Posts Tagged ‘poverty’

Liberals Don’t CARE About The Poor And Disadvantaged They Cynically Exploit

August 25, 2015

How do liberals hate and despise you, poor people?  Let me count the ways (in no particular order):

First, there is illegal immigration.  What does it do?  Does opening the floodgate of illegal immigration to pour over the United States help legal immigrants?  Absolutely NOT.  It suppresses wages for legal poor minorities.  This is simply something called a “fact.”  “Illegal immigration has tended to increase the supply of low-skilled, low-wage labor available.”  There is something called THE LAW of supply and demand: the greater the supply of something, the less the demand for that thing and the more the value of it goes down as a result.  This is literally again A LAW that will ALWAYS happen in ANY economic situation with no exceptions.  You cannot continue to increase the supply of something and have that thing continue to go up in economic value: the exact OPPOSITE will happen.  And so, for U.S. blacks, for example, we find that “six in 10 adult black males have a high school diploma or less, and are disproportionately employed in the low-skilled labor market in likely competition with immigrants.”  Again, the impact of illegal immigration on the wages and job opportunities for legal poor immigrants and minorities is simply a FACT.

It simply boils down to this question: how – and I defy a liberal to explain this to me – does bringing in more poor people to compete with the poor people already here for a limited number of jobs – do anything other than undermine the poor people who are already here???

Liberals tell us about migrant field laborers and how nobody else will do those jobs.  This argument is contingent upon your being stupid enough to believe that every single illegal immigrant is out in the fields picking our crops and no illegal immigrants have any other kind of job.  They idiotically overlook the fact that most agricultural zones are considerable distances from the urban population centers – so there is simply no one reasonably close enough to take those jobs.  And the migrant laborers largely live in deplorable conditions and, yes, MIGRATE to the various fields to do the jobs.  And they send a great deal of the money they earn back home to their families in other countries such as Mexico.  That’s one thing.  But another thing is that it is simply a categorical fact today that MOST, IF NOT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT IN THE FIELDS.  THEY ARE WORKING JOBS THAT AMERICAN POOR PEOPLE DO WANT TO WORK.  My church has a Hispanic congregation.  Many of them are not here legally.  I know many of these people.  I know what many of them do for a living.  Very FEW of them EVER work in ANY field around these parts.  No, they are home care assistants, they are tree trimmers, they are construction workers, they are contractors, they cut our hair.  And they are in stores and businesses working in jobs that YES LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND POOR MINORITIES WOULD HAVE TAKEN.

So I ask the question again: how do Democrats do ANYTHING other than undermine and hurt the poor when they demand that more poor people be allowed to keep flowing in to compete for the scarce jobs here???

Why did liberals open the floodgate of illegal immigration?  Why do they stupidly refuse to see the obvious and crystal-clear distinction between “legal” immigrants and “ILLEGAL” immigrants?  Because there is absolutely ZERO question that the Democrat Party politically and incredibly cynically benefits from a violation of the law that undermines the nation as a whole.  And Democrats are nothing if they are not political cockroaches who crawl to any and every dung pile that feeds them.  It is a simple fact that Hispanics as a whole overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so therefore the more illegal immigrants – especially given the fact that Democrats have made it IMPOSSIBLE to prevent people from registering to vote and from voting illegally – the better for Democrats.  And Democrats couldn’t give less of a DAMN if what they are doing hurts the people who they are keeping ignorant enough to keep voting for them.  Democrats count on ignorance and they count on their ability to keep ignorant people on their plantation through propaganda that has ALWAYS been the tool for abusive governments to control their people.

So Democrats actively pursue political strategies that suppress wages for poor people.  This is a FACT.  And what do they DO about the crisis they created?  Why create ANOTHER crisis, of course.

So second, there is the outcry to forcibly raise minimum wages as the left exploits one crisis it created in order to create another crisis.  We therefore have the movement to artificially and forcibly raise wages by government fiat.  But does that create more jobs and therefore more opportunity or does it do what common sense ought to tell you it does and do the precise OPPOSITE:

In a National Bureau of Economic Research paper published last December, University of California-San Diego professors Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither, found that increases in the minimum wage were responsible for 14% of the decline in the percent of the working-age population employed between 2006 and 2012. Minimum wage increases significantly reduced the probability of low-skill workers reaching the middle class.

This is simply a fact validated by study after study.  Employers – faced with paying artificially high wages, will either go to higher-skilled and therefore more productive labor or they will switch to machines to do jobs that used to be cost-effective for low-skilled workers to do before liberals destroyed those jobs with their stupid demagogic policies.

Aside from the fact that forcing employers to pay more money than they can afford or that the job they would otherwise offer is worth to them, you have another giant dilemma of unintended consequences: artificially imposing higher labor costs ipso facto means imposing higher prices for products and services that poor people have to pay:

… it’s a safe bet that virtually all of the cost of this minimum wage hike will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. You might think that, well, this isn’t a huge deal if it’s rich people who are paying these higher prices.

But of course it will often be poor people who pay them…  This makes poor consumers worse off in a direct sense, in that they can purchase less with their earnings. And if consumers are at all sensitive to prices, at least some of them will choose to spend less on labor-intensive goods and services now that they are more expensive. That could reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available.”

Another term for that is “vicious cycle.”  We artificially impose higher wages which artificially increases prices, which makes goods and services artificially more expensive to pay those higher wages, which reduces consumers’ ability to purchase those goods and services, which reduces the amount of goods and services purchased, which undermines the job market further.  And further.

It’s an easy bogus case to make for demagogues: we’ll force other people to pay you more money.  Nothing could be easier.  The sad fact – “sad” because liberals hate and despise facts – is this: the BEST way to have a good, well-paying job is to start out in a lousy, sucky-paying job and work your way UP as you demonstrate and document a good work ethic and develop more experience.  But when there are fewer and fewer jobs available because fewer and fewer employers can afford to pay for more workers, well, so much for hard work and experience.

And so we have a THIRD way Democrats hatefully hurt the poor: income inequality.

Income inequality, you say?  Isn’t that a Democrat issue?  Aren’t Democrats campaigning to end this hateful disparity of income and wealth that Republicans want to maintain?  Why yes, at least, if you are a truly stupid, ignorant, propaganda-fed sheep.  In fact, income inequality has EXPLODED under Barack Obama’s liberal economic policies.  It is a FACT that Barack Obama has taken America back to Great Depression-levels of income inequality.  Yes, I said FACT: under Obama and because of Obama, income inequality is the WORST since 1928.  Why is this?  Well, we can go to Obama’s supermassive debtDeficit spending necessarily ultimately forces internal devaluation, which deflates worker wages.  Wealthier people can invest and stave off this debt-inflation which eats the poor alive.  We can go back to illegal immigration again: “illegal immigration exacerbates income inequality by adding mostly low-wage earners and thereby, depressing wages for those workers. This is especially harmful to minorities — often immigrants themselves — that have larger shares of their populations living in poverty.”

Here’s another nuance of this vicious income inequality for you: poor people tend to try to save toward a better life; wealthy people tend to invest their wealth.  Barack Obama and the Democrat Party machine have created a giant debt apparatus that sucks savings.  What interest do you get when you put your money in the bank?  You get ZERO.  Poor people cannot afford to invest and make money the only way the Obama-Democrat-debt machine have built for someone to make money off his or her money.  They have created a system – and keep in mind that Wall Street overwhelmingly supported Obama in both of his elections – where the Fed keeps pumping money into the system and the banks lend it at low rates to the big businesses.  But if you are poor, if you are on a fixed income, Obama has left you high and dry.

Democrats are simply vile, venal people: they create godawful pain, they literally take a 2X4 and viciously whack somebody on the back of the head, and then they blame the nearest Republican knowing that their ideological counterparts in the mainstream media will duly report the “fact” that Republicans are responsible for the crimes perpetuated over and over and over again by Democrats.  It’s called propaganda, and it’s the one and only thing the left has always excelled in.

Poverty and homelessness has skyrocketed under the cancer of the Obama presidency.  Poverty has smashed a fifty year record under ObamaHomelessness is skyrocketing. And you should stop wondering why.  But whose fault is it?  Well, gosh, we can’t blame Bush anymore, so it’s got to be the Republican Congress’ fault, doesn’t it?  I mean, yes, we blamed Bush for the economic meltdown even though Democrats were in lock-step control of both the House and the Senate because the president is responsible.  Unless of course the president is a demagogic Democrat and then Congress is responsible even when it held only one branch of government.

And so fourth, let’s talk about how incredibly cynical and depraved Democrats are in regards to homelessness.  There’s a New York Post story with a picture of a man urinating right in the middle of a public street.  The title says it all: “20 Years of Cleaning Up New York City Pissed Away.”  It is absolutely pathetic and despicable what Democrats have done to piss away progress and decency.  Back when Mayor Rudy Giuliani led New York, for example, the police took an active and proactive role in dealing with homelessness.  They would show up with a social worker and not only get that person off the streets, but also HELP that person.  But liberals, being hateful, said, no, no, no, these people have a right to be here, blah-blah-blah.  The didn’t view them as human beings who needed real help, but as ideological abstractions and as pawns in a leftwing propaganda war.

Here’s an article that perfectly illustrates what I’m talking about:

Team Obama’s fight to keep the homeless living on the streets
By Betsy McCaughey
August 18, 2015 | 8:07pm

America’s homeless are lawyering up to fight for a “right” to live on the street — your neighborhood and personal safety be damned.

From Fort Lauderdale to Los Angeles, cities are struggling with a surge in people living in cardboard boxes and doorways. Local lawmakers are trying to ban “camping out” in public, and ordering police to clear the fetid encampments.

But lawyers for the homeless are pushing back. They’re demanding that “sleeping rough” be legally protected. In Denver, where living on the street is outlawed, lawyers for the homeless want to guarantee vagrants “the right to use and move freely in public spaces without discrimination.”

Outrageously, the Obama administration is siding with vagrants against local governments. Obama’s Justice Department is trying to block Boise, Idaho’s ban on sleeping in public. Cities around the country are worried their own laws may be next.

Not New York, of course. In our city, lawyers for the homeless already run City Hall. One of Mayor De Blasio’s top advisers is Steven Banks, a lawyer who spent three decades at the Legal Aid Society and has sued the city numerous times on behalf of the homeless.

Under de Blasio’s tenure, 311 calls complaining about the homeless are up nearly 60 percent. The mayor dismisses that as “hysteria,” insisting the vast majority of homeless “don’t bother anybody.”

