an actual Bush $455 billion budget deficit that Bush left him into an imaginary trillion-dollar deficit and then promised categorically that he would cut that deficit he “inherited” in half by the end of his first term.

And of course the problem is that Obama is a liar by EVEN HIS OWN INCREDIBLY DISHONEST METRICHis promise to cut the deficit in half was just one more among all the other major promises that he broke.

And now Obama is going to make a whole bunch of the same sort of promises he made before and he’ll be just as dishonest about keeping them as he was the last damn time we believed his lies.

What Mitt Romney Said Last Night About Tax Cuts And The Deficit Was Absolutely Right. And What Obama Said Was Absolutely Wrong.

October 4, 2012

Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night that he would not allow tax cuts to add to the deficit.  He repeatedly said it because over and over again Obama blathered the liberal talking point that cutting taxes necessarily increased deficits.

Romney’s exact words: “I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

Meanwhile, Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half during his first four years – but instead gave America the highest deficits in the history of the entire human race.

I’ve written about this before.  Let’s replay what has happened every single time we’ve ever cut the income tax rate.

The fact of the matter is that we can go back to Calvin Coolidge who said very nearly THE EXACT SAME THING to his treasury secretary: he too would not allow any tax cuts that added to the debt.  Andrew Mellon – quite possibly the most brilliant economic mind of his day – did a great deal of research and determined what he believed was the best tax rate.  And the Coolidge administration DID cut income taxes and MASSIVELY increased revenues.  Coolidge and Mellon cut the income tax rate 67.12 percent (from 73 to 24 percent); and revenues not only did not go down, but they went UP by at least 42.86 percent (from $700 billion to over $1 billion).

That’s something called a documented fact.  But that wasn’t all that happened: another incredible thing was that the taxes and percentage of taxes paid actually went UP for the rich.  Because as they were allowed to keep more of the profits that they earned by investing in successful business, they significantly increased their investments and therefore paid more in taxes than they otherwise would have had they continued sheltering their money to protect themselves from the higher tax rates.  Liberals ignore reality, but it is simply true.  It is a fact.  It happened.

Then FDR came along and raised the tax rates again and the opposite happened: we collected less and less revenue while the burden of taxation fell increasingly on the poor and middle class again.  Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

People don’t realize that John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest Democrat presidents, was a TAX CUTTER who believed the conservative economic philosophy that cutting tax rates would in fact increase tax revenues.  He too cut taxes, and he too increased tax revenues.

So we get to Ronald Reagan, who famously cut taxes.  And again, we find that Reagan cut that godawful liberal tax rate during an incredibly godawful liberal-caused economic recession, and he increased tax revenue by 20.71 percent (with revenues increasing from $956 billion to $1.154 trillion).  And again, the taxes were paid primarily by the rich:

“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 we get to George Bush and the Bush tax cuts that liberals and in particular Obama have just demonized up one side and demagogued down the other.  And I can simply quote the New York Times AT the time:

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
.

And of course the New York Times, as reliable liberals, use the adjective whenever something good happens under conservative policies and whenever something bad happens under liberal policies: “unexpected.”   But it WASN’T “unexpected.”  It was EXACTLY what Republicans had said would happen and in fact it was exactly what HAD IN FACT HAPPENED every single time we’ve EVER cut income tax rates.

The truth is that conservative tax policy has a perfect track record: every single time it has ever been tried, we have INCREASED tax revenues while not only exploding economic activity and creating more jobs, but encouraging the wealthy to pay more in taxes as well.  And liberals simply dishonestly refuse to acknowledge documented history.

Meanwhile, liberals also have a perfect record … of FAILUREThey keep raising taxes and keep not understanding why they don’t get the revenues they predicted.

The following is a section from my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues“, where I document every single thing I said above:

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).

[To read that article in its entirety, click here].

