Posts Tagged ‘deficits’

United States Drops To SEVENTH PLACE In Global Competitiveness Under Obama

September 11, 2012

The Denver Post provides the facts:

U.S. falls two spots, to seventh, on global competitiveness
Posted:   09/06/2012 12:01:00 AM MDT
September 6, 2012 8:38 AM GMTUpdated:   09/06/2012 02:38:56 AM MDTBy Pan Pylas
The Associated Press

LONDON — The United States’ ability to compete on the global stage has fallen for the fourth year running as confidence in the country’s politicians continues to decline, an annual survey from the World Economic Forum found Wednesday.

Even though the world’s largest economy saw its overall competitiveness rise on the back of its status as a global innovation powerhouse, the forum says the U.S.’s ranking this year has dropped two places, to seventh. The Netherlands and Germany have moved ahead of the U.S. on the top 10 leaderboard.

The report found that some aspects of the U.S.’s political environment continue to raise concern among business leaders, “particularly the low public trust in politicians and a perceived lack of government efficiency.”

Dropped two places to seventh.  Last year Obama dropped us to fifth.  Hey, wonder when we were last number one?  Let’s see what an article talking about our slipping to fifth place back in 2011 says about that:

Global competitiveness ranking: US falls to fifth spot
The U.S. fell to fifth place in a global economic competitiveness ranking.
News Desk September 7, 2011 14:01

The United States fell to fifth place in a global ranking of the world’s most competitive economies.

The World Economic Forum announced Wednesday that the United States fell in the survey due to its massive deficits and declining public faith in the government and political leaders, the Associated Press reports. The rankings are based on economic data and a survey of 15,000 business executives, it states.

The top spot went to Switzerland, which has held the number one ranking for three straight years.

The ranking by the Geneva-based forum put Singapore at second, Sweden at third and Finland at fourth. The United States had been in the number one spot in 2008 but has fallen for three consecutive years.

The rankings incorporated factors such as factors a nation’s infrastructure, technological readiness and business sophistication, the Los Angeles Times reports

Ah, yes, it was under the completely failed policies of the evil Bush.  Damn him and his 5.26% average unemployment rate and his #1 ranking in global economic competitiveness!  I’d rather have a completely failed Marxist like Obama any day of the week.  Wouldn’t YOU?  I mean, if you want America to collapse under the weight of its own debt and failure, Obama is THE MAN.

The Gateway Pundit has the title that every newspaper in America ought to have:

Thanks Barack… US Drops to 7th Place on Global Competitiveness Index Due to Historic Debt and Deficits
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, September 10, 2012, 1:24 PM

We’re Number 7!

The United States dropped in the Global Competitiveness Index ranking for the fourth year in a row because of exploding debt and deficits.

The United States just dropped to seventh place on the World Economic Forum’s newly released Global Competitiveness Index.
iStock Analyst reported:

The U.S. dropped to No. 7 on the World Economic Forum’s newly released 2012 Global Competitiveness Index report. Switzerland retained its top position as the most competitive nation, followed by Singapore, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany.

Asian countries continue to be among the most competitive—and many are gaining strength. Among the top 20, five are from Asia. Compared to last year’s ranking, Singapore retains its No. 2 spot, Hong Kong gained two positions, Taiwan remains No. 13, Korea advanced five spots and Japan dropped one position.

One year ago this week the US was downgraded for the first time by Standard and Poors.

The Obama deficit just topped a trillion dollars for the fourth year in a row with a month left in the fiscal year.

You can keep listening to demon-possessed Democrats and buy their Bush hatred, or you can finally hold this utterly failed president responsible for his completely failed policies.

Advertisements

Who’s To Blame For The Economic Mess We’re In? Two Views.

August 1, 2011

A fellow named Rich had this to say to me in response to my article, “GOP Or Democrats: Who’s To Blame For the Budget, Spending And Shutdown Mess We’re Now In?”:

Not sure how I got to your site, but I thought I would add my two cents. Obviously, to anyone watching the budget debacle, it is much more complicated than you have laid out, and thrown at the feet of the Democrats. For the two years the Democrats held control of the House and Senate, the House sent budgets to the Senate that were held up by the Republicans using the rule that in order to get anything passed, there had to be 60 votes for it. The Republicans did everything they could to hold up any legislation. You also neglect to mention the sorry state of the economy even at the point the Democrats took power, which necessitated a huge increase in spending the George Bush signed, because he knew that without that spending our economy was going down. For the last nearly four years, we have watched a battle as the economy, which should have crashed because of the excesses of the financial world’s follies, was barely kept afloat by government spending. And those financial follies, including the credit swaps valued at almost $500 trillion, are still there and are still ready to crash our system. Meanwhile, people like you debate who is to blame for it all, when it truth it is a lot of both parties for allowing the financial markets to be able to screw up our system so bad by destroying legislation that held it in check, and even more blame to the financial whizzes, whose incredible greed this time truly broke the bank, and some of the blame on all of us, for thinking we could use our homes as banks, and that we could continually move our debt into the future with no consequence.

Here was my response:

Rich,

Your two cents doesn’t seem to be worth very much. I guess it must be due to all the inflation Obama has given us with his trillions of dollars of debt and his policy of printing money (Obama spending $4.1 billion EVERY DAY vs. Bush’s $1.6 billion).

I don’t know if anybody has ever told you this, but it just so happens that there were Democrats around the whole time Reagan was president, the whole time Bush I was president, and the whole time Bush II was president. What is asinine of you is how you say Repbublicans are to blame now for all the economic woes when they’ve only controlled the House for what? five months plus a few days? But the Democrats weren’t to blame when they had total control of both the House and the Senate for the two years prior to the economy imploding in 2008. And of course the Democrats have had absolute power over the House, the Senate and the presidency SINCE 2008.

Obama had historic power and Democrats had historic control in 2009-10. Versus Bush, who had NO influence over a House and Senate that were BOTH heavily Democrat control the last two years of his presidency (you know, the period when everything went from pretty good to total crap). And what did we get from Democrats besides TRILLIONS in debt and a devastated economy that has been paralyzed with Obama’s failed leadership and reckless policies??? We didn’t even get a damn BUDGET from Democrats for two years.  How is that not such a failure of responsibility that these Democrats of yours don’t belong in jail???