Los Angeles — the homeless capital of the nation — is trying to halt the spread of cardboard shanties: Obamavilles. But the city has lost a string of lawsuits, as judges ruled the homeless have constitutional rights to sleep in cars and store their possessions on the sidewalk. […]

The reason the left wants all the crazy people to be walking around free is because otherwise there would be no one to vote DEMOCRAT.

Depravity and chaos and slum is taking over.  You’ve got Obama to ENSURE it.  The modern Democrat Party wants it, welcomes it, YEARNS for it.  They THRIVE on the chaos and the bitterness they create.  They incite it and exploit it to keep pushing for more and more and more and worse and worse and worse.  They are “progressives” who are progressing America right off the cliff and into hell.

And there’s a consistent pattern if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Fifth, there is the terrible, despicable evil that Democrats perpetuated decades over regarding mental illness.   Liberals called the horror they imposed in the name of their progressive moral stupidity a broad-based movement called “deinstitutionalization.”  So-called “compassionate” liberals came up with the “humane” plan to move patients from long-term commitment in state mental hospitals into community-based mental health treatment.  There was the progressive religious faith in science: the Kennedy Administration optimistically described how the days of long-term treatment were now gone forever because newly-developed drugs such as chlorpromazine meant that two-thirds of the mentally ill “could be treated and released within 6 months.”  I am accurately quoting Kennedy from his message on mental illness given on February 5, 1963.  A liberal can argue that Ronald Reagan signed something – passed by Democrat majorities in both houses of the legislature – along these lines.  But Ronald Reagan ALSO signed a bill that same year legalizing abortion in California.  Which is to say that in 1967 he wasn’t very conservative by any modern standard.  And there is simply no question that the national trend toward deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was dominated by progressive liberals.  At about the same time, two more ideas came to the forefront of American progressive thinking that continue to haunt society today: 1) that there was a right to mental health treatment, and 2) that there was a right to a more substantive form of due process for those who were to be committed to a mental hospital. If there was a right to mental health treatment, then liberal activist judges could use the threat of releasing patients as a way to force reluctant legislatures to increase funding for treatment.  ACLU attorneys such as Bruce J. Ennis successfully claimed before moral idiot liberal judges that less than 5 percent of mental hospital patients “are dangerous to themselves or to others” and that the rest were improperly locked up “because they are useless, unproductive, ‘odd,’ or ‘different.’”  But these progressive ideas backfired terribly.  These two new “rights” imposed by leftists (the “right” to treatment plus the “right” to impose impossible legal burdens on the system) had the horrifying and hateful result of suddenly making hundreds of thousands of seriously mentally ill people homeless and helpless.  And it was all done in the name of the same progressivism that we see in Obama and Hillary Clinton today.  Because again, the left doesn’t actually give a flying damn about these people; they are like “fetuses,” non-human abstractions that can be destroyed for the sake of some greater leftist cause.  Mentally ill people fell through the cracks, living shorter, more miserable lives, and often greatly degrading the quality of urban life for everyone else.  And liberals moved on to their next project of collapsing and imploding America.

We USED to get these crazy people of the streets and put them in mental institutions.  We used to protect both the mentally ill and society as a whole.  But the left said, no, no, no, you can’t do that, you can’t lock these people up against their will.  Well, they’re wandering around out in the streets now.  They’ve been wandering the streets for decades, ignored by Democrats, because Democrats dishonestly and slanderously use the heinous crimes that the mentally ill commit with the freedom that liberals gave them to decry guns.  As if a gun picked itself up and started shooting versus a Democrat releasing a psychopath onto the streets who picked up a gun and started shooting.  And so now they’re shooting up movie theaters, etc. etc. and whose fault is the consequences?  Republicans for allowing law-abiding citizens to maintain their God-given and constitutionally guaranteed right to defend themselves, their homes and their property from all the whackjobs and criminals liberals have running around on the streets.

Sixth, Black Lives Matter.  Well, NO THEY DON’T.  Not to liberals, anyway.  Do you know how we’ve just had riot after riot because black lives matter so much whenever a black person gets killed by a white cop?  Well, that’s the ONLY time “black lives matter” to these horrible political demagogues – and the fact of the matter is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of way under one percent of all black lives are killed by white cops.  We just had a nine-year old girl murdered by black thugs while she was on her mother’s bed doing her homework; she died in her grandmother’s arms, and her life didn’t matter AT ALL to anyone in the “Black Lives Matter” bowel movement.  Because they don’t give a flying DAMN about “black lives,” save as how they can cynically exploit a tragedy for the sake of their rabid and venal political ideology.  THAT’S all that actually matters to them.  The truth is that police kill far more whites than blacks, but Black Lives Matter is about NOTHING but ginning up outrage and bitterness and hate for the sake of their precious political screed.

More than sixty percent of all black lives are snuffed out by liberals in the abortion mills that were literally established by a racist eugenicist to encourage black people to engage in self-genocide.  This racist Nazi sympathizer is today Hillary Clinton’s hero.  But nobody cares about such depravity.  Black lives don’t matter to the damn left.  324,000 black lives have been snuffed out by other blacks in just the past 38 years – and NONE of those lives matter to the leftist Black Lives Matter movement.  93 percent of all black lives snuffed out are snuffed out by other blacks – but those lives don’t matter one damn bit to the left.

The left is trying to manufacture a “distinction” to explain why they don’t give a damn for the vast majority of all the black lives callously ended by their own that they don’t give a damn about.  They claim that they’re decrying the “state-sponsored murders” of black men.  Bullcrap.  Unless the black mayor of Baltimore ordered the black states attorney to order the black police chief in Baltimore to gun down black men, THERE ARE NO STATE-SPONSORED KILLINGS.  There are rather individual tragedies as some black men are legitimately killed because they tried to face down armed policemen, while others are illegitimately killed in unfortunate accidents as individual untrained or scared cops lost their professional composure in one tragic moment.

A black woman named Peggy Hubbard had enough and showed what real decency looks like as she took down this bowel movement by exposing it for the abject disgrace it truly is.

And Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson had an article that just documents that “Black Lives Matter” is marching in the completely wrong direction as he exposes the REAL tragedies facing the black community that the leftist black leadership doesn’t want anyone to notice about the godforsaken place they’ve brought their people.

And just to further expose “Black Lives Matter” for the lie that it is, we now find that it is led by a white man masquerading as black.  Because being black means being a VICTIM to the left, and being a VICTIM is the most coveted status by the left.  And until black people truly decide they want to be VICTORS rather than VICTIMS, they will live in a sordid condition.

Seventh, consider the hatred generated by the left against law enforcement by the above Black Lives Matter organization as well as pretty much the entire damn left.  I mean, holy crap, the murder and violent crime rates are SKYROCKETING.  This “sudden spike” has been entirely the creation of leftists who have racially agitated every single instance – regardless of how entirely justified most of those instances have been – in which a white police officer has killed a black suspect.  In the uber-leftist city of Baltimore, we are watching an aftermath that would make you think Boko Haram had just been there.  And it is going on in liberal city after city – Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Ferguson, St. Louis, Dallas, Atlanta, Milwaukie – as the liberal policies in which “we gave them space to destroy” have utterly failed.  And who is suffering the most?  The very poor and minorities that the left is shrieking in the name of!  Black lives don’t matter to the left – that’s just another cynical political lie; Democrats MURDER more than SIXTY PERCENT OF ALL BLACKS in the abortion mills.  And Pro-Democrat blacks are doing 99.999% of all the gunning down of other blacks.  Police are pulling OUT of poor minority communities because they are now terrified of being prosecuted for trying to do their jobs.  A cop literally ought to be more terrified of a damned Democrat politician than he is of a gangbanging murderer pointing a gun in his face.  And it is the poor who the liberals really hate who are suffering the most as a result.

They used to call it “white flight” in the mainstream media “reporting,” which of course meant it was obvious somehow racist.  I mean, how DARE that white family – seeing criminality and thuggery overtake their neighborhood – just up and move out and find a better neighborhood for their kids?  But now sane, decent people understand that it never had anything to DO with racism; black people and Hispanic people, et al do it to: if you want to be a decent person and raise a decent family and you see low-brow, criminal elements moving in, you either have a community that deals with the scourge or your decent families get the hell out of that budding hellhole.  And so we have whole cities that have been dominated by liberalism for a hundred damn years looking like World-War-II-Europe after the heavy bombers leveled them.

Like I said, there is a CONSISTENCY and a PATTERN to what Democrats are doing as they seek the destruction and collapse of the United States of America.

Eighth, consider college tuition.  Can’t get a damn job because the Obama economy has crushed the American Dream into the Marxist Utopia hellhole?  Well, why not be a college student the rest of your life?  I mean, ultimately you’ll be crushed with mindboggling debt because the more liberals drone on – whether that be in a classroom or in the Oval Office – the more it’s gonna cost you in debt you can never possibly hope to ever repay.  Don’t ever think for one nanosecond that conservatives have anything to do with the massive cost of college: liberals dominate; conservatives are shown the door because liberals are rabidly intolerant fascists.  But now the liberals who made college so astronomically expensive are saying they’ll fix the disaster the created by creating, yes, ANOTHER disaster that will be even MORE expensive.  I hear Bernie Saunders and Hillary Clinton trying to outdo each other making college more “free.”  But college tuition has skyrocketed under Obama.  As colleges and universities have become more and more dominated by liberal-progressive socialism, it has – surprise, surprise – gotten more and more expensive.  Now, liberals say it should be FREE for college students.  Okay, poor dude who never had a chance to go to college: YOU GET TO PAY FOR ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO GOT TO GET WHAT YOU DON’T GET TO HAVE.

Even other committed liberals who actually understand money realize that Hillary Clinton’s plan is a stupid demagogic political stunt that won’t do a damn thing to lower the skyrocketing cost of tuition.  Billionaire Mark Cuban said, “[Hillary’s plan] stands a better chance of increasing the amount of money students owe than decreasing it.”

The fact of the matter is that college and universities are dominated by liberalism whether it is in the faculty lounges or in the administration buildings.  Liberals are by definition people who constantly whine for more money for themselves in the name of some greater cause.  And so there is a one-to-one correlation between how much federal money gets poured into colleges and universities (and ipso facto into liberals’ pockets) and how much tuition keeps going up.  The more you allow students to borrow, the higher the tuition price you can suddenly afford.

It’s what’s known as a vicious cycle.  Because liberals are vicious.

