Posts Tagged ‘food stamps’

The Fiscal Generation Gap Fiasco And Everything That’s Racist And Hypocrite With Liberalism In One Smarmy Liberal Editorial

October 28, 2013

Ronald Brownstein, liberal ideologue from the überliberal National Journal wrote an editorial that also appeared in the also überliberal Los Angeles Times.  Brownstein begins:

One reason a serious budget negotiation seems unlikely this fall is that any meaningful assault on the federal deficit would require each party to confront the contradictions between its fiscal agenda and its electoral coalition.

Two long-term trends are creating this tension. One is an electoral reshuffling: Republicans increasingly depend on support from older whites, even as Democrats rely more on the youthful-tilting minority population. The second is the federal budget’s shift in focus from children (almost half of whom are now nonwhite) to seniors (about four-fifths of whom remain white). The intersection of these dynamics has left each party advancing budget blueprints that collide with the self-interest of their core supporters.

Heading into budget negotiations, the top priority for many Republicans remains limiting Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe Social Security, the Big Three senior entitlements. The contradiction they face is that the people benefiting from those programs now comprise the core of their electoral coalition.

The GOP presidential nominee has carried most white seniors in four consecutive presidential elections, and by greater margins each time. In 2012, whites over 45 supplied Mitt Romney with nearly three-fifths of his votes, even though they made up about only two-fifths of all voters. Census figures show that children constitute about the same share of the population (just under one-fourth) in House districts represented by Republicans and Democrats. Yet whites 55 and older are nearly 22 percent of the population in Republican-held districts, compared with less than 15 percent in those Democrats control. Even more strikingly, 164 House Republicans represent districts where the share of 55-plus whites exceeds the national average. That’s true for only 74 House Democrats.

These older whites deeply resist any changes in Social Security and Medicare, which most consider insurance they have paid for, not a government benefit (although studies show older Americans receive much more in lifetime benefits than they pay in taxes). In United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection polling this month, fully four-fifths of whites over 50 opposed any reductions in either Social Security or Medicare. These older white voters are much more passionate about cutting programs that transfer resources to the poor, such as food stamps (three-fifths of older whites would cut the program at least somewhat) and President Obama’s health care law.

The GOP’s fiscal agenda has partly reflected these priorities. The party continues scorched-earth opposition to Obamacare, and House Republicans recently voted for deep cuts in food stamps (almost half of whose benefits flow toward children). The plan from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to convert Medicare into a voucher, or “premium support,” system would shelter the staunchest GOP voters by exempting anyone over 55.

Three things immediately jumped out at me as I scanned over his drivel:

Fact 1) Do you know why these middle-class whites are such bad people (in liberal’s wicked minds)?  Because they believed the lying, demon-possessed bovine feces that is the promise of liberalism.

Tell me: did Democrats sell Social Security and Medicare as something that they would yank away from middle class whites?  Tell you what: you show me FDR with Social Security or LBJ with Medicare telling the American people that they were going to demand a clawback on these programs for white middle class families, and I’ll buy you a Ferrari.  You show me where Democrats said, “As soon as white middle class people have nothing else to fall back on because we seized control of retirement benefits (Social Security) and medical insurance for retired people (Medicare), we’re going to lower the boom on them and call them racist if they refuse to give back what we PROMISED them.”  You show me.

The fact of the matter stands as this: Democrats are dishonest liars.  And the only way you can be truly evil is if you believe the lies in the next fascist hijack attempt (e.g. ObamaCare) by the federal government to impose still MORE control over benefits that it will later denounce and try to claw back after Democrats made still more bullcrap promises.

That was the first thing that shot through my mind as I read the product of a truly demon-possessed brain.

Fact 2) The vicious, racist, anti-white bigotry of liberalism is once again on display.  And just as Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew who despised Jews, Brownstein is a self-hating white person – and very likely a self-hating Jew akin to Karl Marx for that matter – who KNOWS as a liberal that he is a truly terrible human being, but BEING a truly terrible human being he wrongly concludes that he’s a terrible human being because of the color of his skin rather than because his ideology is depraved and evil.  Let me demonstrate that fact this way: I’m going to replace the word “white” with “black” in Brownstein’s paragraph, and you tell me if it’s still just as true or not:

These older blacks deeply resist any changes in Social Security and Medicare, which most consider insurance they have paid for, not a government benefit (although studies show older Americans receive much more in lifetime benefits than they pay in taxes). In United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection polling this month, fully four-fifths of blacks over 50 opposed any reductions in either Social Security or Medicare.

For the record, the only poll I found was “generational” and did NOT cite differences in race.  I welcome Brownstein to show me that “older blacks” would be perfectly happy – in marked contrast to “older whites” – to have THEIR benefits that they were promised over their entire working lifetimes suddenly seized away by a government that wanted to take back its lie to them after their earning years are behind them so it could hoodwink an entirely new generation on a whopping lie from the same liars who lied to the (now) elderly.

So, Democrat who wants to racebait, YOU SHOW ME THE POLLS THAT DOCUMENT BLACKS BEING HAPPY TO HAVE THEIR PROMISED BENEFITS – AGAIN PROMISED TO THEM OVER THEIR ENTIRE WORKING LIFETIMES – GUTTED SO YOU CAN DEMONIZE “OLDER WHITE PEOPLE.”  YOU SHOW ME, YOU DEMON-POSSESSED LIARS.

Fact 3) Liberals are hypocrites who ONLY have the ability to see the speck in their opponent’s eye WHILE IGNORING THE GIANT MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR LOG IN THEIR OWN.  Again, I’ll document this fact in Brownstein’s own words:

These older whites deeply resist any changes in Social Security and Medicare …  These older white voters are much more passionate about cutting programs that transfer resources to the poor.

How has EVERY Democrat tax and entitlement program been sold?  One and the same way every time: don’t you worry: we’ll raise somebody ELSE’S taxes and force SOMEBODY ELSE to pay for your new entitlement program.

When was the last time Democrats said, “This is a government takeover that will benefit the poor, so let’s force the poor to bear the burden of paying for it”???  Try “NEVER.”

But, oh holy hell, “older middle class white people” who are in fact not one tiny bit different than “older middle class BLACK people” are evil because they want to keep the entitlement that they were promised and – for the record – were promised that it wasn’t even an “entitlement” but that they had EARNED it with all those payroll tax deductions that the federal government seized from them over the course of their entire lifetimes.

I’m also trying to think of the last time the people who were collecting welfare and food stamps ever voted to have their welfare and food stamp benefits – you know, which unlike those middle class whites they DIDN’T pay for every couple of weeks for going on fifty years – yanked away from them.  Again, try “NEVER.”

Don’t you DARE act like a Democrat and expect to keep what your Democrat federal government promised you and taxed out of you your entire life to pay for.  Don’t you DARE want to hold on to YOUR program.  Because, you see, that’s fascist and it’s only “fascist” when Republicans do it.

The appalling ObamaCare fiasco ought to be all the proof that any carbon-based life form with an IQ above a stinkbug needs to know to realize that liberalism is truly evil.  But if you DON’T think so, all you have to do is understand that the very programs that Brownstein now condemns (at least for white people) were Democrat creations that were GUARANTEED to run up giant deficits just as ObamaCare is guaranteed to run up giant deficits.

Do you know what our actual fiscal gap truly is?  That’s okay.  Because thanks to liberal shenanigans and accounting dishonesty NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER.

The debt we keep hearing about is $17 trillion.  Barack Hussein Obama – quintessential liar that he is – demonized George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” and “a failed leader” when that debt was $9 trillion.  Now, slandering hypocrite demagogue liar that he is, he sings a different tune even though by the end of his presidency, HE will have led America to higher and insanely unsustainable debt than every previous president (including George W. Bush) COMBINED.

But your share as an “American household” of that $17 trillion debt is $140,000.  And if you can’t pay your share, then America is in deep doo-doo which it keeps shoveling itself more deeply into every fraction of a second.  In point of fact, it is going up $2.28 billion per day, or $86,400 every single second.

