History Repeats

My seventh-grade son recently wrote a U.S. History paper extolling the virtues of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. “It ended the Great Depression,” he wrote with great certainty. He’s only 12 and parroting what the history texts and his teachers told him.

That’s his excuse. What’s Ken Burns’?

Mr. Burns’ docudrama on the Roosevelts—for those who weren’t bored to tears—repeats nearly all the worn-out fairy tales of the FDR presidency, including what I call the most enduring myth of the 20th century, which is that FDR’s avalanche of alphabet-soup government programs ended the Great Depression. Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on such lies?

Not for Liberals. They spent 90 years working up to ObamaCare, after all…

Ask nearly anyone over the age of 80, and they will say that FDR cared about the working man and “gave the country hope,” a point that Mr. Burns emphasizes. Roosevelt exuded empathy, which isn’t a bad thing—remember Bill Clinton’s memorable line “I feel your pain”?—but caring doesn’t create jobs or lift gross domestic product.

Nor does spending government money revive growth, despite the theories put into practice by the then-dean of all economists, John Maynard Keynes. Any objective analysis of these facts can lead to no other conclusion. U.S. unemployment averaged a rate of 18 percent during Roosevelt’s first eight years in office. In the decade of the 1930s, U.S. industrial production and national income fell by about almost one-third. In 1940, after year eight years of the New Deal, unemployment was still averaged a god-awful 14 percent.

Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor with their Scotch terrier Fala on the terrace of his house in Hyde Park, New York. (Photo: Newscom)

Think of it this way. The unemployment rate was more than twice as high eight years into the New Deal than it is today, and American workers now are angry as hornets. Imagine, if jobs were twice as scarce today, the pitchforked revolt that would be going on. This is success?

Almost everything FDR did to jump-start growth retarded it. The rise in the minimum wage kept unemployment intolerably high. (Are you listening, Nancy Pelosi?) Roosevelt’s work programs like the Works Progress Administration, National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration were so bureaucratic as to have minimal impact on jobs. Raising tax rates to nearly 80 percent on the rich stalled the economy. Social Security is and always was from the start a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme that will eventually sink into bankruptcy unless reformed.

The cruel irony of the New Deal is that the liberals’ honorable intentions to help the poor and the unemployed caused more human suffering than any other set of ideas in the past century.

The most alarming story of economic ignorance surrounding this New Deal era was the tax increases while the economy was faltering. According to economist Burt Folsom, FDR signed one of the most financially devastating taxes: “On April 27, 1942, he signed an executive order taxing all personal income above $25,000 [rich back then] at 100 percent. Congress balked at that idea and later lowered it to 90 percent at the top level.” The New Dealers completely ignored the lessons of the 1920s tax cuts, which just a decade before had unfurled an age of super-growth.

Then there was the spending and debt barrage. Federal spending catapulted from $4.65 billion in 1933 to nearly $13.7 billion in 1941. This tripling of the federal budget in just eight years came at a time of almost no inflation (just 13.1 percent cumulative during that period). Budget surpluses during the prosperous Coolidge years became ever-larger deficits under FDR’s fiscal reign. During his first term, more than half the federal budget on average came from borrowed money.

The cruel irony of the New Deal is that the liberals’ honorable intentions to help the poor and the unemployed caused more human suffering than any other set of ideas in the past century.

The road to Hell is paved with Liberal Good Intentions. Since they are The Enlightened , and they Care, it worked in their minds– in their reality. So, therefore, it will work again, and again, and again.

They are the good, compassionate, loving, caring, sensitive Angels of the World. Anyone who disagrees must therefore be a Devil and out to do everyone (but especially the poor) harm.

It just stands to reason, in their heads.

What is maddening is that thanks to this historical fabrication of FDR’s presidency, dutifully repeated by Mr. Burns, we have repeated the mistakes again and again. Had the history books been properly written, it’s quite possible we would never had to endure the catastrophic failure of Obamanomics and the “stimulus plans” that only stimulated debt. The entire rationale for the Obama economic plan in 2009 was to re-create new New Deal.

Doubly amazing is that at this very moment, the left is writing another fabricated history — of the years we have just lived through. The history books are already painting Obama policies as the just-in-time emergency policies that prevented a Second Great Depression. I wonder if 80 years from now, the American people will be as gullible as they are today in believing, as my 12-year-old does, that FDR was an economic savior.