So your “We’ve only got problems because of Republican obstructionism” point runs into the snafu of the fact that we only had problems because of Democrat obstructionism THE REST OF THE TIME.

Here’s just one of oh-so-many examples:

The Left now acts as if this never happened. For instance, in a recent television appearance, liberal commentator Bill Press argued that–rather than noisy disagreement–”Americans want discussion” on health-care reform. Who could disagree with that sentiment–except, perhaps, the Obama administration, which pushed Congress to rush through legislation by early August? This timeline was clearly aimed at preempting discussion and presenting the public with a “done deal” on health reform. As one protester put it, the president spent more time choosing a dog than he did discussing health-care reform.

Likewise, Mr. Press complained that opponents hadn’t put their own reform plans on the table. “The people who are there to protest–what are they for? Are they for the status quo? The Republicans haven’t put any other plan on the table.” But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

So, if I’m supposed to feel boo-hoo-hoo and wah sorry for Democrats because of “Republican obstructionism,” allow me to simply politely suggest that you stick it in your ear or whatever orifice it fits into. Democrats were so obstructionist it was beyond unreal, and for you Democrats to whine about “obstructionism” now makes me realize that every single one of you is a pathological hypocrite. It’s really quite amazing, the unrelenting chutzpah you people have.

Harry Reid just got through tabling TWO House-passed Republican bills without even bothering to have a vote.  He actually said of the first bill (the cut, cap and balance bill) that it was the worst legislation in the history of the republic.  Because apparently he liked the Fugitive Slave Act his party once passed.

Now, you go on from one simply ridiculous point to another.  You proceed to say, “You also neglect to mention the sorry state of the economy even at the point the Democrats took power.”

Well, let’s look at that. I’ll mention it, but I don’t think you’ll like it. Because I’ve got something called “facts.” Like I said, the Democrats took power over both the House and the Senate in the 2006 election. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were running things from January 2007 on. And to answer your question, the unemployment rate when they took over was 4.6%. I know, I know. Pretty bad. Good thing you Democrats were around to save us and send it to over 10% (and three years into Obama’s reign of terror it’s 9.2%).  Good thing you Democrats were able to so successfully lead us to such incredibly pathetic ecomomic growth that we are likely to have a DOUBLE-DIP recession.  And you know it’s that second scoop where all the fat, calories, misery and pain are, don’t you?

It is funny how simply unrelentingly dumb you liberals are determined to be. Obama, Reid and Pelosi spend TRILLIONS of dollars, and it’s Bush’s fault??? Of course it is.  From NPR:

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for “responsible” efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President’s expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it’s worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

Bush spent an average of $1.6 billion a day, for what it’s worth (and it ought to be worth A LOT compared to $5 billion a day).

For the record, Obama is spending TEN TIMES MORE – adjusted for inflation – to get us out of the “Great Recession” than FDR spent to try to get us out of the GREAT DEPRESSION. And of course it doesn’t matter at all that both FDR and Obama spent MASSIVELY and both men utterly FAILED (here’s the skinny on FDR making the Great Depression last SEVEN YEARS longer than it should have.  And now of course Obama is failing with the same Keynesian failed policies that FDR failed with). So your assertion that Obama had to spend all these trillions of dollars is a rather idiotic joke.

Your assertion, “… which necessitated a huge increase in spending the George Bush signed, because he knew that without that spending our economy was going down” is tantamount to your saying, “I am a rabid Keynesian ideologue.  And no matter how many times this same stupid government spending idea fails, I’m going to cling to it like a rat clinging to a piece of wood on a sinking ship.”  You won’t learn. You CAN’T learn.

I just wish you people WEREN’T hypocrites for just once in your lives, but Iike I said, it’s pathological with you people.

I can just quote myself refuting the same stupid argument from another liberal:

That said, your argument that Obama isn’t to blame because he was just fxing Bush’s mess might not be the statement of a totally dishonest and depraved vermin, but you refuse to give the same benefit of the doubt to Bush, don’t you?

Bill Clinton left George Bush with the massive Dotcom bubble collapse. That collapse that happened on Clinton’s watch wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, and in fact vaporized more than 7.1 TRILLION DOLLARS in American wealth. And the ONLY reason we don’t talk about that – aside that too many in the media are just as biased and as stupid as you are, Smith – is that Clinton had also GUTTED the Pentegon and intelligence budget, leaving America both weak (Osama bin Laden called Clinton’s America “a paper tiger”) and blind. Clinton did to the CIA budget what he did to the Nasdaq – just wiped it out – and left us exposed to the 9/11 attack.

Osama bin Laden’s words in 1998 following the Clinton fiasco in Somalia where the US pulled out with its tail between its legs: “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…”

Here’s a little more about how we have Bill Clinton to thank for the massive 9/11 attack to go on top of his massive DotCom bubble collapse:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”

The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

And there’s the blindness that led to the 9/11 attack, combined with the fact that Clinton demonstrated to Osama bin Laden with the “Blackhawk Down” fiasco in Somalia  that the U.S. was just “a paper tiger,” and ripe for a massive attack.  That attack was planned, funded – and all the terrrorist assets were in the USA and even trained to fly in American pilot schools- during the Clinton misrule.  Further, because of Clinton’s disastrous gutting of the military and intelligence budgets at the very time that Osama bin Laden was preparing to attack us, America was both weak (militarily unprepared for attack) and blind (unable to detect the attack).

Between the massive recession caused by the Dotcom bubble collapse that occurred under Clinton, and the 9/11 attack which was planned, organized and prepared completely under Clinton’s watch, the United States faced a HUGE hole as Bush took office.

So if you want to blame Bush for Obama’s mess, the least you could do would be to have the decency to blame Clinton for Bush’s mess. But you’re not honest enough to do that.  Neither you, or your corrupt Democrat Party, or your mainstream media propaganda networks, have any integrity at all.  Republicans took responsibility and admitted fault for their overspending.  Democrats are like Cain in the Book of Genesis; they refuse to accept responsibility for anything no matter how guilty they are.