When Romney said that the small businesses that create jobs was going to be hurt by Obama’s taxes, he was RIGHT.  In a different article available here, I document the facts from official sources and then say:

Out of 27,281,452 total firms, 21,351,320 are listed as “nonemployer firms.”  Which means that 78.23 percent of all small businesses hire ZERO employees.   So when Obama says that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by his tax hike, please understand that the whopping majority of those businesses that won’t be affected aren’t hiring anybody.  Another 3,617,764 small businesses have no more than four employees.  Those small businesses that hire zero workers plus those small businesses that hire no more than four workers constitute 91.5% of ALL small businesses.

Here’s a more relevant way to look at it.  When you consider the businesses that employ more than four people, you are looking at businesses that hire 94.97 percent of ALL the workers who work for small businesses.  And while not all of the small businesses that hire between 5-9 employees are going to be paying higher taxes as a result of Obama’s class warfare on small businesses, most of them do.  And virtually none of the businesses that hire more than ten employees are going to earn less than $250,000 a year.

Romney pointed out in the debate that half of all jobs created by small business and a quarter of ALL THE JOBS CREATED IN AMERICA would have their income taxes skyrocket under Barack Obama.

When Romney said that Obama’s taxation was going to destroy 700,000 small business jobs, he was RIGHT.

Which is why 85% of small businesses agree with Romney and disagree with Obama that Obama’s policies have led America down the wrong track.

Which is why 64% of small businesses are saying they plan to simply wait Obama out rather than create jobs while he’s trying to ruin them.

Obama deceitfully talks about giving tax cuts to small businesses when in fact he is actually massively taxing them.

Obama IS helping small businesses … into BANKRUPTCY.  And Obama says the recession is behind us while small businesses are going belly up in droves.

Romney absolutely crushed Obama in the debate last night.  Nobody had EVER won a debate by the margin that Romney won by in the history of CNN.  If you have any decency and care about people who need a job and love this country at all, please cast your vote for Mitt Romney.

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

October 3, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

We just found out that our spending is actually escalating.

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

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

CNS  News:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

Obama Says ‘We Don’t Have To Worry About It In The Short Term’ RE Debt (If My Doctor Said That About Cancer I’d Get A New Doctor)

September 19, 2012

So you’re diagnosed with cancer, and you’re kind of worried.  Particularly given that you’re doctor just said “We don’t have to worry about it short term” and letting you know he wasn’t going to treat you.

Now, we could literally ALSO be talking about Obama killing us with his damned ObamaCare.  Because that’s true, too.  But we’re talking about the debt that Obama could care less about that’s just as fatal for our country as cancer is for us:

Posted on September 18, 2012
Obama On Debt: “We Don’t Have To Worry About It Short Term”

President Obama addressed the debt and deficit, saying it is not a problem in the “short term,” during an appearance on CBS’s “Late Show” with host David Letterman. Obama also said he did not know what the national debt was when he took office.

When a concerned Letterman asked him about the debt, Obama laid the responsibility for the U.S. national debt and deficit on his predecessor former President George W. Bush.

“Well, here’s what happened. We had a surplus when Bill Clinton was president,” Obama said. “It was projected to continue to be a surplus. We decided to launch two wars on a credit card. We cut taxes twice without finding offsetting costs for it or ways to pay for it, a prescription drug plan and then we had a massive recession.”

“When I walked into office we had a trillion dollar deficit, debt had mounted and then we had to take a bunch of emergency measures, that cost money, saving the auto industry, making sure that the financial system got back on track,” Obama said.

“So now what we’ve got to do is we’ve got to pare down that deficit, get that debt under control and I think the only way we’ve ever been able to do that effectively is when you do it in a balanced way,” Obama explained.

When asked if he remember what the national debt was when he entered office, President Obama said “I don’t know what the number was precisely.” Obama told Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.”

“A lot of it we owe to ourselves. Because if you invest in a treasury bill or something like that then essentially you’re loaning the government money. In fact, the majority of it is held by folks who live here, but we don’t have to worry about it short term,” Obama said.