Ninth, I’m going to talk about women and how the “War on Women” narrative is a despicable charge by the left that is waging the actual war on women in our society.  And I’ll end with a discussion of how anyone who actually wanted HEALTH CARE rather than some “insurance card” with a tiny network and sky-high deductibles is a victim of the left.  I’ll finish up when I get back from some meetings.

Advertisements

A Formerly Great Nation Under God: Obama Has So Undermined America It Is Beyond Unreal

April 21, 2014

It was Obama’s “reverend” who spoke as a prophet when he screamed, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

It was Obama who summed up the implications of his Führership when he shocked Republicans with his refusal to work with them in any way, shape or form when he had lockstep control of all three political branches of government: “Elections have consequences.”

And they sure have [For the official record, I TOLD you so the night the demons cheered while the angels wept and Obama was elected in 2008].

I think of Ronald Reagan – who won by a FAR greater landslide margin than anything Obama has ever come CLOSE to – governing like a leader while Obama IMMEDIATELY broke his word to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics” and “finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington.”

If you believe the media propaganda that Obama has tried to work with the Republicans but no matter how rational and reasonable Obama was, racist Republicans just wouldn’t  allow him to succeed in any way, shape or form – just look at the man’s BUDGETS to see how false that bullcrap spin is.  Just see here and here for Obama’s true pattern: the man is so damn fascist radical that he couldn’t get a SINGLE vote from his own party.  And when he did get a vote, he got something like TWO votes from his own damned party.  If you think that’s “compromise,” you belong in an insane asylum for the criminally depraved and stupid.

The man has been nothing but a pure liar without honor, without virtue, without integrity, without decency of any kind.  And that was what he was from the very start.  No human being who has EVER LIVED has been caught in as many bald lies as this fascist who now contaminates our White House: as an example just one of his numerous lies – which merited him the title “Liar of the Year” – he repeated over and over and over again as his means of deceiving America into re-electing him again.  Every president has arguably lied, but Obama wallows in lies the way a particularly disgusting pig wallows in his own filth.

Who is Obama?  Well, even the extremely liberal New York Times long since acknowledged the fact: he is a divisive, arrogant blowhard who thinks he’s ontologically superior to everyone else while massively overestimating his own abilities.

Where are we under Obama’s misrule?

Well, according to CNN’s Jack Cafferty, as Obama was getting re-elected, “More than 100 million people in the United States of America get welfare from the federal government. 100 million.”  And that number has since skyrocketed to over 151,000 – or about half the damn population, since Obama was re-elected.

“Elections have consequences.”  And one of those consequences has been unprecedented welfare as Obama has gutted the American economic engine with every monkey wrench known to liberal engineering.

Another consequence of Obama’s elections has been a poverty level that has never been seen in America for MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS:

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama. […]

Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.

The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.

About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.

President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”

If you’re poor, realize that Barack Obama doesn’t give a flying DAMN about you.  All he cares about is demonizing and slandering his enemies while promising you lies that he will never deliver.

The worse consequence of Obama’s elections domestically has been Obama’s gutting of the labor participation rate.  The man has dishonestly boasted about the jobs he’s created when the reality is that he has destroyed tens of millions of jobs.  I documented how Obama’s policies had caused the U.S. labor participation rate to plummet to a 25-year low in 2010, and then decline to a 27-year low in 2011, decline to a 30-year low in 2012.  In 2013 it was the worst in 35 years under Obama, and now as we enter 2014 it is declining again.

The labor participation rate is a measure of the percent of working-age Americans who actually have JOBS.  And Obama with his demonic regulations and taxes and burdens on businesses has made it all but impossible for millions of Americans to ever HOPE of getting a job.

The rich are getting richer faster under Obama than under any president before him.  Because Obama is a crony capitalist fascist who has thrived politically using the raw power of government to decide who gets to win and who loses.

And what does Obama do?  His policies have caused this holocaust, but with the help of liberal media propaganda that surpasses Joseph Goebbels best work, Obama is able to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  Even though HE created the crisis to begin with.  Obama has been able to slander his opponents – who frankly have had zero ability to change anything – to keep pushing his already broken system further and further past the breaking point.

Democrats are now hell-bent on demagoguing “income inequality” to whole new levels, promising to do more of what they did to create the crisis in the first place and therefore create millions more ignorant, desperate people who will stupidly keep voting for the very people who are hurting them by undermining the economy that they desperately need to keep their heads above water.

Under Obama, the nation that put a man on the moon now gets to beg our enemy Russia to please, please let one of our astronauts ride with you into space for $70 million per trip.

Under Obama, the nation that invented the Internet now abandons its control over the Internet it invented.  Because Obama is the “president of the world,” you know.  American sovereignty is an evil thing to people like Obama.

But as bad as our domestic situation has been under Obama, it is our national security that has most collapsed.

More than six in ten Americans believe Obama has lied to them on important issues.  What percent of world leaders know that Obama has the integrity of a weasel?  I’m guessing that number is 100 percent of everybody.

Dishonesty is the heart of the Liberal Democrat Way.  Consider their “war on women” slander.  According to them, Republicans may have wives and daughters and mothers, but they hate women.  And Obama – who has a “boy’s club” featuring a hostile workplace environment for women – and who has consistently paid women on his own staff significantly less than men – and who is therefore “anti-woman” and ought to be voted out BY women according to his own disingenuous standards – is allowed to run on an issue in spite of the facts and in spite of reality.  Because running on lies is who these people are.

And the lies have started to pile up like the yard of a house that has fifty pit bulls and no one with any decency to take care of all the messes.

Now, I point out that it took eight years of Bill Clinton’s gutting of the military and intelligence branches that made America weak enough and blind enough to incite an attack by Osama bin Laden on 9/11.  Osama bin Laden began his dream of attacking America in 1993 after he watched Bill Clinton’s abject moral cowardice and concluded “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower … 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.”

Every single one of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 had already entered the country, received their funding and had their training by the time Bill Clinton left office.

But of course the same fascist propaganda media that blamed Bush for everything absolved Bill Clinton of everything.  You know, it was Bush’s fault that under President Bill Clinton Osama bin Laden declared war on America and said that our warriors were paper tigers.  That’s what these people always do: punish their enemies and reward their friends.

Bill Clinton left America a sitting duck.  Or a plucked chicken, given Jeremiah Wright’s infamous “our chickens have come home to roost” metaphor.

So now Obama has been so much WORSE than Clinton ever was that it is almost laughable.  Because Clinton was pretty damn bad.

Obama has gut the Army to its weakest level since BEFORE World War II.  Even Clinton couldn’t find enough “loathing the military” in his heart to do that.

What is our policy/strategy to deal with what Putin has done in Ukraine?

Keep in mind that the United States had a treaty to protect Ukraine from the Russian aggression that they feared if they gave up their nuclear weapons that was negotiated by Bill Clinton.

Let me preamble by pointing out according to no less an authority than Hillary Clinton, what Putin did was like what Hitler did in the 1930s.

So how has Obama decided to deal with Hitler?

Obama has clearly decided the cause of World War II was that America and the West had the audacity to try to defend themselves rather than baring their throat to a dictator and begging for mercy.  Obama wants to re-fight World War II by surrendering and refusing to fight and see what happens that way.  After all, when Hitler invaded Poland and Winston Churchill and FDR stood up to him, we ended up in a war.  Far better to employ the Neville Chamberlain strategy and get some piece of paper that guarantees “peace in our time.”

Sometimes courageous people have to fight; cowards never do.  All they have to do is be willing to live with the consequences of their cowardice.  Which cowards are plenty willing to do.

So also keep in mind that Sarah Palin knew a coward when she saw one and boldly predicted that under an Obama presidency Russia would seize Ukraine.  Which they are doing.

Anyone who believes a damn word our Liar-in-Chief says is an abject fool who deserves destruction.  If our allies believe a word Obama says, they’re stupid.  And you can rest assured our enemies are salivating at the weakness and fecklessness of Obama’s “God damn America.”

Obama says baloney that laughingly tries to spin reality by claiming he’s winning (much like Charlie Sheen’s “winner” with his “tiger blood” nonsense).

But even the Los Angeles Times had this to say about whose “winning.”

It turns out that Vladimir Putin has more admirers around the world than you might expect for someone using a neo-Soviet combination of violence and the big lie to dismember a neighboring sovereign state. Russia’s strongman garners tacit support, and even some quiet plaudits, from some of the world’s most important emerging powers, starting with China and India. […]

Beside this realpolitik, I was told, there is also an emotional component. Chinese leaders such as Xi Jinping, who grew up under Chairman Mao, still instinctively warm to the idea of another non-Western leader standing up to the capitalist and imperialist West. “Xi likes Putin’s Russia,” said one well-informed observer. […]

Last month, Putin thanked India for its “restrained and objective” stance on Crimea. India’s postcolonial obsession with sovereignty, and resentment of any hint of Western liberal imperialism, plays out — rather illogically — in support for a country that has just dramatically violated its neighbor’s sovereignty. Oh, and by the way, India gets a lot of its arms from Russia.

And there are others. Russia’s two other partners in the so-called BRICS group, Brazil and South Africa, both abstained on the U.N. General Assembly resolution criticizing the Crimea referendum. They also joined Russia in expressing “concern” at the Australian foreign minister’s suggestion that Putin might be barred from attending a Group of 20 summit in November.

What the West faces here is the uncoiling of two giant springs. One is the coiled spring of Mother Russia’s resentment at the way her empire has shrunk over the last 25 years.

The other is the coiled spring of resentment at centuries of Western colonial domination. This takes very different forms in different BRICS countries and members of the G-20. They certainly don’t all have China’s monolithic, relentless narrative of national humiliation since Britain’s Opium Wars. But they do share a strong and prickly concern for their own sovereignty, a resistance to North Americans and Europeans telling them what is good for them, and a certain instinctive glee, or schadenfreude, at seeing Uncle Sam (not to mention little John Bull) being poked in the eye by that pugnacious Russian. Viva Putinismo!

Obviously this is not the immediate issue on the ground in Ukraine, but it is another big vista opened up by the East European crisis. In this broader, geopolitical sense, take note: As we go deeper into the 21st century, there will be more Ukraines.

Timothy Garton Ash is professor of European studies at Oxford University, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a contributing writer to Opinion. His latest book is “Facts Are Subversive: Political Writing From a Decade Without a Name.”

Vladimir Putin has “tiger blood.”  Barack Obama has “chicken blood.”

