Posts Tagged ‘recession’

The Obama Economy: Bovine Fecal Matter On Ice

July 2, 2015

Well, the good news is that the unemployment rate went down to a seven-year low for Obama to 5.3%  Surely Obama must be doing an awesome job, Democrats say.

Okay.  Obama’s BEST MONTH EVER statistic-wise matches the EIGHT-YEAR AVERAGE for the Bush presidency that Democrats say was terrible. Although, technically, Bush’s average unemployment rate of 5.27% is still BETTER than Obama’s best month EVER.

During the 8 years of the George W. Bush Presidency the lowest annual unemployment rate was 4.61% in 2007, the highest annual unemployment rate was 5.76% in 2008. During Bush’s 8 years as President the average unemployment rate  was 5.27%

Which is another way of saying that “Democrat” and “disgusting, dishonest, pathological hypocrite” may not rhyme, but they sure mean the same thing.

The mainstream media are pathological hypocrites, for sure.  You can take a trip down memory lane and compare how they compared unemployment numbers even when they were BETTER for the Republican presidents.

The bad news is that twice as many people just gave up looking for a job as actually GOT a job this month.

The bad news is that Obama set another record.  And not in any good sense:

Record 93,626,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Declines to 62.6%
By Ali Meyer | July 2, 2015 | 8:42 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June, as the labor force participation rate dropped to 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In June, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, hit 250,663,000. Of those, 157,037,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 157,037,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 250,663,000 civilian noninstitutional population, the lowest labor force participation rate seen in 38 years. It hasn’t been this low since October 1977 when the participation rate was 62.4 percent.

Another 93,626,000 did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one.

Of the 157,037,000 who did participate in the labor force, 148,739,000 had a job, and 8,299,000 did not have a job were actively seeking one—making them the nation’s unemployed.

The 8,299,000 job seekers were 5.3 percent of the 157,037,000 actively participating in the labor force during the month. Thus, the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent which dropped from the 5.5 percent unemployment seen in May.

The number of employed Americans dropped from 148,795,000 in May to 148,739,000 in June, a decline of 56,000. The number of unemployed Americans also dropped over the month from 8,674,000 in May to 8,299,000 in June, a decline of 375,000.

The labor participation rate was 65.7 percent the day Barack Hussein Obama took office.

Labor Participation Rate thru June 2015

I like this article because it’s one of the first I’ve seen that actually gives you a notion of the statistical shenanigan that our “unemployment rate” truly is.  Nearly 94 million working-age people are unemployed, but our unemployment rate only considers 8 million of them.  I guess the other 86 million are silver-spoon trust-fund kids lounging around their mansions sipping champagne and dining on the finest caviar.  Either that or you’re an “abject imbecile” – another synonym for “Democrat” to go alongside “disgusting, dishonest, pathological hypocrite.”

As I’ve been trying to point out over and over again, Obama has been to the labor participation rate what stage 5 lung and bronchus cancer is to quality of life.  Obama has been absolutely devastating and toxic to American jobs.  And like the stage 5 lung and bronchus cancer sufferer, the patient that is the American economy is actually getting weaker and weaker measured in terms of the ALL-IMPORTANT measure of how many working-age Americans actually have a damn JOB.  The rate of Americans with a damn JOB – which for the factual record are LOWER PAYING JOBS with FEWER HOURS under Obama – has been sinking and sinking and sinking.  Thanks to the Obama presidency and the stage five cancer that is the Democrat Party, fewer and fewer Americans are working, while more and more of those fewer and fewer are working for less and cannot get decent full-time jobs.

And what is the Democrat strategy?  Well, further disincentivize employers by putting more and more burdens and obstacles on them.  You know, like treating that stage five lung and bronchus cancer patient with concentrated dosages of asbestos and then blaming the fact that the patient keeps getting sicker on Republicans.

I’ve listened to the smartest, smarmiest Democrats trying to explain why the labor participation rate is so shockingly low under Obama.  Here’s one example:

There are a few reasons why the LFPR has declined. First, the country is aging as baby boomers retire. An older country means a lower percent of the population will be in the labor force. This is a structural reason for the LFPR’s recent decline—it was going to happen regardless of the underlying economic conditions. That’s why many economists forecasted that the rate would slowly fall over time.

Here’s the problem, smart, smarmy Democrat: you’re exactly what the Bible foretold when it said, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”  Consider the FACTS that blow the Democrat theory right out of the water akin to the way that the reality of Japanese torpedoes blew up the U.S.S. Arizona in Pearl Harbor when Democrats also didn’t have a freaking clue what the hell was going on:

Last week, though, a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis took on the notion that the drop is all about demographics and not a sign that the labor market is sicker than we think. The study looked at the labor force participation rate not just in the U.S. but in eight major developed countries, including Sweden, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Nearly all of those countries are facing the same demographic trends as the U.S. And Japan is currently dealing with an even more severe case of aging population. And yet, out of the eight nations, the U.S. is the only one where the participation in the labor force is declining.

So much for the Democrat theory that, well, shoot, you can’t blame Obama for the collapse in labor participation.  It was just selfish Republican white people retiring.  Because all the OTHER developed nations have the same demographic issues as America does -with Japan’s aging population FAR WORSE.  And yet somehow we’re doing worse than ANY of them in labor participation.

And for another factoid, it is striking that Democrats are trying to point at an aging demographic to explain our dismal labor participation rate:  BECAUSE THEY HAVE MURDERED SIXTY MILLION INNOCENT BABIES IN THEIR GOD DAMN ABORTION MILLS SINCE 1973 AND WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD DO TO THE AVERAGE DAMN AGE OF OUR POPULATION???  It’s akin to the classic example of the child who murdered both his parents and then asked for mercy from the court on the grounds that he’s an orphan.  And so we can now document that that proverbial godawful kid is a DEMOCRAT through and through.

If you are a DEMOCRAT – which stands for DEMOn-possessed bureauCRAT – you are a liar without shame, honor, decency, virtue, or integrity of any kind whatsoever.  And one of the reasons you so worship government is that your love of lies most flourishes because the best way to lie of ALL is with STATISTICS.

The article includes a rather striking graph that shows America DEAD LAST among the top developed nations but I keep looking at it:

What I particularly noticed as I stared in horror at this graph of the demise of my country was the fact that Bush was actually bringing the baby up between 2005 and the middle part of 2008.  I checked the Department of Labor chart and the actual numbers back up the graph: the labor participation rate was actually going UP.  Clinton left office just before a TERRIBLE RECESSION PLUS THE DOUBLE-WHAMMY OF THE 9/11 ATTACK struck America as a result of Clinton’s leaving America weak and blind in the face of our enemies.  That recession was called the DotCom Bubble collapse.

Here’s an example of how I’ve pointed out these stubborn things called FACTS in the past:

Clinton’s DotCom crash resulted in $7.1 trillion in American wealth being vaporized:

The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.

Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up?  It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” – the office of the president.

Here’s another number to think about: 78%.  Because “The Nasdaq Composite lost  78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11” as it collapsed between March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002.

Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from  the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright  within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million  estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999,  there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of  those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In  2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first  day of trading.

I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess.  I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.

You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble.  Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.

And yet Bill Clinton saunters before the 2012 Democrat National Convention and gives a speech saying “You can’t blame Obama for this disaster of an economy.  Why, even I couldn’t have fixed it.”  And the liberal media listen to their former messiah absolve their current messiah and ignore the fact that Bill Clinton is a serial liar who was DISBARRED by the Supreme Court for LYING as well as a serial womanizing sexual predator who sexually abused five women and they said, “Well, that settles it.  NO one can blame ‘the One’ now; the former ‘One’ has spoken.”  And the “War on Women” party cheers.

I’ve been pointing this out over and over again recently: if you are a Democrat, you are a LIAR at home with LIES.  You are a BAD PERSON.  You have one middle finger stuck up in the air at the God of the Bible you rabidly despise and the other middle finger shoved up your rectum because you are a DEPRAVED PERVERT.

The above quote is about how Bill Clinton led America straight into the vicious  gut-punch of a giant recession that the pathologically dishonest propaganda mill that is the mainstream media refused to credit him with even though there is no question that the economy was clearly going into recession as Bill Clinton was still in office which then exploded under George Bush.  But we’ve also got to consider the knockout-punch to the head that was the 9/11 attack as a result of Bill Clinton leaving America both weak and blind and with a reputation for withdrawing from conflict.  You know, just as Barack Obama has now done to America.  Obama isn’t just the first president since Kennedy to beg for spacecraft rides because he’s pissed away our space capability; he’s now actually having to beg for ships to deploy our Marines!!!  In a time when our enemies are building up their militaries and becoming stronger, America under Obama is becoming weaker and weaker.  Which is why we’re getting bullied around – by Islamic State, by China, by Russia, by Iran, just to name a few enemies – like we have never been in my entire lifetime.