I also notice how you utterly fail to mention the gigantic role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the 2008 collapse:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/aei-article-how-fannie-and-freddie-blew-up-the-economy/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/barney-frank-and-democrat-party-most-responsible-for-2008-economic-collapse/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/08/03/who-really-exploded-your-economy-liberals-or-conservatives/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/12/31/with-eyes-finally-wide-open-reconsider-why-the-economy-collapsed-in-the-first-place/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/07/08/biden-we-misread-the-economy-and-its-all-the-republicans-fault/

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Democrats. It was perennially staffed with Democrats. It had the sole power to bundle mortgages into the “mortgage backed securites” and then sell those securities to the private market under the guise that they were government and therefore AAA. It got massively into subprime loans to literally piss into those mortgage backed securities even as it made it impossible to tell a good security from a bad one. It forced banks to make utterly STUPID loans that went belly-up.

Watch these videos to see that Fannie Mae was responsible, and Democrats were responsible for preventing ANY regulation at ALL on Fannie Mae: http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/video-proof-democrat-party-warned-responsible-for-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-economic-crisis-repost/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/barney-frank-video-proves-democrats-at-core-of-2008-economic-collapse/

The mainstream media will never report the truth.  They are biased, dishonest, corrupt propagandists.  All we can do is keep presenting the facts in the only venue available that still accepts them.

So much of this “Obama saved us from going into a depression” nonsense was based on Keynesian assumptions which even the pro-European International Monetary Fund utterly rejects and in fact has debunked.  Obama has been using a “mangled multiplier” as his basis for the need for more government spending. On Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s distorted view, for every dollar the federal government spends, we would get a $1.55 “bang for our buck.” But it isn’t true.  And the disaster of Obama’s failed stimulus should prove that to any sentient creature. Unless you really think building tunnels for turtles, bridges to nowhere and studying cow flatulence is going to make America great. On the International Monetary Fund model, which just makes more sense in addition to being less ideologically biased, we only get back 70 cents for every dollar spent. See this article for the documentation on that, and check out this graph:

Obama has failed. He has failed badly. We are on the verge of a double dip recession that I suppose Obama will likewise blame on Bush even though it will be starting in the THIRD YEAR of Obama’s failed presidency.

Obama’s Treasonous Lies Help Russia Punk America

January 5, 2011

Barry Hussein just teamed up with the guy who used to be a KGB goon to screw America.

And the Traitor-in-Chief just punked America again:

AMERICA GETS PUNKED… Russians Say START Treaty Covers Antimissile Defense Systems
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 9:47 AM

They Told Us the START Treaty Could Not Wait – It Had to Be Signed Before Christmas–

The Obama Administration insisted that passing the START Treaty would not impact the US antimissile defense systems.

They were wrong.

The Russian Parliament announced this week that the START Treaty includes limitations on the US antimissile defense systems.
The Voice of Russia reported, via HotAir:

The State Duma (the lower house of the Russian parliament) plans to confirm the link between the reduction of the strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems’ deployment in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed between the US and Russia, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs says.

“During the ratification of START in the US Congress the American lawmakers noted that the link between strategic offensive armed forces and antimissile defense systems is not juridically binding for the parties. They referred to the fact that this link was fixed only in the preamble of the document. Such an approach can be regarded as the US’ attempt to find an option to build up its strategic potential and the Russian lawmakers cannot agree with this,” Kosachev says.

We will deal with these interpretations. The first thing is that our American colleagues do not recognize the legal force of the treaty’s preamble. The preamble sets a link between strategic offensive arms and defensive arms. The second thing is an attempt to interpret certain provisions of the treaty unilaterally.

The Russian lawmakers insist that all the chapters of the treaty including the preamble are legally binding, which is a common norm of international law. It is not lawful to take certain provisions and to give them unilateral interpretations like the American senators do, Alexei Arbatov, a member of the Carnegie Scientific Council, says.

Once again, we were fooled by Obama – And, once again, America will pay the price.

Obama told us that his policies would make the world love us and restore peace where fear had existed.  Now we’ve got Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons and North Korea on the verge of war, just for starters.  Obama told us that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from going over 8%.  It’s been near double digits for most of his two pathetic years’ of misrule.  Obama told us that he would reduce the deficit.  But in less than two years he spent more than Bush did in eight, and exploded the deficit as no leader has done in human history.  Obama told us all kinds of lies about ObamaCare: he told us that if you liked your doctor you could keep him/her; he told us that the individual mandates were NOT a tax; he told us his health care would bend the cost curve down.  Lies, lies, lies.

Obama has sold us trillions of dollars’ worth of pork-laden bills to benefit his political base with a bunch of whopping lies.

Now he’s betrayed us to a foreign power with another whopper.

Just how many times can this liar lie to the American people without being convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors?

Obama Says ‘We Cannot Turn Back’ As He Leads America To Hell

July 14, 2010

Obama talks about how we’ve got to keep moving forward with his policies:

From The Wall Street Journal:

“It’s a choice between the policies that led us into this mess and the policies that are leading us out of this mess. It’s a choice between falling backwards or moving forward,” he said.

He repeated the “moving forward” theme several times, and his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, tweeted that same thought, suggesting this is a theme we’re likely to hear again and again as the November elections approach.

But what if “moving forward” means driving pell mell off a cliff to a violent, bloody, screaming, pooping-your-pants-on-the-way-down death?  What if “moving forward” means going to hell?

Let us take a moment to ponder the views expressed by Obama’s handpicked Democrat on Obama’s handpicked debt commission:

From the Associated Press:

Debt commission leaders paint gloomy picture
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer   – Sun Jul 11, 9:30 pm ET

BOSTON – The heads of President Barack Obama’s national debt commission painted a gloomy picture Sunday as the United States struggles to get its spending under control.

Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles told a meeting of the National Governors Association that everything needs to be considered — including curtailing popular tax breaks, such as the home mortgage deduction, and instituting a financial trigger mechanism for gaining Medicare coverage.