Russia is winning and winning big.  Particularly since the civil war in Syria when Obama issued his “red line” and then did NOTHING after that red line was repeatedly crossed, nobody believes ANY of Obama’s worthless threats.

Within months of Obama’s “red line” warning, it was discovered that Syria had not only used chemical weapons, but in fact had used them at least FOURTEEN TIMES.

And damn, they just got through using them AGAIN.

But it’s okay, because Obama has that treaty that his good fascist pal Putin put together for him to make him look slightly less weak and feckless.  Now Syrian dictator Assad is safely in power, and free to continue his vicious civil war in which he’s murdered more than 100,000 of his own people.

It’s worse than a horror movie over there.  But don’t worry, Obama’s got his “peace in our time” piece of paper to wave around to his adoring and fawning fascist press.

Weak, feckless, moral cowardice.

And Obama has failed so miserably in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and you basically name it, it’s beyond sick.

We are just beginning to learn how wildly Obama has failed America in Afghanistan.  It will be awful and it will get worse.

The number one thing Obama could do to lay a serious hurting on Russia short of going to all-out war would be to get agreements to begin filling the void to supply the oil and natural gas that Russia currently supplies Europe.  That would a) strengthen America and the American economy and b) weaken Russia and the Russian economy and c) undermine Russian influence in both Western AND in Eastern Europe in one fell swoop.

And what did Obama do?  Make a purely political decision to hold off approving the Keystone Pipeline – to the enragement of one of our few remaining allies Canada – until AFTER the 2014 election so his rejection of it won’t make the slaughter of Democrats even worse.

Because he’s owned by the radical environmentalists who want most of the world’s human population to die and who want America to be economically broken rather than being the engine of manufacturing that made it great.

To the extent that we have any cards to play after six years of Obama, Obama refuses to play them.  Obama is like a man who pimps out his girlfriend and keeps counting on his “bitch” to keep loving him and bringing him “his” money.  Only, tragically, Obama’s “bitch” has been the United States of America.

Sadly, America has been a faithful bitch indeed to her pimp Obama even though he keeps prostituting her to his cynical political interests.  To her own massive hurt.

So things are truly going to hell under Obama in the Atlantic.  But at least Obama is in control of things in the Pacific, right?

Wrong.

And so I turned to the Los Angeles Times this morning to find this:

WASHINGTON — Two and a half years after President Obama vowed to shift America’s diplomatic, economic and military focus to Asia, he will head back to the region this week to try to convince allies and adversaries alike that he really meant it.

Since the much-touted decision to “pivot” to Asia, the Obama administration has found itself repeatedly pulled away by crises in the Middle East, political battles in Washington and, more recently, turmoil in Ukraine. […]

The result is anxiety among allies, and questions about the U.S. commitment to establishing a counterweight to China’s growing economic clout and military assertiveness.

“In polite company people won’t say it, but behind closed doors I think they’ll openly ask where the pivot is,” Victor Cha, former director for Asian affairs in the George W. Bush administration, said at a recent forum at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies.

This not being a “polite circle,” I’m free to point out reality: Obama LIED.

Obama’s “pivot to Asia” is as much of a joke as his “pivot to the economy” was.  I mean, I remember him doing that over and over and over and over and over again.

Obama’s “pivot” is “just words.”  You know, like, “If you like your doctor, I guaran-damn-tee you that you’ll be able to keep your doctor and your health plan.  Unless I’m a lying Nazi, that is.  In which case, April Fools!”

As China realizes that Obama is a weakling cowardly incompetent fool the same way Russia realized it, do you think that Obama will be able to promise his way out of a mess given all of his past lies and past displays of weakness and fecklessness?

This is a nation on it’s way down.  And thanks to the most wicked electorate in the history of the republic, it is a nation on its way out.

The Bible prophesied long ago that America would be nowhere to be found in the last days.

Because “God Damn America” doesn’t get to stick around.  Not after we elected a baby-murdering sodomite worshiper – twice.

How far we have fallen in such a short time!  And how hard we have yet to fall when the artificial bubble we think will remain around us forever very shortly bursts.

I pointed out above how badly Obama has hurt the poor as he’s given the rich their money (because those rich people LOVE Democrat crony capitalist fascism).

Consider the fact that under Obama, cattle levels have declined to their lowest levels since 1951 when Harry Truman was president.

Meat prices have never been higher in the entire history of the republic.

What has Obama’s response been?  Well, his thug Bureau of Land Management just literally tortured and executed cattle of the very last rancher in a county that used to be dominated by cattle ranching.  If I heard correctly, one cow was discovered that had six bullet wounds.  The BLM admitted to executing the cattle on the grounds that they were “rowdy.”  Which is probably the pretense Obama used to use his thug IRS to intimidate and harass tea party conservatives for being “rowdy” enough to think they had a right to exercise their constitutional rights.  I’m sure the BLM agents heard some of the cattle uttering “anti-Obama rhetoric” and they had to punish their enemies.  We’re all “cattle” to Obama.  In addition to at least two mass graves – many of the cattle being the mothers who give birth to calves to keep the business going – the Bundy family discovered that the BLM thugs had essentially vandalized many improvements to the land such as tearing up water pipes.

So yeah, the next time you buy beef or anything with beef in it, thank Obama for the incredibly high price you pay.

And food prices in general have skyrocketed.  While your wages under Obama have plummeted.

It’s just a foretaste of what the Book of Revelation prophesied would happen in the last days as a wicked world worshiped the beast rather than God.

Obama arrogantly promised to lower the level of the oceans; but because he has brought America under the wrath of God for his worship of abortion and homosexual sodomy marriage, what he HAS done is lower the level of all the fresh water in America as we are OWNED by crippling drought in his God damn America.

Famine and drought are very much signs of God’s judgment.

Realize that as you vote “Democrat” and thus vote for the wrath of a holy God according to Romans Chapter One.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why The More Democrats Destroy The American Economy, The Better It Will Be For Them Politically

April 9, 2013

In my student years and then in my working years, I have met many women whose boyfriends, live-in boyfriends or husbands treated them worse than I would treat dog crap.

It worked beautifully for the guys: they so destroyed these women’s self-esteem that they stayed with the men who abused them.

Why?  Their spirits were so crushed that they had been convinced that the low-life scum who abused them were the best they could ever hope to get.

And so they foolishly and self-destructively remained in abusive relationships.  If they had the crap beat out of them, they made sure to tell the police a story about some accident that hadn’t happened.

They sustained and protected and nurtured a “relationship” that was literally worse than cancer.

The national economic equivalent of the man I just described is Barack Hussein Obama.

He has so completely crushed so many desperate people – after selling them lie after lie after lie after lie – while holding out his socialist welfare state as the only solution for his massive economic failure – that many Americans believe Obama’s welfare society is their only hope.

Americans discouraged by economic recovery leave labor force
Published April 07, 2013
Associated Press

WASHINGTON –  After a full year of  fruitless job hunting, Natasha Baebler just gave up.

She’d already abandoned hope of getting work in her field, working with the  disabled. But she couldn’t land anything else, either — not even a job interview  at a telephone call center.

Until she feels confident enough to send out resumes again, she’ll get by on  food stamps and disability checks from Social Security and live with her parents  in St. Louis.

“I’m not proud of it,” says Baebler, who is in her mid-30s and is blind. “The  only way I’m able to sustain any semblance of self-preservation is to rely on  government programs that I have no desire to be on.”

Baebler’s frustrating experience has become all too common nearly four years  after the Great Recession ended: Many Americans are still so discouraged that  they’ve given up on the job market.

Older Americans have retired early. Younger ones have enrolled in school.  Others have suspended their job hunt until the employment landscape brightens.  Some, like Baebler, are collecting disability checks.

It isn’t supposed to be this way. After a recession, an improving economy is  supposed to bring people back into the job market.

Instead, the number of Americans in the labor force — those who have a job or  are looking for one — fell by nearly half a million people from February to  March, the government said Friday. And the percentage of working-age adults in  the labor force — what’s called the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent  last month. It’s the lowest such figure since May 1979.

The falling participation rate tarnished the only apparent good news in the  jobs report the Labor Department released Friday: The unemployment rate dropped  to a four-year low of 7.6 percent in March from 7.7 in February.

People without a job who stop looking for one are no longer counted as  unemployed. That’s why the U.S. unemployment rate dropped in March despite weak  hiring. If the 496,000 who left the labor force last month had still been  looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would have risen to 7.9 percent in  March.

“Unemployment dropped for all the wrong reasons,” says Craig Alexander, chief  economist with TD Bank Financial Group. “It dropped because more workers stopped  looking for jobs. It signaled less confidence and optimism that there are jobs  out there.”

The participation rate peaked at 67.3 percent in 2000, reflecting an influx  of women into the work force. It’s been falling steadily ever since.

Part of the drop reflects the baby boom generation’s gradual move into  retirement. But such demographics aren’t the whole answer.

Even Americans of prime working age — 25 to 54 years old — are dropping out  of the workforce. Their participation rate fell to 81.1 percent last month, tied  with November for the lowest since December 1984.

“It’s the lack of job opportunities — the lack of demand for workers — that  is keeping these workers from working or seeking work,” says Heidi Shierholz, an  economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. The Labor Department says  there are still more than three unemployed people for every job opening.

Cynthia Marriott gave up her job search after an  interview in October for a position as a hotel concierge.

“They never said no,” she says. “They just never called me back.”

Her husband hasn’t worked full time since 2006. She cashed out her 401(k)  after being laid off from a job at a Los Angeles entertainment publicity firm in  2009. The couple owes thousands in taxes for that withdrawal. They have no  health insurance.

She got the maximum 99 weeks’ of unemployment benefits then allowed in  California and then moved to Atlanta.

Now she is looking to receive federal disability benefits for a lung  condition that she said leaves her weak and unable to work a full day. The  application is pending a medical review.

“I feel like I have no choice,” says Marriott, 47. “It’s just really sad and  frightening”

During the peak of her job search, Marriott was filling out 10 applications a  day. She applied for jobs she felt overqualified for, such as those at Home  Depot and Petco but never heard back. Eventually, the disappointment and fatigue  got to her.

“I just wanted a job,” she says. “I couldn’t really go on anymore looking for  a job.”

Young people are leaving the job market, too. The participation rate for  Americans ages 20 to 24 hit a 41-year low 69.6 percent last year before bouncing  back a bit. Many young people have enrolled in community colleges and  universities. That’s one reason a record 63 percent of adults ages 25 to 29 have  spent at least some time in college, according to the Pew Research Center.