But the International Monetary Fund published the academic article in its peer-reviewed journal by one of its members stating that it was in excess of $200 trillion back in 2011.  And our real debt is going up by about one trillion dollars every single MONTH.

Democrats and the lies they sold to impose their lies are ENTIRELY responsible for this guaranteed collapse of the United States of America.  A vote for the Democrat Party is not merely a vote for the murder of 55 million innocent babies and counting, and it’s not just a vote for bringing the wrath of God according to Romans chapter one: it is a vote for dodo-bird EXTINCTION.

We cannot even theoretically pay these debts that Democrats and NO ONE BUT DEMOCRATS saddled us with.  And who is Brownstein blaming for that?  Republican older white people because they are callously demanding that Democrats actually HONOR one of their wicked demonic lies.

And what is it that liberals want to do now?  They want to claw back on their previous lies on the basis of their self-serving racism and they want to now issue a whole NEW package of lies that will DWARF THE COST of their last load of demonic lies.  That’s what they want to do.

That leads me to:

Fact 4) Brownstein implies that Republicans who have spent their lives opposed to Social Security and Medicare are somehow hypocritical for now demanding they get their benefits.  He says “the [white Republican] people benefiting from those programs now comprise the core of their electoral coalition.”

Think about it: when the government seizes retirement insurance and retirement medicine, and forces you to pay into their Ponzi scheme year after year after year, what the hell are you supposed to do when you retire BUT take your Social Security and Medicare benefit that you were forced to buy into your entire life even though you didn’t want to???

The notion from Brownstein is that these “white” Republicans are somehow bad people for taking a benefit they were forced to purchase their entire lives so that freeloading welfare couch potatoes might have a harder time collecting the benefits they never paid so much as a damn DIME into.  Who are the bad people here?  The people who want the benefits they were promised and were forced to buy one paycheck at a time for fifty freaking years or the people who want somebody else’s money???

Medicare and Social Security are and always WERE truly evil programs.  Like I’ve said many times – and like Brownstein openly acknowledges in his attack against white middle class people that “studies show older Americans receive much more in lifetime benefits than they pay in taxes.”  Here’s my question: WHEN THE HELL WASN’T THAT THE CASE???  Is Brownstein actually trying to claim that it isn’t EQUALLY TRUE FOR BLACK MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE???  Only WHITE people collect more than they pay into this stupid system???  Seriously???  And for the damn record, CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN POINTING OUT THAT FACT AND CALLING SSI AND MEDICARE THE PONZI SCHEME THAT IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THAT FACT FOR DECADES.  And here’s a liberal moral idiot now finally acknowledging it just so he can say it’s whitey’s fault???

These two Democrat programs have run America into certain bankruptcy and financial implosion and an end to the American way of life and frankly the mark of the beast and the worship of the Antichrist.  We are so many trillions of dollars in debt because of these two unfunded mandates that it is beyond insane.

I have ALWAYS been opposed to Social Security.  My parents were also opposed to a system that they were FORCED to “contribute” to over their entire working careers.  Social Security crowded out every private alternative that would have been able to pay out HIGHER returns than SSI.  My parents were also opposed to Medicare because they didn’t want to be force-fed socialized medicine.  In both cases, there could have been and should have been private sector programs, but the government forced them out of business.  The private market could have done better for less on both fronts (as was proven by Chile’s highly successful privatized social security system) – but when the government crowded everybody else out and forced itself in, those options were as aborted as an innocent little baby by Democrats.  Liberals say that if you don’t like SSI or Medicare, don’t use it.  But an analogy would be for a liberal to be opposed to having a strong military; the only way that liberal could actually ACT on his or her opposition would be to move forever away from the United States.  Because otherwise you are covered by the protection of that strong military you are opposed to whether you oppose it or not.  To demand that somebody be forced to “contribute” to a system their entire lives and then to brand that person a hypocrite because they use the benefits that they were forced to pay for is literally demon-possessed EVIL.  There is no other way to put it.

There are also no other options for this generation of retired middle class “white people” after the Democrats imposed government on what should have been private systems.  That’s the dilemma for aforementioned “white” people.

And Brownstein’s answer to the dilemma that Democrats and ONLY DEMOCRATS created is to screw white people, renege on the promise that was made to them over the course of their entire working lives, and leave them to die while Democrats now repeat the same sort of pandering politics through the even BIGGER BOONDOGGLE of ObamaCare.

If you’re going to take away or reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits, take them away from the depraved idiot fools who were stupid enough and evil enough to have bought all the lies and set America up for this fiscal gap fiasco: take them away from DEMOCRATS.

Personally, I would be willing to forego my full Social Security benefits THAT I WAS FORCED TO PAY FOR BY DEMOCRATS if and only if: if Democrats officially admitted that they had destroyed America with their idiot socialism; if the Democrat Party were criminalized, such that anybody EVER AGAIN suggesting ANY FORM of socialism immediately be hauled away to either prison or to the looney bin; and if we passed the “hunt every Democrat down with dogs and burn them alive Act.”  Until then, don’t you DARE suggest I give up one nickel of the benefits that Democrats swore up and down (the same damn dishonest lying way that Barack Obama swore that if you liked your insurance plan and your doctor you could keep them.  PERIOD. by the way).

Obama’s exact words:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

History now proves that Barack Obama to be the most documented liar in the entire history of the entire human race.  He said that over and over again to millions of people as thousands of cameras rolled.  And he told a thousand other socialist lies that were every bit as blatant.

And no one can argue that Obama didn’t know about this: THE VERY NATURE OF OBAMACARE MADE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN’S HEALTHCARE PLANS “ILLEGAL.”  The man sold his “signature legislative accomplishment” under an ocean of lies, pure and simple.  You want proof?  Here it is: the White House knew at least as early as July of 2010 that what Obama had repeatedly said and CONTINUED TO SAY AFTERWARD was a demon-possessed lie.  I quote:

In a June 2009 speech to the American Medical Association, Obama said that “no matter how we reform healthcare, we will keep  this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able  to keep your doctor, period. If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to  keep your healthcare plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter  what.”

Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch  McConnell’s, R-Ky., questioned whether that promise had been kept.

“Remember: The President didn’t say if you like your plan and we approve it you  can keep it,” Stewart wrote, the Post reported. “He promised that if you like  your plan, you can keep it, period— “no matter what.”

Yet the NBC report  said the government knew that wasn’t true, saying that buried in regulations  from the July 2010 law was an estimate that because of normal turnover in the  individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to  keep their policy.

And because many policies will have been changed  since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing  grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people  in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the  rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” Robert Laszewski of Health Policy  and Strategy Associates, told NBC.

He estimated 80 percent of those in  the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will  have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally  requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

George  Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, told NBC he was “perfectly happy” with his plan  from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly  premium. But this past September, he got a letter saying his policy was no  longer available.

The “comparable” plan the insurance company offered  him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible. And the best  option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium,  to $948 a month.

“The deductible is less,” he said, “But the plan  doesn’t meet my needs. It’s unaffordable.”

See also here for more on that story.  The bottom line is that the White House KNEW they were lying but continued to deceive the American people.

We’ve seen these demon-possessed lies from these same demon-possessed socialist liars before.  And we have proven that we are damn-fool and depraved enough to fall for the same lies from the same liars all over again.

As I write, the comics are absolutely SHREDDING ObamaCare.  NO ONE can access the colossally failed ObamaCare website, but millions of young people have seen Kathleen Sabelious mocked (whom everyone on earth holds responsible for this failure BUT Obama).  Trust me that ObamaCare is no longer cool and young people will NOT be enrolling in something that they don’t need but would have to pay up the whazoo to have.  ObamaCare needed to have nearly 3 million “young invincibles” sign up to avoid an “actuarial death spiral” as only the sick and uninsurable enrolled in ObamaCare which would quickly send premiums through the stratosphere.  The Obama administration touted the half that half a million had “applied” for ObamaCare; but that isn’t the same as “enrolling” and we’re learning that the numbers are a sick joke.  And what we’re finding is that across the states that are providing ObamaCare enrollment figures, those who are enrolling in “free” Medicaid (i.e., overwhelming the system with people who are NOT paying in) outnumbers those who will be paying anything at all by three- and even FOUR-to-one.  As many as over 80% of enrollees are applying for “free” Medicaid rather than paying for the system as the system requires to not plunge America off the fiscal cliff.