Originally appeared in The Washington Times by Stephen Moore

Answer: YES. History is written by the winners, or at least, in this case the Liberal educators. So as long as they control the process, the falsehoods of the Liberal Narrative will become fact.

After all, if you often enough it becomes the truth. No one like this axiom better than a Liberal.

Ask nearly anyone over the age of 80, and they will say that FDR cared about the working man and “gave the country hope,” a point that Mr. Burns emphasizes. Roosevelt exuded empathy, which isn’t a bad thing—remember Bill Clinton’s memorable line “I feel your pain”?—but caring doesn’t create jobs or lift gross domestic product. (Chris Cook)

And then you have now the 24/7 Ministry of Truth to spew “the facts”.

So, yes, Liberals never learn from  REAL history (because they are SO MUCH smarter than the average bear) and we are doomed to repeat them.

Homework: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515

Are You Better off?

All weekend, Democratic party leaders kept fumbling their answer to a simple question: Are we better off than we were four years ago? There’s a good reason for that: We’re not.

It wasn’t until Monday that the campaign was able to figure out how to answer the question, with Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, saying, “Absolutely.”

Obama’s argument is simple: The economy was headed for a second Great Depression when he took office — hemorrhaging GDP and jobs. His stimulus, the auto bailouts and so on, prevented that, and the economy has since been slowly digging out of the massive ditch into which President Bush drove it. Thus, Obama says, he deserves an “incomplete” grade.

It’s quite a stretch that Obama stopped another depression. The recession ended just five months into his first term, before most of his policies had a chance to take effect. It’s an even bigger stretch to say that people’s lives have been improving during the 3-year-old Obama “recovery,” which started in June 2009.

By most measures the country isn’t making slow progress; it’s falling further behind. Some examples:

The number of Americans whom the U.S. Department of Labor counted as “not in the civilian labor force” in August hit a record high of 88,921,000.

The Labor Department counts a person as not in the civilian labor force if they are at least 16 years old, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and have not actively looked for a job in the last four weeks.

The department counts a person as in “the civilian labor force” if they are at least 16, are not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home, and either do have a job or have actively looked for one in the last four weeks. (KFYI)

The jobless rate fell from 8.3 percent as 368,000 Americans left the labor force. So nearly 4 times as many people gave up as got a job and since main unemployment figure only counts people looking it dropped.

Now that’s perverse. And a Lie I’m sure the Democrats will abuse.

The unemployment rate, derived from a separate Labor Department survey of households, has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, the longest stretch in monthly records going back to 1948. (bloomberg)

And who had been President just then, FDR. Who is Obama’s new cypher icon- FDR. Coincidence? 🙂

• Median incomes: These have fallen 7.3% since Obama took office, which translates into an average of $4,000. Since the so-called recovery started, median incomes continued to fall, dropping $2,544, or 4.8%.

• Long-term unemployed: More than three years into Obama’s recovery, 811,000 more still fall into this category than when the recession ended.

• Poverty: The poverty rate climbed to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009, and economists think it may have hit 15.7% last year, highest since the 1960s.

• Food stamps: There are 11.8 million more people on food stamps since Obama’s recovery started. 46.7 million total, a record.

• Disability: More than 1 million workers have been added to Social Security’s disability program in the last three years.

• Gas prices: A gallon of gas cost $1.89 when Obama was sworn in. By June 2009, the price was $2.70. Today, it’s $3.84.

• Misery Index: When Obama took office, the combination of unemployment and inflation stood at 7.83. Today it’s 9.71.

• Union membership: Even unions are worse off under Obama, with membership dropping half a million between 2009 and 2011.

• Debt: Everyone is far worse off if you just look at the national debt. It has climbed more than $5 trillion under Obama, crossing $16 trillion for the first time on Tuesday and driving the U.S. credit rating down. (IBD)

US manufacturing shrank at the fastest clip in more than three years, according a study released on Tuesday.

ZeroThe number of times the president mentioned the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“the stimulus”) in his primetime acceptance address on Thursday night.  These are his signature legislative accomplishments, yet he decided they didn’t merit any attention. (Guy Benson)

Ironically, the only people better off under Obama are corporate chieftains, who’ve seen corporate profits climb more than 50% under Obama’s “recovery,” and investors, who’ve benefited from a near-doubling in the Dow industrials from its March 2009 lows. (IBD)

FORWARD! 4 More Years!
Or else you will be going back to the past!
This is a future (just ignore the past, except for the one we say the Republicans are responsible for) worth crowing about? Why??
Also consider this that was going on going outside the Convention Center in Charlotte:

Consider the dozens of pink-shirted Planned Parent representatives. As the crowds stroll by, they yell out “Get your ‘Protect yourself from Romney and Ryan condom,'” as they hand out pink condom packages with a single condom appropriately dyed blue.

