The American Spectator : What Professor Obama Doesn't Understand

Text Size

The Obama Watch

What Professor Obama Doesn’t Understand

By Peter Ferrara on 4.27.11 @ 6:08AM

Our president is proudly, willfully ignorant of economics at even the most basic level.

President Obama’s self-congratulatory “economic recovery” is way too little, way too late. By historical standards for the American economy, we should be in the second year now of a booming economic recovery. Instead the economy is still struggling to get off the ground, and what is booming instead is prices and inflation.

If you listen to what President Obama is saying in his reelection campaign, which is already underway in his town hall tour across America, the reason for this is clear. President Obama does not understand the basics of economics. What he says repeatedly is that increased government spending is the foundation of economic recovery and growth. But the economic reality is that incentives for increased production are the foundation for recovery and booming growth.

As a result, what we are witnessing is a historical reenactment of the 1970s, if not the 1930s, with the same throwback economic policies that caused the dismal economic downward spiral of those years. But this is not all that President Obama doesn’t understand. He also doesn’t understand the budget, taxes, business, the energy and oil markets, and even health care.

Consequently, the American people will continue to suffer high unemployment, rising inflation, soaring gas prices, falling real wages and incomes, record poverty, and ultimately worse. That is until this tragically unqualified President who has spent his entire life cloistered in the fever swamps of the far left is replaced by new leadership that will restore the American Dream.

Facebook Fallacies

On April 20, President Obama took his reelection campaign to a town hall at the corporate headquarters of Facebook in Palo Alto. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg began with a question on the budget, asking “what specifically do you think we can cut…?”

Obama responded by saying first let me explain why the problem is Bush’s fault. (Get the transcript if you don’t believe me.) This from the President whose own 2012 budget projects that after just one term of office he will have run up more national debt in four years than all prior Presidents combined, from George Washington to George Bush. A President who in that same budget proposed a fourth straight budget deficit of over a trillion dollars, including a record deficit for this year of $1,645 billion, when the highest previously in American history was $458 billion.

If President Obama didn’t want those deficits, he could have proposed spending cuts 2 years ago. Instead he enacted an utterly failed, trillion dollar, government spending stimulus package. And despite his misdirection rhetoric, he continues to oppose any serious spending cuts to this day. The real cause of the record deficits and debt is that President Obama increased federal spending by 28% in his first two years alone. And in his 2012 budget he proposed to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.

Professor Obama told the Facebook audience that the deficits arose because “we had a massive tax cut that wasn’t offset by cuts in spending.” But from 2001 when the first round of the Bush tax cuts were adopted until 2007, federal revenues increased by almost 30%. From 2003 when the Bush tax cuts were completed until 2007, federal revenues soared by 44%.

Obama’s excuse for his runaway spending is that it was necessary to counter the recession. So he is both blaming Bush for the deficits and taking credit for them in promoting recovery. At the Facebook town hall, Obama further advanced his theory that government spending is the foundation for economic growth and recovery, saying, “If all we’re doing is spending cuts and we’re not discriminating about it, if we’re using a machete rather than a scalpel and we’re cutting things that create jobs, then the deficit could actually get worse because we could slip back into a recession.”

But it is obvious to everyone but Obama and his hypnotized true believers, party apologists, and bought and paid for special interests that his government spending has failed to produce a timely and robust recovery. That is because President Obama’s Keynesian theory that increased government spending and deficits promote economic recovery and growth was proven fully and finally wrong to everyone who was awake over 30 years ago.

President Obama persisted at the Facebook town hall, however, explaining that his spending spree will promote recovery and growth because then “we can still…invest in high speed rail” and, “We can still invest in something called ARPA-E, which is like DARPA except just focused on energy, so that we can figure out what are the next breakthrough technologies that can help to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.”

Spoken like a true central planning neo-socialist, for it is not the government’s role, nor does the government even have the capability, to figure out what the next breakthrough technology is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. America has always enjoyed the world’s highest standard of living precisely because we leave decisions like that to the competitive marketplace, not government bureaucrats. And no we are not going to create a booming recovery by wasting still more tens of billions of taxpayer funds on “high speed rail,” which is a souped-up version of the mass transit boondoggles that have long proven so adept at wasting taxpayer funds without advancing any economic growth.

President Obama then thoroughly mischaracterized the differences between him and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan over the budget and taxes. Obama told the Facebook audience, “So what his budget proposal does is not only hold income tax flat, he actually wants to further reduce taxes for the wealthy, further reduce taxes for corporations, not pay for those, and in order to make the numbers work, cut 70 percent of our clean energy budget, cut 25 percent out of our education budget, cut transportation budgets by a third.”

There he goes again with his idea that increased government spending on “clean energy” would enhance economic growth. But saddling the economy with high cost, unreliable energy, and burdening it with an entire energy industry that can survive only on corporate welfare, is only going to tank the economy rather than promote recovery and growth.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (231) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Kitty| 4.27.11 @ 6:31AM

I think he does know what he's doing; he's bringing down capitalism and he's doing it on purpose.

Larry| 4.27.11 @ 7:32AM

Absolutely correct Kitty. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is blind or a fool.

Alan Brooks| 4.27.11 @ 7:41AM

Even if everything you write is correct, remember how Bush signed on to it all right before he left office, and though such is now ancient history the candidate you run next year will be yet ANOTHER temporizer; so you are conservatives in that sense- pouring old wine into new wine skins.

Alan Brooks| 4.27.11 @ 7:44AM

... or is it new wine into old wineskins? whichever it is, the woodsman said to the scarecrow lying in shreds on the ground, that's you all over.

Redstateboy| 4.27.11 @ 9:20AM

Here we goooo.... ole' Brooks.. employing the same old tired worn out Slave Party mantra... it's Bush's Fault. Ignore Nazi Pelosi, Harry-the-war-is-lost-Reid had MAJORITIES in BOTH Houses since JAN. 2007!!!! How bout that Brooks?!? Or do you just simply chose to ignore Das Messiah's debt accumulates to being more than every President before him combined!! Really Brooks... how can you be so obtuse?

vtwin| 4.27.11 @ 10:26AM

While openly acknowledging my obtusest with your comment, please explain how Obama’s “debt accumulates to being more than every President before him combined.” Given that the accumulated debt prior to Obama was over $10 trillion and the present accumulated debt is about $14 trillion.

JP| 4.27.11 @ 3:56PM

President Bush's last budget was hit with the recession and its attendent drop in revenues (esp capital gains). But, it must also be remembered that Bush enacted his own "stimulus" plan, which added $200 billion to his defecit. His final year saw the defecit go from $280 billion (2007) to $450 billion (2008-09). Bush increased the debt from $7 trillion to $9 trillion.

Obama's first budget included $870 billion stimulus, as well as increases in about every department. He also extended unemployment benefits 3 different times. In 2 years the President has borrowed more than Bush did in 8 ($2 trillion for Bush, almost $5 trillion for Obama). If the trend continues, Obama will have matched in 4 years what it took this nation 230 years. By 2013, Obama will have borrowed almost $8 trillion.

Fredrick Ward| 4.28.11 @ 10:09AM

Wow, Vtwin.,obtusest isn't even a word. Secondly, if you would take but a single moment to do a simple Google search you wouldn't need to ask such a stupid question that has been answered over and over again by economists around the country. Educate yourself for a change, or if you are unable to then please step away from the keyboard, and get a surgical operation to get your mouth sewn shut. Call it a new provision of the Clean Air Act.

Cyborg| 4.27.11 @ 6:48PM

Brooks stick to something you know about foreskins, not wine skins.

Paul| 4.27.11 @ 9:15AM

The massive trade deficits of the Bush years left us in debt to the tune of $1.5 trillion to foreign lenders.

This is the root of the economic fiasco we find ourselves in now.

Time to face the facts.

David T| 4.27.11 @ 11:35AM

The trade deficit doesn't mean we're in debt to foreign investors; it simply means they have a claim on some of our assets. Our trade deficit, as long as it's not financed by printing money, is essentially a self-correcting mechanism that reflects the supply and demand of the dollar.

Brian B| 4.28.11 @ 1:12PM

I nominate Paul's for stupidest post of the week

UpChuck.Liberals| 4.28.11 @ 9:19PM

Hey, have some respect, Paul's on Barrys Economic Team.

John2| 4.28.11 @ 9:19PM

He seems to be a liberal.