“Right now interest rates are low because people still consider the United States the safest and greatest country on earth, rightfully so, but it is a problem long term and even medium-term. And so we’re going to have to take care of this debt and deficit, but we’ve got to do it in a balanced way,” he added.

For the record, the national debt was $10.626 trillion the day Obama took office.  Bush increased it by $4 trillion during his entire 8-year presidency and Obama demonized him.  But by the time Obama looks at his calender on January 20, 2013 (hopefully his last day in the White House), he will have racked up more than $6 trillion in just four years.

Obama says, “When I walked into office we had a trillion dollar deficit.”  That’s actually a blatant lie.  When Obama walked into office Bush handed him a (still way too high unless you compare it to Obama) $400 billion budget deficit.  That $400 billion was the deficit that Bush left Obama for fiscal year 2009 if Obama hadn’t then loaded and larded it up with debt piled on top of debt.

Obama is blaming Bush for: 1) Obama’s $862 billion stimulus; 2) Obama’s $79 billion bailout for Government Motors and their union Democrats; 3) Obama’s $410 billion Omnibus bill; 4) Obama’s  $350 billion in TARP money that Obama voted for and that Bush left for him.  That’s how you turn Bush’s $400 billion into Obama’s whining about a trillion. 

In a way what Obama is trying to do with his deficit is what he’s trying to do in pretty much everything.  Obama spends $79 billion to bail out GM.  Obama takes credit for it as an evidence of his glorious Obamaness.  But who does Obama stick with the bill?  Bush.  That deal happened in March of 2009 and therefore is “Bush’s fault.”  Bush gets zero credit but gets stuck with the entire bill for Obama’s extravagence.

Our real debt isn’t the $16 trillion ($6 trillion of which accumulated under Obama’s watch); it’s $222 trillion PLUS because of all the unfunded costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

And of course that doesn’t count the massive debt of the states, such as California’s $500 billion unfunded pension debt, plus at least another $210 billion for Illinois’ unfunded pension debt, etc. etc.

The way we’re printing money, “the short term” is going to be really, REALLY short and that “long term” that Obama says is so far off is right around the corner.

Devastating NY Times Story Reveals Obama As An Arrogant And Divisive Blowhard Who Overestimates His Abilities And Stupidly Competes In Useless Trivialities

September 10, 2012

Update, 9/11/12: I’ve written about Obama’s divisiveness – in wild contrast to his hypocritical and cynical promises to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority” – and on this day when we celebrate the unity of the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, it seems fitting to examine why any hope of unity went out the door with Obama’s presidency.

Two weeks – just TWO WEEKS – after Obama took office, Republicans (according to Bob Woodward’s new book) came ready to work with him.  The problem was that Obama wasn’t ready to work with THEM.  When Eric Cantor provided some excellent suggestions to the massive stimulus that Obama demanded, Obama shut him down by saying, “Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.”  Obama flat-out told Republicans he didn’t want to hear any of their ideas and that they weren’t going to be allowed to contribute.

Obama gave a speech just three weeks after taking office in  which he said:

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

Eric Cantor was simply amazed.  Obama had falsely won election on a promise of true hope and change for rising above partisan intransigence.  And he was being more partisan and more bullheaded than anybody.  Cantor reflected that Obama had EVERYTHING when he took office.  He had the love of the American people.  He had total Democrat control over the House for two full years.  He had filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate for those two years.  He had an opposition party that was shocked and awed and disoriented and dismayed at the loss they had just taken.  Obama had all of that going for him.  And, in Cantor’s words, in Obama’s very first act as president, “he had unified and energized the losers.”