Abortion is also a big topic with convention goers, especially those who supported Sandra Fluke, the former college student whose congressional testimony supporting government backing of contraception was hit by conservative talker Rush Limbaugh.

Aspen, Colorado delegate Blanca O’Leary, for example, sported a “Sluts Vote,” button, a reference to the word Limbaugh used to describe Fluke.

“slut” was the evilest word in the English Language when Sandra Fluke was in front of Congress. Now they want to call themselves “sluts”. But I bet if you did, you’d get the same reaction as before. Funny how that works. 🙂
So are you better off?
Only if you’re a delusional Liberal who’s been told (and believes) how evil the past 10 years – excluding Obama completely- was OR a corporate board room type (who are supposed to be evil anyhow).
So the answer is, OF COURSE NOT!
But the Ministry of Truth and The Democrats will run on FEAR and LIES to confuse you.
PT Barnum never had it this slick.
But just know it’s not better.
But while everyone was picking apart these and other flaws in Obama’s speech, they overlooked the most frightening line of all. That was when Obama promised that he’d pursue “the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.”

That promise might have made liberal hearts swoon. But as Amity Shlaes explained in her outstanding history of the era — “The Forgotten Man” — it was precisely FDR’s “bold, persistent experimentation” that was largely to blame for the length, depth and severity of the Great Depression.

Convinced that the government had to do something, FDR tinkered and experimented, she said, figuring that if he didn’t “get it right the first time … maybe he’d get it right the second time.” But the very arbitrariness of FDR’s actions, she found, made it impossible for businesses to make plans. And so, as FDR’s bold experiments increased, business activity decreased and markets froze.

“From the point of view of a business,” Shlaes said in a 2009 interview, “it is annihilating to hear Washington uncertain, and that itself retards recovery because you really don’t know what to expect.”

If Obama wants to conduct experiments, he should get a job as a high school science teacher, and not use the entire nation as guinea pigs, particularly when we already know how his tests will turn out.(IBD)

4 Years from now Obama will be wanting you to go for his successor who will tell you the road is still “long” and still “hard” and they just need more time.
Time to Destroy you utterly.
Now that’s “fair” 🙂

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

I Love Irony!

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

A delicious irony was uncovered in regards to Unions and our Union Orginizer-in-Chief…<<drum roll>> UNION COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS ILLEGAL FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES! and better yet this was PASSED BY JIMMY CARTER AND THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS 33 Years ago!!

Now that’s comedy. Black Comedy. 🙂

When candidate Obama was campaigning in South Carolina in 2007, he said he was proud to wear the “union label” and that if workers were denied rights to organize or collectively bargain when he was elected, “I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I’ll will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America.”

But as the protests over collective bargaining rights drag out in Wisconsin, President Obama has yet to join the demonstrators outside the Capitol building in Madison, and it appears his administration is trying not to get involved in the fight.

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett says what’s happening in Wisconsin is not a national fight. “Let’s not turn what’s really a Wisconsin issue into a Washington issue,” Jarrett told Fox News in an interview Tuesday. (FOX)

Which is why when this started President Obama called it “an assault on unions”. 🙂 but then he figured out he might be opening a can of worms that may turn on him.  And certainly goes against his new “centrist” image. So he decided he didn’t want to get involved (at least not directly, better to have his apparatchiks and minions do it for him quietly).

Why, because the CEO of the Federal Employees and Their Union is a massive Hypocrite.

Yes, I know, a Liberal who’s a Hypocrite. Amazing! 🙂

WSJ: The union horde is spreading, from Madison to Indianapolis to a state capital near you. And yet the Democratic and union bigwigs engineering the outrage haven’t directed their angry multitudes at what is arguably the most “hostile workplace” in the nation: Washington, D.C.

It will no doubt surprise you to learn that President Obama, the great patron of the working man, also happens to be the great CEO of one of the least union-friendly shop floors in the nation.