Again, FAR MORE people are getting termination/cancellation notices from their insurance companies – proving that Barack Obama is an abject LIAR who BETRAYED the American people – than are paying for insurance through ObamaCare.  The vast majority of the people who are “enrolling” are signing up for the taxpayer-funded Medicaid expansion that will cost the nation untold TRILLIONS.

Obama lied to you.  Democrats lied to you.  The Democrat Party is a moral disease that is killing America.

As an example, the Obama regime and the Democrat Party are saying that the ObamaCare web site crashed because nearly three million people tried to access it the first day.  Well, how the hell do they know how many people tried to access a site that CRASHED when they’re at the same time telling us that they have no idea how many people actually ENROLLED???  (and see here)???  How could you EVEN POSSIBLY know the former but not the latter???  These people are pure, distilled LIARS without shame, without integrity, without virtue and without honor.

This is a nation that is at – and probably past – a crossroad: we either need to vote conservative Republican or we need to vote Democrat so we can collapse and accept the mark of the beast and burn in hell for all eternity.  It is just as simple as that at this point.

Advertisements

Margaret Thatcher, God Rest Her Soul, NAILED The Essence Of American Liberalism: They’d Rather The Poor Be Poorer Provided The Rich Are Less Rich

April 8, 2013

Margaret Thatcher, speaking before the House of Commons on November 22, 1990:

Transcript (from the video):

Prime Minister Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman will just listen, he might hear something that he did not know. The average pensioner now has twice as much to hand on to his children as he did 11 years ago. They are thinking about the future. This massive rise in our living standards reflects the extraordinary transformation of the private sector.

Mr. Hughes: There is no doubt that the Prime Minister, in many ways, has achieved substantial success. There is one statistic, however, that I understand is not however challenged, and that is that, over her 11 years as Prime Minister, the gap between the richest 10 per cent. and the poorest 10 per cent, has widened substantially. At the end of her chapter of British politics, how can she say that she can justify the fact that many people in a constituency such as mine are relatively much poorer, much less well housed and much less well provided for than they were in 1979? Surely she accepts that that is not a record that she or any Prime Minister can be proud of.

Prime Minister Thatcher: Mr Speaker, ALL levels of income are better off than they were in 1979.  But what the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich.  That’s why you will NEVER create the wealth for better social services as we have.  And what a policy!  Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich.  That is the liberal policy.

Mr. Hughes: No.

Prime Minister Thatcher: Yes, it came out!  He didn’t intend it to, but it did.

[Different liberal socialist Mr. Sillars]: The prime minister is aware that I detest every single one of her domestic policies and I have never hidden that fact.

Prime Minister Thatcher: And I think that the honorable gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of East Europe who have experienced it.  I think I must have hit the right nail on the head when I pointed out the logic of those policies are they’d rather have the poor poorer.  Once they start to talk about the gap, they’d rather the gap were that [indicating] – down here – not that [indicating], but that [indicating].  So long as the gap is smaller, so long as the gap is smaller, they’d rather have the poor poorer.  You do not create wealth and opportunity that way.  You do not create a property-owning democracy that way.

Margaret Thatcher was EVERY BIT as correct about the liberal American socialists like Obama who are running this country into its grave as she was about the liberal British socialists of her era.

The median wage has PLUMMETED under Obama’s failed presidency.  And as the last jobs report just proved (yet again), the poor have no chance of even being able to FIND a damn job as they are driven out of Obama’s failed economy in despair.  Under Obama, the labor participation rate – the percentage of working age Americans with jobs – there are fewer working Americans today than there have been since 1979.  And it’s actually far, FAR worse than it was in 1979 – because back in 1979, not NEARLY as many women wanted a to have a job as today.

Obama has created a jobs HOLOCAUST for the “poor.”  There is no question Obama has made the poor poorer.

And the fact that his welfare state has absolutely exploded – with food stamp dependency up by 100 percent since Obama took office – is proof of that vile pudding.

She said:

“I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.”

What kind of nation has Obama “fundamentally transformed America” into?  The very kind that Margaret Thatcher sought to deliver her nation FROM.

She nailed Obama right on the head when she summed up the results of his attempt to socialize the American economy by describing the failed results of the British Labour Party:

I was speaking of the Labour party wanting to renationalise privatised industry. Four of the industries that we have privatised are in the top 10 British businesses, but at the very bottom of the list of 1,000 British businesses lie four nationalised industries. Labour’s industries consume the wealth that others create and give nothing back.

That’s exactly what Obama has given us: the nationalized industries of his crony capitalist fascism where only HE and his bureaucrat thugs get to decide who wins and who loses, who gets to keep their money and who gets their money taxed, who succeeds and who fails.

Today Fisker – another of the failed liberal boondoggles that Obama gave half a billion taxpayer dollars to – is beginning the process of filing for bankruptcy after laying of 3/4 of its workforce.

In 2009, when Joe Biden trumpted the Obama half-billion boondoggle loan to Fisker, Joe Biden trumpeted:

The doubters were wrong about our ability to manufacture.”

No we weren’t, you failed turd.  YOU were wrong.  You were catastrophically wrong and WE WERE COMPLETELY RIGHT JUST AS I PREDICTED WE’D BE COMPLETELY RIGHT.  Just as you were wrong about all of Obama’s other failed boondoggles:

Barack Obama is the Solyndra President.  Well, make that the Solyndra-EverGreenSpectraWattFirst SolarSolar TrustAbound SolarBrightSourceLSP EnergyEner1SunPowerBeacon PowerECOtalityA123Uni SolarAzure Dynamics President.  Not to mention all the other now-bankrupt green energy crony-capitalist businesses that have stolen more than $2 billion dollars of the American people’s money.

And that sum of massive Obama failure has grown massively since I wrote that a year ago – as Fisker alone proves.

Reality simply doesn’t matter to dishonest hypocrite liberals or to their dishonest and hypocritical ideology of liberalism.  There is simply no contact with the real world.  The Word of God enables humans to – at least in part – be able to see the world accurately, as God sees it.  Liberals hate the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian worldview which is based on the Word of God.  Instead, liberals view the world through demonic secular humanist theories such as existentialism, postmodernism and yes, Marxism and its socialist cousin fascism.  They are blind fools leading a blind and foolish world into the heart of darkness.  And they are about to get their way.

It’s not that conservatives have no convincing arguments; it is rather that, between the facts that a) mainstream media propaganda deceitfully distorts the conservative message; and b) we are entering the last days before the Antichrist and the mark of the beast as God has decreed that it is time that the world receive the judgment for its wickedness that it deserves – which is why we have the terrible choice between a Mormon Mitt Romney who believes Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Lucifer and an Obama who actually IS the spirit brother of Lucifer; c) which results in RINO turds like John McCain, Lindsey Grahem and Mitt Romney being the inarticulate voices of the Republican Party who can’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag on a rainy day.

Todays’ leaders have no courage, no backbone and no clue.  Because they are men and women manufactured by politics rather than men and women shaped by virtue.

Now we are cursed with Barack Hussein Obama, a fool who believes the disease is the cure.  And if his “cure” doesn’t work to plague America with more of his disease.  And then more disease, and still more.

When God damned Europe for its wickedness in the wake of the rise of Stalin and Hitler, there WERE no intelligent voices of opposition who were allowed to rise up and confront the evil and stupidity that were swallowing up the world.  In nation after nation in Europe, you had the dismal choice between an evil, terrible choice and a slightly less evil, terrible choice.  And again and again the most evil and terrible choice was the one that prevailed.

We won’t see your like again, Mrs. Thatcher.  But God bless you for your good work on this earth.  The world desperately needs leaders like you, but they will not rise.  Because the beast is coming – and fools must reign to welcome him and his coming mark.

Enjoy your rest with God in heaven, Iron Lady.  You truly earned it.

Would that we had your like now instead of the God damn America that we have under this failed presidency of a man who is every bit as foolish as the fools you exposed.

