Four More Years? Of This?

American Thinker

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:

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?

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.”

There  is not one word in the U.S. Constitution preventing anyone from providing  welfare or ensuring economic justice so long as “domestic tranquility” is not  disturbed, as long as any unlawful act is not committed.  So  Democrats/liberals/progressives have to say that the U.S. Constitution is a “living document” to  be interpreted — a document that says whatever they deem it to say, rather than  an immutable set of principles that our Forefathers meant it to be.  Have  any of you Democrats/liberals/progressives ever read the Federalist  Papers?

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.

Read more:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s