Remember Democrats And Media Mocking The GOP For Refusing A 10:1 Ratio Of Spending Cuts To Tax Increases? Try 41:1 The Other Way, HYPOCRITES!!!

Do you remember that one?  It provided rotting red meat for liberals for months.  Republicans are so “obstructionist” that they wouldn’t even consider $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes.

Well, here’s the question: would liberals consider $10 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts?

The answer is no.

Would liberals consider $20 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts?

No again.

Well, surely they would consider $30 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts?

Absolutely not.  And you’re a racist to think they ought to.

Okay, how about $40 in tax increases for just $1 in spending cuts?  Would that be okay?

Well, you’re finally getting warm:

Fiscal Cliff Deal: $1 in Spending Cuts for Every $41 in Tax Increases
by Matthew Boyle
31 Dec 2012

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.   When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 1:3 and 1:2.   “In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.   “In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”

That’s right, kids.  The Democrat Party is MORE THAN four times more “obstructionist” than the Republicans even by the Democrats own incredibly demagogic standard.  They insisted upon and were willing to send America off the cliff to get a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

And if you are a Democrat, you are a quintessential, abject hypocrite by definition.  Because liberalism equals “hypocrisy,” and you cannot even possibly be a liberal without walking through the lie that is your life as a massive hypocrite.

Republicans have twice played this game in modern political history, with both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush falling for Democrats’ promises to enact spending cuts if the Republican presidents would enact tax hikes.  And both times the Democrats proved that they were abject liars and hypocrites by breaking their words after getting what they wanted.

The bottom line is this: the liberal establishment thought it was insane that Republicans would not believe their lies again and fall into the new trap of their empty rhetoric, but 41:1 going the opposite direction – more than four times more insane by any definition of insantiy, mind you – is not insane at all.

You cannot negotiate with Democrats because history has proven over and over again that Democrats are dishonest liars.  It’s the “Lucy and the football thing” that plays out over and over again.  Only every time the Democrats yank away the football after promising that this time they’re really hold it, America gets weaker and closer to complete financial collapse.

Democrats bait and switch with rhetoric all the damn time.  The Democrat Party is the party that dishonestly says it is “investing” money rather than be honest enough to admit they’re spending it, such that I could “invest” in a Ferrari and three prostitutes for the weekend and pat myself on the back for “investing.”  Let me ask you something: if you’re completely broke, but decide to go shopping for clothes anyway, and you tell yourself that you’re going to spend $1,000 on your credit card, but instead “only” end up spending $985, did you “cut” your spending?  No, you dumbass; you went nuts and spent $985 you shouldn’t have spent; you didn’t “cut” anything.  Your debts went UP, not down, you big giant dumbass.  That’s the game Democrats play year after year with their dishonest promises of “spending cuts.”  They have NEVER cut spending in their deplorable lives; instead, they try to tell us that if they projected their out-of-control spending by 10 percent a year but they only increase their spending beyond previous spending by say 9%, that they somehow “cut” spending.

Do you know what an actual “spending cut” would look like, you who aren’t so evil and blind that you voted for Obama?   It would look like the US budget getting smaller and smaller rather than bigger and bigger.  It would look like the government NOT having trillion-plus dollar deficits every single year of Obama’s God damn America presidency, that’s what it would look like.

It wouln’t look like this, in other words.

And that doesn’t include the $500 billion financial black hole of megadeath that Democrats have imposed through their evil relationship with unions just on California alone.  If you add up the debt of blue states in unfunded liabilities being handed out to unions, and America is a headless chicken walking.

Democrats claim they’ll collect $620 billion more in revenue because of their tax hikes.  You watch; they won’t.  Because they are breathtakingly stupid people who refuse to pull their heads out of their anuses long enough to realize that when they raise tax rates on the rich, the rich raise the prices of their goods and services to recoup the losses of Marxist, class-warring Democrats and the rich shelter their money.  But every time America has cut its tax rates, we have actually INCREASED our income tax revenues – with the rich paying a higher overall share of the tax burden as they are encouraged to work harder and invest more because they are allowed to keep more of what they earn.

41:1.  From the party that mocked the other side for refusing to consider 10:1 after being repeatedly lied to by the party that just demanded 41:1 or else they’d destroy America.