Obama told a lot of what we now know are documented lies to become president.  He promised he’d cut the deficit in half during his first four years, when instead he has TRIPLED IT.  He mocked George Bush as “irresponsible” and literally denounced Bush’s patriotism for adding $4 trillion to the debt in eight years; Obama will have added $6 trillion in his first four years when this term ends.  He voted against Bush’s debt ceiling increase on hyper-partisan grounds only to viciously denounce Republicans for voting the same way and on the same grounds that HE did when he was a Senator.  There are many similar examples.  But for all the lies he told, his most unforgivable lie was promising the American people that he would rise above political differences and heal the national divide when we now know that he not only never had any intention of doing so, but was in fact pathologically incapable of even trying.

I responded to a liberal who blamed the Obama failures on “Republican obstructionism.”  I provided just a few MAJOR examples of the Democrat obstructionism that Bush faced from Democrats who had even MORE control over the political process than the Republicans have had since 2010.  It is hypocritical to the extreme for those who never blamed DEMOCRAT OBSTRUCTIONISM to now blame Republicans for the very sort of obstructionism that they were cheering when Bush was president.  [End update]

Hey, with a few more stories like this, I might almost take the New York Times out of the bird cage and read it:

Rich Karlgaard, Forbes Staff
9/03/2012 @ 12:34PM |242,209 views
New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct — Obama Is Lousy CEO

A Sunday New York Times front page story — New York Times! — might have killed President Obama’s re-election hopes.

The story is called “The Competitor in Chief — Obama Plays To Win, In Politics and Everything Else.” It is devastating.

With such a title, and from such a friendly organ, at first I thought Jodi Kantor’s piece would be a collection of Obama’s greatest political wins: His rapid rise in Illinois, his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, the passage of health care, and so on.

But the NYT piece is not about any of that. Rather, it is a deep look into the two outstanding flaws in Obama’s executive leadership:

1. How he vastly overrates his capabilities:

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.

2. How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

Kantor’s piece is full of examples of Obama’s odd need to dominate his peers in everything from bowling, cards, golf, basketball, and golf (104 times in his presidency). Bear in mind, Obama doesn’t just robustly compete. The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes. Combine this weirdly wasted time with a consistent overestimation of his capabilities, and the result is, according to NYT’s Kantor:

He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

Kantor’s portrait of Obama is stunning. It paints a picture of a CEO who is unfocused and lost.

Imagine, for a minute, that you are on the board of directors of a company. You have a CEO who is not meeting his numbers and who is suffering a declining popularity with his customers. You want to help this CEO recover, but then you learn he doesn’t want your help. He is smarter than you and eager to tell you this. Confidence or misplaced arrogance? You’re not sure at first. If the company was performing well, you’d ignore it. But the company is performing poorly, so you can’t.

With some digging, you learn, to your horror, that the troubled CEO spends a lot of time on — what the hell? — bowling? Golf? Three point shots? While the company is going south?

What do you do? You fire that CEO. Clint Eastwood was right. You let the guy go.

So Obama is an arrogant blowhard who fails or refuses to understand his own limitations and has surrounded himself with fawning yes men and women who will agree with whatever they think he wants them to agree with.  And Obama also has a pathological need to win even at the smallest and most trivial things.

That’s just not the kind of guy you want leading your country.

That attitude is responsible for why America’s credit got downgraded and we couldn’t make a big deal when we really needed one:

Bob Woodward Book: Debt Deal Collapse Led to ‘Pure Fury’ From President Obama
By RICK KLEIN
Sept. 05 2012

An explosive mix of dysfunction, miscommunication, and misunderstandings inside and outside the White House led to the collapse of a historic spending and debt deal that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehnerwere on the verge of reaching last summer, according to revelations in author Bob Woodward’s latest book.

The book, “The Price of Politics,” on sale Sept. 11, 2012, shows how close the president and the House speaker were to defying Washington odds and establishing a spending framework that included both new revenues and major changes to long-sacred entitlement programs. “The Price of Politics” examines the struggles between Obama and the Congress for the three and a half years, between 2009 and the summer of 2012. It offers exclusive behind the scenes access to what the President and the Republicans did, or rather failed to do.

But at one critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal — a miscalculation, in retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he’d already gone.

