rollinbud
Active Member
President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama says that he needs four more years to fix the economy. Never mind that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at a "less than spectacular" rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012. Or that George Walker Bush's deficit-to-GDP ratio was 2.7 percent, while Obama's deficit-to-GDP ratio is 8.9 percent (Reagan's, by the way, was 4.2 percent). Or that today's economy is far worse than it was in 2008. You remember, the one Obama claimed that his policies would correct. So, considering today's economy, despite what Obama (claims he) was not told, and after three and a half years of his economic policies, can any one of you Democrats/liberals/progressives (yes, that's intended to be a pejorative term) suggest why the next four years would be any different?
Regarding food stamps, there are today a record number of U.S. citizens receiving food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). As this chart shows, the increase in food stamps predates Obama, but he perfected the increase. Under the eight years of Bush, spending grew from $19 billion to $39 billion. That's bad enough. But in only four years under Obama, the spending has grown to $85 billion, more than double Bush's highest year. In fact, Obama has spent more ($290 billion) in four years than Bush spent ($237 billion) in eight.
All the food stamp spending is going on while the deficit and national debt continue to rise. The national debt stood at $10.626 trillion when Bush left office. That is bad enough. It was $15.566 trillion in May 2012, and is now over $16 trillion. Bush added $4 trillion (according to Obama) to the national debt in eight years. Obama has added more than that in less than four years, with no end in sight.
This chart illustrates how the debt has grown since FY2002.
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, said, "Under President Obama's stewardship, the national debt has grown by more than $4 billion per day, $170 million per hour, $2.8 million per minute and more than $47,000 per second." The article citing Brady also said that the debt is "... more than $50,000 for every man, woman and child in the US." And let me remind you that in 2008, while campaigning for president, Obama said that Bush's adding to the debt was "was 'unpatriotic' and also 'irresponsible' to saddle future generations with such a large national debt."
Let me also remind you that in 2009, Obama said that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his four-year term as president. He actually said that. That's one promise he won't even come close to keeping. Let's see -- we are soon to be in FY2013, and the deficit still has not been cut, much less in half. Running all those pesky deficits must be Bush's fault; none of Obama's economic policies could have had anything to do with them. But how can we know? The Senate, led by Harry Reid (D-NV), has not passed a budget in over three years, despite a budget requirement law that the Senate passed.
Regarding the "unofficial" recession we are currently experiencing, this graph (ratio of employment to population) and its interpretation pretty well say it all.
Also, the Congressional Budget Office forecasts another recession (like we already left one) if "Taxmageddon," an almost $500-billion tax increase due on January 1, 2013, becomes reality. Yet Obama refuses to do anything.
J.D. Foster, of the Heritage Foundation, says:
Meanwhile, orders for durable goods -- those goods expected to last for at least three years -- dropped by 13.2 percent in August. This is an indication that Foster is correct, that the U.S. economy is indeed headed for another recession.
Regarding jobs, the MSM (bless their in-the-tank hearts) announced that some jobs were "found" and that Obama is now, according to the Labor Department, a net jobs creator. The Labor Department reports that rather than a loss of 261,000 jobs, a gain of 125,000 jobs has occurred. But there is this little fly in the ointment: CNN, hardly a conservative bastion, reported a loss of 500,000 jobs. This is a tough one. I guess it all comes down to whom you believe. The Labor Department, a part of the Obama administration, is still 375,000 jobs short of what CNN says.
Regarding The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), better known as ObamaCare, to quote John Hayward in a Human Events article, "[t]he greatest legislative disaster of the new millennium, ObamaCare, just keeps getting worse." When campaigning in 2008, Obama promised a drop in family health insurance premiums of $2,500 annually. But what has actually happened is that the premium amount has risen by $3,000 since Obama took office. Further, premium amounts have risen more rapidly during the Obama administration than they did during the last four years of the Bush administration. I guess we just did not, or could not, read the bill, as Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) suggested, to find out what was in it. But higher health premiums must be all right since Pelosi is very proud of this legislation.
Regarding the Obamaphone, this Obama supporter kinda makes you proud, doesn't she? Has she ever considered who pays for her Obamaphone? There is no free lunch. Or that perhaps her economic situation is a result of her life choices? Or that there are some of us who choose not to support her chosen lifestyle, yet we are forced (through tax policies) to do so?