Let me simply state the truth: Democrats are bad people.  They are bad people who feel entitled to other people’s money.  They are bad people who simply do not believe in any kind of personal responsibility.  They are bad people who trust in massive human government while they mock those who put their trust in God.  They are bad people who at the very least are forcing the next generation to shoulder an impossible burden while they spend that generation’s wages right now.  And ultimately, they are bad people who either want our children to starve and our old people to die of medical abandonment, or who are simply so demon-possessed and so deranged that they simply cannot consider the obvious financial consequences of their incredibly reckless and immoral actions.  Because that is what is going to happen due to their wicked policies when America collapses due to their wicked spending.

America has become a truly sick and depraved culture, and we are about to go the way of the Dodo bird.

I believe that it’s too late for America.  In voting for Obama and for Democrat Party this November, we have fatally wounded ourselves.  And while many conservatives are hoping for a “2010-style” tea party revolution in which Republicans make historic landslide gains, I believe that will be far too little, far too late.  The American people have crossed the moral threshold to vote for Romans chapter one as evil becomes good and good becomes evil.  And Democrats just proved yet again that after $222 trillion in out-of-control spending which is going up by nearly a trillion every single month, they haven’t yet even begun to spend until every single American is crushed under the wheels of their slick evil.

Why isn’t America mentioned in the Bible?  Because when it mattered the most (NOW!), you were too damned depraved and too damn wicked to do the right thing.  And by the time the Antichrist comes, we won’t be able to do anything but worship him even more than we worship Obama and take his damn mark so we can burn in hell for a trillion times a trillion-trillion-trillion millennia.

Meanwhile, Obama’s tax-cheating Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is now the “$13.6 trillion dollar man” after spending that morally and logically insane sum in just four years of God damn America.  While Obama’s Federal Reserve has been essentially creating so many trillions of dollars out of thin air that it is way past impossible to calculate with QE1, QE2, Operation Twist and now the aptly named “QE Forever.”  What they have actually done is rob senior citizens and those who tried to save blind by stealing the value of their savings out from under their very noses.

Why does the Antichrist come according to the Book of Revelation?  You ought to know, Democrats; because you just voted to not only elect but re-elect his useful idiot.

Hal Lindsey once famously popularized the phrase, “the Great Snatch” to describe the soon-coming Rapture of all true Christian believers.  I’ve been calling it “the Great Bailout,” because I am hoping that Jesus is going to bail Christians out of the mess that secular humanist Democrats have created before we experience the consequences of their massive – and massively godless – disaster.

What are you placing your trust in?

The Worst Christmas Shopping Season Since 2008 As Obama Absolutely Fails To Lead.

The most criminally irresponsible Senate (which just happens to have been controlled by Democrats the entire time) has not passed a budget since April 23, 2009.  That’s 1,338 days, which is edging up to the four year mark since the Democrats in the United States Senate fulfilled their constitutionally mandated duty.  That’s nearly the entire Obama presidency up to this point.  The most fundamental obligation of any legislative body is to pass a budget.  But Democrats couldn’t care less about the Constituton or their basic duty; a budget would expose them for the liars they are.  Democrats will accept ZERO responsibility for their demon-possessed spending and will not allow ANY reduction in spending as America sails into bankruptcy.  Has anyone on the left ever thought that the insane and evil Democrats have caused the impending economic disaster by being determined to spend America into bankruptcy without even providing a damn budget while they do so???

For the record, Obama will have amassed a staggering $20 trillion debt by the time he leaves office in 2016.

Along with the huge tax increase of the Obama Tax Hikes (cf. the Bush tax cut) involved with the fiscal cliff are the biggest tax increase on the middle class in history in the form of ObamaCare.

And Republicans are crazy enough to try to stand in his way of exploding America so badly that no one will never find most of the pieces, let alone put the U.S.A. back together again.

The worst Christmas shopping season since 2008, that’s what we just had right after the hope and the hype of re-electing false messiah Obama:

Gauges of Christmas sales range from dismal to so-so. One group that tracks  shoppers said it was the worst showing since the bleak Christmas of 2008, when  the country was in the midst of a historic financial crisis. MasterCard’s  SpendingPulse, which tracked sales from Oct. 28 to Dec. 24, said sales grew by  only 0.7 percent over last year, but other trackers reported somewhat higher  numbers.

The poor ending to the shopping season forced economists to lower their  estimates for sales gains from the solid 3 percent to 4 percent range originally  forecast. ShopperTrak is expecting a 2.5 percent increase in November and  December sales, down from an earlier forecast of 3.3 percent. The International  Council of Shopping Centers said growth during the final week before Christmas  was only 0.7 percent, but it is sticking to its forecast of 3 percent for the  whole season.