We are ripe for an attack by emboldened enemies.  And no nation has EVER deserved to be attacked more than this wretched Obamanation.

Another thing I noticed as I look at the above graph is that the liberal explanation that the labor participation rate was highest under Bill Clinton fails to consider a key fact (not including the fact that it was actually much higher under both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush than it ever was under Bill Clinton): I notice that the labor participation rate PLUNGED under Bill Clinton for the first years of his presidency when he was playing the role of liberal president with a Democrat Congress.  But then in 1994 Clinton had his ass handed to him by the American people who put REPUBLICANS in charge of both the House and the Senate.  And Bill Clinton ultimately uttered the famous words, “The era of big government is OVER.”  And it was under the REPUBLICAN policies OF reducing the giant jackboot of federal government power that the economy managed something of a rebound.  At least until the DotCom bubble and the 9/11 attack both of which Bill Clinton was solely responsible for, which forced George Bush to build it up all over again.

I’ve patiently explained why the economy collapsed under the Bush presidencyIt was the Democrat-constructed housing bubble enacted by the Democrat-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (otherwise known as GSEs, which is the acronym for the blatantly leftist fascistic crony capitalist monstrosity of Government Sponsored Enterprises).  I end the second of the above articles I link to with this:

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

Here’s how the mess actually happened:

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

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

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

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

Here’s the process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody who wants to see “right wing Republican policies” in that 2008 collapse is what I call an idiot.  Democrats under Jimmy Carter enacted the Community Reinvestment Act – which insanely and immorally forced banks to make loans to poor minorities who couldn’t afford to actually pay for them – that was expanded under Bill Clinton at the tail end of his presidency; and Democrats then used the expanded GSEs to pound the crack in the economic wall that the CRA fiasco created wide open.  George W. Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to install sane regulations to control Fannie and Freddie, but Democrats rabidly refused to allow ANY controls for their out-of-control GSEs.  These are just FACTS.  Bush’s failure was that he shrugged his shoulders while Democrats planted a giant bomb in our economic engine; George Bush’s failure was that he failed to hunt every single Democrat down with dogs and burn them alive.

The fact of the matter is that when Clinton governed left, the economy floundered and was failing.  The American people went right, elected a rightwing Congress, and Clinton went with them for the greater part. Things that Bill Clinton gives himself sole credit for were actually platforms from the Republican Contract with America.  Now we’ve got this demonstrably false myth that Clinton was a liberal who governed as a liberal and that is why the economy flourished.

I’ve got to end somewhere, although I can literally go on all day.  Because the actual facts prove that Democrats are basically the cause of everything that is evil or ruinous in America.  So let me just end with something that George Will said a few weeks ago (when the labor participation rate merely matched the horror of 1978 rather than beat it for being even WORSE as it just did):

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: We could continue this conversation and I’m sure we will, but let’s turn to the economy and some really disappointing numbers on the economy this week. Here they are. Only 126,000 jobs were added in March. That’s the weakest hiring in 15 months. Labor force participation dropped to 62.7 percent, matching the lowest since 1978. And the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta estimates first quarter growth at zero, zero percent, flat. George, what’s going on here?

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, for the second year in a row they’ve blamed poor quarterly growth on insufficient global warming, that is on winter, on an unusually cold winter. Let your mind go back to November last year. There was job creation of 321,000 jobs and the administration said this is a miraculous achievement and a harbinger of things to come. It wasn’t a harbinger and it wasn’t miraculous. During the Reagan recovery there were 23 months of job creation over 300,000. Reagan had a month of job creation of 1 million and this was at a time when there were 75 million fewer Americans. Now, never mind zero growth. We are now being told really that two percent growth may be the new normal. If so, that’s a disaster because every day, today, yesterday, tomorrow, every day between now and 2030, 10,000 more baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. If we have two percent growth, the crisis of the welfare state, the crisis of the private sector being able to throw off the revenues, to pay the bills for the promises we’ve made to ourselves becomes impossible.

WALLACE: Just tell again that the labor force participation stat that you have, if it were what it was at the beginning of the Obama administration.

WILL: If the workforce participation rate today were as high as it was on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate in this country would be 9.7 percent, we wouldn’t be complaining about the bad recovery because we wouldn’t call it a recovery.

It takes the Holy Bible to explain the sheer idiocy that is a Democrat voter:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. — Isaiah 5:20

.

 

 

Advertisements

Hey, Bill Clinton, YOU Of ALL People Shouldn’t Be Talking About Other People’s ‘Messes’

June 25, 2014

The ONLY president whose “mess” is literally staining the blue dress of an intern talked about George Bush and Dick Cheney’s “mess.”

So maybe you should just shut the hell up about “messes,” huh, Slick Willie?

At least Dick Cheney never had to redefine the word “is” in order to get his dishonest ass not only impeached but get his law license stripped from him FOR PERJURY.

But let me point out a little bit more about another Bill Clinton “mess”: we call it the 9/11 attack.  Given that Iraq falling to pieces six years into to Obama’s presidency is “Cheney’s mess,” just how much are YOU to blame for the “mess” that George Bush found himself in when you’d been out of office for less than eight months???

Let’s see what Slick Willie had to say about Dick Cheney:

Clinton Says Cheney Criticism of Obama on Iraq Was ‘Unseemly’
By Erin McClam

Former President Bill Clinton told NBC News on Tuesday that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent remarks on Iraq amounted to “attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made.”

Cheney, in an Op-Ed and a YouTube video last week, said that President Barack Obama had emboldened jihadists by mishandling the crisis in Iraq, where Sunni insurgents have rampaged across northern cities.

Clinton responded in an interview from Denver, where he is hosting a conference of the Clinton Global Initiative, his post-presidency foundation.

“I believe if they hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening,” the former president told David Gregory in the interview, which will air Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

He continued: “Mr. Cheney has been incredibly adroit for the last six years or so attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made. I think it’s unseemly.”

“And I give President Bush, by the way, a lot of credit for trying to stay out of this debate and letting other people work through it.”

In an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal, written with his daughter Liz, Cheney wrote that Obama “abandoned” Iraq by withdrawing American troops in 2011 without leaving some forces behind.

“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” the former vice president wrote. He concluded that Obama was securing a legacy “as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.”

In 2007, during his wife’s presidential campaign, Clinton said that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning.” His aides told reporters that Clinton had supported giving weapons inspectors more time.

In May 2003, two months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Clinton said that he supported President George W. Bush’s authority “to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” according to The Associated Press. He was also quoted praising Bush’s early handling of the conflict, the AP reported.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a senator in 2002, voted for the authorization of force against Iraq. She wrote in her recently released memoir, “Hard Choices,” that she “got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

I mean, really, President Sperm?  UNSEEMLY, you say?  I mean, boy, THERE’S a word that certainly applies to YOU.

But let’s consider Slick Willie’s rather bogus arguments first.

What did Bill Clinton USE to say about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction???

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Bill Clinton – mind you this was BEFORE the gigantic attack on the homeland of the United States – ordered an attack against Iraq.  What did he say in ordering that attack?

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. [..]

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

Clearly, even Bill Clinton says we tried the diplomatic route – and exhausted it – to no avail.  Next we spanked Saddam.  When diplomacy fails and the spanking fails, what the hell do you do?

You demonize the president who made the decision after the fact, of course.  While saying “Shame on you for doing to Obama the same thing that I’m doing now to Bush.”

What did Hillary say?

 “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”  — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

And:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Hillary couldn’t wait to share in the credit for when we got that rat bastard Saddam:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

But there’s more here about Bill Clinton’s “mess” than the one one the blue dress.  There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

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

Bill Clinton left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

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

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

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

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

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

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

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 crash.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

George Bush spent the rest of his presidency cleaning up your messes, Bill, you vile hypocrite.

The last thing this nation needs is another dishonest leftist hypocrite to run America even further into abject defeat than it is already.

For The Factual Historical Record: Democrats Pushing To Take America Off Fiscal Cliff (Which Won’t Stop Democrats From Falsely Blaming GOP)

November 26, 2012

This fiscal cliff talk is rather interesting to me now that I have a more detached perspective.

I truly believe America is going to collapse now.  I also truly believe that by the time the Republicans get another chance to sweep into power in 2014 (as they did in 2010) it will be far too little and far too late.  I think Americans voted this month to die by national suicide.  And, yeah, I think it serves us right if we implode.  That said, I happen to live here.  My family lives here.  We’ve got children to think about.  I don’t want to suffer and I don’t want any of my family to suffer.  So I’m in that position of believing something is going to happen and that we deserve to have it happen on the one hand, with the realization that not only I but my family will be harmed when it does happen.