The president called three times to speak with Boehner about his latest offer, according to Woodward. But the speaker didn’t return the president’s phone call for most of an agonizing day, in what Woodward calls a “monumental communications lapse” between two of the most powerful men in the country.

When Boehner finally did call back, he jettisoned the entire deal. Obama lost his famous cool, according to Woodward, with a “flash of pure fury” coming from the president; one staffer in the room said Obama gripped the phone so tightly he thought he would break it.

“He was spewing coals,” Boehner told Woodward, in what is described as a borderline “presidential tirade.”

“He was pissed…. He wasn’t going to get a damn dime more out of me. He knew how far out on a limb I was. But he was hot. It was clear to me that coming to an agreement with him was not going to happen, and that I had to go to Plan B.”

Accounts of the final proposal that led to the deal’s collapse continue to differ sharply. The president says he was merely raising the possibility of putting more revenue into the package, while Boehner maintains that the president needed $400 billion more, despite an earlier agreement of no more than $800 billion in total revenue, derived through tax reform.

Obama and his aides argue that the House speaker backed away from a deal because he couldn’t stand the political heat inside his own party – or even, perhaps, get the votes to pass the compromise. They say he took the president’s proposal for more revenue as an excuse to pull out of talks altogether.

“I was pretty angry,” the president told Woodward about the breakdown in negotiations. “There’s no doubt I thought it was profoundly irresponsible, at that stage, not to call me back immediately and let me know what was going on.”

The failure of Obama to connect with Boehner was vaguely reminiscent of another phone call late in the evening of Election Day 2010, after it became clear that the Republicans would take control of the House, making Boehner Speaker of the House.

Nobody in the Obama orbit could even find the soon-to-be-speaker’s phone number, Woodward reports. A Democratic Party aide finally secured it through a friend so the president could offer congratulations.

While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president.

“It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama,” Woodward writes.

That was what John Boehner was saying all along.  He and Obama had a deal.  All Obama had to do was agree to the deal he’d already made.  But to Obama it wasn’t just two men trying to do what was best for America; it was a competition.  And Obama wanted to win.  So he tried to force one more concession out of Boeher.  And Obama blew up the deal and America lost.

Here’s a little more to reveal this ugly, narcissistic side to Obama:

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers and the White House had what nearly every party is describing as a “tough” and “testy” meeting on the debt ceiling Wednesday afternoon, culminating in a stormy exchange between President Barack Obama and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

It was the fifth straight day of talks, but the first in which attendees, speaking on background, were willing to admit that steps were taken backwards. According to multiple sources, disagreements surfaced early, in the middle and at the end of the nearly two-hour talks. At issue was Cantor’s repeated push to do a short-term resolution and Obama’s insistence that he would not accept one.

“Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people on this,” the president said, according to both Cantor and another attendee. “This process is confirming what the American people think is the worst about Washington: that everyone is more interested in posturing, political positioning, and protecting their base, than in resolving real problems.”

Cantor, speaking to reporters after the meeting, said that the president “abruptly” walked off after offering his scolding.

[…]

“I have reached the point where I say enough,” Obama concluded, according to Reuters. “Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here? I’ve reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this.”

And it should have brought Obama’s presidency down.  That short term deal Cantor wanted would have saved America’s triple A credit rating.

So, a few things on all this.  First of all, there isn’t a conservative on the planet who needs or wants a damn scolding from Obama.  You don’t scold people you’re negotiating with if you actually want to get anwhere with them.  Second, history has already proven Obama definitely ISN’T Ronald Reagan.  Ronald Reagan is the greatest president in the history of America, according to the American people; while Barack Obama is an arrogant chump who thinks he’s about 50,000 times greater than he is.  And third, the fact that Obama by his own description was willing to bring his entire presidency down just to not budge to prove some point or win some contest pretty much confirms all of what is written above.

