Publicado: 05-25-2012 09:31 AM
OBAMA'S BRAZEN LIES
Hotair ^ | 05/25/2012 | Political Math
It's been going around Facebook and the Twitters.
It's been rated “mostly true” by Politifact.
It is the MarketWatch piece on how Obama hasn't really increased spending all that much.
And I'm da..mn tired of picking it apart 140 characters at a time, so I put together this sarcastic infographic showing exactly how sloppy this piece really is.
Publicado: 05-25-2012 09:32 AM
There are two things in this infographic that should be called out more explicitly.
First, much of the debate here centers around who exactly should catch the blame for FY 2009 spending. This is actually a very tricky question and I think compelling cases can be made for both sides of this debate.
My personal pposition is that it's really complicated. But one thing is for certain: in hindsight the CBO January 2009 estimate is so obviously wrong that using it should be called out and mocked.
The January 2009 CBO estimate might have been a "best estimate of what Obama inherited", but only in January 2009 when spending data was *very* hard to predict. January 2009 marked the worst part of the recession and the uncertainty was very high. Only a few months later, Obama’s budget estimated 2009 spending would be $400 billion higher than the CBO estimate.
But now we can look at the data, not the estimates. And we should. The spending data ended up $20 billion lower than the CBO estimate… and that included the stimulus spending (which Nutting says was $140 billion, but I’m still trying to track that number down). If that is the case, the high-end estimate for Bush’s fiscal year is $3.38 trillion. If we compare that to Obama’s 2013 budget proposal ($3.80 trillion), that’s an increase of 12.5% (3.1% annualized). Which isn’t that high, but it’s also using a baseline that is still filled with a lot of what were supposed to be 1 time expenses (TARP, Cash for Clunkers, the auto bailout, the housing credit, etc).
Second, Nutting uses the CBO baseline in place of Obama’s spending. This is easily verified and I can’t think of a serious economic pundit who would say this is OK. I can think of two reasons for doing this: Either a) Nutting is a monstrously biased pposition who (rightly) figured no one in the liberal world would fact check him so he could use whatever the hell number he wanted to use or b) Nutting had no idea that the CBO baseline isn’t a budget proposal. I’m actually leaning toward the second explanation. Nutting uses so many disparate sources it seems clear he doesn’t know his way around federal finance.
Congrats, Mr. Nutting. I don’t think you’re a huge jerk, only that you’re hilariously unqualified for your job.
Bush requested $3.107 trillion, but the final budget of $3.52 trillion was passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama on March 12, 2009.
For actual spending, I used the monthly Treasury Reports, which have spending and revenue for every month since 1981 in an Excel file. Easy to work with.
The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for the $3.58 trillion number) is found here.
And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget which pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717 trillion.
Publicado: 05-25-2012 09:49 AM
THOMAS SOWELL: BIG LIES IN POLITICS
May 25, 2012 @ 12:03 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy them, and only in the short run. The current outbreaks of riots in Europe show what happens when the truth catches up with both the politicians and the people in the long run.
Among the biggest lies of the welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic is the notion that the government can supply the people with things they want but cannot afford. Since the government gets its resources from the people, if the people as a whole cannot afford something, neither can the government.
There is, of course, the perennial fallacy that the government can simply raise taxes on “the rich” and use that additional revenue to pay for things that most people cannot afford. What is amazing is the implicit assumption that “the rich” are all such complete fools that they will do nothing to prevent their money from being taxed away. History shows otherwise.
After the Constitution of the United States was amended to permit a federal income tax, in 1916, the number of people reporting taxable incomes of $300,000 a year or more fell from well over a thousand to fewer than three hundred by 1921.
Were the rich all getting poorer? Not at all. They were investing huge sums of money in tax-exempt securities. The amount of money invested in tax-exempt securities was larger than the federal budget, and nearly half as large as the national debt.
This was not unique to the United States or to that era. After the British government raised their income tax on the top income earners in 2010, they discovered that they collected less tax revenue than before. Other countries have had similar experiences. Apparently the rich are not all fools, after all.
Publicado: 05-25-2012 09:50 AM
In today’s globalized world economy, the rich can simply invest their money in countries where tax rates are lower.
So, if you cannot rely on “the rich” to pick up the slack, what can you rely on? Lies.
Nothing is easier for a politician than promising government benefits that cannot be delivered.
