OBAMA'S SHAMLESS LIES

[sirjohn]

OBAMA'S BRAZEN  LIES

MarketWatch  rebuttal infographic: How to make  Obama’s spending look  small

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.

[sirjohn]

part 2

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.

References:

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.

For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.

The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for  the  $3.58 trillion number) is found here.

President Obama’s actual 2013   budget

And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget  which  pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717  trillion.

[sirjohn]

part 2

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.

References:

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.

For the CBO fiscal year 2009 estimates.

The CBO baseline (which was referenced by Nutting for  the  $3.58 trillion number) is found here.

President Obama’s actual 2013   budget

And just for kicks, here is the CBO analysis of the President’s Budget  which  pegs Obama’s 2013 spending at $3.717  trillion.

[sirjohn]

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.

[sirjohn]

PART 2

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?

[sirjohn]

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!!!

[siboneyes]

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.

[siboneyes]

PART  2

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!

[sirjohn]

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.