My Final Say On Why Barack Obama Does NOT Deserve Reelection

November 5, 2012

Obama has added a fourth dimension to dishonesty.  They used to say, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”  Now it’s “There are lies, damn lies, statistics and Obamanomics.”  Because Obama’s entire economic policy is a giant turd.  And while it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, and feels like a turd if you’re idiot enough to touch it, Obama tells you it’s actually gold-plated.

The unemployment rate is HIGHER than it was when Obama took office.  It is HIGHER than it EVER WAS under George W. Bush.  But in spite of that reality, it somehow never stopped Obama from just demonizing Bush.  Obama has never taken personally responsibility for anything.

George Bush’s unemployment rate was 5.26% over eight years.  At this point near the very end of Obama’s failed first (and hopefully ONLY term), Obama has given us an average unemployment rate of over 9 percent (9.03%).

You’d think that a man who never came CLOSE to George Bush’s unemployment rate – and frankly a man who never WILL come close to Bush’s unemployment rate – wouldn’t talk so much smack about George Bush.  BUT THAT’S ALL OBAMA DOES.  And the reason that’s all he does is simply because it’s all he has: demagoguery and demonization and blame and Marxist class warfare.

I suppose I can understand why those monthly unemployment rates under Bush looked bad to Democrats.  Because people would expect them to get off their lazy little roach asses and get a damn job back then instead of Obama giving them food stamps for life.  Obama has increased food stamps by 53 percent under his presidency; and what the hell, if you go back to when Nancy Pelosi took over the House of Representatives and Harry Reid took over the US Senate in 2007, Democrats have increased food stamps by 70 percent.  And all you welfare parasites ought to really like that trend – at least until you’ve sucked more blood out of the increasingly few Americans who are actually producing anything and the country implodes and you starve because Obama trained you to be completely dependent sponges.  It will be bad for you then, but then again none of you have EVER been capable of thinking about tomorrow and actually taking steps to avoid catastrophe before, so why start now?  You don’t need a damn job; YOU’VE GOT OBAMA.

You also need to understand that Barack Obama has in no way, shape or form lowered the unemployment rate.  What he has done is massively increase the number of discouraged workers – who don’t count in the official unemployment rate calculations.

There’s a vital statistic called the “labor force participation rate.”  What is it?  It is the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a job.  And that rate has plunged and plunged and plunged every single year of Obama’s presidency.  I’ve written about this: if you look at November of 2010, the labor participation rate under Obama was at a 25-year low (i.e., worse than it EVER was under Bush) at 64.5%.   The next year, 2011, the participation rate was at a 27-year low at 63.9%.  In May of this year, the participation rate was at 63.6% and was the worst in thirty years.  And at that point just a few months ago the labor participation rate for men was the lowest it had EVER been since they started keeping records in 1948.  By August of this year it declined yet again to 63.5% to the lowest level in thirty-one years.

When our unemployment rate drops precipitously because four discouraged workers give up ever getting a job under this failed presidency for every one who actually gets a job, you need a new president.

If we applied the labor force participation rate that George Bush handed off to Obama, the unemployment rate would be well over 10 percent.

And what about the businesses that would be creating jobs if it weren’t for the fact that a turd is sitting in the White House where a president ought to be?

What is true of the labor force participation is also true of business start ups in America under Obama.  Two years ago – and this being during the so-called Obama “recovery,” the number of U.S. business start-ups and dropped 24% – and how the hell does that happen in a “recovery” when you’re supposedly coming out of a recession that you blame Bush for?  Last year the number of business start-ups had plunged to a 25 year low which was THE LOWEST level ever measured since the statistic began to be tracked in 1986.  Now under Obama’s utterly failed leadership and under his Marxist class warfare, the number of business start-ups is at a 30 year low.

Obama isn’t adding anywhere NEAR enough jobs to keep up with the 10 million people who have joined the workforce by virtue of becoming adults during his presidency.

I don’t understand.  Why do so many Democrats want America to weaken, to fail and to implode?  What is it about this country that so many people call “The Great Satan” that you Democrats despise so much?

You can look at America’s global competitiveness under Obama and see the same failure.  Last year, America dropped to fifth place.  This year, thanks to Obama’s leadership, America has plunged to seventh place in global competitiveness.  And in fact we have dropped down the ladder under Obama every single year of his failed presidency in global competitiveness.

And wait, I’m not done, because the United States has now also plunged in a manner described as “unprecedented” to TWELFTH place in prosperity under Obama.

We were #1 in the world in global competitiveness when George Bush handed the presidency to Barack Obama.

If you vote Democrat, I guess you think our decline is good.  You clearly do, because you thought that our being number one in the world under George W. Bush was somehow bad.  You want America to drop to twelfth place, to twentieth place, to fiftieth place.  Why?  What is morally and psychologically wrong with you?

And don’t think for a second that Democrats want more money in the pockets of working people.  Because the median household income has dropped $4,520 since that evil day that President Obama took officeBetting on Obama cost you 8.2% of the average American’s income.  That’s how much the average American has basically lost every year as a result of their lousy bet on Obama.  I don’t understand: why on earth do you want more of that?  Or maybe I should be asking you why on earth you want less and less money and freedom as long as you can have more Obama?

Democrats are NOT people who want more money in working people’s’ pockets; they’re bitter, hateful people who want LESS money in other people’s’ pockets; they’re Marxists who want more and more and more money in the government’s pocket instead.

Obama is spending this country into bankruptcy.  You first need to understand that Obama has added $6 trillion to the debt in only four years after demonizing George Bush for adding over $4 trillion over eight years.  If Obama is reelected, he is on pace to TRIPLE the George Bush debt that he demagogued.  And this from a president who promised he’d cut spending and would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term but was upbraided by Tom Brokaw who said Obama would have to answer for his “out of control” $1.1 trillion deficit “that happened on his watch.”  And let’s not even think about the fact that our REAL debt that will ultimately bankrupt us all is the $222 trillion we owe when we consider the unsustainable Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid debt that we have to pay.

On the foreign policy front, let me just sum it up this way: our Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have massively lost confidence in Obama as commander-in-chief.  Obama paraded himself around as the president who got bin Laden (never mind that he depended enormously on the waterboarding-obtained intelligence that he demonized).  And Obama claimed that in getting bin Laden he had fatally wounded al Qaeda and that the war on terrorism was basically over.  And as a result Ambassador Chris Stevens was completely safe in Benghazi, Libya, and Obama could therefore cut his security even though the ambassador who was just about to be murdered in an al Qaeda terrorist attack was begging for MORE security.  The fact that Obama was utterly and completely wrong about his core foreign policy ought to matter.  But instead Obama has lied and then lied again when confronted with past lies such that the drip, drip, drip of Benghazi won’t hurt him until after the election is already over.  Which is exactly how a profoundly unworthy commander-in-chief would think.

Meanwhile, Obama’s cockroach media is working overtime to censor the news about this story so that Obama’s gamble will work.

Speaking of war zones, how about that Hurricane Sandy devastation?  Much of the country is lining up in gas lines that are taking as long as seven hours to get through.  Whole regions are devastated and thousands of victims have received absolutely no help at ALLAnger is beginning to increasingly erupt over the disastrous relief effortIt’s always amazing to watch as the same media that pounded George Bush day after day over Katrina refuse to cover the suffering Obama is responsible for after Hurricane Sandy.  Obama got his photo op pretending to be “commander-in-chief” and now he can leave victims out in the cold.  Literally.

Oh, did I mention “gas”?  How about them prices?  Obama has made gasoline TWICE as expensive as it was when he took office.

Obama summed it up pretty well: Democrats are people who vote with a heart full of revenge; Mitt Romney is a man who says that Republicans vote because of love of country.

And that bit of deceit is frankly stunning: why the hell is Obama demanding that people take revenge on Mitt Romney WHEN IT WAS INSTEAD BARACK OBAMA WHO HAS IMPLODED AMERICA YEAR AFTER YEAR OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS???  Just what did Mitt Romney do that Obama thinks people should take revenge on him for???  Why the hell doesn’t Obama realize that HE’S the man the American people need to take their revenge on, if they take revenge out on anyone at all???  Why is it that Barack Obama is that pathologically incapable of accepting any kind of responsibility at all???