This is, after all, the president who has berated Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to limit the collective bargaining rights of public employees, calling the very idea an “assault on unions.” This is also the president who has sicced his political arm, Organizing for America, on Madison, allowing the group to fill buses and plan rallies. Ah, but it’s easy to throw rocks when you live in a stone (White) house.

Fact: President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million (excluding postal workers and uniformed military). Fact: Those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits. Fact: Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a “right to work zone.” Federal employees are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues. Fact: Neither Mr. Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever acted to give their union chums a better federal deal.
Scott Walker, eat your heart out.
For this enormous flexibility in managing his work force, Mr. Obama can thank his own party. In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act. (The Civil Service Reform Act (P.L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 111), the first comprehensive civil service law since 1883, fulfilled the campaign promise of President Jimmy Carter to reform the federal civil service. Along with Reorganization Plan Number 2, it abolished the Civil Service Commission and created three new agencies to implement these reforms: the United States Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Of particular concern were the problems of employees with poor job performance and the protection of federal employees who “blew the whistle” on government misconduct and fraud.-enotes.com) Washington had already established its General Schedule (GS) classification and pay system for workers. The 1978 bill went further, focused as it was on worker accountability and performance. It severely proscribed the issues over which employees could bargain, as well as prohibited compulsory union support.

Democrats weren’t then (and aren’t now) about to let their federal employees dictate pay. The GS system, as well as the president and Congress, sees to that. Nor were they about to let workers touch health-care or retirement plans. Unions are instead limited to bargaining over personnel employment practices such as whether employees are allowed to wear beards, or whether the government must pay to clean uniforms. These demands matter, though they are hardly the sort to break the federal bank.
Which is precisely the point. Washington politicians may not know much, but they know power—in particular, the art of keeping it. Even Carter Democrats understood the difference between being in electoral debt to the unions, and being outright owned by them. And as Gov. Walker will attest, allowing unions to collectively bargain over pay and benefits is allowing them the keys to the statehouse.

Innocent Americans assume that unions use collective bargaining solely to obtain better pay and benefits. Not exactly. The real game is to insist that the dough runs through the union—giving it power over the state.

In Wisconsin, for instance, the teachers union doesn’t just bargain for more health dollars. It also bargains to require that local school districts buy health insurance for their teachers through the union-affiliated health-insurance plan, called WEA Trust. That requirement gives the union (not the state) ultimate say over health benefits. It also costs the state at least $68 million more annually than it would if schools could buy the state-employee health plan—money that goes to a union outfit.

Since Washington pols aren’t about to let unions run their town, the result is a weird bifurcation. On the state level, union campaign dollars are primarily contingent upon Democrats agreeing to allow public-employee unions to milk taxpayers dry. On the federal level, union dollars are primarily contingent upon Democrats agreeing to pervert federal laws and institutions so that private-sector unions get special privileges over employers and nonunion companies—consider project-labor agreements, Davis-Bacon and card check.

All of this helps explain why Mr. Obama has gone quiet on Wisconsin, and why Organizing for America is scurrying to hide its involvement. The president’s initial instinct was to jump into the state, a 2012 battleground area where he might build points with his liberal base.

The White House has since sensed danger. As the world is painfully aware, Mr. Obama is under no obligation to balance his budget. So to whack Gov. Walker for his efforts to do so might strike some Americans as irresponsible, especially as the president is working to convince them that he really does care about deficits.

The other risk: The spotlight turns back to D.C. If the president is so worried about Wisconsin’s “assault,” why has he never taken up federal bargaining rights? If the Badger State’s current system is the gold standard, why has he not replicated it? If it is so important that all parties “sit at the table”—as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recently lectured Wisconsin—how dare Mr. Obama unilaterally declare a federal pay freeze? (Honestly, the union-busting gall!) 🙂

The debate over public-union giveaways has only started. That debate would benefit were Mr. Obama to explain how it is that Wisconsin is wrong to ask for the same budget flexibility that he enjoys as president. If he’s unable to do that, perhaps the debate ought to be over.

AMEN!

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

FDR: In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:

“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

But FDR had no inkling of what the end game would be. In 1958, New York City Mayor Robert Wagner signed an executive order allowing civil workers to unionize. It was an obvious appeal to union voters. A Wagner aide suggested that city workers would be a large enough constituency to guarantee his re-election.

This opened up the floodgates around the country as other Democratic legislators followed Wagner’s lead. In 1959, Wisconsin became the first state to enact public employee collective bargaining laws. President John F. Kennedy then followed with an executive order granting federal employees the right to bargain collectively. As journalist Roger Lowenstein wrote in his recent book detailing the explosion of government pension debt, “Membership in public unions rose exponentially.”