Q.E.D.

richard ryan| 4.27.11 @ 9:20AM

Alan Brooks: "Conservative principles may be the correct way to run the country, but Republican leaders have not been enacting conservative policy." Do I have that right, AB?

Redstateboy| 4.27.11 @ 9:23AM

"it is obvious to everyone but Obama and his hypnotized true believers, party apologists, and bought and paid for special interests"

Brooks?? Which of above categories describes you most aptly?

Alan Brooks| 4.27.11 @ 10:56AM

"Alan Brooks: 'Conservative principles may be the correct way to run the country, but Republican leaders have not been enacting conservative policy.' Do I have that right, AB?"

What on Earth do conservative principles mean in the year 2011?? since you apparently have an academic background, or at least a good working knowledge of both economic and social conservatism, YOU tell US what is going on. Since January 20th, 2001-- the day Bush was inaugurated-- it has been curiouser and curiouser. Naturally, you can go back to LBJ to realize when it started, however 1/20/'01 was when the mirror-image quality of anti-conservative conservative reality began to intrude. Coincidence? Bush had nothing whatsoever to do with it? ditto his desire to set up a Kennedyesque dynasty?
My conscience is clear, I never voted for anyone named Bush, though I did vote GOP in the '80s because Carter was such a squishy illiberal. Obama? I did not vote for him in '08, but will vote for him next year. Because without Reagan the Republican Party is TOAST-- his generation is moribund; the Goldwaters, WFBs, and all the rest, are at that great conservative seminar in the sky.

Alan Brooks| 4.27.11 @ 10:56AM

"Alan Brooks: 'Conservative principles may be the correct way to run the country, but Republican leaders have not been enacting conservative policy.' Do I have that right, AB?"

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 11:44AM

"Obama? I did not vote for him in '08, but will vote for him next year. Because without Reagan the Republican Party is TOAST-- his generation is moribund; the Goldwaters, WFBs, and all the rest, are at that great conservative seminar in the sky."

Well, that logic makes perfect sense!!

(Forgive me, however, if I lost some point you were trying to make)

richard ryan| 4.27.11 @ 12:18PM

Bush overspent. Reasonable people can disagree about Iraq/afghanistan. I'm not going to spend much energy defending GWB. But do you even pay attention to the Debt/Deficit data?? If you vote for Obama in 2012 there are 2 possibilites: you wish harm on this nation, or you are ignorant of the facts.

Alan Brooks| 4.27.11 @ 1:07PM

"If you vote for Obama in 2012 there are 2 possibilites: you wish harm on this nation, or you are ignorant of the facts."

Obama being re-elected will if nothing else be a prod to you to elect a better Republican in 2016-- and it is pretty certain you will elect a Republican in '16.
You were overconfident with both Bushes; it had something to do with Bush 41 having been Reagan's veep. But by 2016 you will not be overconfident.

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 2:18PM

Brooks, quit playing games. You try to present yourself as some iconoclast/contrarian who's only goal is to make controversial posts, but in reality your too gutless to tell us what you really stand for.

Alan Brooks| 4.27.11 @ 6:45PM

I stand for nothing, I am a liberal, I unthinkingly go with the flow because it is easier than make decisions. Better to live as muslim slave than to defend america.

John2| 4.28.11 @ 9:22PM

"Better to live as muslim slave than to defend america."

I hope you never gain the experience that informs you how stupid this post really is.

Klown.

JP| 4.27.11 @ 3:59PM

I suggest to go back to the spending limits of the last fiscal year our budget was actually balanced (1999-2000). That would leave us with spending at $1.8 trillion.

Nancy in NC| 4.27.11 @ 2:08PM

Honestly, you sound like a three year old. "He did it first. He started it."

For heaven sakes, the blame game is old. We are here at this moment, and there's no going back. What's done is done to be terse.

But this President lives in the la-la land of should be and want to be...not in reality. It's quite apparent that he's in love with himself and his ideas...even if they have failed over and over.

I don't want a king to make the decisions. If one reads the job description of the President according to the Constitution, it's easy to see that Obama (and many before him) have a sense of their own importance and little reality of the balance of powers. Executive orders and signings have made a mockery of Congress, the sovereignty of the states, and the will of the electorate.

If the American people no longer want a republic, then there are steps to change our government by amendment. It is not within the lawful power of the President to appoint himself Dictator or King, even though Obama has been abundantly clear that point really ticks him off.

As far as I'm concerned many American voted for Obama to prove they were not racist; now they need to vote for someone else to prove they are not total fools.

Frank7888| 4.27.11 @ 5:15PM

Amen to that, Nancy. This president is not interested in the tough task of governing. He fulfills the pop culture expectations of some of the people who voted for him: young people, blacks and aging hippies. I hope the conservative Democrats (and there are some) and the independents realize what his economic policies are doing to this country.

Toxic| 4.27.11 @ 4:27PM

"Even if everything you write is correct, remember how Bush signed on to it all right before he left office"
While there a lot of things economically I did not like about Bush, it is wrong to compare his TARP to Obama's Stimulus. TARP was a loan and has been mostly paid back (bringing in further revenue during the Obama year budgets helping his numbers look better... yes scary thought... they would have looked even worse). Obama's stimulus was not a loan, no one is paying any of it back. It wasn't even a stimulus in that none of it went to things that might actually stimulate our economy. It was mostly a pay off to groups that had supported Obama (mainly unions).

Teaghan| 4.27.11 @ 7:43AM

Ditto. The left loves to remind we stupid conservatives how "brilliant" "The One" is. Why would he burden the people he is supposed to represent with higher prices on just about everything? I have, from day one, thought this man is out to "fundamentally" destroy America.
Who will step in to beat his sorry ars next year?

Alan Brooks| 4.27.11 @ 4:15PM

"but in reality your too gutless to tell us what you really stand for."

Grant, you are too young to know what's going on.

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 9:36PM

Ok, that was chuckle worthy. You sure you're not related to Mel Brooks?...Albert perhaps?

John2| 4.28.11 @ 9:23PM

He is related to a large family of babbling brooks.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.27.11 @ 6:47AM

One issue you don't see in the main stream media is that the economy is running out of steam and by the end of 2011 all the chickens in Obama's economy will come home to roost.

From high gas prices tied directly to government policies, to high food prices tied to the cost of energy and transportation to significant declining wealth across all spectrums of the U.S. economy, Obama has created a significant disaster. And there's more to come.

At a time Obama should be cutting red tape and taxes his resistance to anything he doesn't understand is taking him and the economy down.
And he doesn't care.

The Obama economy is heading towards a brick wall at a 100 miles per hour and all we hear about is government investments while Obama drives the car into the ditch.

That's the same car he claimed that Bush drove into the ditch.

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 11:03AM

I'm afraid you're prognosis is correct. How does the opposition effectively direct the middle classs' anger, which is sure to come, toward the guilty party, i.e. Obama and the dems? The reason I ask is because the republicans have a long history screwing up the messaging either accidentally or by design.

Dagney Taggert| 4.27.11 @ 6:59AM

Liberals lack of economic literacy is the most frustrating part of this battle. Another fact never mentioned is the late 90's budget "surpluses" were fueled by the massive capital gains taxes garnered from the dot com bubble. Investors made huge amounts of money, cap gains went through the roof, and despite the portfolio pain afterword, we were left with a massive fiber infrastructure that paved the way for the internet economy to take very serious costs out of our overall economy and the way we do business.

Another nugget that pisses me off is the fact that no "pro-education" liberal ever second-guesses the Pell grant concept. Does it ever occur to these numb-nuts that the government continually making money available to students is simply a green light for colleges to raise tuition? Oh gee, with the tenure system etc., I'm sure there's no efficiencies we can pull out of the collegiate cost structure.

Two areas we continue to throw money at are the two areas with the highest rates of inflation: healthcare and education. The simple definition of inflation: Too many dollars chasing too few goods. As usual, the ONLY way liberals see to solve problems is to throw more money at them.

Yesterday there was a headline about California wanting to tax soda. The rationale? It would raise $1.7bn to "fight childhood obesity." All these brain-dead idiots can come up with is ways to tax--was there any mention of HOW they would fight this boogeyman du jour? Was there any mention of why they needed the sum of $1.7bn? Of course not.