Now that the precedent has been set with the Obamaphone, where will it end? What's next? Obamaflat screenTVandsatellitedish? The Obamadishwaher? And let's not forget this winner about Obamamoney. This one kinda makes you proud as well.
Has anyone seen how much we taxpayers are spending on the first family? Comparing us with what the British spend on the royal family, the Brits are pikers. The British spent "only" $57.8 million last year on their royal family. Guess what U.S. taxpayers spent last year on the First Family: $1.4 billion -- yes, that's billion with a "B." That amount included housing, entertaining, flying, and staffing for President Obama and his family. In his book Presidential Perks Gone Royal, Robert Keith Gray wrote that "... Obama isn't the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family has risen tremendously under the Obama administration[.]" And Obama continues with his antics despite increasing the deficit. I guess you can say that Obama is doing his part to drive up deficits.
Speaking of royal, Gray says, "The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election." So, let's see how Obama is funding projects in one particular state -- Ohio (where Republican John Kasich is governor -- that fact must really stick in Obama's craw). Did you know that Obama gave the first federal grant for creating 15 manufacturing centers nationwide to Ohio? Or that "[w]hen the Obama administration awarded tax credits to promote clean energy," Ohio companies got almost four times the $125 million that is the average of other swing states? Or that Ohio received "$400 million to resume passenger train service between Cincinnati, Cleveland and other cities, a service that had ended four decades earlier"? Or that when Congress refused to fund his $1-billion "manufacturing innovation institutes" scheme, Obama went ahead anyway and funded a pilot program? Guess where the $30-million pilot institute was located. You guessed it: Youngstown, Ohio. Or that Miceli Dairy Products in Cleveland, OH received a $5.49-million loan just after the Small Business Administration raised its loan limit from $2.5 million to $5.5 million? Coincidence?
All that money for Ohio is great, but buying votes with taxpayer money is another matter.
In the non-economic department, let's not forget what has recently happened in Egypt and Libya. Obama and his administration (particularly the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton) blamed the attacks on a movie (that very few have seen, especially in the Middle East) that unflatteringly portrays Islam's Prophet Mohammed. If true, then why did the State Department remove what was a "no credible information" memorandum from its website?
We now have an attack on sovereign American territory during Obama's watch. But he will somehow blame Bush for the attack. I thought that everything Bush did made the Muslim world hate us and that Obama was going to make the Muslim world love us. If so, why all the violent protests despite the United States government's repudiation of the video?
In the "uh-oh" department, we have Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) saying, "People kept calling for the truth and, in the end, the administration realized that what they had tried to put together -- blaming it on this movie and having it as a spontaneous act rather as being a terrorist act -- wasn't going to sell because it obviously wasn't true." And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)'s website has this statement (emphasis mine):
Those of you Democrats/liberals/progressives (we know that you're are out there) who will offer sources saying that Bush was complicit in 9/11 will cite "crackpot truther" and speculation sources, but no one will offer any sources from the Bush administration. But we have, from no less than Leon Panetta, Department of Defense head (and Obama administration member), testimony that terrorists planned the consulate attack. Panetta said, "As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack."
Democrats/liberals/progressives will say that Obama had nothing to do with security. That may be true, but Obama cannot, no matter how he tries, duck responsibility for this one. One of the first things we are taught in the military is that a commander can delegate authority, but he cannot delegate responsibility.
One of the principles that caused the 13 colonies to revolt against Great Britain was "taxation without representation." Today, with about 47 percent of the U.S. population paying no income tax, the revolt over "representation without taxation" is gaining momentum in the form of the Tea Party. You Democrats/liberals/progressives are free to support the "takers" (those who don't pay income tax, who seek Obamamoney and seek Obamaphones). No one, least of all the Tea Party, will stop you. We will see just how many of you will step up, will fill the gap with your own money once the government can no longer borrow money. I'll wager that very few will, that there will be a wringing of hands (for all the good that will do), and that there will be a cry to raise taxes to take care of Obama supporters. Well, here's your chance. The U.S. is broke and deeply in debt. That is a fact. There's nothing and no one stopping you from providing goods and/or services with your own money.
The only question I have is: "Who will pay for all of this?" Forcing "the rich" to participate by taxing them more will not provide more than a temporary solution. Confiscating will not balance the budget. And, if confiscation were done, do you really think "the rich" would keep working, would generate revenue to be confiscated in the next year?