Older Americans are returning to school, too. Doug Damato, who lives in  Asheville, N.C., lost his job as an installer at a utility company in February  2012. He stopped looking for work last fall, when he began taking classes in  mechanical engineering at Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College.

Next week, Damato, 40, will accept an academic award for earning top grades.  But one obstacle has emerged: Under a recent change in state law, his  unemployment benefits will now end July 1, six months earlier than he  expected.

He’s planning to work nights, if possible, to support himself once the  benefits run out. Dropping out of school is “out of the question,” he said,  given the time he has already put into the program.

“I don’t want a handout,” he says. “I’m trying to better myself.”

Many older Americans who lost their jobs are finding refuge in Social  Security’s disability program. Nearly 8.9 million Americans are receiving  disability checks, up 1.3 million from when the recession ended in June  2009.

Natasha Baebler’s journey out of the labor force and onto the disability  rolls began when she lost her job serving disabled students and staff members at  Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., in February 2012.

For six months, she sought jobs in her field, brandishing master’s degrees in  social education and counseling. No luck.

Then she just started looking for anything. Still, she had no takers.

“I chose to stop and take a step back for a while … After you’ve seen that  amount of rejection,” she says, “you start thinking, ‘What’s going to make this  time any different?'”

Let’s just call it “Battered Worker Syndrome.”

How did Obama campaign against Mitt Romney?  Well, this rich turd demonized and slandered Mitt Romney as a rich turd who didn’t care about the poor.  Even though while Obama – just a couple years before deciding to run for president – gave virtually NOTHING to the poor or to charity, Mitt Romney was giving tens of millions of dollars to the poor.  Who was the real rich turd who didn’t care about the poor?

Look at the one-percenter vacation-vacation-vacation lifestyle of the Obamas since they got to live off the fat of everybody else.  And then consider that the Romenys never even had a damn MAID.

Republicans are generous people.  In fact they are FAR more generous than Democrats.  But rather than cynically exploiting the desperation of the poor to create wasteful federal bureaucracy after wasteful federal bureaucracy that pisses away other people’s money, Republicans believe that WE as individuals should give, whereas Democrats believe that they are generous because they’re willing to give away other people’s money.

Republicans don’t want tax cuts because they’re greedy or selfish; they want tax cuts because if they are allowed to control more of their own money, they will be able to build a better, bigger economy that will benefit EVERYONE.  They want tax cuts because it is better for both those who give to the needy as well as the needy who receive the gifts when private individuals and organizations control the charitable giving.

Margaret Thatcher put it brilliantly: Under the failed policies of the liberals, Britain had degenerated into “the new sick man of Europe.”  The economy was in shambles when Thatcher took over.  She turned the nation around.  But liberals couldn’t have cared less; what mattered to them was that the rich had become richer along with everyone else in the nation.   And as Margaret Thatcher put it, “Liberals prefer that the poor become poorer so long as the rich become less rich.”

You were lied to by a wicked man.  And on the other side of that coin is the fact that it is bad people who believe lies.  Which means YOU.

But Obama knows how to slander.  He knows how to demonize.  He knows how to fearmonger.  No one but the coming Antichrist will ever be better at it.  And Obama’s new Democrat Party will frame the next election this way: if you vote for Republicans, they’ll end the welfare state that you [thanks to Democrats] now depend on.

It takes courage and selfless integrity to vote outside of yourself and support the policies that will be best for THE COUNTRY and for the country’s longer-term prosperity.  Obama knows that you don’t have either one of those things.  He trusts in your cowardice and in your greed, and he knows how to exploit those pathetic traits that now dominate the American people’s national “character.”

What Obama promised would work we now know DIDN’T.  The average American household lost forty percent of its wealth thanks to Obama’s failed policies.  The median household lost $4,300 under Obama. But – like Hillary Clinton said over the treasonous debacle in Benghazi – “What difference does it make now?”  You know, now that thanks to liberalism you’re dependent on the tit of the federal government and if you can’t keep sucking other people’s money you’ll die because you’ve been reduced to being helpless?

Next presidential election, I believe that people will vote for their welfare check and to hell with the economy.  And I believe that because that’s pretty much what we did in 2008 and in 2012.

The Republican Party is the party of adults who have finally reached the place where they know what will make a business or a household economic plan work.  They are adults who have worked hard to earn something and believe that they  should be able to keep more of what they earn rather than giving it away to a class-warfare system of Marxist redistributionism [in exchange for votes].  And Obma knows that the American people have degenerated into children who want their mommy and daddy – or after mommy and daddy the federal government – to keep treating them like babies forever.

That’s why the worse things get economically, the better off the Democrat Party will be in 2016.

Debtors’ Prison Back And Just As Cruel As EVER In Obama’s God Damn America

September 1, 2012

First Obama gave one-sixth of all Americans poverty.  Then he gutted their median household income.  Then he gave them prison for not being able to pay their debts:

Debtors’ Prison Is Back — and Just as Cruel as Ever
By Ross Kenneth Urken
Posted 12:25PM 08/30/12

To most of us, “debtors’ prison” sounds like an archaic institution, something straight out of a Dickens novel. But the idea of jailing people who can’t pay what they owe is alive and well in 21st-century America.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, debt collectors in Missouri, Illinois, Alabama and other states are using a legal loophole to justify jailing poor citizens who legitimately cannot pay their debts.

Here’s how clever payday lenders work the system in Missouri — where, it should be noted, jailing someone for unpaid debts is illegal under the state constitution.

First, explains St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the creditor gets a judgment in civil court that a debtor hasn’t paid a sum that he owes. Then, the debtor is summoned to court for an “examination”: a review of their financial assets.

If the debtor fails to show up for the examination — as often happens in such cases — the creditor can ask for a “body attachment” — essentially, a warrant for the debtor’s arrest. At that point, the police can haul the debtor in and jail them until there’s a court hearing, or until they pay the bond. No coincidence, the bond is usually set at the amount of the original debt. As the Dispatch notes:

“Debtors are sometimes summoned to court repeatedly, increasing chances that they’ll miss a date and be arrested. Critics note that judges often set the debtor’s release bond at the amount of the debt and turn the bond money over to the creditor — essentially turning publicly financed police and court employees into private debt collectors for predatory lenders.”

Standing Up for Those Who Can’t Pay

The practice — in addition to putting an additional squeeze on poor people — turns courts and police into enforcers for private creditors, from payday lenders to health care providers. The situation prompted Illinois legislators in July to pass a bill “to protect vulnerable consumers from being hauled to jail over unpaid debts,” in the words of state Attorney General Lisa Madigan. The Debtors’ Rights Act of 2012 requires two “pay or appear” court notices to be sent to debtors before an arrest can be made, and also prevents creditors from calling for multiple examinations unless the debtor’s financial state has significantly changed.

Many of the victims, Madigan noted at the time, were living on funds that are legally protected from being used for outstanding debt judgments, such as Social Security, unemployment insurance or veterans’ benefits. In one case she cited, an Illinois court brought a “pay or appear” order against a mentally disabled man living on legally protected disability benefits of $690 a month. The man told the court of his circumstances but was still ordered to pay $100 a month or appear in court once a month for a three-year period.

“It is outrageous to think in this day and age that creditors are manipulating the courts, even threatening jail time, to extract whatever they could from people who could least afford to pay,” Madigan said. “This law corrects that gross oversight and puts a stop to throwing people in jail for being poor while still allowing fair debt collection when people have the means to pay their debts.”

Illinois notwithstanding, the modern-day debtors’ prison probably isn’t going away anytime soon given the current economic climate: More than a third of U.S. states allow borrowers who can’t or won’t pay their debts to be jailed.

Obama’s going to give his next speech (you know, another version of “I’ll lower the level of the oceans and heal the planet if you re-elect me”) speech that will be fearmongering the terrible things that will happen if Romney is elected.  But the terrible things are happening under HIS presidency.

Obama won.  God damn America until Obama is gone.

Liar-In-Chief Obama Distorts Ronald Reagan As A ‘Wild-Eyed, Socialist, Tax-Hiking Class Warrior.’ Versus the Truth.

April 14, 2012

Even CBS wouldn’t buy Obama’s latest whopper of a lie:

CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley was barely able to contain his laughter Wednesday night after playing a clip of President Obama invoking Ronald Reagan on behalf of his “Buffett Rule” tax hike quest. Nearly breaking into a laugh, a baffled Pelley wondered to CBS News political analyst John Dickerson: “So a vote for President Obama is a vote for Ronald Reagan?!”Dickerson snickered too. (Watch the video to see Pelley’s puzzled reaction.)

[The video is available at the above link].

Oliver Knox goes a little bit further to point out in his Yahoo News analysis that Barack Obama literally points a finger at Barack Obama and screams, “You lie!” to HIMSELF.

Today’s Republicans might view Ronald Reagan as a “wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior,” and the late conservative icon’s views on taxes might have disqualified him from the party’s nomination in 2012, President Barack Obama said Wednesday.

Obama, defending his “Buffett Rule” call for higher taxes on the very rich, said in a speech that he was “not the first president to call for this idea that everybody has got to do their fair share.” He went on to say:

Some years ago, one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said it was “crazy”that’s a quotethat certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

He thought that, in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so. I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days, but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we’re calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule.

Yet Reagan also championed the very same “trickle-down” economics that Obama has roundly denouncedthe idea that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to investment that generates growth and thereby jobs. Obama on Tuesday described this economic policy in harsh terms, saying its supporters “don’t seem to understand how it is that America got built.”

“In this country, prosperity has never trickled down from the wealthy few,” he said. “Prosperity has always come from the bottom up, from a strong and growing middle class.”

Obama lumped trickle-down economics among “old broken-down theories” that he blamed for the 2008 global economic meltdown.

The Blaze further points out that Obama’s demagogic claiming of the Reagan mantle gets even more warped, pointing out:

The comparison is equally confounding when you consider President Reagan’s historic tax reform:

The video comes from Ronald Reagan speaking at the signing ceremony for his 1986 Tax Reform Act.  What exactly did Reagan say that Obama can cling to?

Ronald Reagan, speaking at signing ceremony for Tax Reform Act, October 22, 1986

Thank you all, please be seated. Well, thank you, and welcome to the White House. In a moment I’ll be sitting at that desk, taking up a pen, and signing the most sweeping overhaul of our tax code in our nation’s history. To all of you here today who’ve worked so long and hard to see this day come, my thanks and the thanks of a nation go out to you.
 