Obama Says, ‘We Don’t Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country.’ Especially People Who Start Businesses Or Risk Their Money Investing.

October 8, 2012

Put this in your, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” comment and smoke it:

Obama: ‘We Don’t Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country’
11:59 AM, Oct 5, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

President Obama, speaking in Virginia, said, “We don’t believe anybody is entitled to success in this country.”

“This  country does not just succeed when just a few are doing well at the  top,” Obama said, according to a rush transcript of the remarks. “It succeeds when the middle class gets bigger. Our economy does not  grow from the top-down, it grows from the middle-out. We do not believe  that anybody is entitled to success in this country. But we do believe  in opportunity. We believe in a country where hard work pays off and  responsibilities are rewarded and everybody is getting a fair shot and  everybody’s doing their fair share. And everybody’s paying by the same  rules. That is the country believe in. That is what we have been  fighting for the last four years. That is what we’re going to put in  place in the next four years if you reelect me as president of the United States of America.”

You see, that’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals say everybody ought to be the same, everybody ought to have their wealth redistributed and doled out to everybody else such that as Karl Marx famously stated:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

You see, conservatives don’t think so.  We think if a small business owners works a hundred hours a damn week to make his or her business successful, that business owner is entitled to his or her success.  Conservatives think if a smart investor risks his or her money on an investment that succeeds, that investor is entitled to his or her success.  We think that people who work harder or who work smarter than other people ought to be entitled to keep what they worked harder or smarter than others FOR.  In the case of rich people, we even think that rich people who worked hard their entire lives to give their children an inheritance are entitled to GIVE their kids that inheritance.  Just as we think those kids are entitled to receive what their parents worked so hard to give them.

Do you know what you ARE entitled to in America under Obama’s failed presidency?  Food stamps:

[W]e are confident that no readers will be surprised to learn that foodstamp usage for both persons and households, has jumped to a new all time record.

At 46,681,833 persons hooked on SNAP, the July number crossed the previous record posted a short month before, as the foodstamp curve continues ‘plumbing’ newer and greater heights each month.

More disturbing is that in the same month, the number of US households reliant on foodstamps rose by a whopping 99,493 to 22,541,744. Assuming a modest 2 persons per household, the increase means that more people went on Foodstamps in the month of July than found jobs (181,000 according to the latest revised NFP data). Furthermore, it appears that buying votes has become a tad more expensive in the past month. After the benefit per household dipped to a record low in April at just $275.81, this has since retraced some of its losses and is now at an inflationary $277.92. Oh well: inflation.

Adding the number of disability recipients in the month of July, which in that month rose by 20,474, and one can see why the government is quite happy with dumping this particular release long after everyone was on their way back home for the weekend.

Finally, and putting it all into perspective, since December 2007, or the start of the Great Depression ver 2.0, the number of jobs lost is 4.5 million, while those added to foodstamps and disability rolls, has increased by a unprecedented 21 million. Oh and about $7 or $8 trillion in debt. Who’s counting really.

Which is why you can bet your farm that this government-subsidized princess will be sure to vote Obama:

I wish I could go to the home of every liberal (like a liberal version Santa Claus) and take away every single toy their kids come out of the house with.  A liberal’s kid comes out with a new bike, I’m going to take that bike.  That kid isn’t entitled to that bike.  And I’m going to redistribute it to some other poor kid.  If a liberal’s kid comes out with the hot new toy, why, just how in the hell is that kid entitled to that?  Santa Claus is coming to town to redistribute the damn wealth.  And I’m going to make sure that every fat-assed, lazy, good-nothing sluggard gets what every hard-working person worked so hard to build.  Because I think that “you didn’t build that” and “you’re not entitled to it.”

People who work hard and suceed are FAR more entitled to what they earn than every single liberal parasite on earth combined.

Census Records Prove Obama Helped 200,000 Businesses First Two Years After Getting Elected. Into Bankruptcy.

July 27, 2012

If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own…  If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made it happen.”

Actually, it works more the other way.  If you’ve got a business that went bankrupt, Obama made it happen:

“Somebody else made it happen” for 200,000 business after Obama got elected to destroy America:

Census Shows 200,000 Small Businesses Shut Down From 2008-2010
by Ben Shapiro26 Jul 2012

According to Census figures, some 200,000 small businesses disappeared from the rolls between 2008 and 2010. Those businesses were responsible for some three million jobs. The Obama administration claims that they’re moving in the right direction – but the direction of the economy is now reversing itself.

Not surprisingly, Gallup finds that business owners are turning on President Obama. The national poll showed a 59-35 disapproval/approval split. Workers are split in favor of Obama, thanks in large part to Obama’s heavy emphasis on class warfare.

It is no coincidence that government spending has expanded dramatically during the same period that private sector businesses were going under. And it is no coincidence that, even as the economy falls back into a slump, from the mildest recovery in our lifetime, Obama believes that only more government spending can solve the problem.

59% of business owners understand that Obama is a nasty turd who is out to crap on them.

David Limbaugh asks the following question:

Obama’s desperate protests that his anti-business rant was taken out of context are betrayed both by that very context and because they are a part of a piece — just one more component of his war against the American entrepreneurial spirit.

He would have us believe that his words “you didn’t build that” referred to roads and bridges and not businesses.

Given his accompanying statements — “you didn’t get there on your own,” etc. — that is an absurd construction. But even if that’s what he meant, why would he have felt compelled to point out that businesses don’t succeed without access to roads and bridges? Do roads and bridges not connect the population to failed businesses?

Obama is to failure what Rome was to roads: because all failed businesses lead to Obama.

One the subject of “Somebody else made that happen” we’ve got another Obama feat: 46.5 Million Americans, Record 22.3 Million US Households, On Foodstamps:

In Obama’s demagogic universe, if you’re successful and you say Obama and his Government aren’t responsible for your success, well you’re just a racist. But if you say that Obama is responsible for anybody’s failure or any kind of failure at all, well you’re just a racist.  Basically, if you have a brain of your own and you believe that there is anything called “personal responsibility,” well that makes you a racist.

Obama ‘Fundamental Transformation’ Taking Us Way Back To The Flinstones Rather Than Way Ahead To The Jetsons

January 30, 2012

Obama told us he was going to fundamentally transform America:

And, of course, he has.

Food stamps:

This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That’s 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Government-dependency benefits:

According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That’s up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries

Direct government payments to the permanent welfare class that Obama has massively increased:

The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama’s last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.

Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press points out the fact that:

“Most know by now that Obama dedicates his time to the end of America as it presently exists.”

One of the ways to illustrate what has happened in America is the flak that Newt Gingrich has taken for talking about a vision to not only put a man on the moon, but have a space station there.  There is doubt, skepticism and outright mockery of him in the mainstream media (“Newt Skywalker“?).

Greta Van Sustern asked Newt about why that was.  And Newt went right after Obama for killing America’s dreams and her future.

Gingrich pointed out that JFK in 1961 offered an even MORE audacious vision of putting a man on the moon when not only had no man ever been on the moon but when only the Soviet Union had ever even sent a man into orbit.  JFK said we would put a man on the moon within ten years.  And while he did not live to see the day because a leftist socialist assassinated him, we DID put a man on the moon within ten years of that famous speech.

Why can’t we now?

Because Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a country that can’t do anything and knows it can’t do anything, that’s why.  And of course how could we with such pathetic, failed leadership?  How could we possibly ever thrive under the wings of a man whose only talent is reading off a pair of teleprompter screens?

And the naysayers are completely right: nothing great is possible under this fool.

Only real leadership can get us to the Jetsons.

Newt Gingrich is dreaming of a day when America isn’t under the disgraced and failed leadership of “the Failure-in-Chief.”

Obama is taking us to the Flintstones.  And the sad fact is that the dinosaurs we’ll encounter won’t be anywhere near as friendly as that cartoon described when we get to where Obama is taking us.

Please vote for the destruction of America and a future that takes us – and in particular our children – down into collapse and depression.  Please give us more Obama because we simply don’t deserve to continue the way we’re going.