Liberals neet to take an honest look in the mirror and address two things: 1) What are the results of programs that are money sponges? Are we getting the bang for the bucks spent? 2) Think about life with a little more focus on the basics of economics--supply and demand. Despite the nice fuzzy feelings the rhetoric provides us, the laws of supply and demand cannot be repealed--even by their messiah in the White House.

mike daniels| 4.27.11 @ 9:58AM

Somebody tell me- exactly on what is all this money being spent and who is getting it? Other then road after road being ripped up and worked on by union workers I don't see it anywhere!

Phil Sukalewski| 4.27.11 @ 10:00AM

Very well said.

Here in Georgia the Hope scholarship money has allowed the Georgia colleges to raise tuition nearly 10% per year on average. INCLUDING 25% LAST YEAR !!!

Why - because most parents in Georgia assume that the Hope scholarship will cover their kids tuition. Whoops - not anymore, as the state lottery is not bringing in enough money to cover the tuition anymore.

In the same vain, does anyone really believe that if taxes were raised enough to fill the deficit, that the politicians wouldn't expand the spending?

http://factbook.gatech.edu/con.....n-and-fees
http://www.usnews.com/educatio.....on-program

Ned| 4.27.11 @ 11:23AM

Don't recall just now where I saw it, but I do remember seeing the statistic that for every dollar of taxation, the gubmint spends $1.40... I'm sure that number is pathetically outdated in the Age of Barry The Bull$hitter ("Sometimes I even believe my own BS...")

Some more fun numbers, to obtain $1 in revenue, it costs the real economy $1.30, including compliance and collection... divide that by the inherent inefficiency of gubmint (gubmint being 50% less efficient than the real economy sounds good to me) and you get a cost of $2.60 for every $1 of gubmint "benefit" - regardless of how well-conceived a gubmint program may be (now there's an oxymoron) it's just not going to EVER be worth the cost, unless it's a critical national priority... and there should be a WHOLE LOT fewer of those than there seems to be.

From there, it's easy to get to my philosophy that "all government is evil, but some of it is a necessary evil...", and "government should be the LAST choice to resolve a problem, NOT the first choice."

skip| 4.27.11 @ 2:40PM

Experts have pegged it for every $1 the government confiscates it subtracts $3.40 from overall GDP.

Liberals, you can't kill them and you can't kill them.

vtwin| 4.27.11 @ 11:23AM

An Interesting analysis, government subsidies on education and healthcare, increases the overall costs of education and healthcare. So by extension eliminating these subsidies should decrease costs? This may be true. But, government subsidies on education and healthcare were not designed to decrease the costs of education and healthcare but rather to provide access to greater numbers of Americans.

Dagny Taggert| 4.27.11 @ 12:17PM

Yet, it's harder to get into colleges than ever by grades AND out-of-reach costs. And in healthcare, "greater access" means what? I don't recall a time when someone couldn't visit a doctor. BUT, now that the gummint has indirectly designed health insurance through mandates, and price controls, we now have doctors turning away patients on medicaid because the gummint won't re-imburse them at a level that is economic. In both cases, the goal you state hasn't been achieved. VT, the reason conservatives believe in the free market is because the price mechanism is achieved through the input of every single participant in the market (supply and demand). As soon as the gummint tries to game it in the name of "fairness" or whatever justification they use, they take out the aggregation of all the opinions and replace it with the opinions of the few who wield power. We just don't think any small body of opinion can match the depth of knowledge the largest body of opinion provides.

AntiPatriarchy| 4.27.11 @ 8:41PM

"or whatever justification they use", um, like an educated populace being necessary to an effective and strong democracy?
"We just don't think any small body of opinion can match the depth of knowledge the largest body of opinion provides."
So a million stupid people can somehow turn a wrong into a right just by believing it?

Sam Levi| 4.28.11 @ 12:25PM

They elected Obama, didn't they?

Nancy in NC| 4.27.11 @ 2:15PM

Considering the amount of money that the government has spent on education, we should have the smartest, most intelligent, creative population of the world and all time. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Culture has redefined what is important and worthwhile in this country...and it's sure not education. Materialism is the mantra of the population and how much stuff can we buy cheaply at WalMart. We want someone else to pay for our health care, and anything else one can successfully pawn off on others. Until we become responsible citizens that judge candidates on their character and abilities instead of their likeability, we are doomed as a society.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 4:33PM

"Considering the amount of money that the government has spent on education, we should have the smartest, most intelligent, creative population of the world and all time."

Yeah, except that Lithuania spends more of their GDP on education than we do.

http://www.nationmaster.com/gr.....ing-of-gdp

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 12:00PM

Outstanding. I'd like to add along with your argument the other factor which is, Keynesians, socialists, liberals, (call them what you will) always believe they can control rational self interest (a.k.a human nature) in people and organizations. The theory of supply and demand is a function of individuals and groups acting in their own self interest. Socialism runs counter to that. You go down the road of Keynesian ism, you begin the never-ending battle (regulations, punishments, etc) to tamp down self interest at the cost of the tax payer.

It's never worked nor never will.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 4:28PM

I can do math. The math for Pell grants actually adds up really nicely.

I figure at 5,000 a year for four years, we spend about 20,000 dollars to get someone a college degree.

Someone who has a college degree earns over 1.3 million more than someone without a college degree over their lifetime. I figure spending 20k for someone to make 1.3mil in taxable income is a wise investment. I see almost a ten fold return of investment.

Could someone please explain how these numbers don't add up to be an amazing investment?

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 4:34PM

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf (citation for above)

John2| 4.28.11 @ 9:32PM

This question has been addressed using better estimation methods and more recent data. The difference between college and HS is more like $200k, if that.

I won't distract you with detailed revisions; the difference is dragged down by the many college graduates who get degrees in low-paying fields, those who never work in the field they studied, and the full opportunity cost of going to college.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 4:51PM

Where does the money for the grants come from?

By what authority is the money collected?

By what authority can the government invest in it?

If this is such an amazing investment why aren't there multitudes of private corporations attempting to earn a profit on it?

If this is such an amazing investment why aren't you attempting to earn a profit on it?

If you can do math then you know that spending exceeds revenue by over fifty thousand dollars every second, right?

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 5:00PM

> Where does the money for the grants come from?

It comes from collected tax-dollars.

> By what authority is the money collected?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

> By what authority can the government invest in it?

See above.

> If this is such an amazing investment why aren't there multitudes of private corporations attempting to earn a profit on it?

There are: https://www.salliemae.com/

>If this is such an amazing investment why aren't you attempting to earn a profit on it?

Because I don't have the ability to levy taxes. I also don't have millions of dollars to loan out.

> If you can do math then you know that spending exceeds revenue by over fifty thousand dollars every second, right?

This statement has nothing to do with the cost benefit analysis of Pell grants.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 5:29PM

Is the tax money collected by congress under the power to pay debts, the power to provide for the common defence, or the power to provide for the general welfare?

Spending exceeding revenue by more than $50,000 each second has no relevance in an analysis of pell grants?

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 5:40PM

Are you asking these questions in an attempt to understand, or in an attempt to befuddle me?

skip| 4.27.11 @ 7:14PM

I'm asking in response to your initial question.

Why are you no longer answering the questions posed?

There were only two this time.

The end result of all these questions will show what you fail to understand because you are befuddled.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 7:23PM

> Is the tax money collected by congress under the power to pay debts, the power to provide for the common defence, or the power to provide for the general welfare?

Providing for the general welfare.

> Spending exceeding revenue by more than $50,000 each second has no relevance in an analysis of pell grants?

Correct - our current spending has no relevance in "the cost benefit analysis of Pell grants." However - it certainly has a lot to do with whether we can afford to fund such investments.

I think in Sim City there is a great analogy. The cities budget may be tight, and you might need to take out a loan to purchase a school. Operating the school costs a lot of money, in addition to its initial purchase price. However, within a few months of purchasing the school the average sims education is higher. Because they are more educated, they make more money and attract higher paying jobs. Before you know it, the increase in education has let to an increase in tax revenue in both the commercial and residential districts and that leads to a paid off loan and a better end state than begin state. How much you're spending doesn't effect the truth of this equation - the end state is better than the start state.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 7:59PM

I'm aware of promote the general welfare, not provide for the general welfare.

How is the general welfare promoted by pell grants when only the specific welfare of some is promoted at the expense of the general welfare of others?

If you think Sim city is a great analogy how can we take you seriously?

Why not use the analogy in the United States where before there was a department of education schools were funded locally, educated their own children with teachers and administrators held accountable to the local taxpayers, where budgets were actually met and students actually learned?