Further, if every penny were confiscated from "the rich," those making $200,000 or more each year, just how long do you think the federal government could have run in 2009? Two hundred and fifty-three days! What about the next year? What about state and local governments? How could "the rich" pay state or local taxes if the federal government confiscated all their money?
And while we're at it, let's specifically define "fair share." People making over $200,000 in 2008 constituted 3 percent of income-earners but paid 52 percent of income tax. People making over $1,000,000 in 2008 constituted 0.2 percent of income-earners but paid 24 percent of income tax. Fair? Has much changed today? Not really. Mitt Romney, according to a Mother Jones video, said (emphasis mine):
I know this will be a challenge for most of you Democrats/liberals/progressives, but try to read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. You remember, the document that Obama is trying to ignore, or to pick what he favors. The preamble specifically refers to:
So Obama wants four more years to further ruin the U.S. economy and to further lie to us. Plus he wants four more years to perfect cronyism and to subsidize "green energy."
That's just my opinion. But my opinion is shaped by sourced facts, unlike most Democrat/liberal/progressives, who offer knee-jerk (another pejorative term), unsourced opinions. So, all you Democrat/liberal/progressives, offer, if you can, sources to show me the error of my ways.
Regarding food stamps, there are today a record number of U.S. citizens receiving food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). As this chart shows, the increase in food stamps predates Obama, but he perfected the increase. Under the eight years of Bush, spending grew from $19 billion to $39 billion. That's bad enough. But in only four years under Obama, the spending has grown to $85 billion, more than double Bush's highest year. In fact, Obama has spent more ($290 billion) in four years than Bush spent ($237 billion) in eight.
All the food stamp spending is going on while the deficit and national debt continue to rise. The national debt stood at $10.626 trillion when Bush left office. That is bad enough. It was $15.566 trillion in May 2012, and is now over $16 trillion. Bush added $4 trillion (according to Obama) to the national debt in eight years. Obama has added more than that in less than four years, with no end in sight.
This chart illustrates how the debt has grown since FY2002.
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, said, "Under President Obama's stewardship, the national debt has grown by more than $4 billion per day, $170 million per hour, $2.8 million per minute and more than $47,000 per second." The article citing Brady also said that the debt is "... more than $50,000 for every man, woman and child in the US." And let me remind you that in 2008, while campaigning for president, Obama said that Bush's adding to the debt was "was 'unpatriotic' and also 'irresponsible' to saddle future generations with such a large national debt."
Let me also remind you that in 2009, Obama said that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his four-year term as president. He actually said that. That's one promise he won't even come close to keeping. Let's see -- we are soon to be in FY2013, and the deficit still has not been cut, much less in half. Running all those pesky deficits must be Bush's fault; none of Obama's economic policies could have had anything to do with them. But how can we know? The Senate, led by Harry Reid (D-NV), has not passed a budget in over three years, despite a budget requirement law that the Senate passed.
Regarding the "unofficial" recession we are currently experiencing, this graph (ratio of employment to population) and its interpretation pretty well say it all.
Also, the Congressional Budget Office forecasts another recession (like we already left one) if "Taxmageddon," an almost $500-billion tax increase due on January 1, 2013, becomes reality. Yet Obama refuses to do anything.
J.D. Foster, of the Heritage Foundation, says:
What makes this [coming] recession different, and predictable, is that the disruptive force is Washington policies and, even more, Washington behaviors - policies and behaviors for which the nation can thank the Congress and especially President Obama. The policy is Taxmageddon. The behavior is intentional, insistent inaction. The consequence is recession. The response should and will be outrage.
Foster says that a recession is coming, and he lays it at the feet of Obama and Congress since they refuse to act.
Meanwhile, orders for durable goods -- those goods expected to last for at least three years -- dropped by 13.2 percent in August. This is an indication that Foster is correct, that the U.S. economy is indeed headed for another recession.
Regarding jobs, the MSM (bless their in-the-tank hearts) announced that some jobs were "found" and that Obama is now, according to the Labor Department, a net jobs creator. The Labor Department reports that rather than a loss of 261,000 jobs, a gain of 125,000 jobs has occurred. But there is this little fly in the ointment: CNN, hardly a conservative bastion, reported a loss of 500,000 jobs. This is a tough one. I guess it all comes down to whom you believe. The Labor Department, a part of the Obama administration, is still 375,000 jobs short of what CNN says.