“What could have been a merry Christmas is going to turn to a ho-hum  Christmas, and we can thank our, you know, politicians for getting in the middle  of it all,” NPD Group analyst Marshal Cohen said. “This great unknown puts a big  damper on the consumer feeling confident to go out and spend more.”

Some analysts also blamed the Newtown, Conn., school shootings just days  before Christmas for dampening appetites for spending.

“The Newtown massacre, psychologically I think, spread through the country,”  said Robin Lewis, a New York-based retail consultant. “This event was not  isolated in the Northeast. It slammed the consumer with a lot of sobriety and  made us think about what is happening in this world we live in, particularly  around the holidays, when things are supposed to be wonderful and peaceful.”

Consumer sentiment plunged this month after hitting four-year highs in  November. Analysts blamed growing public apprehension about the fiscal cliff and  the partisan standoff in Washington. […]

Further damage could come during the week after Christmas, which is also a major time for shopping as many consumers go to malls and redeem gift cards. President Obama is returning to Washington Thursday from a Hawaii vacation to restart negotiations, but there is no accord in sight or signs of a breakthrough.

Right after false-messiah Obama was re-elected, America saw it’s worst post-election market dump in generations as the people who make business work pretty much bailed.  As I reported along with the articles that backed the facts up:

Businesses and investors told America what they thought of their idiotic choice for president yesterday with the biggest market plunge in a year the day after Obama was reelected.

The Dow dropped 313 points, or 2.4% of its total value on the trading day immediately following the Obama reelection.

Interestingly, Obama has two of the five worst market plunges on the day after a presidential election, and you’ve got to go back to the 1930s and 1940s to see worse market disasters…

That was because the smart money immediately recognized that the re-election of Obama meant that America just voted to go off the fiscal cliff as the demagogue-in-chief will continue trying to demonize and slander his way to a more divided America so a cynical false messiah can pick up a few more political pawns out of what is left of this nation:

NEW YORK — Stocks ended sharply lower Wednesday, one day after the re-election of President Obama. The Dow Jones industrial average closed down about 313 points, or 2.4%.

Investor reaction is decidedly negative over the defeat of the more business-friendly Mitt Romney and the continued gridlock in Congress that makes it tough for lawmakers to avert a fiscal policy crisis by year-end.

These businessmen also aren’t so stupid as to believe the outright dishonest propaganda being masqueraded as “news.”  They know that Obama’s own White House devised the fiscal cliff deal and that Obama wants to take America off it.

Many merchants depend on Christmas for 40% of their annual profits.  So this is going to be a “God damn America” that keeps on damning because some of these water-treading merchants just went down with their businesses.

Do you know what would have happened if we had had an actual leader?  He would have looked at the Democrat Senate and the Republic House and he would have staked out the center and dragged both sides to an agreement.  Because that is what would have been for the good of the nation.  Instead Obama is actually farther to the left than the Democrat Senate and there is absolutely NO grown-up to bring anybody toward anything.  That’s because Obama believes that the more suffering he inflicts on America, the more ammunition he has to demonize somebody else.  And nobody in the media will hold the president of the United States responsible for anything because he’s a Democrat.  Unlike Bush, of course.

Understand that Barak Obama is going to spend the next four years of abject failure to lead the way he spent the last four years: blaming somebody else for his failed presidency.  The only difference is that Obama spent the last four years blaming George Bush and he’s going to spend the next four years blaming the GOP House.

America is going down.  And Obama is going to demonize his opponents the same way that he’s spent the last five years demonizing his opponents.

Maybe the American people will realize how terrible their decision was and try to rectify it by giving Republicans a massive win in 2014; maybe they’ll keep drinking Kool Aid.  I’m one that says it really doesn’t matter.  Because six years of Obama is more than enough to cripple this country in a way that it will never recover from.  And whether Republicans win in 2014 or not, it will be too damn late to heal the fatal cancer that has metastasized and spread and grown these last four miserable years of Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We just found out that our spending is actually escalating.

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

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

CNS  News:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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???

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.