The incestuous relationship began. But to this day 88% of the American People are not in a Union. Don’t have the Unions fat-cat, nearly-free Health care or can retire in their 40s with massive pensions that will cost the taxpayers Millions.

But the spoiled brats in the Unions will continue to kick and scream and yell, “MINE!” like some 5 year old with their favourite toy — Taxpayers $$$.

“I didn’t like cap and trade, I didn’t like Obamacare, I didn’t like the stimulus…but I didn’t walk out.” -Sen Paul Ryan (R-WI)

But the irony that Democrats did worse to Federal Employees than what Governor Walker, Governor Daniels and Governor Kasich want to do to their Unions is quite frankly hilarious.

But don’t tell the Liberals or the Ministry of Truth in the Media. They will just shout you down you evil Lying Nazi Dictator!!! 🙂

And thus concludes our lesson in “civility” and “adult conversations”. 🙂

Also see: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29975

Follow the Money to Civility

Remember (The Liberals won’t) the stink the Liberals had about Sarah Palin and the “crosshairs” map Remember? The map that was criticized as an incitement to violence.

CNN even apologized on air:

CNN’s John King: “Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. My friend Andy Shaw used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language.”

https://i1.wp.com/justpiper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/walker-crosshairs.png

I wonder if they’ll do the same for Gov. Walker. ROTFL! They won’t even air it or discuss it!

Then there’s the Left’s “Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) is obviously a

Kochsukkker”

That’s you’re “mature”, “adult” Liberal. They are rational and capable of compromise and negotiation.

Right.

We need some “right wing sheep” (as the Left  online usually refers to people who disagree with them) to teach the kindergarten Left some manners and how to be an “adult”.

Good Luck! I think the universe would have to turn purple first!

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Watch a “mature” Communication Worker Union Thug (and if you’ve ever seen “Lie to Me” watch for the hate and contempt flash across his face):

The watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zm_Fl3AszuU

But remember, the rules Liberals want for everyone else doesn’t apply to them.

They just want to control YOU.

Do as they say, not as they do. Period.

“I’m proud to be with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an e-mail that gets you going,’’ Capuano said at the rally. “Every once in a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.’’

Massachusetts Rep. Michael Capuano apologized for controversial comments he made during a labor rally on the steps of the State House on Tuesday.

But that’s only a political apology you know. Not a real one.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Left punk’d Gov. Walker like a 5 year old calling someone on the phone to embarrass them ala Bart Simpson.

This is the “adult conversation” you’ll get from the Left.

And the Unions are unhappy that if Walker wins they will no longer be in control of both sides of the “collective bargaining” where they collectively bargain with taxpayers money.

You see, the Unions collect Millions of $$ by force from their members. Then they give it to Democrats to get them elected. Then when the “collective bargaining” comes along the Democrat they got elected by buying them the election sit across from them and “negotiates” a deal with the Union that will be funding their re-election.

Democratic politicians don’t think of themselves as “management.” They don’t respond to union demands for more money by saying, “Are you kidding me?” They say, “Great — get me a raise too!”

Democrats buy the votes of government workers with generous pay packages and benefits — paid for by someone else — and then expect a kickback from the unions in the form of hefty campaign donations, rent-a-mobs and questionable union political activity when they run for re-election. (Ann Coulter)

It’s a vampiric symbiosis. And it’s YOUR Money!

In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party. 😦

The Unions paid for nearly 2/3 of Obama’s record-breaking $750 Million dollar buy off in the 2008 election and it’s estimated that Obama will spend $1 Billion for 2012 and the Union money will be the major reason.

So that’s why Obama is so involved in The Midwest, and bored and uninterested in The Middle East.

It’s all about the money! And the money buys power!!

And power is what Liberals really want.

But what are the contributions that public employee unions make to our states and our citizens? Their incentives are to increase the cost of government and reduce down toward zero the accountability of public employees — both contrary to the interests of taxpaying citizens. (IBD)

But very good for the Union, The Democrats, and The Left in general.

This is the ultimate in parasitic drug addiction to money and the Democrats will fight to very last drop of your blood (kind of like Gadhafi)!!!