Why not use the analogy in the United States where after the department of education schools were subsidized federally, babysat their children with teachers and administrators shielded from accountability by the public unions they were members of, where budget spending, deficits, and debt increase exponentially and students know less and less?

With the first local analogy eighth graders knew Latin.

With the last federal analogy 70% of twelfth graders could not find Iraq on a global map that listed the names of each nation at its geographic location at a time when the nation had been at war in Iraq over two years.

Virtually every assumption you make is false.

Sam Levi| 4.28.11 @ 12:29PM

the flaw in your entire analysis is that people with a higher education can only make more money if there are jobs available.....news flash, there aren't

skip| 4.28.11 @ 2:12PM

News Flash.

Students educated in the analogy above, where they have learned Latin by eighth grade in addition to the location of Iraq, will live in a society where the vast majority will have sufficient intelligence and honesty to know better than ever electing a Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, or Humphrey, and will therefore have an availibility of employment options exceeding socialist utopian fantasy.

Trinacria| 4.27.11 @ 7:50PM

The problem with your argument, HL, is that an investment is something that is made with the aim of generating a return TO THE INVESTOR. In the case of Pell grants, the government invests my money and someone who has no skin in the game reaps all the gains. That's not an investment; it's welfare.

Trinacria| 4.27.11 @ 7:54PM

Actually, it's theft! But why split hairs? I say "potato"' you say, "Hey, we need a tax on potatoes!"

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 8:02PM

My point was that the government invests 20k and makes a return of 200k.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 8:15PM

How can we take you seriously?

Your assumption of 'investment' has been exposed as in reality 'theft'.

Yet you completely ignore this teeny little inconvenience to race to other false assumptions.

Respond to Trinacria if you will.

Trinacria| 4.27.11 @ 8:22PM

Which they promptly return to me with interest? To be clear, the government isn't the investor; the entity that provides the funds is the investor (that would be me), and as of this afternoon, I have yet to seen my return. By the way, can an "investment" be considered an investment if it's made without the "investor's" consent?

skip| 4.27.11 @ 8:27PM

I dibs Hamilton Lucas' self-esteem.

After you, Trinacria, of course.

If there is any left after you're done with him, that is.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 8:43PM

I don't think you understood.

The government invests 20,000 dollars of OUR tax dollars to get a citizen a college education. That citizen will go on to make 1.3 million more than if they didn't get that education. As a result, the government earns 200,000 in tax dollars by taxing the person who the initial 20,000 went to. That means we've earned 180,000 tax dollars that we otherwise would not have.

"How is the general welfare promoted by pell grants when only the specific welfare of some is promoted at the expense of the general welfare of others?"

Because we tax the person who is making more money, the government not only gets paid back, but they get paid back 10x more. This benefits everyone involved. The person who gets to go to school, the company that gets to hire the educated person, the government that gets to tax both the business and the resident. If this isn't promoting the general welfare of the nation then nothing will.

You've both done an excellent job of illustrating why people find this hard to understand, and a terrible job at answering my initial question.

trinacria| 4.27.11 @ 9:28PM

With all due respect, HL, I'm afraid I simply must insist against engaging in a battle of wits with a clearly unarmed opponent.

As a parting comment, however, I hasten to note that you keep using the term "we" and "our" in the royal sense (perhaps betraying all too well your fundamental idiological view). Unfortunately, "we" don't all participate in the decision to "invest" "our" money, and "we" certainly don't all participate in the alleged gains.
And while we're on the subject of education, why would I ever want to commit the unforgivable sin of depriving a youngster one of the most important educational opportunities of all - the opportunity to learn the value of hard work and self sufficiency. I myself was offorded the extraordinary opportunity of working road construction 6 days/week, 10 hours per day every summer in order to earn the money to pay for my education. Best lesson I ever learned - in or out of school. Truth is, the notion that some child won't be able to get an education because they simply can't afford it is a myth (when is the last time you met an extremely bright janitor who could have been an aerospace engineer but is stuck in his present predicament simply because he couldn't afford an education? Really?).

I'm afraid you're going to have to sell that crap somewhere else; we're just about all stocked up here....

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 9:55PM

Where I live, I know many many people who could become extraordinary educated workers if only they could afford more than the community college.

Publius| 4.27.11 @ 11:29PM

Why are you not funding this effort in return for a future percentage of their earning stream?

In this day and age of lavish government programs, who can't find funding for college?

AntiPatriarchy| 4.27.11 @ 8:46PM

If you are an American you benefit from the investment WE the People make in We the People.

Trinacria| 4.27.11 @ 10:12PM

By golly; you're right! Reductio ad absurdum: why don't we all just send in everything we make and then divvy it up equally among everyone? We the people will ALL benefit from our collective investment! Oh, wait...they've tried that somewhere before; haven't they? Let's give 'em a call and aak 'em how it worked out!

C'mon, fess up... You were a Pell grant recipient, weren't you?

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 10:23PM

No - I am not, and did not receive Federal funds for my higher education.

Publius| 4.27.11 @ 11:30PM

Yet you are, presumably, successful. How is that possible without the government funding you?

John2| 4.28.11 @ 9:39PM

Nor, evidently, did you receive a valid higher education. Come on, Hamilton, admit it, you majored in Crybaby Studies, or Sociology, or Phys Ed, or some such.

You don't have any enemies here, we are trying to help you.

BTW, see my response to your Census Bureau evidence for the $1.3m return on the $20,000 investment (posted 4:34PM). In a few words, the return is greatly exaggerated.

UpChuck.Liberals| 4.28.11 @ 9:25PM

You are, of course, assuming that the graduate has a job or has a job that is earning anything that will remotely allow the graduate to pay back their loan much less pay taxes.

Mimi| 4.27.11 @ 7:18AM

What is so frustrating is...... NOTHING..OR NOBODY can stop this destruction. Look around the country.. look at the world even. I wonder if the .."NEWS" media will ever be forgiven....they owe us, they should be digging...not DONALD TRUMP! The ECONOMY is only half of the misery. I've been PRAYING a lot....how about YOU!!!

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 5:02PM

Until logic trumphs over faith, we're screwed.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 7:16PM

Until everyone understands the liberal argues based on emotion while the conservative argues based on logic, we're screwed.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 9:03PM

"Until everyone understands the liberal argues based on emotion while the conservative argues based on logic"

AHahahaha.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 9:28PM

I'll attempt to prove my assertation with liberal quotes from democratic politicians on the current budget battle.

You attempt to refute my assertation with conservative quotes from republican politicians on the current budget battle.

You're up, lay your first quote on me.

skip| 4.28.11 @ 1:16AM

Still no quotes?

That's okay, I'll start.

"The Tea Party Republicans in Washington claim they're concerned about the budget balance. But it's a disguise! It's not true! It's a lie!" (Frank Lautenberg)

(ps: Wait until I get to Obama and Pelosi)

(pss: Do you have a fucking clue how many other pathetic despicable liberal shitheads I can quote before I get to them?)

(psss: Do you even realize yet your "AHahahaha" comment was based on emotion not logic?)

Gary| 4.27.11 @ 7:23AM

Kitty is 100% correct. Obama is the most successful Marxist in our country’s history. He’s the International Marxist ideal: anti-American Dream, anti-Christian, anti-free market and anti-liberty. Everything else is just the details.

Larry| 4.27.11 @ 7:24AM

President my ass. Professor my ass. I refuse to address Barry, Comrade Golfer, America's #1 enemy as either.

He was never a professor of anything. During and after the campaign it was stated that he'd been an adjnct professor. He wasn't even that. He was a lecturer and with those communication skills (uh... uh... uh...) and lack of knowledge of the Constitution (too many negative rights or something like that), a pretty poor one at that. When did affirmative action ever care about real qualifications though?

For you lib scum who want to call him (or is it Him) professor though, read about another professor by the name of Pol Pot.

Paul Kotik| 4.27.11 @ 8:42AM

Personally, I refer to the man currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as "Resident Obama".

Well, look, I say worse in private - but that would be unseemly here. Resident Obama it is.

Ned| 4.27.11 @ 11:26AM

nothing capitalized... he don't deserve it... personally, I like "Barry Bull$hit"... from his comment "... I even believe my own..."

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 4:49PM

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_a_dick

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 4:50PM

I could learn a lot from myself.

Publius| 4.27.11 @ 11:30PM

However it happens, you learning would be a good thing.

John2| 4.28.11 @ 9:42PM

Not by imitation, but by listening and self-criticism you might learn much.