Government Accounting Office Says Obama Circumvented The LAW With His Gutting Of The Welfare Work Requirement

Not that Obama or Democrats give a damn, but Barack Obama broke the law that he clearly considers his divine emperorship to be completely above:

GAO: Obama Admin Circumvented Law with Welfare Waivers
By Matt Cover
September 5, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration circumvented federal law in announcing it would waive the work requirements in welfare, a GAO review found, saying that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should have submitted the new policy to Congress for review.

At issue is whether the policy falls under the purview of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that requires all administrative changes of policy or regulation be submitted to Congress for review and possible disapproval.

The GAO, in a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Senate Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said that the July 12 change in policy falls under the CRA and should have been submitted to Congress for approval.

“We find that the July 12 Information Memorandum issued by HHS is a statement of general applicability and future effect, designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy with regard to TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the formal name for welfare],” GAO said in its Sept. 4 letter.

“[T]he Information Memorandum is subject to the requirement that it be submitted to both Houses of Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect.”

In other words, HHS must formally submit the letter to Congress and the Comptroller General before it can legally issue the waivers to the requirement that a certain portion of welfare recipients work.

GAO noted that it had not determined whether or not HHS had the legal authority to waive the work requirements in the first place, just that it must follow its legal obligations under the CRA.

HHS had contended that it had complied with the law when it notified both House and Senate committees of its new policy July 12, an argument GAO rejected saying that informal notice did not satisfy the law.

“Finally, while HHS may have informally notified the Congressional committees of the issuance of the Information Memorandum, informal notification does not meet the reporting requirements of the CRA.”

According to GAO, federal law requires that the government submit any proposed changes in federal regulations or rules to Congress, so that it may act to formally disapprove and stop the rule from taking effect. GAO found that any rule that is meant to “implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy” must be submitted to Congress before it can take effect.

In July, HHS issued a memorandum to states announcing it would begin waiving the welfare-to-work requirements for those states who wanted to change their current welfare-to-work programs, including the definitions of what qualifies as work and how states calculate who is and who is not working.

Camp, whose office released the GAO finding, said that HHS’ waiver policy amounted to an “end-run” around Congress.

“Despite his latest attempt at an end-run around Congress, this GAO report clearly states that the Administration must submit this rule to Congress for review before it can take effect. Work requirements were the centerpiece of welfare reform, and we cannot allow that progress to be undone,” Camp said in a statement Tuesday.

On the other hand, you can kind of understand why Obama would gut the welfare work requirement, given that his presidency and his policies are clearly completely incapable of actually creating any damn jobs for welfare recipients to actually have.

It’s just a lot easier for a socialist like Obama to create a nation of needy and disabled people desperately voting “Democrat” in order to get their next welfare check.  Which is why Obama is literally creating an America in which more people go on disability than get jobs.

Obama is adding $6 trillion in debt – and he’s only just getting STARTED bankrupting America.

Harvard Professor Provides Systematic And Scathing Take Down Of Obama’s Entire Presidency: Obama’s Gotta Go

The following isn’t a takedown of Obama for merely failing to turn the economy around; it is a scathing indictment of Obama’s entire premise for his 2008 entire campaign and failed presidency:

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go
Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

 

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

Newsweek

• ✔

@Newsweek

COVER STORY: Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope bit.ly/QQLouG

19 Aug 12

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

Niall Ferguson discusses Obama’s broken promises on ‘Face the Nation.’  [See site for video]

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

Newsweek’s executive editor, Justine Rosenthal, tells the story behind Ferguson’s cover story.  [See site for video]

And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.

The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.

There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

 

On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.

According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone … I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)

This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.

It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.

Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.

Photos: Obama Faces a Tough Crowd in Iowa

Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.

Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

Related

• Paul Krugman’s Rebuttal—and Ferguson’s Response

The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.

The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.

 

Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.

For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another … The United States does not seek to contain China … On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.

His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum … I’ve come here … to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based … upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”

Fact Check: Has Obama Kept His Promises?

Charles Ommanney for Newsweek

Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.

In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.

“This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”

Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.

Related Stories

• Michael Tomasky: Romney’s Wimp Factor

• Howard Kurtz: Why Campaigns Don’t Need the Media

America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.

Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.

 

Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future” as a “business consumption tax.” Stockman needs to remind himself that the real “fairy-tale budget plans” have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

Newsweek

• ✔

@Newsweek

Want to discuss this week’s cover story? Use the hashtag #HitTheRoadBarack–just as it appears on the cover.