Regarding The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), better known as ObamaCare, to quote John Hayward in a Human Events article, "[t]he greatest legislative disaster of the new millennium, ObamaCare, just keeps getting worse." When campaigning in 2008, Obama promised a drop in family health insurance premiums of $2,500 annually. But what has actually happened is that the premium amount has risen by $3,000 since Obama took office. Further, premium amounts have risen more rapidly during the Obama administration than they did during the last four years of the Bush administration. I guess we just did not, or could not, read the bill, as Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) suggested, to find out what was in it. But higher health premiums must be all right since Pelosi is very proud of this legislation.
Regarding the Obamaphone, this Obama supporter kinda makes you proud, doesn't she? Has she ever considered who pays for her Obamaphone? There is no free lunch. Or that perhaps her economic situation is a result of her life choices? Or that there are some of us who choose not to support her chosen lifestyle, yet we are forced (through tax policies) to do so?
Now that the precedent has been set with the Obamaphone, where will it end? What's next? Obamaflat screenTVandsatellitedish? The Obamadishwaher? And let's not forget this winner about Obamamoney. This one kinda makes you proud as well.
Has anyone seen how much we taxpayers are spending on the first family? Comparing us with what the British spend on the royal family, the Brits are pikers. The British spent "only" $57.8 million last year on their royal family. Guess what U.S. taxpayers spent last year on the First Family: $1.4 billion -- yes, that's billion with a "B." That amount included housing, entertaining, flying, and staffing for President Obama and his family. In his book Presidential Perks Gone Royal, Robert Keith Gray wrote that "... Obama isn't the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family has risen tremendously under the Obama administration[.]" And Obama continues with his antics despite increasing the deficit. I guess you can say that Obama is doing his part to drive up deficits.
Speaking of royal, Gray says, "The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election." So, let's see how Obama is funding projects in one particular state -- Ohio (where Republican John Kasich is governor -- that fact must really stick in Obama's craw). Did you know that Obama gave the first federal grant for creating 15 manufacturing centers nationwide to Ohio? Or that "[w]hen the Obama administration awarded tax credits to promote clean energy," Ohio companies got almost four times the $125 million that is the average of other swing states? Or that Ohio received "$400 million to resume passenger train service between Cincinnati, Cleveland and other cities, a service that had ended four decades earlier"? Or that when Congress refused to fund his $1-billion "manufacturing innovation institutes" scheme, Obama went ahead anyway and funded a pilot program? Guess where the $30-million pilot institute was located. You guessed it: Youngstown, Ohio. Or that Miceli Dairy Products in Cleveland, OH received a $5.49-million loan just after the Small Business Administration raised its loan limit from $2.5 million to $5.5 million? Coincidence?
All that money for Ohio is great, but buying votes with taxpayer money is another matter.
In the non-economic department, let's not forget what has recently happened in Egypt and Libya. Obama and his administration (particularly the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton) blamed the attacks on a movie (that very few have seen, especially in the Middle East) that unflatteringly portrays Islam's Prophet Mohammed. If true, then why did the State Department remove what was a "no credible information" memorandum from its website?
We now have an attack on sovereign American territory during Obama's watch. But he will somehow blame Bush for the attack. I thought that everything Bush did made the Muslim world hate us and that Obama was going to make the Muslim world love us. If so, why all the violent protests despite the United States government's repudiation of the video?
In the "uh-oh" department, we have Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) saying, "People kept calling for the truth and, in the end, the administration realized that what they had tried to put together -- blaming it on this movie and having it as a spontaneous act rather as being a terrorist act -- wasn't going to sell because it obviously wasn't true." And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)'s website has this statement (emphasis mine):
U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Arizona), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) sent a letter to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice seeking clarification on her statements that the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was the result of a 'spontaneous reaction.' The evidence clearly shows the attack that resulted in the death of four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens was planned and coordinated. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, you made several troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts and require explanation.
Are the "wheels coming off" Obama's security failure and attempted cover-up? White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Republicans were trying to politicize the issue. The Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attacks were not spontaneous, were planned. Yet on September 14, fully 72 hours after the attacks, Carney said, "Let's be clear: these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region." About the Benghazi consulate attack, Carney said, "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack."