The result?  I’m no longer praying for America, or for the wisdom of our leaders or for the wisdom of the American people.  They were fools when it mattered most and I realize they will continue to be fools as it matters most.  At the same time, I’m certainly not praying or hoping for a fiscal implosion that will send America reeling into a depression that will make the Great Depression look like a lovely walk on a sunny beach.  I’m someone who views this as an outsider; I live here, but it has nothing to do with me.  And I’m focusing on claiming my citizenship in heaven more and worrying about my citizenship in America less.

I’m not overly exited about it or overly worried about it.  I already know that Americans have reached that depraved condition in which they demand to be parasites off of someone else’s success until there are no more hosts to parasitically leach off of while borrowing half of everything they recklessly spend until we collapse and the beast comes.

It’s really more an interesting academic question: what precisely will be the mechanism by which the Antichrist comes and Democrats worship him and take his mark?  What will be that final card that gets pulled from the house of cards we call our economy that will send the entire system down the drain so the beast can come riding in on his white horse – as he is depicted in Revelation chapter 6 – to save the day?

But I have seen so many naked lies pass for truth, and I’m at least going to try to document some of those lies at the moment when it matters.

Such as this one: Democrats – that’s right, DEMOCRATS – have been calling for us to go off the fiscal cliff if they don’t get exactly what they want.  And Republicans – that’s right, REPUBLICANS – are shocked by the callous willingness of the Democrat Party to allow implosion and the suffering that will result from that implosion.

From the überliberal Washington Post:

Democrats threaten to go over ‘fiscal cliff’ if GOP fails to raise taxes
By Lori Montgomery,
Jul 16, 2012 01:00 AM EDT

Democrats are making increasingly explicit threats about their willingness to let nearly $600 billion worth of tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher taxes for the nation’s wealthiest households.

Emboldened by signs that GOP resistance to new taxes may be weakening, senior Democrats say they are prepared to weather a fiscal event that could plunge the nation back into recession if the new year arrives without an acceptable compromise.

In a speech Monday, Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the Senate’s No. 4 Democrat and the leader of the caucus’s campaign arm, plans to make the clearest case yet for going over what some have called the “fiscal cliff.”

“If we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013,” Murray plans to say, according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post.

READ: Everything you need to know about the fiscal cliff

If the tax cuts from the George W. Bush era expire and taxes go up for everyone, the debate will be reset, Murray is expected to say. “Every proposal will be a tax-cut proposal,” according to the excerpts, and Republicans would no longer be “boxed in” by their pledge not to raise taxes.

“If middle-class families start seeing more money coming out of their paychecks next year, are Republicans really going to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich? Are they going to continue opposing the Democrats’ middle-class tax cut once the slate has been wiped clean? I think they know this would be an untenable political position.”

Murray’s address, set to be delivered at the Brookings Institution, is meant to influence both the Nov. 6 election and the lame-duck legislative session in November and December, when the fiscal cliff will be at hand and the fight over taxes will be in full throttle. Regardless of the election’s outcome, President Obama and the current Congress will be in office for the session.

The speech comes less than a week after Obama assured Hill Democrats during a White House meeting that he would veto any attempt to maintain the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 a year, according to several people present. It also echoes the dismissive response by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to Republicans seeking to undo scheduled reductions in Pentagon spending that even Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has said would be “devastating” to national security.

During the White House meeting, Obama never directly addressed whether he is prepared to let the new year arrive without taking action to avoid the cliff. According to the excerpts, Murray will say Monday that she hopes an agreement can be reached before then: “Democrats are willing to compromise. We just need a partner.”

Still, Democratic lawmakers emerged from the meeting invigorated for the year-end battle to preserve the Bush tax cuts solely for the middle class.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has lambasted the Democrats’ position as an “outrageous ultimatum.”

“At a moment when the American people are reeling from the slowest recovery in modern times . . . and just five months away from the economic body blow that will result if tax rates spike, as scheduled, on January 1st, the president’s solution is to take more money away from the very business folks we are counting on to create the jobs that we need,” McConnell said in a speech Thursday on the Senate floor. “Naturally, Republicans oppose this. The way we see it, nobody should see an income tax hike right now.”

A risky strategy

The term “fiscal cliff” refers to the sharp drop in the 2013 budget deficit that would result from policies in current law. Thanks to a deal Obama cut with Republicans in 2010, the Bush tax cuts — and dozens of other tax provisions — are set to expire in December, raising taxes for virtually every U.S. household next year.

Meanwhile, during the debt-limit showdown last summer, lawmakers approved a plan to implement $110 billion in automatic spending cuts next year. A legislative “supercommittee” appointed to find an alternative deficit-reduction strategy disbanded without reaching agreement.

Republicans say Democrats are responsible for the impasse, noting that GOP members on the supercommittee offered to raise revenue through an overhaul of the tax code.

“We were on the record saying we would agree to a conventionally scored tax increase if they would clear out the tax code, make it fairer, flatter and simpler and begin to take us off the road to bankruptcy on entitlements. And they weren’t willing to do it,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), the GOP supercommittee chairman.

[…]

Here is a link from the Fox News article: “Democrats Willing to Let Country Fall Off ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Over Bush-era Tax Cuts“:

Senate Democrats appear willing to use your paycheck to play political hardball on taxes unless Republicans agree to President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on America’s top earners.

A top Senate Democrat warned Monday that, if Republicans don’t relent, her caucus is willing to let all the Bush-era tax rates expire at the end of the year — in effect threatening to let the country fall off what many in Washington call the “fiscal cliff.”

That cliff is approaching at the start of 2013, when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and billions of dollars in automatic spending cuts — spawned by last summer’s debt-ceiling debate — are set to take effect. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are hoping to shift around those spending cuts to spare key areas like defense, and to temporarily extend the Bush tax rates for at least some Americans. Some have warned a failure to do so could send the nation back into recession.

But Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., indicated Democrats are willing to let the deadline pass in order to better their negotiating position.

“So if we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,” she said in prepared remarks for a speech she plans to give Monday afternoon at the Brookings Institution. Murray is head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the campaign arm for Senate Democrats.

[…]

Which party has clearly offered compromises?  The Republican Party, which has repeatedly said at the very highest levels (including at the level of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney during his campaign along with John Boehner and the entire Republican leadership) to allow tax revenue increases by ending many tax loopholes that favor the rich or simply by capping the exemptions at a certain dollar level such as $50,000.  This would raise nearly as much revenue as what Obama called for.

What has Obama offered by way of “compromise”?  Well, he is now demanding DOUBLE what he demanded the last time.  His starting position was to hike taxes on the rich whose investment and job creation is vital to economic growth, and his current position hasn’t changed so much as a tiny smidge.

Somehow, in this age when we are getting ready to worship the Antichrist and take his mark on our right hands or our foreheads if we want to participate in the economy in any way, shape or form, that’s “compromise.”

Meanwhile, the Republicans – who have now offered massive compromise – are “obstructionists.”  Because in this age right before the beast comes not going along with absolutely EVERYTHING the liberals want is “obstructionism.”

“Balance” is letting the Democrats have everything they demand.  “Balance” is threatening economic terrorism and blowing up America if they DON’T get absolutely everything they demand.

My goal was to document this reality.

Because if we go off the cliff, it is a documented historical fact that one party and only one party publicly advocated for going off the fiscal cliff.  And that is the Democrat Party.

When we collapse – notice I don’t say “if” – it will be because of reckless Democrat spending that everybody with a soul knew was utterly unsustainable.  It will be because the Democrats figured out how to successfully demagogue the lowest and basest nature of the American people.  It will be because Democrats have successfully baited and switched the American Dream of becoming independently successful with the Marxist Dream of government redistributionism.  It will be because we turned out backs once and for all time on the notion that we grow when we provide incentives for people to work harder and to invest more and to take more risks and instead punished the people who work harder and invest more and take more risks.  All that said, I believe that Democrats will be successful again: when the system crashes Democrats will exploit that collapse THAT THEY CAUSED to take complete control of the government.  Because hungry, terrified people – particularly given the fact that they are bad people – will demand the government step in to help them.  And that will be the moment that America fulfills the dreams of socialists ever since Karl Marx by truly officially embracing socialism.

It’s all so close now.  And it will take so little to trigger the coming collapse.

Update, 11/27:

And guess what?  Now EVEN MORE DEMOCRATS ARE WILLING TO THROW AMERICA INTO A DEPRESSION TO DEMONIZE THEIR WAY INTO GETTING WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT:

More Democrats Willing to Go Over ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Monday, 26 Nov 2012 04:21 PM By Stephen Feller

A growing number of Democrats say they are willing to let the country go off the fiscal cliff if a deal cannot be reached by Jan. 1 that raises taxes on the top two percent of earners while protecting costly entitlement programs.

Their theory in this game of chicken with Republicans is that it will be easier in January to lower taxes for 98 percent of the country while finding the best possible parts of the federal budget to cut — in line with long-held goals of the nation’s liberal party. They also think they’ll be in a better position to save most, if not all, of massive entitlements like Medicare as well as pet projects.