19 Aug 12

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

Related Stories

• Michael Tomasky: Romney’s Wimp Factor

• Howard Kurtz: Why Campaigns Don’t Need the Media

• Michelle Goldberg: Paul Ryan’s Radical Abortion Views

Get Newsweek on your iPad

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Niall Ferguson is a professor of history at Harvard University. He is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His Latest book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, has just been published by Penguin Press.

This article is a complete ass-kicking of Obama.  Which is why the doctrinaire ideologue left immediately came so completely unglued by it.

Mitt Romney To Announce His VP Pick Saturday Morning At 8:45 A.M. EST. I Believe It Will Be Paul Ryan, And Here’s WHY.

“Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered.  “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!”  “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”  When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”  All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”  Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. — Matthew 27:21-26

I was quite surprised to hear that Mitt Romney had announced that tomorrow was “the big day” to announce his vice president selection.  Like most, I assumed he would be making it immediately before the GOP National Convention.

I was also somewhat surprised to hear that, apparently, Romney had called Marco Rubio and told him that he would NOT be the running mate on the ticket.

We don’t know who it will be, of course, but there’s been a fair amount of intelligent conservative speculation that it may very well be Paul Ryan.

That will be an incredibly bold choice from a man who has a been cautious for most of his life, but this is what I believe Romney’s reasoning is:

Marco Rubio would have been a good choice if Romney was thinking in terms of winning more Hispanics or winning Florida.  And Rob Portman would have been a good choice if Romney felt that he would need Portman’s pull to carry Ohio.  Nikki Haley or Kelly Ayote would have been a decision to pursue “the women’s vote.”  But none of these excellent choices would define the race the way Paul Ryan would. 

Paul Ryan is all about the budget – and by that I mean more than ANYODY – and the need to get dead serious about reducing our spending.  Versus Democrats who haven’t bothered to even TRY to pass a budget for 1,199 days and a president who has not received a SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTE for one of his depraved and lunatic budgets in three years.  Meanwhile as Obama and Democrats have made reckless irresponsibility their “governing strategy,” we just found out our true debt and our real fiscal gap just grew by a massive $11 trillion to – and you’d better sit down – $222 TRILLION:

Republicans and Democrats spent last summer battling how best to save $2.1 trillion over the next decade. They are spending this summer battling how best to not save $2.1 trillion over the next decade.

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap — the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness — rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

[…]

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast — the Alternative Fiscal Scenario — is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference — this year’s true federal deficit — is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

If in fact Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan, THAT reckless fiscal insanity will be the central defining issue of the campaign.

More than any election in American history, this would be a true “monumental choice” election: do you want Obama and a welfare America that will utterly implode under the supermassive weight of hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt, or do you want to have at least a chance of national survival???

Many are saying that the Democrats are “licking their chops” over the prospect of running against Paul Ryan.  Democrats have demonized Paul Ryan viciously, using a look-alike to depict him pushing an elderly lady in a wheelchair off of a cliff. But the actual reality is just the opposite – as the facts prove.  For what it’s worth, the left was going to basically run against Ryan anyway.

Over one hundred million Americans are now on some form of welfare.

And Obama just gutted the work requirement that the Republican Congress had passed and Bill Clinton had signed back in 1996 in order to receive welfare.

Food stamps have increased 53 percent since Obama took office, from 30 million receiving them in 2008 to 46 million people receiving them today.  In the 1970s when the food stamp program began, one in fifty Americans were on them; one in seven Americans are on them now.  And more Americans are filing for disability today than are getting jobs, with the number of Americans expected to go on disability expected to jump 71 percent in the next ten years.  For the record, only 1 percent of people who go on disability ever return to work.  You either think these are good things or you think they’re terribly bad things.  And this November you’re going to vote which you think it is.

If you want to abdicate all personal responsibility and parasitically suck off the tit of a government that takes from the producers to hand out to those who vote Democrat until America collapses, then vote for Obama.

If you are looking around and saying, this can’t possibly continue. America is simply doomed on the path we’re on, then vote for Romney.

No one in America is more able to get our spending, deficit and debt under control than Paul Ryan.

If Paul Ryan is the guy, more than any other guy that Romney could pick, America will face a true choice in November. 

City after city is beginning to collapse into bankruptcy as the choices to run up debts and deficits made by Democrats run their toxic course.  Liberal California is leading the way into total fiscal disaster.  Liberals keep pointing to the example of Europe even as Europe proves more every day that it is a terribly foolish model to follow.  And the liberals that gave us nearly ALL of the $222 trillion debt that is utterly unpayable and utterly unsustainable keep demaning that we double down and then triple down and then quadruple down until America simply implodes.  And don’t think the left doesn’t literally HOPE that day happens.