The nation’s total federal debt next year is expected to exceed $14 trillion — about $47,000 for every U.S. resident.

This debt is like a cancer,” Bowles said in a sober presentation nonetheless lightened by humorous asides between him and Simpson. “It is truly going to destroy the country from within.”

And:

Bowles said if the U.S. makes no changes it will be spending $2 trillion by 2020 just for interest on the national debt.

“Just think about that: All that money, going somewhere else, to create jobs and opportunity somewhere else,” he said.

Okay.  In agreement with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Obama’s own handpicked Democrat on his own handpicked debt commission says our spending and the resultant skyrocketing debt is literally murdering America.

And who’s doing all the spending?

Obama is so completely out of control that even his own Democrat Party is pleading with him to slow down:

President Obama’s urgent plea for more spending on the economy ran into the political buzz saw of the Senate on Tuesday, where Democratic leaders began chopping apart an aid package for unemployed workers and state governments in an effort to lessen its impact on the deficit.

Obama is so completely out of control that even the socialist Europeans are telling him he’s flat-out wrong in his spending blitzkrieg:

President Barack Obama’s push for continued global stimulus in light of a tenuous economic recovery was largely pushed back at the G-20 as world leaders agreed to focus on deficit reduction.

Obama and his team have repeatedly warned that while the worst of the crisis has passed, the recovery is still “uneven and fragile” and ongoing stimulus efforts are needed.

But European leaders, led largely by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have pushed back on increased spending as deficits rage out of control.

And this isn’t something that just started happening, either.  Barack Obama has been recklessly spending out of control from the very beginning of his presidency, as an event from March 29, 2009 proves:

STRASBOURG, France —  A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as “a way to hell.”

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama’s massive stimulus package and banking bailout “will undermine the stability of the global financial market.”

The “God damn America” president is damning us down the way to hell.

The same article from March 2009 says:

The United States plans to spend heavily to try and lift its economy out of recession with a $787 billion economic stimulus plan of tax rebates, health and welfare benefits, as well as extra energy and infrastructure spending.

And we now know how that more-like-to-$862 billion which really will cost America $3.27 trillion “stimulus” worked out for us.  Poorly.

A poll by the New York Times and CBS revealed that only 6% of Americans believed that the Obama stimulus created any jobs at all.  And even those economists who see an economic rebound don’t believe the “stimulus” had anything to do with it.

The Europeans who are somehow less socialist than our Marxist-in-Chief were right.  And now our unemployment rate is actually the worse because of a “stimulus” that gave us little more than liberal Democrat special interest pork in exchange for crippling debt that will enslave us for decades to come.

Reckless spending is destroying this country.  And for Obama, “moving forward” means driving America off a cliff to it’s screaming doom.

And that is an overwhelmingly documented fact.

Erskine Bowles is also on the record as saying, “This is the most predictable economic crisis in history.”

Which is what people like me have been saying since even before Obama got elected.

In October 2008 I wrote an article which quoted Chief Executive Magazine as follows:

In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.

What do I say but, in voting for Obama, we elected to slit our national belly open and stupidly watch our entrails spill out onto the floor?  Some fools may have naively believed they were voting for hopey-changey, but what they were really voting for was national harakari.

But Obama has said something else in his increasingly demagogic, no-hope-and-change-but-politics-of-divisiveness-and-fear speeches.

He’s also said:

At a second fundraiser, Obama said, “What the other side is counting on is people not having a very good memory.”

Well, let’s do that.  Let’s look at the facts from the past.  Let’s improve our memories.

Let’s start with spending, since that’s what we’ve been talking about up to now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We also suffered a budget shortfall of $94 billion in the month of June, which marks the first June in more than ten years (read, “encompassing the entire Bush presidency”).

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

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

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

Some money quotes on who is responsible for all the reckless spending from The Wall Street Journal:

  • Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
  • Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?

I think I can rest my case on who is spending us into a painful death by cancer.  If you want to try to argue that Republicans were bad when they were in control, fine.  But the Democrat freak show since Republicans were in control has been so shockingly, appallingly horrendous SINCE Republicans were last in control that it isn’t even remotely funny.

To those who say “Blame Bush!  Blame Republicans!” I say, “No, blame YOU for being so stupid as to believe such transparent lies.”

Having firmly established who is giving America cancer, as per Obama’s own handpicked Democrat’s metaphor, let’s move on to who we should really blame for the economic meltdown.  With our good memories.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were as responsible for our 2008 economic meltdown as ANYTHING was.  George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to create tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  But Democrats are as thick as fleas in Fannie and Freddie, and every single effort by Bush and Republicans to avoid the financial disaster which ultimately engulfed us in 2008 was rebuffedEvery single one.

What you will find, if you do a forensic analysis after an explosion, is that Democrats had their hands all over whatever it was that exploded before the explosion happened.

Now let’s turn to the other debt.  Not the measly, paltry $14 trillion debt that Obama has had such a huge hand in such a short time racking up.  No, I mean the REAL debt.  The $130 TRILLION that is off the books.

George Bush also tried to deal with the massive problem of Social Security, which under Barack Obama and Democrat control is in the red for the very first time in its history.

We’ve heard over and over again the demagogic Democrat arguments that the Republican Party is obstructing progress by resisting Democrats.  And how evil they are to be the “party of no.”  Let’s see the REAL evil obstructionist party of no in action, as George Bush tried to fix Social Security BEFORE it entered negative cash-flow territory:

The Left now acts as if this never happened. For instance, in a recent television appearance, liberal commentator Bill Press argued that–rather than noisy disagreement–”Americans want discussion” on health-care reform. Who could disagree with that sentiment–except, perhaps, the Obama administration, which pushed Congress to rush through legislation by early August? This timeline was clearly aimed at preempting discussion and presenting the public with a “done deal” on health reform. As one protester put it, the president spent more time choosing a dog than he did discussing health-care reform.

Likewise, Mr. Press complained that opponents hadn’t put their own reform plans on the table. “The people who are there to protest–what are they for? Are they for the status quo? The Republicans haven’t put any other plan on the table.” But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

It’s hard not to see the Democrat Party as the party of genuine evil.