The fiscal cliff, originally created to force a legislatively-appointed supercommittee to make significant cuts to the federal budget, is roughly $500 billion mix of budget cuts and tax increases.

It includes the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and Obama-era payroll tax cut, massive cuts to the military and jobless benefits, and a decrease in Medicare reimbursement rates.

This will send tax on bond interest to 44.6 percent from 35 percent; on capital gains to 25 percent from 15 percent and on dividends to 44.6 percent from 15 percent, Forbes magazine pointed out Monday.

The average family will pay an extra $2,000 to $3,000 in income taxes if Congress fails to reach an agreement before the Bush tax cuts expire on Jan. 1, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The economy would shrink by 0.5 percent, the CBO has found.

Experts have consistently predicted that the overall economy would take a massive hit if the country goes over the cliff, likely sending it into recession. Still, since July, Democrats increasingly have made the case that it wouldn’t be so bad.

Led by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Democrats have pushed the idea that the cliff is not as bad as the hype, with it being more of a “slope” than a “cliff.”

Pentagon cuts, they say, would be phased in, and the tax hikes, including the payroll hike, could also be slowed. If this happens, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, there would be a few weeks at the beginning of 2013 for a deal to quickly be reached.

Sen. Charles Schumer backs Murray, also saying that Democrats can’t cave in. He and other Democrats believe that Obama won a mandate for increased taxes with the presidential election.

“[President Obama] campaigned on it clearly,” the veteran New York Democrat said on “Meet the Press.” “He didn’t back off it.”

Also weighing in on Monday in a New York Times Op-Ed was billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has said he think the country will be just fine going over the fiscal cliff.

While it’s not ideal, the founder of Berkshire Hathaway thinks that Obama must be willing to keep pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy, even if it triggers the automatic onset of tax increases and spending cuts on Jan.1.

The U.S. economy, he said, can weather it for a month or two. “We’re not going to permanently cripple ourselves,” Buffett told CNN last week.

Buffett shrugged off the Congressional Budget Office’s warnings that failure to address the fiscal cliff by Dec. 31 could lead to a recession.

“We have a very resilient economy,” said Buffett, a long-time Democrat and staunch Obama supporter. “The fact that [lawmakers] can’t get along for the month of January is not going to torpedo the economy.”

But even as some Republicans waver on taxes, others have renewed the call for no tax hikes.

“A tax increase never created a new job in this country,” Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said on “Fox News Sunday.” “It doesn’t make any sense to us to raise taxes on job creators in this time of economic challenge.”

And House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said raising tax rates will stymie job creation. But he also said he is willing to raise revenue through tax reform and by eliminating “loopholes” in the tax code.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., has not said whether he would vote for tax increases.

“A lot has been said about this pledge,” Cantor said on MSNBC Monday morning, referring to the popular no-tax pledge pushed by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.

“I will tell you when I go to the constituents that re-elected me, it is not about that pledge, it really is about trying to solve problems,” Cantor said. “And as we know, this election we just went through is very much about, number one, what are we going to do to reclaim a momentum in this economy? How do we get us back to that? And, two, how do you solve a problem?”

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, echoed Cantor, saying in an interview that reforming the outdated tax code could stir up new revenues without raising tax rates.

“We need to create growth, which creates jobs, not damaging growth by huge tax increases,” Sessions told Fox News.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday shows a solid majority of respondents — two-thirds — supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Of that total, Republicans favor such an approach by 52 to 44 percent.

Even if effects of the cliff felt by Americans could be held off temporarily, the markets may not fare so well.

“Markets are going to go into an absolute tailspin, and I don’t think we want to risk that, especially with leadership right now trying to find a deal,” said Gabriel Horwitz, director of the economic program for Third Way, a centrist think tank. “I think the market reaction is going to happen immediately.”

“Rather than stop the country from going over the fiscal cliff and preventing the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief, they are prepared to Thelma-and-Louise the American economy right over the cliff,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top Republican on the Finance Committee. “That is an astonishing admission.”

William Galston, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, told CNN that Murray’s form of brinksmanshipis best avoided.

“To be sure, no one believes that non-agreement by December 31 would be the end of the story. After a period of finger-pointing, discussions would resume,” Galston wrote last week in a New Republic opinion piece. “But equally, no one knows how the failure to reach agreement before the end of 2012 would affect the dynamics of the negotiations.”

In addition, “we can be reasonably sure … that national and global markets would react adversely and that businesses, which are already retreating from planned investments in new plant and equipment, would become even more uncertain and risk-averse.”

Murray said in July, and again after the election in November, that without increasing taxes for some Americans, Democrats would balk at any deal Republicans propose.

By waiting until January to cut taxes for the bottom 98 percent, rather than increasing taxes for the top two percent, it may be easier for Republicans to support the concept – based on timing and semantics, Murray and other Democrats seem to think.

“We can’t accept an unfair deal that piles all of this on the middle class and tells them they have to support it,” Murray said on ABC in November. “We have to make sure that the wealthiest of Americans pay their fair share. If Republicans, many of whom were elected after campaigning against tax hikes, won’t agree, Democrats shouldn’t blink… We’ll start over next year and whatever we do will be a tax cut for whatever package we put together. That may be the way to get past this.”

While many Republicans are now saying that they’d be willing to violate Norquist’s pledge under the right circumstances, removing the spectre of actually voting to raise taxes would make it easier for them, she surmises.

Sen. Lindsey Graham said on ABC this Sunday that the pledge was not his major concern, as long as Democrats offer cuts to entitlements and other drains on the budget alongside the tax hikes.

“I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform,” Graham said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told ABC that it’s not her “role to go to the table with a threat… I think it’s my role to go to the table with some ideas, to be receptive to what we can come to agreement on.”

However not all Democrats agree that the threat of going over the cliff should not exist.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, have circulated a letter demanding that Obama start negotiations at a 1-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases, putting them in line with many in the party who want to see a harder line taken by Democrats.

Increasing federal revenue is the most important part of any negotiation, and though a deal before reaching the cliff is ideal, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., joined many others in his party and said waiting until January may be the best option.

“If the Republicans can’t see their way to significant additional revenues targeted toward the people who are best off and targeted toward passive income and other things like that, then we’re better off going over the cliff and readdressing this with a better Congress in January,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. “And we would have plenty of time to fix it.”

.

 

The REAL Political Legacy Of Bill Clinton Is NOT What The Left Wants You To Know

November 12, 2012

I responded to a typical weasel comment with enough facts and frankly enough words to turn the truth about the Clinton presidency into an article.  Here’s the typical weasel comment:

This post is a bunch of lies.. Clinton left a surplus

And my response:

Just can’t get away from stupid people, can I?

U.S. National Debt

09/30/1993    –    $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1994    –    $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/29/1995    –    $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1996    –    $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/30/1997    –    $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1998    –    $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1999    –    $5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/2000    –    $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2001    –    $5,807,463,412,200.06

These are official Treasury Dept taken from the Treasury’s site.  The numbers between 1993 and 1999 are here and the numbers from 2000 to 2001 are here.

I want you to notice, you deluded dumbass, that every single year of the Clinton presidency the national debt went UPTHAT IS A FACT.  In the very real world, Bill Clinton never left us with so much as a penny of “surplus.”  Every single year of Slick Willie’s presidency, we got more debt and then more debt.

Bill Clinton assumed office in 1993.  Two years later, in 1994, the people were so angry at the fact that “Clinton gold” turned out to be Iron Pyrite that they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans in the greatest historic asskicking of all time.  Clinton lost both the House and the Senate to Republicans, and in fact never got either back for his entire presidency.

Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over” in January 1996, which put the kibosh on liberal ideas for the rest of the Clinton presidency as Clinton governed as a moderate Republican from that point on.

In 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act was passed by the Republican House and the Republican Senate before being signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a result of those REPUBLICAN TAX REFORMS, federal income tax revenues surged just as they ALWAYS surge when the American people are allowed to keep more of their own money and invest that money far better than bureaucratic government EVER has or ever WILL.  And as a result, we actually briefly got to a federal budget surplus.  Because of Republicans and because “the era of big government was over” and because Democrats had had their asses kicked and ONLY because of those things.

It’s interesting.  Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate when we actually got our “balanced budget.”  And yet historically somehow the mainstream media gave Bill Clinton and the Democrat Party ALL the credit and the Republican majorities that had actually passed all the legislation that created that balanced budget zero credit.  It’s particularly amazing given the fact that Barack Obama controlled the White House, held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, AND controlled the House of Representatives his first two years in office, but the failure of the Obama economic policy is blamed on the fact that for two of Obama’s first four years Republicans held the House.  Basically, Democrats can never be blamed and must be given all the credit; whereas Republicans cannot receive any credit and must be given all the blame.