P.S. Hat tip to Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld for his “Jetsons-Flintstones” analogy.

AP-Reported FACT: U.S. Economy The Worst Since The LAST Time We Let A Socialist Run It

July 11, 2011

The Los Angeles Times print edition ran this story on July 2 under the considerably more Marxist headline, “Wealthy benefit from recovery as workers struggle“:

U.S. Recovery’s 2-Year Anniversary Arrives With Little To Celebrate
First Posted: 07/ 1/11 05:33 PM ET Updated: 07/ 1/11 05:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — This is one anniversary few feel like celebrating.

Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s.

After previous recessions, people in all income groups tended to benefit. This time, ordinary Americans are struggling with job insecurity, too much debt and pay raises that haven’t kept up with prices at the grocery store and gas station. The economy’s meager gains are going mostly to the wealthiest.

Workers’ wages and benefits make up 57.5 percent of the economy, an all-time low. Until the mid-2000s, that figure had been remarkably stable — about 64 percent through boom and bust alike.

[…]

But if the Great Recession is long gone from Wall Street and corporate boardrooms, it lingers on Main Street:

Unemployment has never been so high — 9.1 percent — this long after any recession since World War II. At the same point after the previous three recessions, unemployment averaged just 6.8 percent.

The average worker’s hourly wages, after accounting for inflation, were 1.6 percent lower in May than a year earlier. Rising gasoline and food prices have devoured any pay raises for most Americans.

The jobs that are being created pay less than the ones that vanished in the recession. Higher-paying jobs in the private sector, the ones that pay roughly $19 to $31 an hour, made up 40 percent of the jobs lost from January 2008 to February 2010 but only 27 percent of the jobs created since then.

[…]

Hard times have made Americans more dependent than ever on social programs, which accounted for a record 18 percent of personal income in the last three months of 2010 before coming down a bit this year. Almost 45 million Americans are on food stamps, another record.

[…]

Because the labor market remains so weak, most workers can’t demand bigger raises or look for better jobs.

“In an economic cycle that is turning up, a labor market that is healthy and vibrant, you’d see a large number of people quitting their jobs,” says Gluskin Sheff economist Rosenberg. “They quit because the grass is greener somewhere else.”

Instead, workers are toughing it out, thankful they have jobs at all. Just 1.7 million workers have quit their job each month this year, down from 2.8 million a month in 2007.

The toll of all this shows in consumer confidence, a measure of how good people feel about the economy. According to the Conference Board’s index, it’s at 58.5. Healthy is more like 90. By this point after the past three recessions, it was an average of 87.

How gloomy are Americans? A USA Today/Gallup poll eight weeks ago found that 55 percent think the recession continues, even if the experts say it’s been over for two years. That includes the 29 percent who go even further — they say it feels more like a depression.

Allow me to start with the second paragraph in the story:

“Two years after economists say the Great Recession ended, the recovery has been the weakest and most lopsided of any since the 1930s.”

The weakest and most lopsided of any recovery since the 1930s, you say???

WHO WAS PRESIDENT IN THE 1930s?  WHICH PARTY DOMINATED BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN THE 1930s?

And next let me ask you, “Are there any similarities between socialist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt and socialist Democrat Barack Hussein Obama???  And the answer is, “HELL YES THERE ARE!!!”:

Which is to say, “This is the worst the U.S. economy has ever been since the LAST time we had a socialist just like FDR – and the mainstream media proudly hailed Obama as FDR and Obama’s as a NEW “New Deal.”

But here’s the truth:

FDR prolonged — not ended — great depression

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

”Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. ”We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

[…]

”The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. ”Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”

And of course all the “experts” the mainstream media love to trot out have all bought hook, line and sinker the notion that capitalism is something to be loathed and feared.  So they demand that America pursue asinine government stimulus policies that fail even by the “experts'” own standards, and then these same “experts” proceed to argue that the economy failing to recover somehow is proof that more of the same thing that already failed is necessary.

These “experts” whom the mainstream media give a loud microphone to to espouse their socialist views are pathologically incapable of seeing this connection between socialist policies and an economy in the doldrums.  Every bit of negative economic news is invariably “unexpected” (liberals favorite adjective to wave a hand at bad economic developments whenever a Democrat president is in charge), because these “experts” cannot separate the inevitable results of their ideology from their terribly failed ideology.  There has to be a disconnect, or more commonly, a scapegoat.

I can simply re-cite my conclusion from a previous article to find a particularly laughable example of this phenomena:

I think of the Soviet Union, which literally blamed the total failure of their entire political philosophy and the ruinous policies that philosophy entailed by claiming that their agricultural output had been adversely affected due to 72 years of bad weather.  And the Soviet Union has gone the way of the Dodo bird for that very reason.

Is America under Obama the next Dodo bird to fall apart while we’re assured that everything is fine while some suitable scapegoat bears the blame for every failure that can’t be ignored???

It couldn’t be the fact that socialism is nothing more than state-planned economic failure.  It had to be something else, ANYTHING else.

The Big Brother from the novel 1984 had Emmanuel Goldstein.  The Big Brother who is now occupying our White House has George W. Bush.

The next obvious question to ask and answer is, “Why are the wealthy benefitting while the workers struggle?”

The answer is twofold: 1) because when you attack the employers, the first thing to go is the employees and 2) because that’s exactly how crony capitalism works.

There is a magnificent book entitled, New Deal Or Raw Deal?  How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America, which should be required reading.  Burton Folsom Jr. points out that when FDR structured his many policies and regulations that strangled economic growth, he did so in such a way that favored the big crony capitalist corporations at the expense of the smaller businesses that could no longer compete given the costly regulatory requirements.  The smaller businesses were forced out of the market while the big businesses protected themselves with insider deals based on access to and influence with the government that only they could afford.  And there is no question whatsoever that – even as FDR employed the class warfare of socialism – the rich got richer while the poor got poorer.  Income tax revenues plunged as the wealthy sheltered their wealth from the high tax rates and the poor paid an increasingly high overall percentage of tax revenues via excise taxes.  Regulations mandating higher pay for workers priced those workers right out of their jobs.  Folsom provides the official data to back it up.

Check out this fact from page 127 of New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1929, prior to FDR demonizing the rich, income taxes accounted for 38% of total revenue collected, and corporate income taxes accounted for 43%.  Excise taxes which burdened the poor only counted for 19% of revenues.  By 1938, the rich and the corporations had protected themselves from FDR’s demagogic tax policies (but the poor couldn’t), such that the only 24% was collected in income taxes (versus 38%) and only 29% from corporate income taxes (versus 43%).  Meanwhile the poor-punishing excise taxes (e.g. gasoline tax) soared from 19% to 47% of the total taxes collected.  Meanwhile, when income taxes were kept low, the wealthy invariably paid FAR MORE in the total tax revenue as they put their money out to invest in and expand the economy in pursuit of the profits.  And they created millions of jobs in doing so.

And guess what?  Regulations mandating higher wages are STILL killing jobs now that Obama is doing it.

And the exact same mindset is yielding the exact same results ALL OVER AGAIN.  Obama has put the fear of God (actually the fear of the Soviet-style STATE) into the wealthy and the corporations.  They keep hearing Obama demagogue them, and they keep sheltering their money.  And they will CONTINUE to keep doing that until the threat of Obama is gone.  Just like they did with FDR.

Here we are today, with “the New FDR,” Barack Obama.  Who is the top dog on Obama’s economic team?  Why lo and behold, it is none other than GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, crony capitalist extraordinaire whose big corporation has REPEATEDLY benefitted from a cozy insider relationship with big government.  And consider how Obama literally took big auto makers GM and Chrysler away from their legitimate shareholders and gave them to big unions.

Regarding “crony capitalism,” I made a sweeping statement in a previous article:

That said, there is also a deliberate and fundamental misunderstanding of fascism by the left.  If you read leftists, you come away thinking that somehow “fascism” is the takeover of a state by corporations. But stop and think: Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Hess and all the other key Nazis WEREN’T corporate CEOs who took over the state; THEY WERE SOCIALIST POLITICIANS WHO TOOK OVER THE CORPORATIONS.  They usurped the corporations and FORCED them to perform THEIR agenda.  They either performed the Nazis’ will or they were simply taken away from their rightful owners and nationalized.