Obama keeps passing these gigantic, unwieldy bills that massively increase spending and massively redistribute wealth (aka Marxism and the maxim, “From each  according to his ability, to each according to his need”).  And he’s going to keep doing it until Democrats are stopped dead in their tracks.  And we’ve already reached critical mass.

Obama’s choice between falling backwards or moving forward is no choice at all.  We simply have got to purge ourselves of Democrats, or we are going to implode.

Obama, How Have You Failed America? Let Me Count The Ways

June 2, 2010

I can’t get away from Obama’s arrogant boast from last year.  It has just been thoroughly destroyed too many times, in too many ways:

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

Let’s examine this on a clause-by-clause basis and see how Obama has fared:

This was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick? Another way to put it is “This was the moment companies dropped their health care coverage so every sick person could one day lay helplessly in their own filth on Medicaid.”

(Fortune) — The great mystery surrounding the historic health care bill is how the corporations that provide coverage for most Americans — coverage they know and prize — will react to the new law’s radically different regime of subsidies, penalties, and taxes. Now, we’re getting a remarkable inside look at the options AT&T, Deere, and other big companies are weighing to deal with the new legislation.

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

That to go along with ObamaCare now acknowledged to cost FAR more than Democrats falsely said, and along with the fact that this boondoggle has forced businesses to write down billions of profits that could have been used to create jobs.

Good jobs for the jobless? How about any jobs whatsoever for the jobless?  Unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left office.  Obama promised it wouldn’t get over 8% because of his stimulus, but he lied.  And now it’s 9.9% and unlikely to get much lower for a long time to come.

When the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal? Let me just say three words: Gulf of Mexico.  The oceans are rising due to millions and millions of gallons of oil that Obama has done nothing to even slow down.  I mean, my God: it took him like six weeks to even tell us that he was responsible.

This was the moment when we ended a war? How about this was the moment when we tried to take credit for George Bush ending a war? Just what war has Obama ended?  The general in command in Afghanistan says its a “bleeding ulcer” over there, and that “nobody’s winning.”  So it’s probably not that war.  And it’s hard to imagine he’s talking about North and South Korea, given the fact that those countries are on the verge of total war in a situation that has gone to hell during his misrule.  Nor is it likely he’s talking about Iran, given the fact that his fool policy that even his own Secretary of State once openly mocked as “irresponsible and frankly naive” has completely fallen apart, and now Iran can build nuclear weapons any time it wants to.

And secured our nation? Oh, yeah.  You’ve done a hell of a good job on that one, Barry Hussein:

Washington (CNN) — For the first time in nearly four years, a majority of Americans think that a terrorist attack is likely to occur somewhere in the United States in the next few weeks, according to a new national poll. . . .

Fifty-five percent of people questioned say an act of terrorism in the U.S. over the next few weeks is likely, up 21 points from last August. Forty-three percent said such an attack is not likely, down 21 points from August. . . .

The survey’s release comes one day after the Obama administration released its first National Security Strategy, a 52-page outline of the president’s strategic approach and priorities on battling terrorism.

And now here’s the very last one, tumbling into the toilet like the turd-in-chief is tumbling in the polls:

And restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.  Here’s what Obama’s “restoration of America’s image” actually looks like:

Japan’s prime minister resigns over Okinawa base
By Mari Yamaguchi The Associated Press
Posted: 06/01/2010 07:52:12 PM PDT

TOKYO – Embattled Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said Wednesday he was resigning over his broken campaign promise to move a U.S. Marine base off the southern island of Okinawa.

The prime minister had faced growing pressure from within his own party to resign ahead of July’s upper house elections. His approval ratings had plummeted over his bungled handling of the relocation of the Marine Air Station Futenma, reinforcing his public image as an indecisive leader.

Or let me put it this way: “You have restored America’s image, Mister President Obama-san.  We now revere your country as never before due to your most wonderful greatness.  Now will you please take all your American crap and your American prestige and get the hell out of our country?  It is only because we honor YOU so much, Obama-san, that we want America the hell out of Okinawa after being here for 65 years.”

“We had so much contempt for Bush – you see, we don’t even call him Bush-san – that we allowed America to remain during his presidency.  It is only because of our profound and deep admiration of you that we are kicking your ass to the curb now, Obama-san.  You are last, best, greatest hope on earth, Obama-san.  Now please not to let door hit your skinny ass on way out.”

So let’s tally up: fail until we die of socialist health care, fail big time until our unemployment benefits run out, fail all over the Gulf of Mexico and likely all over Florida and then the East Coast, fail until we cut and run, fail while getting ready for the next massive terrorist attack, and, finally, fail ingloriously all over the world.

I know, I know: I didn’t tell the truth.  I’m nowhere NEAR through with the list of all the ways that Obama has completely failed America.  Obama has failed to control spending as our deficit soars like a rocket ship.  Obama has failed to secure our financial system as our banks have closed at MORE THAN DOUBLE THE RATE OF LAST YEAR.  Obama has failed to act on illegal immigration.  Etcetera.  Etcetera.  Obama has failed his own rhetoricObama has just failed, period.  Obama has even failed to kick his smoking habit.

Let me try to paraphrase Obama’s speech above in a way that properly corrects the record:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to realize that we had the absolute suckiest president in our nation’s entire history at the very time we needed a good one the most.

.

Liberals Caught Video Surveilling Children In Their Own Homes

February 24, 2010

Remember how the left came emotionally unglued over George Bush approving the eavesdropping of phone calls to the US from known terrorists overseas?

You’d have thought that Bush had gone to the Library of Congress and personally torn apart the original copy of the Constitution.  And then defecated on the pieces.

Of course, monitoring the phone calls from foreign terrorists wanting to have an obviously nice, harmless chat with someone in America was terrible.  And of course, liberal school districts using cameras to record children in the privacy of their own bedrooms and bathrooms in their own homes is perfectly appropriate.

Or not.

I go with not.