I wish you the best in this useful and necessary endeavor.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 4:36PM

He's still your president :)

Skippy| 4.27.11 @ 5:38PM

Speak for yourself. :(

Trinacria| 4.27.11 @ 8:03PM

Amen, brother!

Walking Horse| 4.27.11 @ 7:26AM

People keep trying to figure out what makes this guy tick, not wanting to acknowledge the obvious, possibly because they cannot bring themselves to accept the fact that the U.S. electorate could have chosen such a man to be president. Economic ignorance is only a partial explanation. The greater part of this is most plausibly found in animus toward the American People in particular, and the concept of economic freedom in general. Simply put, he is not one of us. He is an intellectual heir of Saul Alinsky and 20th century African anti-colonialists. Obama is the first anti-American president of the United States. It is difficult to imagine a more vivid reminder of the fact that government is not now, nor has ever been, your friend.

Mike D.| 4.27.11 @ 7:58AM

Walking Horse Thats the whole ball of wax right there. He's an anti-american marxist and its almost hilarious to read and listen to people analyze and pigeonhole this clown as everything else but what he actually is either out of ignorance or complete self dillusionor in some cases self-denial. If you peg him as what he is, everything he's done fits like a glove. An understanding of economics is not required to be a usurper and destroyer, he is what he is. An anti-american, anti-capitalist marxist. Nothing more. There is an 8 ton elephant in the room creating havoc and we have people who see a swan, a horse, a gorilla, an antelope, a moose but can't figure out why these false perceptions keep behaving like an 8 ton elephant.

Intelligent Design| 4.27.11 @ 7:37AM

When he gets kicked out of office in November 2012, Obama will make an excellent Professor of American Un-Exceptionalism at Columbia University. His mindset and "knowledge" will be a perfect fit.

Larry| 4.27.11 @ 7:38AM

But if he gets hired in private sector, by law, he'll need to prove that he's elgible to work in this country. Oh no. Wait a minute. He won't.

PolishKnight| 4.27.11 @ 9:18AM

Sadly, like Clinton and other liberal former presidents, he'll do just fine in the so-called private sector.

There are a lot of backs he's scratched with government money over the years and it's kickback, er, payback time! He'll get million dollar speech gigs, his relatives will get high paying jobs , and later on like Clinton he'll throw a million dollar wedding bash for his kids attended by fellow cronies.

And that's largely how big government statism works. The Professor is no longer a "little person" like the rest of us.

I love to remind smug liberals, who often live in their mothers' basement, that socialism is more classist than Louis the 14th's era. Or George III.

RCV| 4.27.11 @ 8:45PM

How's that birtherism nonsense working out for you today, Larry?

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 4.27.11 @ 9:21PM

I don't bother with silly birtherism of abortion as constitutional expert and real Christian love expert on other birtherism matters.

RCV| 4.27.11 @ 9:50PM

Do you ever try to express a coherent thought?

Publius| 4.27.11 @ 11:32PM

You first, RCV.

Rancid Contemptible Venality| 4.28.11 @ 12:50AM

I don't bother with silly inanities of my own words thrown back in my face while failing to recognize the irony on lack of coherency or for that matter lack of intelligence and lack of honesty matters.

Real Christian Virtue| 4.28.11 @ 1:21AM

I don't bother with silly I abhor sanctimonious conservatism of the tea party brand an ideology wholly lacking in intelligence or a shred of real Christian love and compassion on coherent thought matters.

John2| 4.28.11 @ 9:44PM

How do you sodomize yourself like that?

And why in public?

Rancorous Calumny Vituperation| 4.29.11 @ 12:00PM

I don't bother with silly considerations of self-sodomization as an activity every individual of my party participates in myself included on belonging to a party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born and other coherent matters.

Gordon W.| 4.27.11 @ 8:11AM

I'm glad people are still rallying around the respective party sides. But in attacking Obama's economic literacy you have shown your own. Of course the Bush tax increased revenue. He could have done nothing and increased revenue. He could of raised taxes and increased revenues. We were recovering...

Your attack on renewable energy is kind of funny. Relies on welfare. What about coal, oil and natural gas. These all get heavily subsidized. To the extent that gas at the pump would be 8 dollars more if the subsidies were removed. Its called protecting an infant industry and leveling the playing field. But, the sheep would rather be stuck with the OPEC. Really American...

Also most of the years that were seen to represent American superiority and the golden years were backed by investing in infrastructure. From the 50's to the 70's that is what we did. Invested in government programs such as school, roads, telephone and energy. We have just been attempting to keep the status quo since then. But I guess the money will just come, because the private sector has been doing a lot of work lately (record profits, record unemployment, recored stored reserves)...

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.27.11 @ 9:00AM

Sorry, Gordon,
you can't sell that crap here. You just wasted some electrons.

Peter,
I'm sorry, but you missed the mark in your essential premise for this column.
The guys above nailed it for you though. Obama is merely a communist, (pardon the shorthand), and a liar....if I may be redundant.

Dagny Taggert| 4.27.11 @ 9:18AM

I'm still waiting to read about exactly where these "big oil" subsidies are spent. It is my understanding that it is primarily the depletion allowances for production and exploration. The concept being that investors need an incentive to invest in extracting oil and gas, since each well has a finite amount of these fuels--i.e. who wants to invest in a depleting asset? OK, fine. When you read about the insane difficulties the feds impose on p&e companies through EPA regulations, is it a wash? Gordon, if you want to end these subsidies, then they have to be accompanied with an end to the EPA restrictions that make oil p&e nearly impossible and economically unfeasible.

PolishKnight| 4.27.11 @ 9:24AM

Looks like someone is reading the liberal blogs. Where did the 8 dollar subsidy figure come from? If anything, gas is TAXED and liberals throw away billions of dollars in granola cum-ba-yah environmental policies forbidding drilling.

I'm reading 1984 on my Kindle and it's funny how liberalism today has so much in common with doublespeak of the fictitional Stalinist era in the book. Yeah, oil is producing tax revenue because it's subsidized. OK....

Investment in "schools?" Yeah, the USA spends more per pupil on schools than anywhere. OH, wait, most of that money is wasted on liberal indoctrination. Roads? Again, billions wasted on contracts issued for political reasons rather than merit. Telephone? Er, that was PRIVATIZED 30 years ago and has soared ever since.

Finally, energy subsidies. We keep hearing how great socialism is and how wonderful Sweden and Western Europe is and so much smarter than us (despite not being ethnically "diverse") So where are all their great energy solutions, hmmm? Why hasn't all the millions of graduates from Trotsky U. turned out inventors of clean energy? Windmills? It takes 20 years plus to get the energy back (if they're still standing.)

Actually, it was Tesla and Edison who pioneered energy. Oh, wait, they are AMERICANS competing in PRIVATE companies. Nevermind.

Gordon W.| 4.27.11 @ 11:10AM

Mr. Speaker John Boehner just announced that he is willing to get rid of the billions of dollars in subsidies.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.....sidies.php

Bamm

Skippy| 4.27.11 @ 5:41PM

Welcome to $8/gal gas.
Congratulations.
Boehner's move will spike gas prices and make Prince Bambo even more "popular" with voters.

Boommm

Gordon W.| 4.27.11 @ 9:19PM

The funniest thing is every conversation I have with people about the fact that gasoline is provided enumerable subsidies they always say it is taxed if anything. Unfortunately that was the first link when typing in oil subsidy.

Just another example of people going head first with their convictions, rather than using facts.

Oh, I could care less if Obama is elected again.

Indiana Alex| 4.27.11 @ 9:24AM

Is there any group currently walking the planet that believes government spending is more productive than private investment other than American Liberals?

Dan Hirsch| 4.27.11 @ 9:26AM

Gordon,

You have confused a number of things.
Conservatism does not equate with Republicanism.

"Heavily subsidized coal, oil, gas." You mean heavily TAXED, coal, oil, and gas. Just because Paul Krugman and other economic no-nothings complain about oil companies's deducting legitimate expenses against revenues to reduce their corporate income tax liability is a subsidy. It is the unreliable renewables that are subsidized through direct grants, minimum renewable generation laws, renewable energy tax credits, and other obscure, but real subsidies. Look at how much in taxes you pay every time you fill up your gas tank, pay your electric or gas bill. It's right there on the pump or on the bill. Just read it!