This election will mark the greatest and most monumental choice for the direction of America and the world since the one I cite at the beginning of this article.  I pray that we have more wisdom than that last momentous decision.  Israel was wiped off the map less than forty years later as a result of their choice; our disaster will ensue far faster than that if we choose foolishly and wickedly for Obama.

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

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 TRILLION.  Our 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.

Obama’s Spending Versus Bush’s: Yes, Obama Is Spending NEARLY THREE TIMES MORE Than Bush Did – And Don’t Even THINK About A 2nd Obama Term

I got yet another hoity-toity self-righteous sanctimonious lecture from yet another garden variety liberal regarding an article I wrote titled, “Who Spent More? Average Bush Vs. Average Obama Spending Per Day Proves Obama Most Reckless And Irresponsible EVER.”  She rants about “truth” and “logic” and asserts – without believing she should have any reason to back up any of her claims in response to an article that is filled with documented facts.

This is my slightly cleaned-up response:

How about a little “truth” and “logic” for you.

Truth 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

“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

Now, liberals don’t mind lies. Liberals don’t mind bogus personal attacks. Liberals don’t mind slander. As long as it comes from the left. But truth #1 is that Barack Obama demonized George Bush and promised the American people that if we elected him:

Truth #2: Obama promised that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term:

“Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office,” Obama said. “Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

Fact (“logic”): Federal deficit for 2008 that Obama inherited: $459 billion. Deficits since Obama took office: 2009: $1.413 trillion; 2010: $1.293 trillion; 2011: $1.300 trillion; 2012: $1.327. George Bush didn’t pass the stupid stimulus that will cost the American people $3.27 TRILLION and which didn’t do anything but create a political slush fund for Obama to use for his political cronies.

Fact (“logic”): Let’s consider that Obama rammed his stimulus through ($862 billion) and put it on Bush’s fiscal year budget tab even though Bush didn’t pass it and Republicans most certainly didn’t vote for it. Obama rammed a giant Omnibus bill through his Democrat Congress for another $410 billion that very few Republicans voted for. That’s also on the 2009 budget deficit. Obama of course blamed Bush for the entire $700 billion for TARP even though Obama voted for it and even though Bush gave Obama fully half of it ($350 billion) to spend in his own administration. Obama rammed through the federal takeover of GM and the $24 billion that went into that bailout. Even as Obama praises himself for it and exploits it to attack Republicans, in actual fact he attributes every single penny that paid for that bailout to Bush’s presidency even while he lies like a snake in misrepresenting its costs and benefits. That, for the record, if you add it up, is $1.646 trillion in Obama spending that Obama sneaks into the 2009 deficit which gets attributed to the last year of George Bush.  And on top of that Obama calculated that the Iraq War would go on forever unless Obama ended it such that ending the war was “his savings” even though in fact Bush had negotiated the Iraq withdrawal before leaving office. Obama in citing the end of the Iraq War as “his savings” implicitly claims that he is saving $100 billion a year even though that’s an outright lie because Bush had already won the war and negotiated the withdrawal of forces. Obama deceitfully and dishonestly saddled all of that debt and bogus assumption onto Bush in order to fabricate a huge “Bush deficit” that Obama actually compiled and then conveniently made that “Bush deficit” his baseline for “Bush’s deficit”. Rather than the actual Bush record over eight years.

Obama does that because he can’t lie and fabricate Bush’s actual real deficits. As an example, the last budget deficit that was passed by George Bush under Republican leadership was for only $161 billion for Fiscal Year 2007.
The fact of the matter is that annual budget deficits under Bush and Republicans are now MONTHLY deficits under Obama and Democrats.  The fact of the matter is that Democrats have not passed a budget for 1,180 days so far.  The fact is that Obama doesn’t want you to think about that kind of leadership Bush demonstrated over his presidency; he wants you to think about “Bush’s debt” in 2009 with all of Obama’s very OWN vile spending packed onto it after HE took office in 2009. That just continues the trend of a president who has proven pathologically incapable of assuming responsibility for anything: it doesn’t matter if Obama did it, it’s “Bush’s fault.”

Fact (“logic”): “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”   We now know that Obama is a liar without shame.  Because today the deficit is 189 percent higher than the one that Obama inherited when Obama promised the American people it would be 50 percent lower.