That’s why one of the great 20th-century presidents was against unions for public employees who have civil service protections. No, not Ronald Reagan. It was Franklin Roosevelt who said, “Action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.” (IBD)

And FDR we all know was a “right wing sheep”. 🙂

So if you get to elect people who will pork your ass off will let someone else take away that pork?

Sound like Entitlements also?

It should. It’s the same problem in reality.

ObamaCare?

“Is it a violation of the House rule wherein members are not permitted to make disparaging references to the President of the United States?” Rep.Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) asked the chairman.

Bet it never raised an eyebrow when disparaging remarks were made about George Bush. 🙂

“In two previous gentlemen’s [sic] statements on the amendment,” Wasserman Schultz continued. “Both of them referred to the Affordable Care Act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as ‘Obamacare.’ That is a disparaging reference to the President of the United States, it is meant as a disparaging reference to the President of the United States…It is clearly in violation of House rules against that.” (DC)

But “reaganomics”, “torture memo”  “star wars” (derogatory term by the left for Reagan’s SDI), “Me Decade/Decade of Greed”- Used by left-wing anti-Reagan critics to attribute the prosperity of the ’80s to selfishness,”Trickle-down”- Used by the media to give a Marie Antoinette “let ’em eat cake” slant to what free-market economists call “supply-side economics” are Ok because the Left said them.

And the same hysterical childishness will and has ensued every time you challenge the Left.

Talking away the Left favourite toys just makes them cry and whine and throw a tantrum.

Just like a child.

And that’s the  “adult conversation” as the President put it that you get from the Left.

Rejoice.

Next time you hear a Union person talk about the “American Dream” (of which 88% of Americans aren’t in Unions) and how curtailing Union power will kill it just remember… The American Dream is not a handout.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

 

Putting Your Money Where His Mouth is

“After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he said. “It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend.”

To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.

They reveal these startling facts: When calculated by the average annual percentage of the Gross Domestic Product that he will spend during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the earliest year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP. When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP he will borrow during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the greatest debter president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Obama will outspend and out-borrow the admittedly profligate George W. Bush, a man Obama and his lieutenants routinely malign for fiscal recklessness and who, when in office, was often hailed even by his allies as a Big Government Republican. Obama will even outspend—but not quite out-borrow—his fellow welfare-state liberal FDR, who had to contend with both the Depression and World War II.

In determining this was the case, I credited the presidents prior to Obama with the federal spending and borrowing that occurred during the fiscal years that started when they were in office. I credited Obama with the spending and borrowing that his own OMB estimates will occur during the fiscal years from 2010 to 2013, which are the four fiscal years starting during Obama’s four-year term. (Before fiscal 1977, fiscal years ran from July 1 to June 30. Since then, they have run from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.)

FDR was inaugurated in March 1933 and died in April 1945. He is thus responsible for the 12 fiscal years from 1934 to 1945. During those years of depression and world war, according to OMB, federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of GDP. During Obama’s four fiscal years, OMB estimates spending will average 24.13 percent of GDP. That is about 25 percent more than under FDR.

In the first eight fiscal years of FDR’s presidency, before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, federal spending as a percentage of GDP never exceeded 12 (despite the Depression). During those years, it averaged only 9.85 percent. Under Obama, annual spending as a percentage of GDP will average almost two-and-a-half times that much.

In fiscal 1942, when the U.S. started dramatically ramping up expenditures to fight World War II, federal spending equaled 24.3 percent of GDP. In 2010, the first full fiscal year of the Obama era, spending will reach 25.4 percent of GDP.

Under current estimates, Obama will not beat FDR’s overall record for borrowing, although he will nearly double FDR’s pre-World War II rate of borrowing. From 1934-41, FDR ran annual deficits that averaged 3.56 percent of GDP. Obama, according to OMB, will run average annual deficits of 7.05 percent GDP. When you include the war years of 1942-45, FDR ran average annual deficits of 9.76 percent of GDP. Even without a world war, Obama’s overall prospective borrowing is at least competitive with FDR’s.

And Obama and FDR share one historic debt-accumulating distinction. By OMB’s calculation, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to run up annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP. Obama will run up a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of GDP. The last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945 — when Germany and Japan surrendered.

The U.S. won the Cold War without ever running a double-digit deficit. President Reagan’s highest deficit was 6 percent of GDP in 1983 — and he bankrupted the Soviet Union not the United States.

So how does Obama compare with the much-maligned George W. Bush? In Bush’s eight fiscal years, annual federal spending averaged 20.43 percent of GDP, significantly less than Obama’s estimated 24.13 percent of GDP.