Big Teacher Is Watching You
February 24, 2010 – by Jeff Schreiber

My laptop’s webcam now has a postage stamp covering it. Does yours?

This week, a district court judge in Philadelphia, PA, had to do the unthinkable: issue an order preventing a school district from further remote reactivation of webcams on laptop computers issued to nearly 2,000 high school students, a practice which has left many students and parents wondering whether school administrators had unfettered access into their homes and lives.

Just last week, a high school sophomore named Blake Robbins filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the Lower Merion School District, the wealthy destination district on Philadelphia’s prestigious Main Line which gave the world numerous doctors, lawyers, financial managers — and Kobe Bryant. The school district, Robbins alleges, has been spying on students and students’ families in their own homes by means of remote access to webcam-equipped laptop computers provided to all students through an initiative funded largely by federal and state grants.

Neither students nor parents were provided notice by Lower Merion School District about the remote-access capability when the computers were distributed or at any other time. Robbins and his family only discovered the capability when the 15-year-old was approached at school by an assistant principal at Harriton High School and accused of engaging in “improper behavior” in his own home.

A photograph captured by Robbins’ laptop webcam was offered as evidence.  The “improper behavior” which so concerned school administrators? Assistant Principal Lindy Matsko pointed to what looked like prescription drugs being held by Robbins in the photograph and voiced concern that he was selling drugs; in reality, Robbins was eating his favorite candy, Mike & Ikes, while at the computer in his own home.

Lower Merion School District, Robbins claims, has violated a long list of federal and state laws designed to protect personal privacy and stored information, including but not limited to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, §1983 of the Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, and Pennsylvania common law. And then, of course, there’s the matter of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Even for those who do not read a bona fide right to privacy into the Constitution, considering that the Fourth Amendment was written and drafted by our founders in response to the practice so many years before of British soldiers who conducted warrantless searches of colonists’ homes in search of signs of smuggling, that this case features an overreaching school district peering into private homes without notice or consent, all in search of “improper behavior” of the sort that Robbins was confronted with, should be cause for alarm for anyone who values liberty and individual freedom.

In the week which has followed the filing of the complaint, a number of students have come forward to say that either they noticed a green light indicating an active camera illuminate arbitrarily, or that they may not have noticed the light but often have the laptop open in their bedrooms, or even in their bathrooms, where music from iTunes can make showering more enjoyable for anyone who belts out Lady Gaga tunes into their shampoo bottle.

Most curious, though, has been the response from Lower Merion School District. Almost two days after the class action complaint was filed, the district released a statement on its website admitting to nearly every allegation made by Blake Robbins and his attorney.

By saying that “[t]he laptops do contain a security feature intended to track lost, stolen and missing laptops,” the district admitted that it did indeed have the capability to remotely access portals into students’ private lives.  By saying that “[t]his feature has been deactivated effective today,” the district admitted that the capability had indeed been active. By saying that “the feature was activated by the District’s security and technology departments,” administrators admitted that the feature can be activated at their own discretion, and by saying that future activation of the remote access capability would not occur “without express written notification to all students and families,” the district admitted that it had peered into private homes with neither notification nor consent.

In fact, perhaps the biggest fight the school district has put up was this week in the hearing preceding the issuance of the order, when the lead counsel for Lower Merion School District voiced concern over the language of any order issued by the court.

We don’t want it to be called an ‘injunction,’” said lead counsel Henry Hockheimer Jr. of Philadelphia law firm Ballard Spahr, noting that his clients had similar reservations about words like “enjoined,” preferring the more innocuous “prohibited.” Judge Jan E. DuBois agreed, waving his robed arm high along an imaginary marquee, saying that he understood the district wanting to avoid certain types of headlines.

Is it possible that the school district is not quite fully aware of the trouble it’s in? For the most part, after all, educators sit on the far left of the traditional political spectrum, a place where most of their immediate ideological neighbors share the notion that government knows better than the individual, and that schools and school administrators in their infinite wisdom can parent better than parents. Is it really so outlandish to consider that officials at Lower Merion School District wholeheartedly believed not only that it was their right to police its own population — even at home — in search of possible wrongdoing, but that they were looking out for the best interests of their students by doing so?

Looking around Courtroom 12-B yesterday afternoon, I became acutely aware that of the four laptops in the room, my own was not the only one with an obscured webcam. Walking through a common area at my law school later yesterday evening, I noticed even more.

Whatever the reasoning, whether the lens obstruction is symbolic in nature — mine sports a “forever” first class stamp prominently featuring a photo of the Liberty Bell — or if the concern for privacy is actual, it is clear in the suburbs of Philadelphia that the Nanny State is alive and well, and that even in school districts where the students seem to have everything, true freedom and liberty can still be elusive.

In case your eyes popped out of your head as you were reading the paragraph about the public school official freaking out over a student eating Mike & Ike candy in his bedroom, it’s really true.

I think of the Democrats who attacked Bush over his “irresponsible” deficits.  I remember the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from March 16, 2006:

“The deterioration of the federal government’s finances is the direct result of the misguided priorities of this administration and this rubber stamping republican Congress.  these deficits have resulted in an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree.”

But here Harry Reid and the same Democrats are now engaging in spending which makes Bush’s deficits look like chump change:

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

I think of Democrats lambasting the tactic of reconciliation (which the media called “the nuclear option” when Republicans considered using it to underscore just how extreme it was), only to now hypocritically and deceitfully repudiate everything they claimed to stand for.

What was it that Joe Biden said about the procedure he’s all in favor of now?

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.”

What was it Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said?

It’s a moment of truth for the United States Senate.

Today, Senate Democrats represent the last check on President Bush’s power.

Republicans want to eliminate this check and give President Bush power no president has ever had — the ability to hand out lifetime federal judgeships without consensus from the other party. […]

A government in which one party has control over all decisions is bad for America and bad for all our people.

Our country works better when we cooperate and work towards compromises that benefit the greater good and not one group over another.

What we are seeing now is the most vile hypocrisy – perpetuated by Democrats against their very own rhetoric.  Democrats essentially are saying, “Republicans shouldn’t use the nuclear option because they aren’t treasonous slime.  WE ARE TREASONOUS SLIME, so we feel fine using it.”