If you think that building roads is what made ours a strong economy you need to do a little more reading. Remember the monopoly of the phone company in the 'golden era.' When a long distance call cost as much as a loaf of bread. Well today you can call overseas for pennies a minute, not dollars a minute. Do you remember all the superfast computers of the 1960's? No you don't cause they didn't exist. Remember the picture phone? It practically didn't exist. No it was not building roads that took us here - it was re-inventing and re-building the communication system, it was inventing and building the information technology businesses that gave America economic superiority.

Countries all over the world were building roads, railways, and buildings - but we outpaced them because we were inventing and building BETTER ways of doing things.

The government has never invented anything - they poured our money on the ground and we have used that money to invent new, valuable stuff. But they never had the answers that built the economy.

Obama's big economic ideas? Rail, sorry, "high-speed" rail and "unreliable renenwables." Let's see now, the train thing was commercialized in the 1830's and the Dutch were using stationary windmills in the 1600's. So our genius President beleives that we can re-start our absolutely stagnant economy with technologies from the nineteenth and seventeenth centuries...

What a dolt, and anyone who follows him down that dead-end path is more ignorant and un-informed than he is.

And Reagan was the idiot! We need more idiots!!!

Gordon, look around you. Go past what they say on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, the NY Times, the Washington Post. Turn off the History Channel, Discovery Network. Read about what is happening in technology, read about where the REST of the world is looking and going. Then think about how, it used to be Americans leading. Now it's Chinese followed by Indians.

WAKE UP!!! SMELL COFFEE!!

Don't tread on me!

George S| 4.27.11 @ 10:05AM

Bush's actions were inconsequential because "we were recovering..."

Why were we recovering? Did the Bush administration throw more money at "school, roads, telephone and energy."? If so, then what is Obama doing wrong... too much money?

I blame the public schools. Unfortunately, they vote.

Gordon W.| 4.27.11 @ 11:13AM

Umm, the crash was a bubble. A priori there is a comeback.

Obama is not allocating money where he should because of outside interests. The public schools are fine but require a better incentive plan. NCLB is at least something different, but different isn't really catching up to other countries...

Nancy in NC| 4.27.11 @ 2:22PM

The public schools are fine???? What alternate universe do you live on? It might behoove you to watch the movie, "Waiting for Superman" and then get back with us.

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 11:15AM

Read your history. Many of those "investments" were and remain boondoggles managed by corrupt bureaucrats. It happens like clockwork when the government throws money at projects, err, "investments" with no expectations of efficiency or accountability.

This is the Keynesian Multiplier Effect at it's finest.

Publius| 4.27.11 @ 11:33PM

You lost me with "he could of (sic) raised taxes..."

Proofread much?

Brian Mc| 4.27.11 @ 8:25AM

"Investing" in government programs ensures our destruction. With hints that gasoline will be over five dollars per gallon by Memorial Day, I have a feeling that all of us are being backed into a corner through all this government "Investment". Someone might want to warn the alien that this is a dangerous thing to do. There is no way, on this present course, this situation will be able to maintain itself through the year let alone up until the next election cycle. The beast is cowering in the corner and flexing its muscles.

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 11:23AM

Yep. The MASSIVE middle class revolt will be underway shortly. Obama may be in for a big surprise.

qwilly| 4.27.11 @ 8:25AM

The truth of the matter is when you cant walk the walk, you cant, talk the talk. Just listen how this affirmative action beaurocrate, trys to discuss business issues. This is the greatest example for the people who paid for the New Deal, Great Society, et.al This type of baffoonery has plague the inner cities for over 50 years.

Intelligent Design| 4.27.11 @ 8:26AM

Obama, Geithner et. al. are wrong and irresponsible to declare that the U.S. will definitely default on its debt if the ceiling is not increased. But spending on other items must be cut to provide for the interest payments. For example, the CBO estimated that there are duplicate functions in federal agencies which waste more than $200 billion. This alone is about enough to make interest payments on the national debt. And we could cut more expenses by leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, cutting aid to the Palestinians, and cutting aid to the UN, etc.

The nation should stop using its credit card for unnecessary expenses and give priority to making the mortgage payments.

JimmyMac| 4.27.11 @ 8:27AM

Gordon W, Could I interest you in another glass of Koolaid?

John Daniel| 4.27.11 @ 8:30AM

Let's call him what he is...a communist. When he spoke - frankly - about the redistribution of wealth he was quoting karl Marx who, last I checked, has something to do with defining communism. Problem is that our civic education is so dismal that most Americans probably believe that distributing wealth is in the Bill of Rights.

db| 4.27.11 @ 8:33AM

He thinks America is too big for it's britches.

He thinks we need to be taken down a knotch or two.

One term is only enough time to put us in a deep hole.

Two terms will be enough time to throw the dirt on top of us.

Paul Kotik| 4.27.11 @ 8:43AM

The Obama puzzle is this: what are the respective contributions of Evil, Madness, and Stupidity to his conduct?

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 11:27AM

As disastrous as Carter was (and oh boy was he ever!!!) you always got the sense his motivations were of good intent. After all, he DID serve in the military.

Obama? I can't even give him THAT simple benefit of doubt.

November 4, 2008 was truly a day of infamy!!

Rick| 4.27.11 @ 8:46AM

Your a rasist!

Skippy| 4.27.11 @ 5:44PM

That's "you're a racist".
And thank you.
I am proud to hate Prince Bambo.

Trinacria| 4.27.11 @ 8:07PM

"your a racist"....
Is that proper Ebonics, Rick? It certainly isn't English...

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 9:29PM

He's bein ironik

Ret. Marine| 4.27.11 @ 9:14AM

So in other words, its "high i'm jimmah carter, i pick peanuts out of my a$$" all over again, is that correct. Yeah I though so. I remember those years and this dipstick calling himself the pretender-n-thief, i.e, obamas bin ly'n is yet another example of a gov. turned marxist loose upon the good souls of this Country. I weep daily for my country, but I turn these prayers into the thoughts, prepare and continue to train others for the inevitable task of making these criminals pay for their treason either in this life or the next. Payback is best served cold.

Conservative View| 4.27.11 @ 9:16AM

There is a concept in intellectual discourse that goes back to the ancient Greeks, or perhaps even further. It is called "consent by silence." When the President was asked what would he cut, he dodged the question. He was silent on the issue. Through that silence he consented to the argument that he hasn't a clue what to cut.

This extends to all of American politics today. Time after time, after time, after time, politicans duck a question. We need to start listening to what they say, and just as importantly, to what they don't say. When they duck, dodge, weave around a point and remain silent upon it, they are consenting to the point.

All too often we are throwing around slams and insults when we don't need to. A politican held to the word of his silence slams himself far better than any insult we might throw. Why shoot the messenger, he is very skilled at shooting himself. The Presidents feet must have more holes in them than a hobo's socks.

We need a press that understands than a non answer is an answer, it is consent. We sould press the press to note that consent. Even Fox News lets the professional politican off the hook. That needs to stop. Call the professional politican on his silence, tell him that his silence is consent, and watch him wiggle on the hook.

I submit that the greatest disrespect that a politican can affront the American people with is a refusal to directly answer questions put to him. We can not vote for the right man, when the discourse is hidden behind smoke screens of silence. In this I submit that our President has shown overwhelming disrespect for the American people. I don't need to call him names, or anyone else for that matter. I just need to listen to his sounds of silence.

Dan Hirsch| 4.27.11 @ 9:30AM

If by silence you mean spewing indefinite babble in response to simple direct questions, I agree with you. I don't remember any politicians who had nothing to say, ever.

Don't tread on me!

skip| 4.27.11 @ 2:54PM

slickwillie trailertrash was a perfect example of this.

He would respond to repeated direct questions with non sequiturs that would make even the heads of rcv, jharp, gordon w., vtwin, and alan brooks swim.

Then the little shit would act as if that question had been undeniably settled and sanctimoniously dismiss any further questions with a comment such as 'I've already addressed that in last week's press conference'.

Claire| 4.27.11 @ 10:19AM

I get a little frustrated when I see intelligent people describe President Obama as not "understanding" economics and the factors that create a robust economy. This description occurs all the time it seems, and it's just crazy.

Kitty has it right. And to put it nicely, Obama just has a different opinion of what a healthy society looks like. It seems to me that he wants a government-controlled one with as little free enterprise as possible; how else am I supposed to interpret this president who so warmly embraces Chavez (the dictator who is gobbling up private companies all over Venezuela).