The same people who constantly lecture the Republicans about “obstructionism” somehow never recall the years when George Bush was confronted with massive Democrat obstructionism.  Obstructionism, was, of course, good and noble when Democrats were blocking virtually every single thing Bush tried to accomplish.  It is only evil if Republicans try to block anything their messiah Obama wants to do.

Now, sadly, 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton left America weak and blind.  Why did America get attacked on 9/11?  Because Bill Clinton showed so much weakness in 1993 in Somalia that a man we would one day know very well said:

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

Osama bin Laden began to prepare for a massive attack on America.  Oh, yes, he and his fellow terrorists hit America again and again: they hit the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993.  In 1996 they hit the Khobar Towers where hundreds of American servicemen were living.  In 1998 two embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed and destroyed by terrorists.  And in 2000, terrorists hit and severely damaged the U.S.S. Cole.  And Bill Clinton proved bin Laden’s thesis correct by doing exactly NOTHING.

Meanwhile, all throughout the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was preparing to strike us.  They brought in all the terrorists who would devastate us with their second attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 during Bill Clinton’s watch.

America was both weak and blind due to Bill Clinton’s gutting both the military and our intelligence capability.  And of course, being blind and unable to see what was coming would hurt us deeply:

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

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

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”  The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

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

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

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

And so we were hit on 9/11 and were completely blindsided by the attack because Bill Clinton gutted the military and the intelligence budget leaving us weak and blind.  And of course our spending skyrocketed because of the DotCom economic collapse that Bill Clinton left for George Bush that happened on Clinton’s watch but gutted $7.1 trillion in American wealth (almost as much as the Great Recession, btw) and which collapsed the value of the Nasdaq Valuation by fully 78% of its value as Bush was still trying to clean all the porn that the Clinton White House had left on the White House computers.  And so Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive recession and like whip cream on top of his economic disaster he handed George Bush an even more massive terrorist attack.

But, hey, don’t worry.  Barack Obama is making all the same mistakes that Clinton made and then a whole bunch of even dumber mistakes that Clinton didn’t make.

Anyway, as you keep hearing that Obama will pave the streets with gold because Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, please realize #1 that Clinton hardly ever paved the streets with gold and #2 realize that Barack Obama has not and will not govern the way Bill Clinton governed.

Do you know what bothers me the most about Obama’s reelection?  It’s that we have entered a profoundly different reality as a nation.  Barack Obama did NOT get reelected because he gave us a strong economy.  And both the polls before and AFTER the election document that many of the people who actually voted for Barack Obama believed that Mitt Romney would have given us a better economy.

Obama’s economic policy was a complete unmitigated disaster.  But what you need to understand is that a terrible economy makes for good politics for Democrats.  Because the worse the economy gets the more that increasingly amoral Americans will demand a stronger government safety net and welfare state.  Such that the worse Obama does economically the better he and Democrats will actually fair politically.

The beast is coming.

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

October 16, 2012

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

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

Criticism of Barack Obama came from a surprising source Sunday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.” The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Wasn’t Bill Clinton Responsible For The DotCom Collapse And 9/11 When Bush Is Still Responsible For Obama’s Economy FOUR YEARS LATER???

October 1, 2012

As we near the end of Obama’s FOURTH YEAR IN OFFICE, we had an amazing claim from our blamer-in-chief:

KROFT: The national debt has gone up sixty percent in — in the four years that you’ve been in office.

OBAMA: Well, first — first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here. When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but ninety percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.

In his devastating Washington Post fact check that gave Obama 100% of the pinnochios for the worst possible example of lying, “Kessler says it’s the other way around — that Bush policies account for about 10% of the current annual structural budget deficit, and the rest is evenly split between bad projections from the CBO and Obama’s spending and economic policies.”

Four years.  It took the media four freaking years to say, “ENOUGH WITH YOUR DAMNED LYING EXCUSES!!!”  FOUR YEARS.

George Bush gave us $4 trillion in debt over eight years and Obama said that was “irresponsible” and even “unpatriotic.”  Obama has given America $6 trillion in debt in just four years.  And a hell of a lot more than that, if you look at our actual debt which is now well over $222 trillion.

I point out in a comment to a liberal demagogue how Obama tries to blame Bush for the massive spending.  Bush left office having produced a budget containing a $400 billion deficit that Democrats decried for the cuts.  What Obama then does is spend the first nine months of his presidency spending like a lunatic: he spends $79 billion of taxpayer money on his GM bailout – and of course has taken complete credit as the president who saved GM – while blaming Bush for its entire cost.  Obama spends $862 billion – which according to the CBO will ultimately cost American taxpayers $3.27 trillion – on his stimulus.  Then in March 2009 Obama spends another $410 billion in his Omnibus bill.  Meanwhile, Obama is spending the second half of the $350 billion in TARP funds that he voted for and which funds he demanded.  So what Obama dishonestly does is add all that spending up – HIS OWN spending – and attributes it to Bush so that he can claim this horrendous deficit that he “inherited.”  And so Obama artificially and deceitfully manufactures this enormous Bush deficit that he’s somehow a victim of – even though ninety percent of the spending in that deficit is HIS.

But that’s just the beginning of Obama’s dishonesty.  Look what he does to “the two wars.”

First the Iraq War.  Bush WON the Iraq War before Obama took office and signed the status of forces agreement before Obama took office.  We had won the war such that Bush was beginning to withdraw surge forces as early as 2007.  And yet somehow when US troops finalize their withdrawal according to Bush’s victory and according to Bush’s status of forces agreement, it is Obama who takes full credit.  Joe Biden actually had the chutzpah to claim that the Iraq War victory that he and his boss Obama had done everything they could to prevent was going to be “one of Obama’s great achievements.”  What Obama then does is equally despicable: he assumes in his numbers that the Iraq War that was already won when he came into office would have gone on forever if Messiah Obama had not won it, looks at the high-point of Bush’s spending during the war and creates another “baseline,” and then announces that in winning the war he has saved America more than $700 billion.  That Obama can spend on his policies while simultaneously blaming that spending on Bush.

Now the Afghanistan War.  Rather than look up the spending in dollars, I’ll produce the cost of the war under Bush and under Obama in American lives (as of September 28, 2012):

Whether you look at it in dollars or in lives, you’ll find that Obama is responsible for over 70 percent of the cost of the Afghanistan War.  Because you see, what Obama did was perform an incredibly cynical political calculation.  Obama demonized Iraq as “the bad war” and made Afghanistan – in which Bush was merely performing a holding action – into “the good war” as a way to attack Bush in Iraq.  Obama in effect said we shouldn’t be fighting in Iraq where the flat terrain allowed full movement and maneuver of our air, artillery and armored power and an educated population made victory possible; we should be fighting in a mountainous hellhole where we couldn’t utilize our military advantages and where the people were so ignorant they would believe every lie they were told and go on fighting forever instead.  That is literally what Obama effectively said.  And Obama is saying, “It’s not MY fault that I massively increased the war in Afghanistan; it’s Bush’s fault I did that.”  And Obama is claiming credit for the Iraq War that Bush won and blaming Bush for the Afghanistan War that he has virtually lost.

Let me move on to the economy.

You have to ask the question, why was George Bush responsible for ninety percent of Obama’s entire presidency as far as the mainstream media was concerned, but Bill Clinton wasn’t responsible for the DotCom bubble collapse that happened on his watch and that Bush inherited???  Why did we never hear 900,000 stories from the media on how Clinton was to blame and in conclusion nobody could reasonably blame Bush for it???

Clinton’s DotCom crash resulted in $7.1 trillion in American wealth being vaporized:

The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.

Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up?  It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” – the office of the president.

Here’s another number to think about: 78%.  Because “The Nasdaq Composite lost  78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11” as it collapsed between March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002.

Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from  the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright  within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million  estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999,  there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of  those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In  2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first  day of trading.

I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess.  I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.

You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble.  Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.

And yet Bill Clinton saunters before the 2012 Democrat National Convention and gives a speech saying “You can’t blame Obama for this disaster of an economy.  Why, even I couldn’t have fixed it.”  And the liberal media listen to their former messiah absolve their current messiah and ignore the fact that Bill Clinton is a serial liar who was DISBARRED by the Supreme Court for LYING as well as a serial womanizing sexual predator who sexually abused five women and they said, “Well, that settles it.  NO one can blame ‘the One’ now; the former ‘One’ has spoken.”  And the “War on Women” party cheers.

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton.  Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America.  And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it.  That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

And I actually failed to mention Paula Jones, who successfully SUED Bill Clinton for his sexual harassment.

Yeah, let’s trust Slick Willy.  Because we are as evil as we are stupid on the days that we aren’t as stupid as we are evil.

But I’m just getting started.

Why is it that George Bush is still held responsible for the Obama’s presidency four years later when the same people who hold George Bush responsible wouldn’t hold Bill Clinton responsible for a disaster that happened seven months and 22 days into Bush’s presidency (still during Clinton’s fiscal year, for what it’s worth).  Because we had a terrible terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, just seven months into Bush’s presidency, and it was a) Bush’s fault and b) we shouldn’t be wasting time passing blame, anyway, if you began asking too many questions about just why the hell it was Bush’s fault.