And to the degree that German crony capitalist corporations helped Hitler in his rise to power, THEY WERE JUST MORE USEFUL IDIOTS.

The same sort of takeover of German corporations by socialists is building in America.  Take Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, as the perfect example.  What did she say of the oil companies?

“This liberal will be all about socializing … uh uh … would be about … basically … taking over … and the government running all of your companies.”

THAT’S what Hitler did, too.  Hitler got this power through regulations that required corporations to do his bidding, just like Obama has now REPEATEDLY done.

And then consider how willing Maxine Waters used “crony capitalism” (which is the essence of developing fascism) to directly personally benefit even as she shaped the banking industry.

The Democrat party is the party of socialism.  It is the party of Marxism.  It is the party of fascism.

I stand by that sweeping statement.  People need to realize that “Nazi” stood for “National SOCIALIST German Workers Party,” and that both Nazi socialism and Soviet socialism were big government socialist tyrannies that failed their people.  As to our own experiment with socialism here in the USA, I point out in an article that explains how “Government Sponsored Enterprises” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies led us into economic implosion in spite of warnings for YEARS prior to the 2008 economic collapse:

But rigid opposition from Democrats – especially Democrats like Senator Barack Obamawho took more campaign money from Fannie and Freddie and dirty crony capitalism outfits like corrupt Lehman Bros. than ANYONE in his short Senate stint – prevented any “hope and change” of necessary reform from saving the US economy.

The timeline is clear: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were giant behemoths that began to stagger under their own corrupt weight, as even the New York Times pointed out:

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

And it was FANNIE and FREDDIE that collapsed FIRST before ANY of the private investment banks, which collapsed as a result of having purchased the very mortgaged backed securities that the Government Sponsored Enterprises SOLD THEM.  It wasn’t until Fannie and Freddie collapsed that investors began to look with horror at all the junk that these GSE boondoggles had been pimping.

The man who predicted the collapse in 1999 wrote a follow-up article titled, “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess.”  It really should have read, “Blame DEMOCRATS.”  Because they were crawling all over these GSEs that they had themselves created like the cockroaches they are.  But Wallison is nonpartisan

Barack and Michelle Obama have a documented personal history of crony capitalism:

The Chicago way is a very, very ugly way.  And Obama has been in it up to his eyeballs.  Chicago is a dirty place filled with dirty politicians – and Obama was perfectly at home with all the dirt.

That Chicago corruption extends right into Obama’s home, by way of his wife Michelle.  This is a woman who sat on high-paying boards in direct quid-pro-quo consequences of Obama advancing in public office.  And in some of those boards, she participated in the worst kind of hospital patient-dumping.

Here’s a video of Michelle Obama you ought to watch – if you can stand the revelations:

Too bad we voted to nationalize the Chicago Way.

I also pointed out that when you attacked employers, the ones who would be hit the most and the hardest would be EMPLOYEES.

Take a look at what’s happening to small businesses, which create at least half of all the jobs in America, under Obama.  How about the fewest new business startups since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking it:

Through the 12 months ended in March of last year, 505,473 new businesses started up in the U.S., according to the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s the weakest growth since the bureau started tracking the data in the early 1990s. It’s down sharply from the record 667,341 new businesses added in the 12 months that ended in March 2006.

And we can tie this right back to crony capitalism, as Obama has created a system in which larger businesses are protected against the threat of competition from smaller businesses:

Many times large corporations will even lobby for more regulations  for their  own industry because they know that they can handle all of the  rules and  paperwork far easier than their smaller competitors can.   After all, a  large corporation with an accounting department can easily  handle filling out a  few thousand more forms, but for a small business  with only a handful  of employees that kind of paperwork is a major  logistical nightmare.

When it comes to hiring new employees, the federal government has  made the  process so complicated and so expensive for small businesses  that it is  hardly worth it anymore.  Things have gotten so bad that more  small  businesses than ever are only hiring part-time workers or  independent  contractors.

So what we actually have now is a situation where small businesses  have lots of incentives not to hire more workers, and if they really do need some extra help the rules make it much more profitable to do  whatever you can to keep from bringing people on as full-time   employees.

And who do all these rules and regulations hurt the most but the very people Democrats cynically and deceitfully claim they are trying to help?  Meanwhile, who does it help the most but the crony capitalist corporations who DON’T do most of the hiring in America who can profit from Obama’s war on business that results in the destruction of their small business competition.

A recent report by the National Federation of Independent Business points out that small businesses are planning to SHRINK rather than EXPAND their payrolls under Obama.  From the New York Times:

A Slowdown for Small Businesses
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Published: June 14, 2011

In the latest sign that the economic recovery may have lost whatever modest oomph it had, more small businesses say that they are planning to shrink their payrolls than say they want to expand them.

That is according to a new report released Tuesday by the National Federation of Independent Business, a trade group that regularly surveys its membership of small businesses across America.

The federation’s report for May showed the worst hiring prospects in eight months. The finding provides a glimpse into the pessimism of the nation’s small firms as they put together their budgets for the coming season, and depicts a more gloomy outlook than other recent (if equally lackluster) economic indicators because this one is forward-looking.

While big companies are buoyed by record profits, many small businesses, which employ half of the country’s private sector workers, are still struggling to break even. And if the nation’s small companies plan to further delay hiring — or, worse, return to laying off workers, as they now hint they might — there is little hope that the nation’s 14 million idle workers will find gainful employment soon.

“Never in the 37-year history of our company have we seen anything at all like this,” said Frank W. Goodnight, president of Diversified Graphics, a publishing company in Salisbury, N.C. He says there is “no chance” he will hire more workers in the months ahead.

“We’re being squeezed on all sides,” he says.

So let me ask again the question that the Los Angeles Times phrased: “Why are the wealthy benefitting from the ‘recovery’ as workers struggle?

And the answer is simple: because Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are socialist who have destroyed the engine that creates the jobs that workers depend upon to flourish.

An interesting fact is that businesses are now forced to spend $1.7 TRILLION a year in regulatory compliance costs.  That is a massive hidden tax on their viability; it exceeds the overt income taxes businesses have to pay, and it most certainly exceeds their profits.  And right now Obama is attacking them via the Dodd-Frank regulatory legislation, via the EPA, via OSHA, via ObamaCare and via the ridiculous actions of the NLRB in addition to their tax burden.  Just to name a few.  The result is businesses terrified to expand and further place their necks under Obama’s axe blade.

Meanwhile, Obama’s socialist policies have not only devastated the worker by destroying his jobs, but they’ve ruined America on numerous other levels, too.  Take the housing crisis – which was THE cause of the economic implosion of 2008.  Did Obama make it better?  Well, here’s a headline for you from CNBC: “US Housing Crisis Is Now Worse Than Great Depression.”  Which is to say that Democrats – who first created the housing crisis by refusing to allow the regulation of their pet socialist wealth redistribution agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – took something awful and turned it into an American Dream-massacring nightmare.

The latest job figures simply further document my point: Obama is destroying America job by job.  Not only did the unemployment rate go up to 9.2% (Obama promised the American people that the unemployment rate would be 7.1% by now if he got his massive government-spending stimulus); not only were the previous two month figures adjusted DOWNWARD by some 45,000 jobs; not only have a third of the unemployed been unemployed for at least a YEAR with fully half of the unemployed having been unemployed for over six months (which is unprecedented); not only did the economy create an incredibly dismal 18,000 jobs (versus the 100,000 the economists naively expected); but a quarter million more people simply walked away from the workforce entirely – abandoning any hope that Obama will do anything more than crush their hopes of finding a job.

Gallup: In 29 Months Of Obama Presidency Americans Have NEVER ONCE Believed The Economy Improving

July 5, 2011

This is really quite amazing, given the constant media propaganda constantly assuring us that recovery is right around the corner and every new piece of bad economic news was somehow “unexpected.”  But the majority of the American people have never once believed that our führer has NEVER been anything other than a failure.