Barack Obama is a narcissist according to a psychologist who is an expert on the field of narcissism.  He simply has no business whatsoever being president.  As Clint Eastwood said, it’s time to let him go.

One of the reasons I got into blogging was to preserve a record as to just what a total CHUMP Obama is.  So, knowing that the New York Times is great at purging stories that don’t favor liberals, I’d better grab it while it’s still around to be grabbed.  Here’s the NY Times piece.  Let me repeat that; here’s a piece from the New York Times:

September 2, 2012
The Competitor in Chief
By JODI KANTOR

As Election Day approaches, President Obamais sharing a few important things about himself. He has mentioned more than once in recent weeks that he cooks “a really mean chili.” He has impressive musical pitch, he told an Iowa audience. He is “a surprisingly good pool player,” he informed an interviewer — not to mention (though he does) a doodler of unusual skill.

All in all, he joked at a recent New York fund-raiser with several famous basketball players in attendance, “it is very rare that I come to an event where I’m like the fifth or sixth most interesting person.”

Four years ago, Barack Obama seemed as if he might be a deliberate professor of a leader, maybe with a touch of Hawaiian mellowness. He has also turned out to be a voraciously competitive perfectionist. Aides and friends say so in interviews, but Mr. Obama’s own words of praise and derision say it best: he is a perpetually aspiring overachiever, often grading himself and others with report-card terms like “outstanding” or “remedial course” (as in: Republicans need one).

As he faces off with Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, Mr. Obama’s will to win — and fear of losing — is in overdrive. He is cramming for debates against an opponent he has called “ineffective,” raising money at a frantic pace to narrow the gap with Mr. Romney and embracing the do-anything-it-takes tactics of an increasingly contentious campaign.

Even by the standards of the political world, Mr. Obama’s obsession with virtuosity and proving himself the best are remarkable, those close to him say. (Critics call it arrogance.) More than a tic, friends and aides say, it is a core part of his worldview, formed as an outsider child who grew up to defy others’ views of the limits of his abilities. When he speaks to students, he almost always emphasizes living up to their potential.

“He has a general philosophy that whatever he does, he’s going to do the very best he can do,” Marty Nesbitt, a close friend, said in an interview.

Mr. Obama’s aides point to the seriousness he brings to the tasks of the presidency — how he virtually never shows up for a meeting unprepared, say, or how he quickly synthesizes complicated material. When Mr. Obama was derided as an insufferable overachiever in an early political race, some of his friends were infuriated; to them, he was revising negative preconceptions of what a black man could achieve.

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.

And though Mr. Obama craves high grades from the electorate and from history, he is in a virtual dead heat with Mr. Romney in national polls, the political equivalent of school progress reports.

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

When he reads a book to children at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, Mr. Obama seems incapable of just flipping open a volume and reading. In 2010, he began by announcing that he would perform “the best rendition ever” of “Green Eggs and Ham,” ripping into his Sam-I-Ams with unusual conviction. Two years later at the same event, he read “Where the Wild Things Are” with even more animation, roooooaring his terrible roar and gnaaaaashing his terrible teeth. By the time he got to the wild rumpus, he was howling so loudly that Bo, the first dog, joined in.

“He’s shooting for a Tony,” Mr. Chaudhary joked. (He has already won a Grammy, in 2006, for his reading of his memoir, “Dreams From My Father” — not because he was a natural, said Brian Smith, the producer, but because he paused so many times to polish his performance.)

Asked if there was anything at which the president allowed himself to just flat-out fail, Mr. Nesbitt gave a long pause. “If he picks up something new, at first he’s not good, but he’ll work until he gets better,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s fixation on prowess can get him into trouble. Not everyone wants to be graded by him, certainly not Republicans. Mr. Dowd, the former Bush adviser, said he admired Mr. Obama, but added, “Nobody likes to be in the room with someone who thinks they’re the smartest person in the room.”

Even some Democrats in Washington say they have been irritated by his tips on topics ranging from the best way to shake hands on the trail (really look voters in the eye, he has instructed) to writing well (“You have to think three or four sentences ahead,” he told one reluctant pupil).