The journey’s been long, and many said we’d never make it to the end. But as usual the pessimists left one thing out of their calculations: the American people. They haven’t made this the freest country and the mightiest economic force on this planet by shrinking from challenges. They never gave up. And after almost 3 years of commitment and hard work, one headline in the Washington Post told the whole story: “The Impossible Became the Inevitable,” and the dream of America’s fair-share tax plan became a reality.
 
When I sign this bill into law, America will have the lowest marginal tax rates and the most modern tax code among major industrialized nations, one that encourages risk-taking, innovation, and that old American spirit of enterprise. We’ll be refueling the American growth economy with the kind of incentives that helped create record new businesses and nearly 11.7 million jobs in just 46 months. Fair and simpler for most Americans, this is a tax code designed to take us into a future of technological invention and economic achievement, one that will keep America competitive and growing into the 21st century.
 
But for all tax reform’s economic benefits, I believe that history will record this moment as something more: as the return to the first principles. This country was founded on faith in the individual, not groups or classes, but faith in the resources and bounty of each and every separate human soul. Our Founding Fathers designed a democratic form of government to enlist the individual’s energies and fashioned a Bill of Rights to protect its freedoms. And in so doing, they tapped a wellspring of hope and creativity that was to completely transform history.
 
The history of these United States of America is indeed a history of individual achievement. It was their hard work that built our cities and farmed our prairies; their genius that continually pushed us beyond the boundaries of existing knowledge, reshaping our world with the steam engine, polio vaccine, and the silicon chip. It was their faith in freedom and love of country that sustained us through trials and hardships and through wars, and it was their courage and selflessness that enabled us to always prevail.
 
But when our Founding Fathers designed this government-of, by, and for the people-they never imagined what we’ve come to know as the progressive income tax. When the income tax was first levied in 1913, the top rate was only 7 percent on people with incomes over $500,000. Now, that’s the equivalent of multi-millionaires today. But in our lifetime we’ve seen marginal tax rates skyrocket as high as 90 percent, and not even the poor have been spared. As tax rates escalated, the tax code grew ever more tangled and complex, a haven for special interests and tax manipulators, but an impossible frustration for everybody else. Blatantly unfair, our tax code became a source of bitterness and discouragement for the average taxpayer. It wasn’t too much to call it un-American.
 
Meanwhile, the steeply progressive nature of the tax struck at the heart of the economic life of the individual, punishing that special effort and extra hard work that has always been the driving force of our economy. As government’s hunger for ever more revenues expanded, families saw tax cuts-or taxes, I should say, cut deeper and deeper into their paychecks; and taxation fell most cruelly on the poor, making a difficult climb up from poverty even harder. Throughout history, the oppressive hand of government has fallen most heavily on the economic life of the individuals. And more often than not, it is inflation and taxes that have undermined livelihoods and constrained their freedoms. We should not forget that this nation of ours began in a revolt against oppressive taxation. Our Founding Fathers fought not only for our political rights but also to secure the economic freedoms without which these political freedoms are no more than a shadow.
 
In the last 20 years we’ve witnessed an expansion and strengthening of many of our civil liberties, but our economic liberties have too often been neglected and even abused. We protect the freedom of expression of the author, as we should, but what of the freedom of expression of the entrepreneur, whose pen and paper are capital and profits, whose book may be a new invention or small business? What of the creators of our economic life, whose contributions may not only delight the mind but improve the condition of man by feeding the poor with new grains, bringing hope to the sick with new cures, vanishing ignorance with wondrous new information technologies? 

And what about fairness for families? It’s in our families that America’s most important work gets done: raising our next generation. But over the last 40 years, as inflation has shrunk the personal exemption, families with children have had to shoulder more and more of the tax burden. With inflation and bracket-creep also eroding incomes, many spouses who would rather stay home with their children have been forced to go looking for jobs. And what of America’s promise of hope and opportunity, that with hard work even the poorest among us can gain the security and happiness that is the due of all Americans? You can’t put a price tag on the American dream. That dream is the heart and soul of America; it’s the promise that keeps our nation forever good and generous, a model and hope to the world.
 
For all these reasons, this tax bill is less a freedom-or a reform, I should say, than a revolution. Millions of working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether, and families will get a long-overdue break with lower rates and an almost doubled personal exemption. We’re going to make it economical to raise children again. Flatter rates will mean more reward for that extra effort, and vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share. And that’s why I’m certain that the bill I’m signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code and a sweeping victory for fairness, it’s also the best antipoverty bill, the best profamily measure, and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States.
 
And now that we’ve come this far, we cannot, and we will not, allow tax reform to be undone with tax rate hikes. We must restore certainty to our tax code and our economy. And I’ll oppose with all my might any attempt to raise tax rates on the American people and I hope that all here will join with me to make permanent the historic progress of tax reform.  I think all of us here today know what a Herculean effort it took to get this landmark bill to my desk.  That effort didn’t start here in Washington, but began with the many thinkers who have struggled to return economics to its classical roots-to an understanding that ultimately the economy is not made up of aggregates like government spending and consumer demand, but of individual men and women, each striving to provide for his family and better his or her lot in life.
 
But we must also salute those courageous leaders in the Congress who’ve made this day possible. To Bob Packwood, Dan Rostenkowski, Russell Long, John Duncan, and Majority Leader Bob Dole; to Jack Kemp, Bob Kasten, Bill Bradley, and Dick Gephardt, who pioneered with their own versions of tax reform-I salute all of you and all the other Members of the Senate and House whose efforts paid off and whose votes finally won the day. And last but not least, the many members of the administration who must often have felt that they were fighting a lonely battle against overwhelming odds-particularly my two incomparable Secretaries of the Treasury, Don Regan and Jim Baker-and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. I feel like we just played the World Series of tax reform- [laughter] -and the American people won.

Barack Obama is the most conniving and dishonest weasel to ever occupy (or should I capitalize that word to denote the Occupy Movement that are serving as Obama’s brown shirts today?) the White House.

If Ronald Reagan were alive today he would walk up to Obama after his incredibly slanderous and dishonest words, slap him right in the face, and say, “How DARE you?” But genuine and profound coward that he is, Obama goes after the legacy of a dead man rather than all the men Reagan named who are still alive to defend the record.

For the factual record to correct Obama’s lies, everything that Reagan said was in perfect harmony with the principle I expressed in the title of one of my articles: “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.”

Reagan repeatedly referenced the menace of inflation in his speech.  I had the following to say about Jimmy Carter versus Reagan and by extension Reagan versus Barack Obama:

The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%. And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

Welcome back, Carter.

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

And the only thing that could truly destroy the fruit of Reagan’s policies was the coming of another Jimmy Carter.

That’s exactly what we’ve got in Barack Obama: a dishonest and Marxist version of Jimmy Carter.  And everything that Reagan accomplished refutes Barack Obama, Barack Obama’s economic plan and pretty much everything about Barack Obama.

Jimmy Carter’s policies gave us shocking inflation and a catastrophic misery index; Ronald Reagan’s policies saved America from a monster that Jimmy Carter could not understand and acknowledged he had no solution for.

Now let’s consider the shocking inflation that Barack Obama has cursed America with:

Obama loves the poor: that’s why he’s created so damn many of them.

In the God damn America of Barack Obama, the poor people that Obama promised his policies would save are (of course) unable to buy a house while watching their rents skyrocket.

They could live in their cars, but damn it’s too expensive for them to pay the regressive tax of Obama’s gas prices.

Of course, it used to be that you could always at least find a minimum wage job to help make ends meet – but Obama in his abundant compassion kept millions from that kind of drear and drudgery.

The thing is, Michelle Obama would never say, “Let them eat cake” and is frankly offended that cake is being wasted on the proletariat who clearly don’t deserve cake until November when it’s time to vote again.

There is a shocking increase in food prices:

As is often the case, there is a big difference between what the government statistics are reporting and what’s going on in the real world. According to the most recent inflation reading published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), consumer prices grew at an annual rate of just 1.1% in August.

The government has an incentive to distort CPI numbers, for reasons such as keeping the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security payments low. While there’s no question that you may be able to get a good deal on a new car or a flat-screen TV today, how often are you really buying these things? When you look at the real costs of everyday life, prices have risen sharply over the last year. For simplicity’s sake, consider the cash market prices on some basic commodities.

On average, our basic food costs have increased by an incredible 48% over the last year (measured by wheat, corn, oats, and canola prices). From the price at the pump to heating your stove, energy costs are up 23% on average (heating oil, gasoline, natural gas). A little protein at dinner is now 39% higher (beef and pork), and your morning cup of coffee with a little sugar has risen by 36% since last October.

And of course Reagan also talked about how his policies would ultimately benefit the poor.  Did you notice that first link in the article above, which documented that Barack Obama has given America the highest poverty in 52 years??? 

The poor need Reagan; but they are cursed with Obama.

The same day I wrote the above article I had stuff to add in about other ways Obama has created inflation and hurt the poor.

I pointed out previously that “Everyone But Obama And Obama’s Fed Knows That Prices Are Rising Drastically.”

And I pointed out some facts after Obama’s state of the disaster speech about the “REAL State Of The Union: Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent.”

Under Obama, fully 85% of businesses say America under Obama is on the wrong track.

Going back to the years that Carter waged war on the American economy, the misery index has been the HIGHEST EVER under Obama’s failed leadership.

Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner points out that at anything remotely beyond the most superficial level, Obama’s lie fails the laugh test:

Yes, it’s true that on June 28, 1985, Reagan gave a speech to Bloom High School in Chicago Heights, Illinois about problems with the tax code in which he told an anecdote about an executive who was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. But if you read the whole speech, it’s clear that Reagan was telling the story as part of his pitch for tax reform.

In that same Reagan speech that Obama is demagoguing, Reagan explained precisely what he meant when he brought up the issue of tax rates and “fairness”:

It stands to reason that the more complex our tax code is, the more open it is to abuse. So, we’re making it simple to make it fair. America’s tax plan will do away with special breaks for a few so we can lower the tax rates for all. Our simpler, three-bracket design will assure that no American pays one penny more than his fair share.

Phillip Klein continues, pointing out:

So there are several key differences with Obama. To start, Reagan was talking about simplifying the tax code, whereas Obama’s Buffett Rule would add another layer of complexity. Reagan was arguing for allowing people to keep more of their own money and reduce the burden of government. By contrast, Obama is arguing for instituting the Buffett Rule so that more money is available to pay for government programs.