Bush ran annual deficits that averaged 3.4 percent of GDP—and that includes fiscal 2009, when the deficit soared to 9.9 percent of GDP and Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill (some of which was spent in fiscal 2009) after Bush left office. Obama, according to OMB, will run deficits that average 7.05 percent of GDP—or more than twice the average deficits under Bush.

The bottom line on Obama: He puts our money where his mouth is.(CNSnews)

The Bush Deranged who will blame every ill in the universe on George W. Bush, who admittedly was a fiscal socialist like them in his last years.

The fact that Congress was taken over by The Reid-Pelosi types in 2007 didn’t help any.

Whether that was trying to buy off his legacy from people that had already spent years piling on him or just weakness., it’s hard to say.

Bush in his last couple of years was a train wreck.

But the current administration takes that train wreck and brings in Godzilla, King Ghidorah, Hedorah, and all the other monsters and has a stomping party on it.

Then proclaims not only is it the other guys fault but they have “saved us all”!

How great are we! 😦

BUT He made me do it!!! 😦

Bovine Fecal Matter!!

That’s like saying, after an all-night binge drinking session and getting pulled over for DUI that it was the bar’s fault or your friends who egged you on.

It’s complete crap.

So you have “fiscal responsibility” after the biggest spending binge in American History….then you propose EVEN MORE OR THE SAME  (aka Health Care, Cap & Trade, Amnesty for New Democrats,etc) and that’s supposed to work because you have re-imagined it!

The definition of insanity is doing exactly the same thing every time and expecting a different result.

They are insane.

But this is the wet dream of  several generations of socialist Democrats at precisely the wrong time.

But they can’t understand that.

Like children who have been lusting after a toy for Christmas since the day after Christmas from when they were 2 they think the message is not the problem, but how it’s phrased and delivered.

That somehow the 1000 lb. White Elephant in the room is not the problem, so let’s call in a stylist and call it a The Blanco Pachyderm Supreme, as if that will help sell there socialism.

In true Orwellian fashion, it’s not the ideas that are bad, it’s the presentation.

The almost child-like arrogance and stubbornness is not appealing.

Neither is the finger pointing.

But they can’t see that.

And that’s why they are headed straight for the iceberg aboard the Titanic.

Unfortunately, we are all the Passengers and we will all go down with them.

And it’s all those Damn Republican’s Fault! 😡

Vice President Joe Biden complains that Washington is “broken” and “dysfunctional.” In fact, Republicans blocking Democrats from further wrecking the economy is the American system at its best.

Appearing on the CBS Early Show, the vice president lamented that “Washington, right now, is broken,” adding that “I don’t ever recall a time in my career where to get anything done, you needed a supermajority, 60 out of 100 senators. … I’ve never seen it this dysfunctional.”

The man one heartbeat away from the presidency obviously has a conveniently short memory.

During the Bush administration, when Republicans outnumbered Democrats in the Senate but were lacking a supermajority, Democrats were only too happy to use the filibuster to block judicial appointees like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown — because they weren’t liberal activists. (The courts are where liberals are able to wield the kind of sweeping powers that the people would never give them through the ballot box.)

Now, with the tables turned, Biden has come to think a lot less of the rules of that “world’s greatest deliberative body” where he spent more than 30 years.

Others on the left agree.

Lawyer Thomas Geoghegan, writing in the New York Times last month, charged that “the Senate, as it now operates, really has become unconstitutional” and argued that the Founding Fathers “were dead set against supermajorities as a general rule, and the ever-present filibuster threat has made the Senate a more extreme check on the popular will than they ever intended.”

But the derailing of the radical health care revolution being pushed by the White House and the Democratic majorities in Congress is a perfect example of how America’s legislative system can rise to greatness — protecting the majority.

Defending the filibuster last month on the Witherspoon Institute’s thepublicdiscourse.com, Radford University political science Professor Matthew J. Franck noted: “The Senate has chosen a set of rules that prize the power of senators as individuals to shape and to slow down debate in the chamber, while the House has chosen rules that streamline debate and advantage the majority party.”

The Senate filibuster is “in purpose and effect, an aid to legislative deliberation” because, according to Franck, “the Senate has always prized the freedom of action of the individual senators, to speak at length during debate and to turn the deliberations on a bill in new directions by way of amendments.”