I'm just an average citizen who is appalled at the growth of the federal government and its reach into my private life. I hardly understand economics on the level of Ferrara; my brain isn't capable. So maybe my assessment of Obama is off, too. But what I see is an intelligent man who understands a lot of stuff, especially how a free, vibrant economy should operate. I just believe he doesn't want one, because it isn't "fair".

Please, can we stop saying that Obama doesn't understand economics?

Bob Grant| 4.27.11 @ 11:36AM

Agreed!!!! More than likely he fully understands economics.

He wants to rule an economically illiterate society.

Nancy in NC| 4.27.11 @ 2:32PM

I think you're right on target!

I almost lost my lunch when Obeyme told a bunch of kids that he wants to live in a "fair" world. What intellectual stupidity, and how totally unfair to pass that crap onto young, useful idiots.

What's fair with a child being born with a congenital defect? What's fair with someone getting cancer and dying at a young age?

Newsflash...life is NOT fair, and only someone thoroughly versed in Marxist philosophy would strive to make it so. Life is what it is...LIFE! Ups and downs, bitter and sweet. But life is only rewarding when one works and achieves their dreams. The government is attempting (fairly successfully) to destroy the playing field for us all by trying to make things "fair".

Claire| 4.27.11 @ 5:05PM

You are right, of course. But try saying these things to Obama supporters who get all their news from the Washington Post. I've tried, and the response is depressing: "rich people are selfish", "health insurance is a civil right", "13 million children don't have access to medical care-why can't little Joe Smith have health care?", "why is it fair that some people get great educations and others don't".

I get no response from the Obama supporter when I point out that lots of rich people support worthy causes such as hospitals; we already have programs in place to help the unemployed, the poor, infirm and aged - In the cases of unemployed and the poor, programs are supposed to be temporary helps, not life-long entitlements. As for national health insurance, yes, little Joe Smith will get healthcare, but old Joe Smith won't get cancer treatment or heart surgery - end of life care is expensive and the government will ration it. No response from Obama supporter and we're now both angry. *sigh*

Frank7888| 4.27.11 @ 5:36PM

Evidence that he does not understand economics: I think last week he advised people with gas guzzlers to consider trading them in on a higher mileage vehicle and that car dealers were going to give them a good deal. Or, maybe this is simply evidence that the former community organizer never bought himself a car.

Claire| 4.27.11 @ 7:37PM

More likely, it's evidence that he has low regard for the middle class, who will be funding the government's spending spree (aka vote buying) for decades to come.

Sam Levi| 4.28.11 @ 1:36PM

Gas prices are killing me. I went from $30.00 every two weeks to $82.00 every two weeks, in the last three months. For the math impaired, that is a loss of $104 per month.
Ok, so I drive a gas guzzler; but it is paid for.
Why would I trade it in for a car that is going to force me to make payments (more that the $104 I am losing now) and raise the cost of my insurance? That means spending even more money that I already don't have. Had someone said what Chairman Obama said to that crowd to my face, their lips would now be on the back of their head.

Louis Jenkins| 4.27.11 @ 10:32AM

You look at the loan officer of a bank, excuse me he says, "but your income in doesn't match the funds going out."

"It's okay, because I'm going to raise my limit on what I can borrow. Then I will not be broke."

"Hummmm,"says the loan officer. Then he stamps your loan application with "rejected."

Only the District of Criminal crowd can play with words. In the real world that dog doesn't hunt.

cicero| 4.27.11 @ 10:32AM

Cicero's basic law of economics: "Debt expands to meet the money allotted to it." The more money government throws at health care and educationthe more expensive health care and education will be.
I don't particularly care where Obama was born, at it is too late to get him ojut of office on that gambit anyway. I want to see his college transcripts. It may show that, as I believe, he skipped Econ 101.

jackc| 4.27.11 @ 10:45AM

The 21st century and beyond - Age of information and global economics.
This is the harbinger of the demise of governmental charlatans - politicians and bureaucrats of all stripes and colors.
Time for fundamental reform - Minimum government interference - zero income tax, and smart regulation. Maximum privatization - a promotion of the human spirit in America
A new order of economic leadership is indispensable.
Fire Obama and his cohorts - communism, socialism and a welfare-oriented ideology has always failed, and will always fail. These ideologies of failure must be terminated immediately, since they contradict the fundamental, unchangeable laws of the Nature and the Universe.
Hire Trump - a business leader, CEO of America to pave a path towards global economic success and prosperity for all in America!!

darcy| 4.27.11 @ 11:11AM

Just another article on how clueless the man in the oval is, when everybody KNOWS by now that his policies are DELIBERATE.

Quit insulting our intelligence. We know that Obama currently employs Keynesian economics in an effort to gradually move us toward a fully socialist/communist government, and an anti-capitalist system, and the destruction of America that has been his goal from his earliest days. He is a committed Marxist, and if you don't know that, then you are not doing your job, Mr. Journalist.

With all due respect, now write about that, why don't you: that his actions are deliberate and not some accident of his stupidity. I cite his ramming of an unwanted national health care law as chief evidence of which I write; but the trail of abuses are in the thousands, as nearly every single day one transgression of the Constitution after another are heaped on the American people. We want him gone -- him and his fellow travelers, sycophants, corporatists, cronies, and the like, the slew of them, run out of town, as it were. Traitors all of them!

Southern_Comment| 4.27.11 @ 11:38AM

First, that FB townhall held before people are off of work (well except for that approx 17% who are unemployed), was a sham. Who would it have been geared towards? Students and people who don't work - nothing slimy about that at all. If he's so forward about it - why not an address to the nation - or FB around 8pm central? Oh that's right his addressess to the nation are nothing more than exposures of his maturity and lack of intellect.
As far as him not understanding economics - that's incorrect - he understands exactly what he needs to do to make America third world and has set into motion too many events that could bring that about - he's confident and now can go relax playing golf.

Oldefarte| 4.27.11 @ 11:51AM

The Paul Ryan budget should be legislated with two main revisions. First, it doesn't adequately address the needed/necessary cut/reductions from the military appropriations, and second, a tax cut now is unnecessary and prohibited [tax rate structures and revenues should be temporarily left alone/as is until/if the economy improves sufficiently to warrant any more tax reductions]. As much as it pain me to admit it, Obama is correct in his suggestion regarding raising the Social Security payroll/income maximum limit subject to SS taxiation [same whould be completely unlimited with no maximum payroll/income amount, ie if someone makes $300000, the entire amou nt should be taxed for SS]. Once again, tweek the Ryan budget and pass it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ben Hudman| 4.27.11 @ 11:56AM

An understanding of economic policy has to exist in this person or else he would not be so effective at the systematic destruction of our economy. What I question is the plan. What will be done with the American people after the economy has been collapsed, the dollar discarded, and our standing in the world long since a memory? What are the plans to deal with all of us? Who will come to this country and take over the real estate and set up shop? It is best to take the enemy by not destroying his city according to Sun Tzu. The problem as I see it is an unwillingness of the American people to recognize insurrection when it is taking place right under our noses while we watch American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.

Steve A| 4.27.11 @ 12:53PM

Some of you here are missing the point on Obamanomics. First of all, Obama is not an "evil genius bent on destroying the USA." You have to put his life experience in context. Look at who he has been surrounded with & what he has been taught his entire life. He FIRMLY believes that Government, Social Welfare Programs & Higher Taxes would creat a superior all around environment for ALL Americans, including the wealthy. He believes that spending all of that $$ pulled us back from the brink & he would do it again today in a heart beat.

To the affluent, who would see their taxes go up, he would say, "Yes, you will pay more in taxes, but as a result, society will benefit, the economy, overall, will be superior as you will help enable those at the bottom to be productive resulting in a net eventual gain for you." "Plus, you should feel good about your increased contribution to humanity & helping your fellow man." He firmly believes this. He is frustrated that it has not worked as advertised & blames "Big Business" for sitting on all of the $$ needed to make his plan take off. He is frustrated that unemployment is lagging & blames "Big Business" for sitting on their $$ & not hiring.

Now, those of us who have a clue about the historical results of spending, huge government, printing $$, social welfare, socialism, high taxes, know POSITIVELY that his policies are a recipe for disaster. He does not see it this way. The past failure of these attempts to "equalize" society & make it more "fair" failed simply because those employing the strategy had not perfected it & were not as "intellectually gifted" as he is. It's called Progressivism. The theory is tried, fails, is improved & perfected. It Progresses.