Pensions such as Social Security are perfect for this role. The promises that are made are for money to be paid many years from now — and somebody else will be in power then, left with the job of figuring out what to say and do when the money runs out and the riots start.
There are all sorts of ways of postponing the day of reckoning. The government can refuse to pay what it costs to get things done. Cutting what doctors are paid for treating Medicare patients is one obvious example.
That of course leads some doctors to refuse to take on new Medicare patients. But this process takes time to really make its full impact felt — and elections are held in the short run. This is another growing problem that can be left for someone else to try to cope with in future years.
Increasing amounts of paperwork for doctors in welfare states with government-run medical care, and reduced payments to those doctors, in order to stave off the day of bankruptcy, mean that the medical profession is likely to attract fewer of the brightest young people who have other occupations available to them — paying more money and having fewer hassles. But this too is a long-run problem — and elections are still held in the short run.
Eventually, all these long-run problems can catch up with the wonderful-sounding lies that are the lifeblood of welfare state politics. But there can be a lot of elections between now and eventually — and those who are good at political lies can win a lot of those elections.
As the day of reckoning approaches, there are a number of ways of seeming to overcome the crisis. If the government is running out of money, it can print more money. That does not make the country any richer, but it quietly transfers part of the value of existing money from people’s savings and income to the government, whose newly printed money is worth just as much as the money that people worked for and saved.
Printing more money means inflation — and inflation is a quiet lie, by which a government can keep its promises on paper, but with money worth much less than when the promises were made.
Is it so surprising voters with unrealistic hopes elect politicians who lie about being able to fulfill those hopes?
Publicado: 05-25-2012 01:41 PM
CUNDE EL PANICO EN LA FILAS DEMOCRATAS!!!
NEGROS NUBARRONES SE CIERNEN SOBRE LA CAMPAÑA DE OBAMA
PRIMARIAS DEMOCRATAS AUGURAN A OBAMA UNA DERROTA MONUMENTAL:
WEST VIRGINIA: 41% DE LOS VOTANTES DEMOCRATAS REPUDIARON A OBAMA PREFIRIENDO VOTAR POR UN DELINCUENTE PRESO EN TEXAS.
ARKANSAS: 41% VOTAN EN CONTRA DE OBAMA Y A FAVOR DE UN DESCONOCIDO QUE SOLO CONTABA EN SU CAMPAÑA CON $500 MIENTRAS OBAMA GASTABA MILLONES DESINFORMANDO AL PUEBLO.
KENTUCKY: 42% DE LOS DEMOCRATAS VOTARON "NO COMPROMETIDOS A VOTAR POR OBAMA", EN LO QUE CONSTITUYE UN CONTUNDENTE REPUDIO A SU REGIMEN CORRUPTO, Y POR LO VISTO ES UN REFLEJO DEL RECHAZO AL MARXISMO DE OBAMA A NIVEL NACIONAL POR LOS PROPIOS DEMOCRATAS!!!
Publicado: 05-29-2012 08:39 PM
OBAMA IS AN INOCENT VICTIM OF BUSH'S FAILED PROMISES
Smart Girl Politics ^ | 4/24/2012 | John Tate
Obama is victim of Bush's failed promises. By a democrat reporter, Chuck Green.
I think it is time that we asked George Bush to step aside so that Obama can get his presidency going.
Here's an opinion piece by Chuck Green who writes "Greener Pastures" for the Denver Post Aurora Sentinel...one of the more liberal papers in the country. Additionally, Mr. Green is a lifelong Democrat...so this is rather a stunning piece...
Obama is victim of Bush's failed promises! Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first term in office: Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever!
Wow! Talk about change.
Just over two years ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation's most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America 's first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.
Of course, they don't see it as self-imposed. It's all George Bush's fault !
George Bush, who doesn't have a vote in congress and who no longer occupies The White House, is to blame for it all.
He broke Obama's promise, to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.
He broke Obama's promise, to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.
He broke Obama's promise, to end earmarks.
He broke Obama's promise, to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.
He broke Obama's promise, to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.
He broke Obama's promise, to make peace with direct, no precondition talks with America 's most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.
He broke Obama's promise, to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.
Publicado: 05-29-2012 08:40 PM
He broke Obama's promise, to end no-compete contracts with the government.
He broke Obama's promise, to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.
He broke Obama's promise, for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.
He broke Obama's promise, to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter.