For another, he may notalways be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

Now Mr. Obama is in the climactic contest of his career, about to receive the ultimate judgment on his performance from the American people. It is a moment, aides say, he has been craving: during some of the darker days of his tenure, he told them that he wanted the country to evaluate him not in isolation, but in contrast to the Republican alternative. The tough, often successful attacks from the right have hardened and fueled him, aides say, driving him to prove that “we’re right and we’re better,” as one ally put it.

In 2008, he said he wanted to change the nature of politics and keep governing separate from campaigning; since then, he has overhauled his White House to prepare for the re-election bid and has run tit-for-tat negative ads, some of which, like some run by his opponent, have been criticized by media truth squads for inaccuracies.

He offers his share of verbal jabs at his rival, too.

As far back as 2008, Mr. Obama’s assessment of Mr. Romney was scathing. On the day Mr. Romney dropped out of that presidential race, Mr. Obama told reporters that the former governor was a weak candidate who made “poorly thought out” comments (the compulsive grader again). He savored Mr. Romney’s stumbles in the Republican primaries this time around, an adviser said, professing wonder that it took him so long to lock up the nomination.

This February, in an otherwise placid meeting with Democratic governors — routine policy questions, routine presidential replies — Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana asked Mr. Obama if he had what it took to win the 2012 race.

For a moment Mr. Obama looked annoyed, a White House aide said, as if he thought Mr. Schweitzer was underestimating him. Then he came alive. “Holy mackerel, he lit up,” Mr. Schweitzer said in an interview. “It was like a light switch coming on.”

No matter what moves Mr. Romney made, the president said, he and his team were going to cut him off and block him at every turn. “We’re the Miami Heat, and he’s Jeremy Lin,” Mr. Obama said, according to the aide.

Since then, Mr. Obama has been working at a furious pace, headlining three times as many fund-raisers as George W. Bush did during his 2004 re-election campaign, according to Mr. Knoller.

When local campaign staff members ask him what they need to do better, he talks about himself instead. “I need to be working harder,” he recently told one state-level aide.

He recently began preparing for the presidential debates, reading up on Mr. Romney and his positions. One danger is that he could sound grudging or smug by indulging in his habit of scoring others (as in, “You’re likable enough, Hillary,” one of his worst debate moments from 2008). As he slashes into Mr. Romney’s arguments, he sometimes cannot help letting crowds know what he thinks of his rival’s political skills.

“When a woman right here in Iowa shared the story of her financial struggles, he gave her an answer out of an economics textbook,” he said about Mr. Romney in May, his tone incredulous.

Though Mr. Obama quizzes his team on all aspects of the campaign, he is concentrating most on the rhetorical challenge of making a case for a second term. He has worked on making his stump speech tighter, less defensive and more forward-looking in recent months, and he is still testing and discarding lines. “That’s the meat of the campaign, that’s where his focus lies,” said David Axelrod, his chief strategist.

Not only do the White House, the Supreme Court and a budgetary crisis hang in the balance, but so does a national judgment on whether Mr. Obama’s agenda was a good idea in the first place. So perhaps it is not surprising that he cites not just his record, but also every other accomplishment he can think of.

Then again, he is just as competitive in private, when there is little or nothing at stake. At one of his farewell meetings for White House interns, Mr. Obama dispensed some life advice.

“When you all have kids, it’s important to let them win,” he said with a smile. “Until they’re a year old. Then start winning.”

Kitty Bennett contributed research.

If America really wants to “start winning,” it will rid its national ass of Obama.

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

June 15, 2012

As carried by Yahoo News:

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

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

Notably, Obama did not refute the hypothetical accusations.

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

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

Obama’s side.

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

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

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

I ask you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Dinesh D’Souza points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 25, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From USA Today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key findings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Los Angeles Times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the reality of Obama’s spending:

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