For the record, the Republicans did not use the “nuclear option” in that instance, nor have they ever used it in anything remotely close to the way that Democrats are talking about using it now.

How do Democrats’ skulls not explode from trying to contain all the contradictions?

Why is it that the mainstream media is never around to confront these dishonest hypocrites when they daily spew their demagoguery?

This not only amply demonstrates what totalitarian big government fascists liberals are, but it also illustrates another important conservative doctrine: that if you give Democrats power over your life by accepting their bribes and their free lunches, they will own you.

You take their programs – or their computers – you unknowingly welcome their spying eyes and their chains.  Because everything they give you, they can take away.

Statements from our founding fathers such as this one from Samuel Adams

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

– are being illustrated in their supreme wisdom more and more every day.

Greek Crisis Coming To Your Neighborhood Soon

February 21, 2010

Let me summarize what is going on: the Western world (and most definitely the United States) is playing the subprime loan game.  We’re not talking about a few schmucks; we’re talking about the whole country.

We’re borrowing huge sums of money at a current rate of about 3% interest.  But as the lenders start getting nervous, they’re going to want to increase that interest.  We are in plenty of trouble paying these trillions of dollars back at 3% – but what happens if the interest increases to 5% or 7% as it could very quickly do?  The costs of paying these loans would rise to catastrophic levels, and we could find ourselves literally bankrupt overnight.

That’s what happened to Greece.  And it’s what’s ultimately going to happen to the USA.

A Greek crisis is coming to America
By Niall Ferguson
Published: February 10 2010 20:15

It began in Athens. It is spreading to Lisbon and Madrid. But it would be a grave mistake to assume that the sovereign debt crisis that is unfolding will remain confined to the weaker eurozone economies. For this is more than just a Mediterranean problem with a farmyard acronym. It is a fiscal crisis of the western world. Its ramifications are far more profound than most investors currently appreciate.

There is of course a distinctive feature to the eurozone crisis.  Because of the way the European Monetary Union was designed, there is in fact no mechanism for a bail-out of the Greek government by the European Union, other member states or the European Central Bank (articles 123 and 125 of the Lisbon treaty). True, Article 122 may be invoked by the European Council to assist a member state that is “seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control”, but at this point nobody wants to pretend that Greece’s yawning deficit was an act of God. Nor is there a way for Greece to devalue its currency, as it would have done in the pre-EMU days of the drachma. There is not even a mechanism for Greece to leave the eurozone.

That leaves just three possibilities: one of the most excruciating fiscal squeezes in modern European history – reducing the deficit from 13 per cent to 3 per cent of gross domestic product within just three years; outright default on all or part of the Greek government’s debt; or (most likely, as signalled by German officials on Wednesday) some kind of bail-out led by Berlin. Because none of these options is very appealing, and because any decision about Greece will have implications for Portugal, Spain and possibly others, it may take much horse-trading before one can be reached.

Yet the idiosyncrasies of the eurozone should not distract us from the general nature of the fiscal crisis that is now afflicting most western economies. Call it the fractal geometry of debt: the problem is essentially the same from Iceland to Ireland to Britain to the US. It just comes in widely differing sizes.

What we in the western world are about to learn is that there is no such thing as a Keynesian free lunch. Deficits did not “save” us half so much as monetary policy – zero interest rates plus quantitative easing – did. First, the impact of government spending (the hallowed “multiplier”) has been much less than the proponents of stimulus hoped. Second, there is a good deal of “leakage” from open economies in a globalised world. Last, crucially, explosions of public debt incur bills that fall due much sooner than we expect.

For the world’s biggest economy, the US, the day of reckoning still seems reassuringly remote. The worse things get in the eurozone, the more the US dollar rallies as nervous investors park their cash in the “safe haven” of American government debt. This effect may persist for some months, just as the dollar and Treasuries rallied in the depths of the banking panic in late 2008.

Yet even a casual look at the fiscal position of the federal government (not to mention the states) makes a nonsense of the phrase “safe haven”. US government debt is a safe haven the way Pearl Harbor was a safe haven in 1941.

Even according to the White House’s new budget projections, the gross federal debt in public hands will exceed 100 per cent of GDP in just two years’ time. This year, like last year, the federal deficit will be around 10 per cent of GDP. The long-run projections of the Congressional Budget Office suggest that the US will never again run a balanced budget. That’s right, never.

The International Monetary Fund recently published estimates of the fiscal adjustments developed economies would need to make to restore fiscal stability over the decade ahead. Worst were Japan and the UK (a fiscal tightening of 13 per cent of GDP). Then came Ireland, Spain and Greece (9 per cent). And in sixth place? Step forward America, which would need to tighten fiscal policy by 8.8 per cent of GDP to satisfy the IMF.

Explosions of public debt hurt economies in the following way, as numerous empirical studies have shown. By raising fears of default and/or currency depreciation ahead of actual inflation, they push up real interest rates. Higher real rates, in turn, act as drag on growth, especially when the private sector is also heavily indebted – as is the case in most western economies, not least the US.

Although the US household savings rate has risen since the Great Recession began, it has not risen enough to absorb a trillion dollars of net Treasury issuance a year. Only two things have thus far stood between the US and higher bond yields: purchases of Treasuries (and mortgage-backed securities, which many sellers essentially swapped for Treasuries) by the Federal Reserve and reserve accumulation by the Chinese monetary authorities.

But now the Fed is phasing out such purchases and is expected to wind up quantitative easing. Meanwhile, the Chinese have sharply reduced their purchases of Treasuries from around 47 per cent of new issuance in 2006 to 20 per cent in 2008 to an estimated 5 per cent last year. Small wonder Morgan Stanley assumes that 10-year yields will rise from around 3.5 per cent to 5.5 per cent this year. On a gross federal debt fast approaching $1,500bn, that implies up to $300bn of extra interest payments – and you get up there pretty quickly with the average maturity of the debt now below 50 months.