Truth #3: Bush added $4.8 trillion to the national debt over eight years in office (it was $5.768 trillion the day Bush II assumed office). Obama has added $6 trillion in just his first four years.

Fact (“logic”): “The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated.”

Fact (“logic”): The national debt is currently at $15.914 trillion and soaring faster than the eye can follow.

Fact (“logic”): That’s an increase of $5.287 trillion under Obama’s watch. Which aint anywhere near over yet even if he isn’t re-elected. This time last year the national debt was $14.3 trillion (July 28, 2011). At Obama’s rate of debt spiralling, the national debt will be $941 billion higher than it is right now by January 20, 2013. Which means the national debt will be $16.9 trillion by the time he’s gone even if he gets his ass kicked out of office the way he so richly deserves given his own lies and rhetoric.

I said $6 trillion in four years. And yes, Obama will have increased the debt by MORE THAN $6 trillion in just four years: from $10.6 to $16.9 trillion. And it might be even worse than that because this fool is clearly completely out of control.  Assuming no surprises, that is $6.3 trillion in just four years compared to the $4.8 trillion over eight years that Democrats demonized Bush over.

For the record, just to kill yet another liberal lie, “Bush’s wars” were NOT “unfunded.”  It was DEMOCRATS who took the Iraq and Afghanistan War spending “off the books” because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did not want to put liberal Democrats in the position of voting for war spending and at the same time they did not want independents to vote against Democrats for refusing to support the troops in time of war.  Every penny of the wars was properly accounted for by means of other spending authorization devices that showed up in Bush’s debt.  As this article points out, even in 2009 several departments including Defense, the Veterans Administration, Military Construction, and Homeland Security were not being funded using normal budget methods.

Another liberal lie that needs to die and stay dead is that Bill Clinton gave us a budget surplus.  Bullcrap.  The national debt increased EVERY SINGLE YEAR OF THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY.

Stop believing lies or at least have the decency to stop voting.

Obama has been spending at a rate of at least 2.625 times the spending rate that Bush racked up over his eight years in office.  As it is, only an utterly rabid nutjob would claim that Bush somehow spent more than Obama – but tragically we’re surrounded by rabid nutjobs.  And that 2.625 times is actually if everything is rosy; because the fact of the matter is that Bush’s second four years were considerably worse spending-wise than his first four – and there is no reason that Obama – should he be re-elected – will repeat that history.  In fact I believe the debt will explode like nothing we can possibly imagine if America is cursed with another four years of Obama.  Consider the fact that ObamaCare ALONE has a $17 trillion funding gap.  And the damn healthcare takeover hasn’t even been implemented yet so it can truly explode.

And when it comes to spending, “In Obama’s second term, it’s on, because we don’t have to worry about re-election.”  And if it’s not “on” already, we’re going to implode, sink and die if it gets turned “on” in a second Obama term.

Democrats Have Murdered America: Watch City After City Go Bankrupt Because Of The Debt Bombs Democrats Planted Are Now Exploding

Twelve US cities have already filed for bankruptcy in Obamanation; another 27 are considering it.

The Democrat Party unions that own Barack Obama have bankrupted America.  We are like the headless chicken that doesn’t know that it’s already dead.

Our real debt is NOT the $16 trillion Obama has officially given us (it was $10 trillion when Bush left office); it is now well over $211 TRILLION.

Democrats rammed through a Social Security boondoggle seventy years ago that has exploded.  It didn’t matter that there was a far better private plan that a Democrat actually proposed; FDR wanted the Democrat to control America until it went bankrupt and he got his way.  The same was true of Medicare and Medicaid; there were FAR better options, but Democrats wanted to socialize America and they got their way.  Now people will die if these programs collapse, and mark my words they WILL collapse because of Democrats who demonize the issue while refusing to fix the problems or allow them to be fixed while the coming bankruptcy looms closer and closer.

Democrats are demon-possessed liars who try to make their fellow fools believe that George Bush bankrupted America.  Bush’s spending isn’t a tenth of one percent of the debt bomb that Democrats have planted in the bowels of America.  And those bombs that the Democrats so expertly planted are now beginning to explode and rip this country apart.

Some time back I started citing this little factoid published in the reliably liberal Los Angeles Times:

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

The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.