It wasn’t George Bush who decimated the CIA; it was Bill Clinton:

Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:13 a.m. EDT
Pulitzer Winner: Bill Clinton Decimated the CIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Clinton era of risk aversion also hobbled CIA efforts to get Osama bin Laden. In early 1998, Risen says, the agency was prepared to launch a special operation to kidnap the al Qaeda chief in Afghanistan.

“To be sure the operation was high risk, and there was a strong possibility that it would be so messy that bin Laden would be killed rather than captured. [CIA Director George] Tenet and the CIA’s lawyers worried deeply about that issue; they believed the covert action finding on al Qaeda that President Clinton had signed authorized only bin Laden’s capture, not his death.”

Frustrated by restrictions that made dealing with the big challenges too difficult, the agency turned its energy to lesser problems.

Reports Risen: “Thanks to Vice President Al Gore, for example, the CIA briefly made the global environment one of is priorities.”

What Clinton did to the CIA he did to the Pentagon and the military.  He gave them less and less and less money while simultaneously tasking them with more and more and more costly missions.

Add to that the infamous Blackhawk Down fiasco in which Clinton expanded the humanitarian mission to Somalia began under George H.W. Bush into a military action without bothering to provide the US forces the heavy armor they needed.

It was after that disaster that an emboldened Osama bin Laden said:

Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. …

And bin Laden said that America was a weak paper tiger and we’d crawl out dragging our dead because that’s exactly what Bill Clinton had done in Somalia in 1993.

On 9/11/2001, the United States was both weak and blind.  And to quote Obama’s “reverend,” “our chickens came home to roost” for our weakness and blindness as we were hit with the worst attack on American soil in our history.

Just why the hell is it that the same damn hypocrite left that says, “One year of failure, two years of failure, three years of failure, four years of failure, hell, EIGHT years of failure, it doesn’t matter – IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!” never ONCE blame Bill Clinton for either the Dotcom implosion that vaporized $7.1 trillion and sank America into recession?  Why didn’t these liberals say, “What happened during the Bush presidency was ENTIRELY Bill Clinton’s fault and Bush was forced to clean up Clinton’s mess and America is paying the price for Clinton’s sins.”???  Nobody in the media said that, in spite of the facts.  And now, very nearly everybody in the media is saying exactly that regarding George Bush being entirely to blame for Obama’s mess even after Obama has presided over his mess for four miserable years.

Why?!?!?  Other than the fact that if you are a liberal, you are therefore ipso facto and ergo sum a pathologically dishonest human being whose soul swims in lies?

You have to go back to the 1930s and the propaganda of Goebbels in Germany and TASS in Russia to find this level of media manipulation and deceit.  And we’re heading in the same direction: because we are being railroaded into making increasingly stupid and immoral decisions based on the constant stream of fabrications and dishonest narratives we’re being told.

Are You Doing Better Than You Were Four Years Ago Under Obama’s Failed Fiasco Of A Presidency? ‘No, But That’s Not The Question,’ Say His Minions

September 4, 2012

This is the key stat to the answer, “Are you better off than you were four years ago”:

Household income is below recession levels, report says
By Michael A. Fletcher, Published: August 23

Household income is down sharply since the recession ended three years ago, according to a report released Thursday, providing another sign of the stubborn weakness of the economic recovery.

From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.

Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report, which analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

Overall, median income is 7.2 percent

ABC News has a survey.  As of now, nearly three out of every four answer “No” to the question and say they are NOT better off under Obama.

Answer: HELL No.  You want to blame the recession and even the first year of Obama’s utterly failed presidency on Bush?  Fine.  But the fact remains that the median household income has gone down nearly TWICE as much during Obama’s “recovery” than it did during the entire recession that Obama blames Bush for.  Which is to say that even the very “best of times” under Obama’s failed presidency have paled in comparison even to the worst of times under Bush – with the very “worst” of “Bush’s times” happening while Bush was at home watching Obama stick his skinny legs up on the Oval Office desk.

THAT is what they call a “failed presidency.”  There is NO FREAKING WAY Americans are better off now than they were when this failure took office.  And when you add to that that the “failed Bush policies” led to a 5.26% unemployment rate whereas Obama’s messianic policies have led to a 9.33% average unemployment rate, well, you tell me which you like better.  Especially given the fact that when you consider people who have simply dropped out of the job market all together in despair due to Obamanomics, and when you consider the labor participation rate, the real unemployment rate under Obama is about 11.6% rather than the still-miserable 8.3%.

O’Malley: We’re Not Better Off Now
By Jonathan Miller
Updated: September 2, 2012 | 2:58 p.m.
September 2, 2012 | 11:27 a.m.

Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who is considered a possible contender for president in 2016, bucked other Obama surrogates on Sunday, saying that the country was not better off now than it was four years ago.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer asked: “Can you honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago?”

(RELATED: Axelrod Calls GOP Convention a Bust)

Responded O’Malley: “No, but that’s not the question of this election. The question, without a doubt, we are not as well off as we were before George Bush brought us the Bush job losses, the Bush recession, the Bush deficits, the series of desert wars — charged for the first time to credit cards, the national credit card.”

Quipped Schieffer: “George Bush is not on the ballots.”

The most senior Obama campaign simply refused to answer the question:

David Plouffe (who frankly should have been explaining why he took money from IRAN):

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is he right, can the president argue unequivocally that Americans are better off today than they were four years ago?

DAVID PLOUFFE: Listen, George, I think the American people understand that we got into a terrible economic situation, a recession, only that the Great Depression — the only thing the country has ever seen like it. So they know we had a deep hole. It took us a long time to get into that hole, it’s going to take a long time to out of it.

First of all, Governor Romney is offering the same, exactly policies that led to the recession in the first place.

To paraphrase Plouffe’s response to Stephanopoulos’ question:

“Mumble, mumble, mumble.  Blame Bush.  Blah blah blah.  And in conclusion, blame Bush.”

If you want your president to be a demagogue who will NOT accept responsibility for his record and who will blame and lie, then Obama truly is your “hope and change” and this really is your “fundamentally transformed America.”  Because that’s all that Obama has done and it is all that he will continue to do.

And of course that “that’s what led to the recession” line might sound good, but let’s point out that RONALD REAGAN USED CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES TO PROPEL AMERICA TO 10 PERCENT GROWTH AND CREATED OVER A MILLION JOBS A MONTH.

David Axelrod took the plunge and said, yeah, we’re better under the man who lowered the level of our oceans and healed our planet before ultimately saying, okay, maybe we AREN’T better off:

“Can you honestly say that Americans better off today than they were four years ago?” Wallace pointedly asked Axelrod.

“I can say that we’re in a better position than we were four years ago in our economy, in the sense that when this president took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month,” Axelrod responded. “And the quarter before he took office was the worst since the Great Depression and we are in a different place.”

“29 straight months of job growth, 4.5 million private sector jobs,” the adviser cited as statistical evidence, but conceded: “Are we where we need to be? No.”

That 29 straight months of job growth might actually sound impressive if Democrats hadn’t utterly pooh-poohed George Bush when he had FIFTY-TWO STRAIGHT MONTHS OF JOB GROWTH from September 2003 to December 2007 thanks to his TAX CUTSIt takes so much freaking chutzpah to decry fifty-two months of job growth and then laud a number barely half of that as magnificent that only a Democrat could possibly be hypocrite enough to do it.  But there you have it.

Then there’s the “monkey math” that Axelrod cites: basically, it first depends on the theory that Barack Obama really didn’t assume the presidency until 2010.  It was the devil BOOSH who was president in 2009 and so all of those numbers only apply to the devil Bush.  We only take credit for things we can make look good; Bush is responsible for everything else whether it happened during Obama’s watch or not.  I say that because Barack Obama has been president NOT for 29 months, ye Democrat dumbasses, but for going on 45 months.  And it is a national disgrace that we have such a completely failed leader that he can’t even assume responsibility for over a year of his failed presidency.

Then there’s the 800,000 jobs lost a month when Obama took office.  Well, Democrats are such liars they even fabricate when they’re getting close to trying to tell the truth.  We never lost “800,000 jobs a month.”  The most jobs we ever lost was in January 2009 (during that year that Obama was president but refuses to acknowledge) when we lost 741,000 jobs.  If you’re going to round that number honestly, David, you liar, we only lost 700,000 jobs that month, didn’t we?  And for Axelrod to oh so conveniently round way, WAY up and then make it sound like it was happening every single month – we got to that 700k number in only ONE month – is a lie from a serial liar.