Those of you Democrats/liberals/progressives (we know that you're are out there) who will offer sources saying that Bush was complicit in 9/11 will cite "crackpot truther" and speculation sources, but no one will offer any sources from the Bush administration. But we have, from no less than Leon Panetta, Department of Defense head (and Obama administration member), testimony that terrorists planned the consulate attack. Panetta said, "As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack."
Democrats/liberals/progressives will say that Obama had nothing to do with security. That may be true, but Obama cannot, no matter how he tries, duck responsibility for this one. One of the first things we are taught in the military is that a commander can delegate authority, but he cannot delegate responsibility.
One of the principles that caused the 13 colonies to revolt against Great Britain was "taxation without representation." Today, with about 47 percent of the U.S. population paying no income tax, the revolt over "representation without taxation" is gaining momentum in the form of the Tea Party. You Democrats/liberals/progressives are free to support the "takers" (those who don't pay income tax, who seek Obamamoney and seek Obamaphones). No one, least of all the Tea Party, will stop you. We will see just how many of you will step up, will fill the gap with your own money once the government can no longer borrow money. I'll wager that very few will, that there will be a wringing of hands (for all the good that will do), and that there will be a cry to raise taxes to take care of Obama supporters. Well, here's your chance. The U.S. is broke and deeply in debt. That is a fact. There's nothing and no one stopping you from providing goods and/or services with your own money.
The only question I have is: "Who will pay for all of this?" Forcing "the rich" to participate by taxing them more will not provide more than a temporary solution. Confiscating will not balance the budget. And, if confiscation were done, do you really think "the rich" would keep working, would generate revenue to be confiscated in the next year?
Further, if every penny were confiscated from "the rich," those making $200,000 or more each year, just how long do you think the federal government could have run in 2009? Two hundred and fifty-three days! What about the next year? What about state and local governments? How could "the rich" pay state or local taxes if the federal government confiscated all their money?
And while we're at it, let's specifically define "fair share." People making over $200,000 in 2008 constituted 3 percent of income-earners but paid 52 percent of income tax. People making over $1,000,000 in 2008 constituted 0.2 percent of income-earners but paid 24 percent of income tax. Fair? Has much changed today? Not really. Mitt Romney, according to a Mother Jones video, said (emphasis mine):
... there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what....
Our message of low taxes doesn't connect ... so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Romney is, of course, correct. Democrats/liberals/progressives and the MSM tried to make something of his remark, but it was difficult to do when Romney had been truthful. And I couldn't help but notice that no Democrats/liberals/progressives stepped up to convince the 47 percent Romney was speaking of to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Or did the MSM report that, and I missed it?Our message of low taxes doesn't connect ... so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
I know this will be a challenge for most of you Democrats/liberals/progressives, but try to read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. You remember, the document that Obama is trying to ignore, or to pick what he favors. The preamble specifically refers to:
- establish Justice - not one word about what Democrats/liberals/progressives refer to as "economic justice." The phrase means "equal justice for all, the Right for every resident of the United States to be protected as to life, liberty, and property and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." So the phrase "establish Justice" refers to courts of law. There is nothing stopping any of you Democrats/liberals/progressives from providing economic justice.
- insure domestic Tranquility -- the Founders were referring to a "general peaceable set of conditions of life in this country."
- provide for the common defence -- "the government will ensure protection to the states and territories and to all citizens/residents thereof in the event of conflict with any foreign nation."
- promote the general Welfare -- not a word in there about "provide," but also not a word about stopping those who want to provide what Democrats/liberals/progressives consider welfare. "Welfare" refers to "health, happiness, prosperity or well-being."
- secure the Blessings of Liberty -- the U.S. Constitution safeguards the liberty of American citizens as well as the "liberty to do what one desires, without any fear or prejudice."
So Obama wants four more years to further ruin the U.S. economy and to further lie to us. Plus he wants four more years to perfect cronyism and to subsidize "green energy."
That's just my opinion. But my opinion is shaped by sourced facts, unlike most Democrat/liberal/progressives, who offer knee-jerk (another pejorative term), unsourced opinions. So, all you Democrat/liberal/progressives, offer, if you can, sources to show me the error of my ways.