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

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

The California State Legislature Senate consists of 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans and the Assembly consisting of 52 Democrats and 28 Republicans to go with a liberal governor nicknamed “Moonbeam.”  Former RINO Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger tried and was broken by the Democrat majority and the unions and never dared to raise his hands against Democrats or their union masters again.

California will burn in hell because it is Democrat, which is another way of saying that it is half completely insane and half genuinely evil.

Democrats and unions are the kind of people who want to make sure that union child molesters get to go on exploiting California’s children.

That pension bomb was planted by DEMOCRATS.  These cockroaches have KILLED California.  Three big California cities have now declared bankruptcy because there is simply no way to pay Democrat Party-controlled unions their incredibly huge pensions.  And Los Angeles is right behind them.  Something between 1 in 5 and 1 in 4 California cities are now facing bankruptcy.  City after city are now rolling over onto their bellies because the Democrat Party is the most corrupt entity in human history.  And I say that because nothing short of the most evil and most dishonest and most corrupt party on earth could have succeeded in murdering the golden goose that was America.  When you consider California, with all of its major global ports and all of its inherent economic advantages, only the most stupid people in history could possibly bankrupt it.  But Democrats have succeeded wildly.

Scranton, Pennsylvania is a Democrat-owned city.  It now has less than $5,000 in the bank.  The Democrat mayor first tried to raise taxes by 78% – as if homeowners could have afforded paying nearly DOUBLE the property tax on their homes– and then things started to get crazy.  Let’s consider the players on the city council who have helped murder Scranton, PA along with Democrat Mayor Christopher Doherty.

SCRANTON CITY COUNCIL (4-YEAR)
 
DEMOCRATS
 
Bob McGoff
 
€‚Jack Loscombe
 
Joe Wechsler
 
Giovanni Piccolino
 
Tom Charles
 
Doug Miller
 
REPUBLICAN
 
œ€‚Lee Morgan

I know, you demon-possessed Democrats.  It’s Bush’s fault.

Democrats have gutted that town and now their strategy is to raise taxes on anybody who is too stupid or too poor to leave.  Meanwhile the union employees are suing to hold on to their insane benefit packages because unions want to suck the life out of you until you are past dead.

Unions are giving 92% of their contributions to Democrats.  Democrats, in exchange and in quid pro quo, have given benefits and pensions to the unions that support them.  And it is a vicious cycle that has continued and will continue until the American people hunt down every single Democrat and burn them alive for what they did to their country.

Barack Obama is now running for re-election on the promise that he will do to America what Democrats have done everywhere else.  Between the fact that ObamaCare is truly evil and the fact that it will bankrupt America, between the fact that Obama has skyrocketed government spending while doing NOTHING to actually help the poor, between the fact that Barack Obama is so insane and so evil that not even ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN TWO YEARS WOULD VOTE FOR HIS DEMONIC BUDGETS, between the fact that Obama has destroyed labor participation in America and the only reason the unemployment rate is as “low” as it is is that he has crushed discouraged workers, and between the fact that the CBO has stated for the record that Barack Obama has destroyed jobs and will continue to destroy jobs, the only thing he was going is go from being the “hope and change president” who promised to rise above the political divide to being the most negative, nasty demagogue hate-flinger in American history.

We’re most of the way through four years of God damn America.  And liberals want more God damn America until there isn’t any America left for God to damn.

The Bible describes this mindset of being utterly determined to pursue wickedness and failure no matter what, just as it describes perfectly the coming hell that big government will produce in the coming Antichrist:

“A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths.  For the power of the horses is in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails are like serpents and have heads, and with them they do harm.  The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk; and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts” — Revelation 9:18-21

“Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues because of pain, and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they did not repent of their deeds.” — Revelation 16:10-11

You’d think that the instinct of self-preservation alone would make these people turn from their ideas, but no.  Evil is a disease that consumes to the bone.

We’re seeing the same kind of demonic deception going on now in North Korea.  This is a nation that is completely dark at night because socialism has so wildly failed it is beyond unreal, but they worship Dear Leader and when he dies they worship the son of Dear Leader:

And that is exactly the way that Democrats are.  The only difference is the name of their “Dear Leader.”  His abject failure is the same.

We’re getting just a little tiny taste of the hell that is coming.  As the Antichrist leads the world (America most definitely included as Democrats gleefully worship the beast and take his mark) into hell and the people continue to refuse to repent no matter what happens, so also we now live in an America in which about half of the nation will follow Obama right into abject ruination.