Reagan’s push for tax reform helped lead to landmark reform legislation the following year that broadened the tax base, consolidated the nation’s 14 brackets into just two and lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent. This is actually pretty close to the framework that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., outlined in the House GOP budget and couldn’t be more far off from Obama’s Buffett Rule gimmick.

And, yes, Ronald Reagan in the 1980s talked about simplifying the tax code, lowering rates across the board and eliminating myriad and byzantine deductions.

How DARE Barack Obama so thoroughly disrespect the legacy of Ronald Reagan and try to slanderously steal the credibility that Reagan EARNED by standing for everything that Obama has stood against???

REAL State Of The Union: Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent

January 25, 2012

Thought this article was particularly relevant and appropriate following Obama’s State of the Illusion speech:

Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent
By Christopher Goins
January 20, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – So far, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 83 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

gas(AP Photo)

During the same period, the price of ground beef has gone up 24 percent and price of bacon has gone up 22 percent.

When Obama entered the White House in January 2009, the city average price for one gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.79, according to the BLS. (The figures are in nominal dollars: not adjusted for inflation.) Five months later in June, unleaded gasoline was $2.26 per gallon, an increase of 26 percent. By December 2011, the price of regular unleaded gas per gallon was $3.28, an 83 percent increase from January 2009.

The price of unleaded gasoline never reached the 10-year high of $4.09 back in July 2008 under George W. Bush’s administration, but it did get close.

By May 2011, gas prices hit a high under the Obama administration at $3.93, about four percentage points away from the July 2008 high.

ground beefGround beef. (AP Photo)

The U.S. city average retail price for one pound of 100 percent ground beef was $2.36 in January 2009. As of December 2011, that price had risen to $2.92—a 23.7 percent increase and a new peak. (Ground beef prices have risen every month since November 2009 – 26 months of price increases.)

Whole wheat bread prices from January 2009 to December 2011 increased about five percent (5.02 percent) from $1.97 to $2.07. (The inflation rate in December 2011 was 3.0 percent.)

Among the first 36 months of Obama’s presidency, the last four (September, October, November, December) showed the average price of one pound of whole wheat bread hovering slightly above two dollars.

Other refrigerated items like ice cream and bacon have increased by substantial amounts.

Ice cream prices, for a half-gallon, were $4.44 in January 2009 and $5.25 in December 2011, an increase of 19.1 percent.

One pound of sliced bacon in January 2009 was $3.73 and in December 2011 had climbed $4.55, an increase of 22 percent. The price hit a high in September 2011 at $4.82 per pound.

baconBacon. (AP Photo)

Whole milk prices averaged above three dollars 33 out of the 36 months since Obama took office. In January 2009, the price for one gallon of whole milk was $3.58; but by December 2011, milk prices had slightly declined less than one percent (0.28 percent) to $3.57 per gallon.

The average retail price of Grade A eggs per dozen from January 2009 to December 2011 increased by less than two percent (1.30 percent) from $1.85 to $1.87.

 
 

CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.

CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It’s fast, easy and secure.

We recently celebrated Thanksgiving, and because of Obama we all felt like turkeys paying for our groceries due to the shocking inflation of food (that, along with fuel somehow isn’t factored in when “inflation” is calculated).

The above article doesn’t go anywhere NEAR far enough in condemning Obama for the rise of gasoline prices.  Yes, the price of gas spiked temporarily under Bush in 2008 (and Democrats viciously demonized him for that increase); BUT THE PRICE OF GASOLINE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE YEAR WAS THE HIGHEST IN AMERICAN HISTORY IN 2011 UNDER OBAMA.  And 2012 is going to be even worse.

Here’s the REAL Obama economic record:

Barack Obama is destroying the middle class before our very eyes even as he incessantly claims to be the one standing up for the very middle class that he is destroying.

Under Obama, poverty has soared to its highest rate EVER in the entire 52 years that the Census Bureau has tracked it.

Under Obama, the misery index is at its highest rate EVER.

85% of the small business America depends on to create jobs and build the economy are terrified of Obama and his idiotic policies.

THAT’S the REAL “state of the union.”

Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ In Action: Poverty At Highest Number In 52 Years Census Bureau Has Tracked It

September 15, 2011

It’s interesting how the New York Times  reports this story, by pointing out the rate rather than the sheer number, to try to protect Obama.  But you can also look at it this way: poverty is at its highest NUMBER ever recorded; and it is at its HIGHEST RATE since the LAST time a Democrat was president.  Because, um, for the record, Bill Clinton was president in 1993.

Barack Obama and his liberal Keynesian policies have completely failed. 

U.S. Poverty Rate, at 15 Percent, Is the Highest Since 1993
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: September 13, 2011

Another 2.6 million people slipped below the poverty line in 2010, meaning 46.2 million people now live in poverty in the United States, the highest number in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been tracking it, said Trudi Renwick, chief of the Poverty Statistic Branch at the Census Bureau.

That figure represented 15.1 percent of the population, up from 14.3 percent in 2009, and 11.7 percent at the beginning of the decade in 2001. The poverty line in 2010 for a family of four was $22,113.

And in new signs of economic distress among the middle class, median household incomes adjusted for inflation declined by 2.3 percent in 2010 from the previous year to $49,400. That was 7 percent less than the peak of $53,252 in 1999.

The report comes as President Obama gears up to pass a jobs bill, and analysts said the bleak numbers could help him make his case for urgency. But they could also be used against him by Republican opponents seeking to highlight economic shortcomings under his watch as the election season gets under way.

“This is one more piece of bad news on the economy,” said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution. “This will be another cross to bear by the administration.”

The annual report by the Census Bureau offered a portrait of the American economy one year into the economic recovery. Its findings, which included figures for poverty, median income and the number of uninsured Americans, were bleaker than many economists expected and reinforced the worry that the economy has a long way to go before middle-class families feel any improvement.

“A full year into recovery, there were no signs of it affecting the well-being of a typical American family,” said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard. “By late 2010, the economy was sort of dead in the water, and that’s where it’s remained.”

Joblessness was the driving force pushing more Americans into poverty, economists said. Last year, about 86 million people of working age did not work even one week out of the year, Ms. Renwick said, up from 83 million in 2009, a trend of increasing long-term joblessness that economists say puts families at greater economic risk.

“Once you’ve been out of work for a long time, it’s a very difficult road to get back,” Mr. Katz said.

Median household income fell across all working-age categories, but was sharpest among the youngest Americans, ages 15 to 24, who experienced a decline of 9 percent.

According to the Census figures, the median annual income for a male full-time, year-round worker in 2010 — $47,715 — was virtually unchanged in 2010 dollars, from its level in 1973, when it was $49,065, said Sheldon Danziger, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. Particularly hard hit, he said, were those who do not have college degrees.

“That’s not about the poor and unemployed, that’s full time, year round,” Professor Danziger said. “The median, full-time male worker has made no progress on average.”

The recession continued to push Americans, particularly young people, to double up in households with friends and family.

The group of 25-to-34-year-olds experienced a 25 percent rise in living at home in the period between 2007, when the recession began, and 2011. Of that group, nearly half were living below the poverty line, when their parents’ incomes were excluded.

“We’re risking a new underclass,” said Timothy Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research and Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “Young, less educated adults, mainly men, can’t support their children and form stable families because they are jobless.”

More Americans fell into deep poverty, defined as less than half the official poverty line, or about $11,000, with the ranks of that group increasing to 20.5 million, or about 6.7 percent of the population.

Poverty also swallowed more children, with about 22 percent of all children living below the poverty line, up from 20.7 percent in 2009.

“It was a surprisingly large increase in the overall poverty rate,” said Arloc Sherman, senior researcher at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “We see record numbers and percentages of Americans in deep poverty.”

But it’s NOT a surprisingly large increase.  Because Barack Obama is murdering America and killing its ability to compete and create jobs for its citizens.

It’s only “surprising” if you actually were stupid enough to believe that Obama’s Marxism would ever do anything other than what it’s clearly done: fail wildly.

This is EXACTLY what conservatives told anyone who would listen what would happen.  Read this story I wrote about the stupid and immoral minimum wage increase.  I cited other conservatives who PREDICTED abject disaster; and what did we get?  ABJECT DISASTER.  It wasn’t some bizarre unfortunate coincidence; it was the necessary outcome of a stupid policy which priced low-wage labor right out of the workplace.

WE TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN.  You Democrats are stupid and you are evil.  You cynically claim to help the poor, but you crush them, you grind them down, you turn them into an eternally-dependent underclass and then you continually fearmonger their welfare check in order to make them your slaves every election.  What you do is cynical, despicable and depraved.

These poor people look at you for help – because you made them ignorant with your government schools – and then you sell them snake oil by the barrel-full to keep them dependent on you.

You made the poor bad and corrupt people who vote for bad and corrupt people and bad and corrupt policies.

The U.S. economy is at its worst since – guess when – THE LAST TIME A DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST WAS RUNNING IT.

When Obama sold us the gigantic load of lies known as “the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act” that amounted to $862 billion – and actually $3.27 TRILLION – worth of pork, he said that his massive boondoggle would create millions of jobs and get people out of poverty.  Obama talked endlessly about “shovel-ready jobs”; now he’s selling the same load of fertlizer and saying that there are a “million construction workers ready to get dirty.”  He lied to you then, and he’s lying to you again.  And if you are a truly stupid and vile human being, you’ll believe his lies. 

We need to have a massive purge of Democrats and liberalism and recognize once and for all that their way is the way to hell.  Before it is too late.

As Hysterical Democrats Attack Rick Perry On Poverty And Education, Hit Them In The Mouth With Bill Clinton’s Arkansas Record

August 19, 2011

Governor Rick Perry has created 43% OF ALL THE JOBS IN AMERICA and Democrats won’t give him any credit whatsoever.  Because there is simply something morally and intellectually wrong with them.

To put it slightly differently, RICK PERRY CREATED 43% OF ALL THE JOBS THAT BARACK OBAMA HAS BEEN CLAIMING CREDIT FOR, but when the governor whose state created all those jobs enters the race, those wonderful jobs suddenly became terrible jobs.  Again, because there’s something morally and intellectually wrong with Democrats.

You have to laugh when shrill and frightened Democrats attribute the oil and gas industry for all the jobs that Perry created.  WHY DON’T THEY CONSIDER THE FACT THAT OBAMA HAS DONE EVERYTHING HE COULD TO DESTROY THOSE JOBS AND THAT INDUSTRY???  I mean, consider what Obama is trying to do to the oil industry as we speak.  It amounts to the insane argument that Rick Perry only created all those jobs because he’s not trying to destroy jobs the way Obama has.