Yes, it's all George Bush's fault! President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending failed Bush administration. If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, all of President Obama's problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel . North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.
Oh, and did I mention what it would be like, if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn't have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks? There would be no ear marks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying ( Nebraska, Louisiana ).
If only George Bush wasn't still in charge, we'd have real change by now.
All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama's fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It's all George Bush's fault !
Take for example the attempt of Eric Holder, the president's attorney general, to hold terrorists' trials in New York City . Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.
Two disastrous decisions.
Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush!
Need more proof?
You might recall when Scott Brown won the election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing "The Ted Kennedy Seat", President Obama said, Brown's victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years. And they wanted change.
Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in'Massachusetts, was George Bush's fault.
Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats. It is all George Bush's fault ! Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and and change ever arrive ???
Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something / anything?
It's Bush's Fault!
Publicado: 06-04-2012 07:38 PM
La hipocresía y los progres
Por Walter Williams
El presidente Barack Obama y sus aliados tanto en los medios convencionales como en los campus vienen librando una guerra abierta contra las rentas altas, "los del 1%", según sus proclamas. Quien, guiado de su demagogia falsaria, los viera como integrantes del 99% se equivocaría por completo.
Recientemente MSN Money publicaba un informe titulado "los condados más ricos de América" y en el que se leía: "Mientras muchos americanos luchan por encontrar un empleo, cuadran sus cuentas y se ajustan el cinturón, a algunos tipos les está yendo muy bien ".
Bien. Echemos un vistazo a alguno de esos quince condados.
Loudoun County, en Virginia, tiene una renta familiar media de 119.540 dólares, lo que le convierte en el condado más rico del país. Le sigue Fairfax County, también en Virginia, con 103.010 dólares; ahí, el precio medio de una vivienda es de 507.800 dólares. El tercero es Howard County, en Maryland, con 101.771 dólares. Los condados más ricos del país están muy cerca de Washington DC, adonde la gente va a hacer el bien... y acaba haciéndoselo a sí misma.
Estos integrantes del famoso 1% no son unos ricachones republicanos de derechas. Son... ¡los progres de Obama?
Siete de los diez condados más ricos del área de Washington DC votaron a Obama de forma abrumadora en 2008. Estos progres se dicen del 99% cuando realidad son del 1% de las rentas superaltas. Simplemente, y ayudados por los medios convencionales, protagonizan una engañosa mascarada.
Cuando el movimiento Occupy se hizo notar, el año pasado, sujetos de apariencia astrosa acamparon en las calles y parques de varias ciudades, provocando millonarios daños a la propiedad. Perpetraron robos y delitos sexuales. Varias de sus acciones más impresentables, como orinar y defecar en lugares públicos o vehículos policiales, fueron grabados. Esta gente también se ha venido retratando como integrante del 99%. Bueno, pues resulta que tampoco.
Will Rahn, director adjunto del Daily Caller, escribió en noviembre un artículo titulado: "Detenciones en Nueva York: muchos manifestantes de Occupy Wall Street viven de lujo." Entre el 18 de septiembre y el 15 octubre la policía de Nueva York detuvo a un millar de personas. El valor medio de las viviendas de los detenidos era de 305.000 dólares, cifra muy por encima de la media nacional: 185.400 dólares. Noventa y cinco de los detenidos residían en casas valoradas por encima del medio millón de dólares. Los que vivían de alquiler pagaban una media de 1.850 dólares al mes. De los 984 detenidos, al menos 797 eran blancos. Uno de ellos vivía en una casa de la capital valorada en 850.000 dólares.
Estando en campaña, Obama prometió: "Nos ponemos en marcha para traer un cambio no sólo electoral, sino un cambio que transforme América". Junto a los progres, que antes se llamaban liberales, Obama quiere transformar América para convertirla en un país socialista de corte europeo. Los activistas de Occupy y sus tontos útiles en los medios y los campus mostraban orgullosamente pancartas y carteles que revelaban sus gustos y afiliaciones, como "Partido Comunista de EEUU", "Socialistas Demócratas de América" o "Lucha por el Socialismo". El Partido Nazi de América también emitió una declaración de apoyo a Occupy, así como el Partido de las Familias Trabajadoras y el Comité Nacional Demócrata.
Estén seguros de que esta gente hará lo que pueda, protestas violentas incluidas, para ayudar a Obama a disponer de otros cuatro años para seguir adelante con su proyecto de transformación de nuestro país.