In the case of health reform, the people, who overwhelmingly oppose the Democrats’ plans, have indeed been deliberating.

Last month they used a special Senate election in one of the most dependably Democratic states in the Union to obstruct the Democratic majority’s locomotive running through Congress.

Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown’s 41st vote means the radical left will have to wait longer to get what they crave: extensive government control over the U.S. medical system.

What Joe Biden calls “dysfunctional” is American government working as it should — thanks to the Republicans doing their job in opposing still more spending and dangerous government intrusion. (IBD)

So let’s stay in Campaign Mode.

Democrats in charge of both the White House and Congress are firing all their guns at once to tout the benefits of the $862 billion stimulus package passed a year ago this week. They’ve even planned a 35-city tour to support it. Their message?

“One year later, it is largely thanks to the recovery act that a second depression is no longer a possibility,” President Obama said Wednesday. The stimulus act has created 2 million jobs, he claimed, predicting 1.5 million more this year from the program.

Is it just a coincidence that the 3.5 million jobs he is claiming is exactly what the White House predicted early last year? We doubt it. But whatever the case, Obama’s claims are false.

Start with this: Stimulus didn’t save us from an economic cataclysm. Obama himself said so back in March, noting that the economy was “not as bad as we think,” and that he was “highly optimistic.” It’s clear he didn’t think we were on the brink of a Depression.

He was right. In an editorial at the time, we pointed to 13 separate economic indicators signaling an imminent economic recovery — with all of them flashing before the stimulus was in place.

We knew at the time that our resilient private economy would climb out of its hole, and that politicians would try to claim credit. That’s why we wrote: “No politician who voted for these job- and growth-killing measures should claim any credit for our eventual rebound.” Following Wednesday’s fact-bending dog-and-pony show, we think that bears repeating.

The claim that stimulus has “created or saved” 2 million jobs is complete fiction. It rests on the obviously false idea that money can be taken from the productive private sector and given to the nonproductive public sector and create a net gain in jobs.

Based on the imaginary existence of a so-called “Keynesian multiplier,” this kind of thinking hypothesizes jobs that don’t really exist. Sadly, when we count actual jobs, the reality is a bit starker: 8.4 million jobs lost since December 2007, the start of the recession. And more than 4 million lost since the start of 2009.

So when Vice President Biden says Americans are “getting their money’s worth” from stimulus, it should be treated as a punch line — not a policy view.

Look Ma, how great I am. 😦

Worse is the administration’s claim that stimulus is responsible for the fourth quarter’s 5.7% spurt in GDP. This, too, is utterly false.

Two-thirds of that number was made up of inventories. Businesses had liquidated so much in inventories as Obama came into office, helping to make GDP declines last year deeper than expected, that when they finally stopped the economy appeared to be growing strongly. It wasn’t.

Real final sales, a measure that excludes short-term inventory swings, rose just 2.2% in the fourth quarter — hardly a boom.

What bothered us most, however, was Obama’s reference to a “lost decade” under President Bush — a now-popular insult Democrats use to imply Obama’s predecessor is to blame for everything.

So, let’s review the Bush record one more time.

As background, Bush’s presidency began after the largest stock market crash in history, which destroyed nearly $8 trillion in national wealth. Business investment had collapsed, in part due to the Y2K debacle. The economy in early 2001 was already in recession. And within nine months we were hit by the 9/11 attacks.

Thanks to Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the U.S. economy came back. From the end of 2000 to Bush’s exit from office, 4.6 million jobs were created, industrial output rose 5%, productivity soared 25%, real after-tax income jumped 21% and net wealth grew by $8.6 trillion. And that includes last year’s financial meltdown.

Calling this a “lost decade” is simply wrong. Curiously, the economy was far healthier before Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Is it just coincidence that the unraveling of our financial system took place just as they regained control?

Today, stimulus, TARP and other programs intended to boost the economy are instead adding trillions of dollars in debt and spending that our kids and grandkids will have to pay off in coming decades. And let the record show: They’re not creating jobs.

Recent polls show Americans overwhelmingly believe the stimulus is a failure. They’re right. And no amount of snake oil sold by slick White House salesmen from the back of a government truck is likely to convince them otherwise. (IBD)

But Don’t tell the Democrats or liberals that, it’s Heresy. 🙂

And they will be signing it’s praises regardless.

So, How do you want your $14 Trillion Dollar Blanco Pachyderm Supreme?

Take out or Delivery? 🙂