What’s always been interesting to me is that we had a crisis that was created by Democrat-OWNED Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going bankrupt which triggered the meltdown as private banks held Fannie and Freddie mortgage backed securities that they suddenly discovered were “toxic assets” because the GSEs had loaded up so much bad debt in those securities that nobody could tell good debt from bad debt.  And that month, in September 2008, we lost 280,000 jobs under Bush’s watch.  In October, things looked a little better and we only lost 240,000 jobs that month.

Then America made the stupidest decision in its history and elected Obama.  And businesses immediately responded in November by giving up 333,000 jobs – nearly a hundred thousand more jobs than the month before.  The panic of a future-failed Obama presidency continued as we lost 632,000 jobs in the first full month after Obama was elected.  What kind of fool can look at this reality and say, “Obama’s election calmed frightened businesses?”  Because businesses said, “This turd is going to kill us.  Let’s cut our losses now.”  And so the month Obama took the oath of his failed office, we lost 741,000 jobs that month as businesses cut and ran on his presidency.

To document that the huge job losses that Obama demagogues actually occurred because of sheer terror of a pathetic failure assuming office, let me go back to an article I wrote in October of 2008: “Actual Job Creators Favor McCain 4-1 Over Obama.”  I note an article from CEO Magazine:

People are most concerned about jobs right now; maybe they should stop listening to mainstream media ideologues and start listening to the people who actually create jobs:

Chief Executive Magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.

“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.”

Disastrous for the country.” That doesn’t sound good. And that’s about as optimistic as the CEO’s get about Barack Obama:

“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.

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

Bankrupt the country within three years.” There. You want socialism, you can have it. “Spread the wealth around” so that country itself is as broke as the defaulting homeowners and the defaulting mortgage houses we keep hearing about.

We didn’t listen to those CEOs.  And here we are very nearly damned bankrupt just as they predicted, as Democrats gather for their convention, with the national debt about to hit $16 TRILLION (now well above our entire GDP) and an actual fiscal gap of no “mere” $16 trillion but a supermassive black hole of death $222 trillion.

You want to see the market tank and employers cut their losses again?  Just re-hire Obama.  You’ll see things go to sh!t right quick as business reacts to the fiasco.

Let’s see, what did the lying dishonest weasel say back in 2008?

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” — Barack Obama, 3 July 2008

That’s right.  Six trillion dollars in debt from Obama in one four-year term is responsible and patriotic; four trillion dollars over EIGHT YEARS is “irresponsible and unpatriotic.”  Again, there’s that thingy about Democrat=hypocrite and hypocrite=Democrat.  And if you are a Democrat, it is only because you, personally, are a hypocrite and a bad person.

The 4.5 million private sector jobs that Axelrod credits Obama for first of all utterly refuses to consider that 13 first months of Obama’s presidency (to quote that Servpro commercial jingle, “Like it never even happened!”) and second of all counts all the job gains but refuses to consider the rather disturbing factoid about all of those new jobless claims that have racked up every single month during Obama’s presidency. But you see, all the job gains are because of Obama but all the nearly 400,000 job losses every single damn month four damn years after Bush left the White House are still because of the devil Bush.  Third, given our population growth, ten million Americans have actually entered the work force during Obama’s presidency; which is to say that Obama is nowhere NEAR keeping up with simple population growth even according to his own asinine horn-tooting.  And fourth, this “4.5 million jobs” is a full-of-crap talking point parroted by rabid ideologues

This turd needs to go.  He needs to go now.  And if he doesn’t go soon this country is simply doomed.

Liberals Keep Blaming Bush And Keep Sounding More and More Like DUMBASSES

July 30, 2012

I get comments like this one all the time:

Dumbass, why dont you consider the MASSIVE drop in revenues due to the economic cliff the US fell off due to Bush’s policys. The downslide started mid 2007, sorry new president takes the helm in jan. 2009! Ship was sinking, obama just trying to bail out the water with resistance from all Republicans ! I hope gets on so we can blame everything on him…

So what can I say to such a brilliant mind?  Plenty:

Five things:

1) When George Bush took office, we had suffered the DotCom bubble collapse and Bush inherited a terrible recession (a couple of facts: America lost $7.1 trillion in wealth and the Nasdaq valuation lost 78% of its value). On top of that, America suffered the 9/11 attack because Bill Clinton had annihilated the military and intelligence budgets and capabilities in order to brag he “balanced the budget.” The 9/11 attack created an even DEEPER recession because the American people were afraid to travel to vacation or do business for a long time afterward. Bush started out in a hell hole.  But did you defend Bush, Charles? No, because you’re a demon-possessed cockroach hypocrite and you will only see the world as a leftwing ideologue.  It’s like the gas price spike: when Bush was president, the rise in prices were all Bush’s fault because Bush was president:

But now Obama’s the president and the fact that gas prices have averaged FAR more during Obama’s presidency (gas prices have averaged $3.25 under Obama versus only $2.33 under Bush) isn’t Obama’s fault at all.  The same thing is true of our spending and debt and the same damn thing is true of liberal hoity-toity issues like Gitmo.  At some point every liberal skull will explode from trying to contain all the contradictions.

I wrote an article right after the election that pretty much sums up my views: “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”  It comes down to this: by your own measure shall ye be measured.  You don’t get to attack Bush and Republicans for eight years by going after Bush like rabid pit bulls attacking bloody meat and then get sanctimonious with us.  Dumbass.  Especially when by any measure: GDP growth, jobs, household wealth, deficits, spending, debt, consumer confidence, or any other measure, the economy did FAR better during the eight years of Bush than it EVER has under Obama.

As we speak, only 14% of Americans think their children will be better off than they were, versus 65% who think their children will be worse off.  That is the lowest it has EVER been.  Why is it Bush’s fault that in the fourth year of Obama Americans overwhelmingly believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction under Obama’s policies???  Even if Bush did everything terrible; shouldn’t Obama have been able to improve from terrible???  But he hasn’t; he’s made “terrible” MORE terrible.

2) Do you know what sane people do (my bad – of COURSE you don’t know what sane people do!) if they have less revenue? THEY SPEND LESS, YOU DUMBASS. But somehow your messiah never got the sanity memo so instead of spending less he imposed spending after spending measure and imposed levels of bureaucrats and regulators that this nation has never seen. You people are like the millionaire’s son who pisses away his inheritance and then says, “Well, it’s not like that means I’ve got to spend less or anything; I’m ENTITLED to spend more. I think I’ll go buy a Ferrari and crash it after a drunken party  And then I’ll celebrate ‘my recovery’ by buying another Ferrari.”

Even if everything you said was true – and it’s not – we should be spending LESS.  But what is your messiah doing?  He’s spending three times more and blaming Bush.  That is morally and rationally insane.

Liberals have a GSA-view of the universe.  But as Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”

3) Then there’s the fact that Democrats were nearly TOTALLY to blame for imposing all of the idiotic conditions that led to your “Massive drop in revenues.” “Bush’s policies?” Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it collapsed, you abject dumbass. Bush began trying back in 2003, and even the New York Slimes records that conservative economists were predicting back in 1999 that these stupid and immoral Democrat policies would explode the economy:

New York Times, Sep 30, 1999: “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. […]

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Barney Frank stated:

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

Just before the bankruptcy and collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008, Barney Frank said THIS:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

Dumbass, IT IS A DOCUMENTED FACT OF HISTORY THAT FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC COLLAPSED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2008 BEFORE ANY OTHER PRIVATE SECTOR PLAYER. Merill Lynch and Lehmen Brothers went down AFTER the GSEs and BECAUSE they suddenly found themselves holding billions of dollars in worthless Fannie and Freddie mortgage backed securities.  That was because Fannie and Freddie had bundled thousands mortgages together into their securities such that there was no way to separate the toxic debt from the good debt.  The entire system collapsed because the entire mortgage financial system suddenly became “toxic” due to that inability of the market to distinguish good debt and risk from toxic debt and risk.  ONLY Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to bundle those mortgage backed securities and then sell them to the private sector. THAT was what caused the housing mortgage collapse that led to our 2008 economic implosion.  At the time of their collapse, the GSEs controlled 70% of all new home purchases.  It was that supermassive black hole of Democrat stupidity and depravity that imploded America in 2008.

I’ve preserved all of that and more here.

If the above isn’t bad enough, Obama has decided after demagoguing the crisis his party started in 2008 that 2008 never really even happened: he’s going right back to the policies that blew up the housing mortgage market in the first place.

If that isn’t enough, consider that between Democrat-imposed Social Security boondoggle and the Medicare and Medicaid boondoggles, the REAL national debt is well over $211 TRILLIONOur real yearly debt under Obama is nearly $6 trillion in the red every single year until America implodes and dies when our credit rating goes down again and our interest rates skyrocket.  And when you add to that the unfunded pension liabilities of liberal states like California and Illinois, we are well and truly screwed with Democrats being virtually entirely responsible for every penny of our unpayable and unsustainable debt that will necessarily bankrupt and kill America.  And all of this government takeover has been imposed in the name of helping the poor when history proves it has done the exact opposite.