The Obama administration’s new budget blithely assumes real GDP growth of 3.6 per cent over the next five years, with inflation averaging 1.4 per cent. But with rising real rates, growth might well be lower. Under those circumstances, interest payments could soar as a share of federal revenue – from a tenth to a fifth to a quarter.

Last week Moody’s Investors Service warned that the triple A credit rating of the US should not be taken for granted. That warning recalls Larry Summers’ killer question (posed before he returned to government): “How long can the world’s biggest borrower remain the world’s biggest power?”

On reflection, it is appropriate that the fiscal crisis of the west has begun in Greece, the birthplace of western civilization. Soon it will cross the channel to Britain. But the key question is when that crisis will reach the last bastion of western power, on the other side of the Atlantic.

The writer is a contributing editor of the FT and author of ‘The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World‘

The United States is on life support, and it won’t be long before the doctor turns off the machine and calls the time of death:

It is now mathematically impossible for the United States to repay its debts, even if every single penny was seized from every single man, woman, and child, from every single bank, and from every single business.

This is our future, assuming we can stave ff the fate of Greece:

“Within 12 years…the largest item in the federal budget will be interest payments on the national debt,” said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. “[They are] payments for which we get nothing.”

Economic forecasters say future generations of Americans could have a substantially lower standard of living than their predecessors’ for the first time in the country’s history if the debt is not brought under control.

Greece’s budget deficit-to-GDP is an astonishing 12.7%.  And that massive unsustainable spending is the thing that is killing them.  But we shouldn’t laugh: ours is at 11.2%, according to Goldman Sachs:

We now expect the US budget deficit to rise to $1.64 trillion (11.2% of GDP) in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and to total $10.8 trillion (trn) over the next ten years. This profile is modestly above our early October forecast and well above the administration’s figures.

Even so, near-term risks lie to the side of a bigger deficit. Tax receipts have started the year in a deep hole and could continue to fall short. And if the economy struggles as the current dose of fiscal stimulus wears off, as we expect, then policymakers are apt to adopt more stimulus than we have assumed.

The United States is sixth on the list of countries with the highest ratios of budget deficit to GDP.  And the other countries are PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain).

About the only thing separating us from the fate of Greece right now is the fact that we can keep printing our own currency until we plunge right off the economic cliff.

One morning we’re going to wake up and learn that our currency isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

Fact-Checking Obama’s Bogus Bullpuckey Stimulus Claims

February 19, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the figure here.

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

See the figure here.

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

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

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

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

Then there was this:

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

Here’s the response:

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

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

This came next…

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

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

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

Then there was this…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama The Most Polarizing President In History

January 28, 2010

Let’s go back to an article I wrote last year titled, “Obama Promise To Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie“:

Back in March of 2008, the New York Times correctly identified what they described as the CORE of Barack Obama’s promise to the American people, and they correctly identified why reasonable people should be skeptical:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Anyone who possessed more reason than their dog or cat, of course, should have known that the answer to the last question would be a resounding “NO!”  If Obama had wanted to be a “unifier,” he wouldn’t have been the most liberal (and radical) member of the U.S. Senate.

And of course, anyone who truly possessed even a shred of bipartisanship wouldn’t have spent 23 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demagogic, racist, anti-American, Marxist church, let alone 23 years.

Obama PROMISED he would heal the partisan divide, that he would reach across the divide in an unprecedented way.  According to the New York Times, that was Obama’s CORE promise.

He did the exact opposite.  He couldn’t have lied to us more.

Again, in his State of the Union Speech, Obama went back to the same demagoguery, even as he called upon those he was demagoguing to abandon their principles and follow him:

From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.

The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years.

(APPLAUSE)

That’s what helped us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. We can’t do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense, a novel concept.

Now, to do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust, deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.

Then later Obama said:

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, a supermajority, then the responsibility to govern is now yours, as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

If Obama wants Republicans to cooperate with his agenda, he should stop demonizing them.  He keeps demagoguing “the last eight years” (as if we should forget the unprecedented 52 consecutive months of growth during those eight years); maybe he should also mention his party’s unprecedented eight years’ of vicious attacks against George Bush.

Democrats now demagogue Republicans as the “party of no” without ever bothering to answer for why they did the same thing:

But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

Obama is a polarizing, divisive demagogue.  He refuses to understand that you don’t get people to join you by demonizing them.  You get them to fight you to their last breath.

Obama lies when he says his administration has reached out to Republicans.  He’s shut them out.  And that tactic was employed so heavily that even blue-dog DEMOCRATS were shut out of any part in the debate:

Forty-five House Democrats in the party’s moderate-to-conservative wing have protested the secretive process by which party leaders in their chamber are developing legislation to remake the health care system.

The lawmakers, members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, said they were “increasingly troubled” by their exclusion from the bill-writing process.

So when Democrats claim they included Republicans, they are just rank liars; they even refused to include their own moderate Democrats!

Obama is the most cynical demagogue America has seen in decades, and nothing more.

And the American people now readily understand that:

January 25, 2010
Obama’s Approval Most Polarized for First-Year President
Shows much greater party differences than approval for any prior first-year president

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ — The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats’ (88%) and Republicans’ (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

Average Difference Between Republicans' and Democrats' Job Approval Ratings of Presidents During First Year in Office

Overall, Obama averaged 57% job approval among all Americans from his inauguration to the end of his first full year on Jan. 19. He came into office seeking to unite the country, and his initial approval ratings ranked among the best for post-World War II presidents, including an average of 41% approval from Republicans in his first week in office. But he quickly lost most of his Republican support, with his approval rating among Republicans dropping below 30% in mid-February and below 20% in August. Throughout the year, his approval rating among Democrats exceeded 80%, and it showed little decline even as his overall approval rating fell from the mid-60s to roughly 50%.

Democrats suffered a MASSIVE defeat and a MASSIVE repudiation of their agenda in even the heavily Democrat state of Massachusetts.  Obama has lost every single statewide race since becoming president – all of which occurred in states that overwhelmingly voted for him in 2008.  The people are no longer with Obama; they are against him.  But judging by his performance in the State of the Union, Obama is determined to keep heading full speed ahead off the cliff.