Gallup: In No Month of Obama Presidency Has Majority Believed Economy Improving
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com)Barack Obama has now been president for more than 29 months, yet in none of those months has a majority of Americans believed the nation’s economy is getting better rather than worse, according to the Gallup poll.

In fact, in no month of Obama’s presidency has belief that the economy is getting better exceeded 41 percent among American adults, a peak it reached in April 2010 and again in January 2011.

In the most recent three day-period reported by Gallup—July 1-July 3—only 31 percent of Americans said they believed the economy was getting better. Meanwhile, 63 percent said they believed it was getting worse.

Each day, Gallup asks approximately 500 American adults a simple question: Do they think that economic conditions in the country as a whole are getting better or getting worse? Gallup then regularly publishes the most recent three-day average percentage for each answer, while periodically publishing the monthly averages.

While 41 percent is the highest percentage of Americans who told Gallup they believed the economy was getting better during any month of the Obama presidency, there have been some three-day periods in which a somewhat higher percentage told Gallup they believed the economy was getting better.

However, since the three-day period ending on Oct. 15, 2009, according to day-by-day data released by Gallup, the percentage of Americans who said in any three-day period that they believed the economy was getting better peaked at 46 percent on Dec. 30, 2009-Jan. 3, 2010.

The last time as many as 40 percent of Americans said they believed the economy was getting better was in the three-day period that ended on Feb. 16, 2011.

In June, belief that the economy was getting better never rose higher than 34 percent in any three-day period.

We voted for an evil man.  We voted for the “God damn America” candidate.  And what a surprise, God damn America is precisely what we have.

If you think that more Marxism or more of the militant homosexual agenda will change that, then go vote for Obama and his Democrats again.  Go ahead.  Vote for more hell.  Because one day soon under ObamaCare you’re going to die and then you will burn there for all eternity.

If you think that 1 in 7 Americans being on food stamps is the way to go, and 1 in 5 would be better yet, then by all means, keep voting for the food stamp president.

Ronald Reagan famously said, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”  That is exactly what Obama has done; he has taxed and regulated and strangled success and he has subsidized and rewarded failure.  And now we’re supposed to be shocked at all the failure we’re seeing???

Things You Can Thank Liberals For: Millionaire On Food Stamps, 30 Year-Old ‘Baby’ On Social Security And Total Fiscal Implosion

May 20, 2011

Exhibit 1:

$2M Michigan lottery winner defends use of food stamps
Detroit News detroit News – Wed May 18, 1:27 pm ET
Ron French, Detroit News staff writer

A Michigan man who won $2 million in a state lottery game continues to collect food stamps 11 months after striking it rich.

And there’s nothing the state can do about it, at least for now.

Leroy Fick, 59, of Auburn won $2 million in the state lottery TV show “Make Me Rich!” last June. But the state’s Department of Human Services determined he was still eligible for food stamps, Fick’s attorney, John Wilson of Midland, said Tuesday.

Eligibility for food stamps is based on gross income and follows federal guidelines; lottery winnings are considered liquid assets and don’t count as income. As long as Fick’s gross income stays below the eligibility requirement for food stamps, he can receive them, even if he has a million dollars in the bank.

Food stamps are paid for through tax dollars and are meant to help support low-income families.

“If you’re going to try to make me feel bad, you’re not going to do it,” Fick told WNEM-TV in Saginaw on Monday.

Wilson said Fick told the DHS officials he’d won $2 million but was told he could keep using the Bridge Card issued to him to buy groceries.

Fick could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

[…]

Exhibit 2:

Only in America: The ‘adult baby’ who collects Social Security
At age 30, Stanley Thornton Jr. sleeps in a crib and lives off the government — though some say he’s perfectly capable of holding down a job
posted on May 19, 2011, at 11:07 AM

Best Opinion:  Pajamas Media, Hot Air, New York

The story: Stanley Thornton Jr., 30, is a self-described “adult baby,” who sleeps in a huge crib, drinks from a bottle, wears diapers, lives with a former nurse who acts as his “mom”… and subsists on Social Security disability benefits. This last part caught the attention of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who requested that the Social Security inspector general review Thornton’s disability classification — especially since Thornton appears to be running a design business specializing in “adult baby” furniture. Thornton, who was featured on the National Geographic TV show Taboo (see video below), says he has mental problems that prevent him from holding a job, and threatened to kill himself if his Social Security check is taken away.

The reaction: The only thing standing between Thornton and a job is his fantasies, so kick this 350-pound “diaper wearing freeloader” off the dole, says Christian Adams in Pajamas Media. Seriously, could there be “a better symbol of what a fiscal mess we are in”? Well, yes and no, says Allahpundit in Hot Air. I mean, watch the video. “If this guy’s not ‘disabled,’ who is?” And it’s not like he’s the only American putting his needs before our “crushing debt burden.” The saddest thing about this story, says Dan Amira in New York, is who would’ve thought “a fight between a United States Senator and a 30-year-old adult baby could be unfunny”?

Question: Did someone just make a doody in their diaper???

Conclusion: how DARE you question these noble liberal programs!?!?!?  You must be totally heartless!!!!!

Democrats have made it as impossible to stop fraud in these programs as they have made it impossible to deal with voter fraud or illegal immigration.

Republicans could try to investigate how these programs are godawfully abused, but of course liberals and Democrats would start running ads like this one.

All scaremongering and demonizing aside, let me tell you the truth.  Democrats don’t want to push “gramma” off the cliff.  They’re FAR too hateful and depraved for something so small in scale.  Rather, Democrats want to push the entire United States of America off a cliff.  They want every single American to perish in the horror of a Great Depression that will make the last one seem like a pleasant afternoon at the beach.  They want to attack everyone who proposes any kind of solution to our impending 100%-guaranteed-to-happen financial implosion so that our nation and every single person living in it has the choice between communism or death.

69% Of Independents Say Obama’s Policies Have Made Economy Worse

October 12, 2010

Democrats have been telling anyone who will listen that Republicans destroyed the economy.  And that letting Republicans take over is giving power back to the very people who drove the economy into the ditch to begin with.

But here’s the thing – only Democrats believe that load of hooey now.

People have moved on.  What they understand is that Democrats have made a bad situation far, far worse:

Sixty-nine percent of independents say Obama has made the economy worse and 80 percent of those also say they will definitely vote this year. More than 6 out of 10 also disapprove of the job Obama is doing, are angry with government and oppose the health care reform plan he advocated and signed into law.

Things were really bad the last time Republicans ran Congress.  In January of 2006 – the last time Republicans were in control – unemployment was a terrible 4.6%.  And the last time Republicans submitted a budget (for FY2007), the budget deficit was $161 billion.

Just so you know, unemployment under Obama and the Democrat-owned Congress has been more than twice what Republicans left for seventeen straight months.  The VERY NEXT YEAR after Republicans lost control of Congress, Democrats wrote a budget (FY2008) that was nearly THREE TIMES HIGHER IN DEFICIT SPENDING, with a $459 billion deficit.

Annual deficits under the last Republican Congress have become monthly deficits under the Democrats.

In 2008, during Bush’s final year in office, 40 banks closed.  Compared to 140 banks closing in Obama’s first year in office, and 125 more banks have closed in Obama’s second year, as of September 21, 2010.

Under Obama, we are now seeing the highest poverty rate in fifty years.  And more Americans are now on food stamps than ever before.

Which all goes to say that independents are right: Obama and the Democrats HAVE made the economy far worse.

Democrats tell the myth that it was Bush and Republican policies that destroyed the economy in 2008.  But Democrats were crawling all over the policies that led to our economic implosion.  It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies that destroyed our economy – and Democrats owned Fannie and Freddie.  Democrats also claim that Bush and Republicans refused to implement regulations that would have prevented the crisis – but Bush tried MORE THAN SEVENTEEN TIMES to regulate Fannie and Freddie.  And Democrats marched in goose-step to block every single one of those attempts.

Which is to say that Democrats have been far worse than voters believed they would be, while Republicans were nowhere near as bad as a profoundly dishonest and partisan media said they were.