And you’re going to blame Bush, you lunatic?

So you can take your “fell off due to Bush’s policies” and stuff them right up your idiot pie hole. Bush’s policies gave us an average 5.26% unemployment rate. When your messiah lives up to his lies come back and talk to me.

4) But let’s consider that in conservative states like Texas and Nebraska and North Dakota, the economies are surging and people from liberal states are moving to red states in DROVES to get jobs they won’t ever be able to get from retards like Democrats. These red states and several other red states have balanced their budgets. So why can’t Obama balance his damn budget instead of giving us four consecutive years of over a trillion in deficit for the first time in the entire history of the entire human race???

5) Obama told the American people that his policies would result in 5.6% unemployment by now and there would therefore be millions of Americans paying lots and lots of taxes. Obama promised us his policies would generate 4.3 percent GDP growth. Where was that promised economic recovery that would have obliterated the recession, you dumbass? You wouldn’t need to be making your dumbass excuses now if your messiah hadn’t lied to the American people.  Now Obama has to rely on pure crap to sell his lies, just like you. But instead your antichrist messiah has given us the worst labor participation rate since Jimmy Carter broke America and Ronald Reagan had to put it back together again. And if you compare Obama’s policies to Reagan’s policies you can understand why Reagan GREW the economy after everything went to hell and Obama is just going from bad to worse.  So on your very “dumbass” view YOUR messiah is a “dumbass.”  Either that, or it’s now your view that Obama LIED when he said he had a solution and he LIED when he projected that his policies would turn the economy around.  I guess what you’re saying is that it’s really “Bush’s fault” that Obama is a lying fool.

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

June 15, 2012

As carried by Yahoo News:

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

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

Notably, Obama did not refute the hypothetical accusations.

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

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

Obama’s side.

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

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

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

I ask you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Dinesh D’Souza points out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBO Warns ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Looms If Bush Tax Cuts Aren’t Continued And Automatic Cuts Gutting Defense Aren’t DIScontinued (Democrats On Wrong Side Of BOTH Issues)

May 24, 2012

Bush tax cuts good, Democrats bad.  And the automatic cuts that will gut defense bad, Democrats trying to prevent their suspension worse.  That according to the CBO.

The CBO says if the Bush tax cuts aren’t extended – i.e., Bush was right, Democrats and Obama were wrong – and if the automatic cuts that resulted from the last budget impasse aren’t suspended, the U.S. economy will go down the toilet starting January 1st of next year.

The funny thing – at least the funny thing if you can see humor in the Democrat Party destroying America – is that Democrats are on the wrong side of both of these issues.  We all know the Democrat Party’s histrionics over the Bush tax cuts from the day Bush cut taxes in 2003; but you should also know that Obama is not only in favor of the automatic cuts that the CBO is warning are a bad thing, but Obama has in fact promised to veto any bill that would overturn them.  And this in spite of the fact that Obama’s own Secretary of Defense has stated that the cuts Obama is demanding would utterly gut the US military and take America back to pre-World War II levels when we were weak and ripe for a devastating attack.

House Republicans are trying to avert the disaster that both the CBO and Secretary of Defense Panetta have warned us about.  Just as they’re trying to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for every single American and for the overall American economy.

Basically, the CBO is warning you that if Democrats get power in 2012, we’re all pretty much screwed:

May 23, 2012 2:00pm
‘Fiscal Cliff’ Looms for U.S. Economy, CBO Warns

Allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire coupled with a scheduled round of automatic spending cuts would probably throw the U.S. economy into a tailspin. That’s the dire warning from a new Congressional Budget Office report that says the economy would contract by 1.3 percent in the first half 2013, pushing off a ”fiscal cliff” on Jan. 1.

That’s when a higher tax rate would kick in if the Bush-era tax cuts aren’t extended and more than $100 billion in automatic cuts in domestic spending for agencies such as the Pentagon are kept in place.

“Simply extending all of our current tax and spending policies will produce unsustainable deficits and debt, which will also send the economy into decline,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, told the Associated Press. “We need to act and we must do so in a balanced way.”

Though lawmakers are expected to head off a shift in the government’s financial situation later this year or in early 2013, the CBO says if nothing is done it would likely push the US economy into recession and wring hundreds of billions of dollars from the budget deficit. That would “represent an additional drag on the weak economic expansion,” the CBO says.

The CBO is a nonpartisan agency of Congress that produces economic analysis and estimates of the cost of legislation.

Last summer’s debt and budget agreement imposed almost $1 trillion in cuts to agency budgets over the coming decade and required automatic cuts of another $1 trillion or so.

The CBO study comes as Congress is gridlocked over spending and taxes in advance of the fall elections. The White House and top Democrats are refusing to act on the expiring tax cuts and automatic spending cuts unless Republicans show greater flexibility on raising taxes.

If no deal is reached, the CBO projects that the economy would shrink by 1.3 percent in the first half of 2013, which would meet the definition of a recession, which is when the economy shrinks for two consecutive quarters.

“Such a contraction in output in the first half of 2013 would probably be judged to be a recession,” CBO said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The “Bush tax cuts” are named after BUSH for good reason.  He was the one who got them through with the help of Republicans against bitter Democrat opposition.  Those tax cuts helped get America out of one hell of a hell-hole as a result of the Clinton DotCom bust and the 9/11 attacks that were likewise principally the fault of Bill Clinton.  In the DotCom bubble collapse, America lost over $7.1 TRILLION in wealth that was just vaporized; and the Nasdaq valuation saw 78% of its portfolio wiped out as a result of a giant recession that Bill Clinton handed to George Bush.  And the 9/11 attack was the result of Clinton’s gutting both the military and the intelligence budgets leaving America both weak and blind.  And after the humiliating “Blackhawk Down” retreat from Somalia, it was inevitable that under Bill Clinton al Qaeda “realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger” as a terrorist named Osama bin Laden said.  Al Qaeda attacked America because Bill Clinton opened the door for them to attack America.

Contrary to what the Democrats have always wrongly believed, tax rate cuts have ALWAYS increased U.S. tax revenues every single time we have ever cut our tax rates.  It worked when Calvin Coolidge did it; it worked when John F. Kennedy did it; it worked when Ronald Reagan did it; and yes, it worked when George W. Bush did it.

When you allow the American people to keep more of what they earned, they simply make better decisions that improve their own lives and the overall health of the economy far more than when the government taxes and redistributes.  Everybody understands that middle class Americans with more purchasing power is a good thing; but it is equally true that when wealthier Americans are allowed to invest and be rewarded for their investment risks, the net result is economic growth and job growth for everybody.

Mayor Cory Booker – a prominent Democrat and Obama ally – said this of the unrelenting attack on private equity in general and Bain Capital in particular:

“As far as that stuff, I have to just say from a very personal level, I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity. To me, it’s just this–we’re getting to a ridiculous point in America, especially that I know. I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, it ain’t–they’ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses, And this, to me, I’m very uncomfortable with.“

Booker is openly acknowledging that private equity is a good thing; that it has an enormous net benefit for cities and for states and for the nation.  As do a growing list of Democrats, from Gov. Ed Rendell to Harold Ford to Obama auto czar Steven Rattner to Gov. Deval Patrick to several prominent Democrat US Senators.

Bain Capital points out the fact that:

Despite political attacks that emphasize the few companies that have struggled, the facts are that during Bain Capital’s ownership, revenues grew in 80 percent of the more than 350 companies in which we have invested.

Eight out of ten times Mitt Romney stepped up to the plate he hit a home run and grew the businesses he rescued from bankruptcy.  But Obama deceitfully tries to only allow discussion of the two out of ten times that he didn’t.

And then you further find out the sheer duplicity that is Barack Obama: the man who has demonized private equity is at the same time gobbling up MORE MONEY from these firms than Mitt Romney!!!!  And that is primarily because of another profound act of cynical Obama dishonesty: because in blatant contradiction to his promise to reign in lobbyists and special interest pacs, Obama has in fact opened the floodgates to both.

Barack Obama has attended FIVE TIMES more fundraisers THAN THE PREVIOUS FIVE PRESIDENTS COMBINED.  And a lot of corrupt investors are realizing that the most corrupt money-grubbing whore that has ever infested the White House has opened the doors to crony capitalist boondoggles in which you give Obama a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions and rake in millions or even HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in taxpayer money for the next soon-to-be-bankrupt-boondoggle

EIGHTY PERCENT of green energy loans somehow ended up in the pockets of OBAMA DONORSHere’s a list of who got money.  It is utterly bankrupt.  You can’t find this level of corruption in the entire history of the republic.

It’s implicit from the CBO report: Democrats are the problem and Republicans are the solution to preventing America from going over the “fiscal cliff” that Obama and the Democrats have in store for America.