Further, Democrats seriously need to get their lies straight.  One Democrat says Perry got all his job creation from the few oil jobs Obama couldn’t destroy.  Another Democrat says Perry got all his job creation from California’s liberal purge on businesses which then relocated to Texas to have a chance at success.  At some point Democrats are going to have to get together and decide which massive Democrat failure to blame on Perry’s huge success.

What might be most fascinating of all is how Democrats are rabidly refusing to give Governor Rick Perry any credit whatsoever for CREATING 51.5 PERCENT OF THE NET JOB GROWTH IN AMERICA while simultaneously blaming him completely for absolutely every single problem Texas has.  The same Rick Perry who deserves no credit whatsoever for all the good things that he “stumbled onto” should be blamed for every structural problem that Texas has dating back to 1846.

The big two attacks from the left against Perry center on Texas’ poverty and its ranking on education.

Take a look at this interactive map on poverty in the United States.  Texas ranks 9th in poverty.  But look at the states all around Texas: Louisiana ranks THIRD in poverty; New Mexico ranks fourth; Arkansas ranks fifth; Mississippi ranks first. Poverty and education are longstanding regional problems in the South Central United States that have existed for as long as America has been America.  They were problems when LBJ was in Texas; they were problems when Bill Clinton was in Arkansas.

In other words, unless Democrats are out lambasting Bill Clinton for his failed Arkansas policies, it is simply nothing short of hypocritical for them to go after Rick Perry for the same sort of “failures.”  Especially when they are at the same time hypocritically ignoring and trying to explain away Perry’s spectacular success at job-creation.

This is from the August 1, 1992 Los Angeles Times:

The Charge: The Bush campaign said on Friday that Gov. Bill Clinton “has made grand, false claims about the ineffective Arkansas welfare program he supervises. . . . After Clinton’s 12 years in office, Arkansas now suffers a state-welfare bureaucracy whose administrative costs have ballooned by 3,000% since 1983, and poverty that places the state at or near the bottom of the country in nearly every meaningful categoryA full 19.8% of all Arkansas residents live below the poverty line–up from 19% in 1980.”

The Response: The Clinton campaign contends that despite a slight increase in the poverty rate in Arkansas, the state compares favorably to surrounding states. “In the last decade, Texas had an increase (in poverty) of 12.2%, Oklahoma 13.3% and Louisiana 26.3%. The numbers are a testimony to our ability to hold the line on poverty,” the campaign said.

Okay.  So let’s praise Bill Clinton and revile Rick Perry.

And here’s a quote about Clinton’s educational “reforms”:

“In hindsight, however, just about all of those high-profile moves were cosmetic, superficial endeavors that didn’t begin to tackle the underlying problems and were quickly weakened or undone. For example, the state’s first set of statewide curricular standards – called course content guides – were developed in the 1980s but rapidly proved to be inadequate” (Education Reform In Arkansas: Past and Present, pg 35).

Democrats cheered wildly when Bill Clinton – who presided over an Arkansas that was the FOURTH poorest state in the nation and the FOURTH worst in the nation in terms of its hight school graduation rate – was elected president.  And that is simply dishonest of them.

Rick Perry is doing better in Texas than Bill Clinton did in Arkansas in terms of both poverty and education.  And then combine that with “the Texas miracle” of job creation, and Rick Perry sure looks a lot better than Democrats want to admit.

Teen Unemployment Another Proof Of How Desperately Wrong Obama, Democrat Policies Are And How Much They Hurt Little People

August 18, 2011

Just over two years ago I wrote an article titled, “Minimum Wage Increase Means Maximum Employment Decrease.”  And I began thus:

The Democrats raised the national minimum wage from $6.55 to $7.25. They claim that the additional earnings will help the economy. Just like their stimulus did (right?).

Of course, raising the minimum wage is effectively a tax increase imposed primarily on small businesses. Things always seem so easy when your spending other peoples’ money.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, goes the saying. Whoever first said that surely must have had Democrats in mind.

The economist who literally wrote the book on Minimum Wages predicts that the minimum wage hike will result in the loss of 300,000 jobs. And that’s a HUGE number, consider there are only 2.8 million minimum wage workers; it’s 10.7% of the total minimum wage work force!

THAT’S the way to help the economy! THAT’S the way to help poor workers!

That article cites articles and sources AND MADE A PREDICTION.  And that prediction was that the minimum wage increase would result in far fewer jobs and hurt the poorest people.  You should read it now, given what you are about to see below:

Average Teen Unemployment Rate in D.C. is 50.1%, Analysis Shows
Friday, August 12, 2011
By Penny Starr

(CNSNews.com) – An analysis based on U.S. Census Bureau data by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) shows that the average unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in the District of Columbia was 50.1 percent as of June 2011. This corresponds with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showing that for D.C. the annual average unemployment rate for teens in 2010 was 49.8 percent.

Michael Saltsman, research fellow at EPI, provided the 50.1 percent figure to CNSNews.com as an update of an analysis he compiled based on the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

The 50.1 percent figure is almost double the average teen unemployment rate in June 2007 in the District, when it was 26.2 percent, according to Saltsman.

Since 2007, the rate has increased each year: 29.5 percent in June 2008, 44.7 percent in 2009 and 48.8 percent in 2010, based on EPI’s analysis.

“We’re in the midst of the third summer in a row where teen unemployment has been above 20 percent,” Saltsman said when he announced his report on July 8.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not keep monthly unemployment rates on teens, but its data showing the average annual unemployment rate for teens ages 16 to 19 in D.C. for 2010 was 49.8 percent.

The state with the second highest unemployment in the EPI analysis, California, also closely mirrors the BLS annual average for 2010 — 34.4 percent compared to EPI’s 34.6 percent.

The latest data from the BLS on average teen unemployment nationwide – all 50 states and the District of Columbia — as of July 2011 was 25 percent.

“Young people are facing more competition for fewer jobs, a lingering consequence of the recession and wage mandates that have eliminated entry-level opportunities,” Saltsman said. “The consequences for this generation of young people missing out on their first job are severe, including an increased risk of earning low wages and being unemployed again in future years.”

Saltsman’s analysis, which was released on July 8, ranked the 20 states with the highest average teen unemployment through May 2011: the first column shows the actual teen unemployment rate over the teen labor force; the second column reflects the number of discouraged teen workers added to the unemployment rate (also compiled from Census Bureau data).

District of Columbia – 49.0 percent, 52.2 percent

California – 34.6 percent, 36.2 percent

Georgia – 34.6 percent, 35.7 percent

Nevada – 34.3 percent, 36.4 percent

Washington – 33.2 percent, 34.2 percent

Idaho – 31.8 percent, 33.1 percent

West Virginia – 30.2 percent, 32.9 percent

Missouri – 29.6 percent, 31.2 percent

Florida – 29.4 percent, 31.4 percent

Kentucky – 29.0 percent, 30.3 percent

South Carolina – 28.5 percent, 29.0 percent

Rhode Island – 28.0 percent, 29.6 percent

Michigan – 27.6 percent, 29.1 percent

Mississippi – 27.5 percent, 30.7 percent

Tennessee – 26.9 percent, 27.4 percent

Arizona – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Arkansas – 26.7 percent, 28.2 percent

Colorado – 26.1 percent, 26.7 percent

Illinois – 26.1 percent, 27.5 percent

Oregon – 25.8 percent, 26.4 percent

Two years ago Democrats hiked the minimum wage.  Two years ago Barack Obama signed it into law.  Two years ago Democrats predicted that this would lead to greater prosperity.  Two years ago conservative economists predicted it would be a total disaster.

Who was right???  Who was totally freaking WRONG???

Democrats are genuinely evil people.  And to the extent they actually have good intentions, THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH DEMOCRAT INTENTIONS.  Paved high and deep and wide.

Democrats demonize their opponents as being hateful and greedy.  And then Democrats cynically assure the poorest and most needy and most ignorant that they will help those people and make their lives better.

But do they make these people’s lives better?  HELL NO!  Their stupid and depraved Marxist policies undermine and destroy America.  In this particular case, Barack Obama and the Democrats said, “We’re going to demand that employers pay you a wage that exceeds what your labor is worth to them so that you lose your job and all sorts of minimum wage workers lose any chance whatsoever of finding a job.  And we franklydon’t give one freaking damn about the suffering or your family’s suffering because we know that you’re the kind of poor, ignorant schmuck who will believe our demonizing the next time and the time after that and the time after that.

Let me go back to my article that I wrote TWO DAMN YEARS AGO when this stupid and evil law got passed.  After guaranteeing the Democrat policy would fail; after guaranteeing that it would lead to huge job losses for teens and other minimum wage earners; and after talking about how profoundly stupid Democrat voters are for believing these lies over and over again (as I restate above), I concluded:

Democrats are like nurses who bring thirsty patients their very favorite brand of Kool-Aid. It’s a tasty beverage; don’t worry about the fact that it is contains arsenic (which just happens to be the primary ingredient in rat poison). It’s ultimately a terrible way to die, but what the heck, it sure taste good going down.

Obama has screwed all the people he promised that he would save.  Even the reliably liberal Washington Post acknowledges that blacks have been set back DECADES under Obama’s misrule [See update below].  Black unemployment is TWICE the national average under Obama, and even überüberlib Maxine Waters is saying that rabid black support for Obama is hurting the black community.  And the black congressional caucus is tired of making excuses for this failed leader.

And women are losing ground under Obama.

And young people are getting totally screwed under Obama.

Food, fuel and shelter have gone to hell under Obama.  Poor people are more vulnerable to changes in all three than the rich people that liberals always demonize Republicans for protecting.  Obama’s economic legacy is THE HIGHEST POVERTY INCREASE IN FIFTY YEARS

It’s long past time that the American people wised up to the liberal demagogic attacks and understood that liberal policies hurt minorities, hurt women, hurt the young and hurt the poor FAR more than the conservative policies that liberals constantly demonize.

When Democrats attack the businesses that create jobs, they won’t create jobs.  When Democrats attack the people who hire workers, they won’t hire workers.  When Democrats attack the people whose capital investment makes economic expansion possible, they won’t invest.

And the people who will suffer the most are those who are closest to the bottom time and time again.

[Update, 9/14/11: It is amazing how frequently liberal newspapers purge their sites of anything that could be unflatering toward liberalism or Democrats.  The story on black unemployment was purged by the Washington PostBut it is still available here via the Associated Press].