We know the result is a dead end for ALL parties. There is no possible way he could admit this to himself. Could you gain all of that power, recognition, adoration, confirmation & then employ your strategy, see it fail & not blame someone else? His ego would shatter & this aint gonna happen.

darcy| 4.27.11 @ 1:03PM

"He FIRMLY believes that Government, Social Welfare Programs & Higher Taxes would creat a superior all around environment for ALL Americans, including the wealthy."

That's bull-shit. And you should know better. He cares about ALL Americans? What a load of crap.

He doesn't care about anything except his own power and the destruction of the country he hates.

He is happy to permit children born alive of botched abortions to DIE in a closet so hospital workers don't have to listen to the crying of a dying newborn. He's happy to remove drilling rigs from the Gulf of Mexico and put out of work thousands of oil-industry workers in the Gulf. He's happy to implement death panels as part of his COMMUNIST dream in the dismantling of our freedoms.

You're full of shit for saying that Obama cares about America.

Steve A| 4.27.11 @ 1:17PM

Wow Darcy. Take a deep breath. Ahhhhh. OK now, relax.

You & I are on the same team, believe it or not. I would not vote for Obama with 2 guns pointed at my head. You are missing the entire point of my above. Obama is not a bad man. Obama is not an evil man. Obama is a misguided man. He is misguided on economics & he is misguided on abortion, just like the 50 million or so other idiotic females,many of whom you probably smile at & wave to when you go get your groceries.

Do not hate this man. You are wasting energy & you are not influencing anyone .

darcy| 4.27.11 @ 2:47PM

Alrighty, Steve A. Truce.

Nevertheless, I disagree with you about Obama being merely "misguided." There is such a thing as evil: and it is evil to kill newborn babies using as an excuse that you don't want to jeopardize an evil law that permits state-sanctioned abortion.

Moreover, he is a consistent liar: lying is evil; almost every sentence coming out of his mouth is designed to mislead, obfuscate, deny reality, and shift blame.

I want to influence you to see that he is evil, and not merely misguided. And hate? I hate what he's doing to our country.

But yes, I was overly blunt and lacking in tact in challenging your assumptions. My anger at the who of Obama -- and his anti-American animus -- got the better of me.

Steve A| 4.27.11 @ 3:49PM

Got it Darcy, To borrow a phrase, "I feel your pain." I also understand your frustration. If we are going to succeed in changing minds, we have to realize that the "other side" is equally as confident that they are correct. At the base, the vast majority are not bad people (there is evil mixed in just as there is on the wacko extreme extreme right wing) but it is difficult to admit when you have been wrong & seek to change. It will never happen if you are insulted & deemed "evil" by the opposition. Take care Darcy.

darcy| 4.27.11 @ 5:08PM

I appreciate your perspective and know that many people share it. It just seems rather unseemly, in polite discourse, to toss around terms like "evil," likely alienating your audience when your intent is to persuade.

So no, I don't think I was originally trying to persuade you, but rather I was lashing out at you for what I considered a complete blindness to the morally reprehensible character of the man in the presidency -- and an unwillingness on your part to acknowledge that as evidenced by your euphemistic coloring of his failings as being "misguided." I'm sure you don't want me to start in on stating (following Godwin's Law) that many people in 1939 could have agreed that Hitler was "misguided," that he meant well, that he merely desired that Germans living in other countries be enveloped in a German state, not a Polish, Austrian, or Czech one.

What I object to is your term "misguided." I don't think it's helpful to minimize, with such language, the reality of who this person is; moreover, it serves rather to absolve than to confront. I also do not think "misguided" is TRUE. We're talking about a politician whose reason for being is to dismantle the Founding -- in the old days they called it treason.

I then cited three specific actions taken by Obama as evidence of my conclusion about the evil outcomes his actions produce. So I must ask, is abortion evil? Is the killing of newborns evil? Is anything these days evil? Can we talk about evil or must we forever employ sanitized and empty language -- in an effort to minimize and obfuscate the truth because it might just be too alienating to speak in bold and truthful terms? Meanwhile, if something or someone is merely misguided, then, well, what the dif? Isn't everyone guilty of being a little misguided now and then?

I think the term you employ is misguided. But I do recognize that we're on the same team, and for that I am thankful.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 5:12PM

Do you know his heart and mind to be certain 'Obama is not an evil man'?

Is unintelligence and is dishonesty morally neutral?

Intelligence and honesty are good.

Evil is the opposite of good.

The opposite of intelligence and honesty is unintelligence and dishonesty.

I am sure Obama is unintelligent and dishonest.

I am sure his words and actions have harmed the United States by oppressing constitutionally guaranteed liberties of social, political, and economic rights.

I do not know Obama is not an evil man.

RCV| 4.27.11 @ 8:47PM

There's a lot you do not know Skip.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 4.27.11 @ 9:12PM

I don't bother with silly criteria like the words and actions of the object of my adoration the er great um orat um orate er orator on sanctimonious vacuous pedagoguery matters.

Padoux| 4.27.11 @ 12:32PM

The man is a complete zero, lives in the world where government "experts" run our lives and solve all our problems while giving lip service to free enterprise. Picking winners and losers in energy, auto, tech, is a fool's folly, and we have just the fool to try it.

Petronius| 4.27.11 @ 1:17PM

Obama couches his commentary on economic matters in the sandbox terms his voters understand.
What they do not understand and will never admit is that the world is not a sandbox. It's an arena where they refuse to compete.

RCV| 4.28.11 @ 1:02AM

The only problem with your theory, Petronius, is that the majority of the most competitive, productive people -- the innovators, those who led and created the technological revolution in America, the best educated and the job creators of the new economy -- are "his voters". The strength of the tea party, in contrast, is in those economically depressed red states where the education level is low, and where people believe the birthism and other right wing nonsense people like you feed them.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 4.28.11 @ 1:51AM

RCV | 12.7.10 @ 6:27PM

"At least, skippie, I belong to a party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born."

Retched Contemptible Virulence| 4.28.11 @ 2:09AM

I don't bother with silly facts found in studies showing tea partiers have higher educations, higher incomes, and are more charitable, than other demographics across the board, while cleaning up after themselves, even in D.C., where fantasy leader Obama's inauguration, attended by technological innovators and job creators, left D.C., literally, trashed, costing the nation millions upon millions of dollars to clean up, on other facts like being a stupid liar about tea partiers matters.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 4.28.11 @ 2:23AM

I don't bother with silly did I mention I abhor sanctimonious conservatism of the tea party brand an ideology wholly lacking in intelligence or a shred of real Christian love and compassion every policy it espouses is dangerous damaging and detrimental to our country and it's future it will have a lifespan much like its intellectual forebearer know-nothingism on oh yeah other tea praty nonsense matters.

Retched Contemptible Virulence| 4.28.11 @ 2:16AM

I don't bother with silly liberal trutherism persisting to this day that Bush attacked attacked I tell you the twin towers killing the victims after having stolen stolen I tell you the presidency from the anointed one who would save the earth on conservative birtherism wondering why the anointed one who would transparently govern was not transparent for years and what the hell WERE his classes and grades matters.

martin j smith| 4.27.11 @ 1:46PM

I am among those who believe that Obama is setting policy on purpose and not out of ignorance or any particular lack of knowledge. I also believe that Obama is an "agent" a " Trojan Horse" if you will.
You have to ask questions that begin with the following words: Why would President of the United States:
a) Fail to address the deficit and instead pushes to push it
b)Fail to address the costs of such commodities
as oil and related products.
c)Fail to address other costs such as food
d)Fail to respond to the S&P and and the IMF
e)Fail to take a leadership role on the deficit problem.
f)Fail to take a leadership role on the questions related uprisings in the middle east?
g)Fail to support our Allies
h)Fail to set an example by reducing the hostility in Political rhetoric
I)Fails to connect with the population that disagrees with him.
and so on and on and on
Why would a President of the United States fail in these and numerous other issues unless it means that he has no interest in the NATION other than his own agenda and consequences be damned because the collapse of the nation is the goal ? Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank7888| 4.27.11 @ 5:50PM

Good points. Relative to your point about oil and commodities, I would like to know what conversation took place when the administration decided to suspend exploration and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP blowout.

Someone present HAD to bring up the unemployment that would result, the crimp in supply and the possible future increase in prices, and the benefit that would accrue to foreign suppliers.

It seems this was all dismissed with a shrug and a "so what?" Am I wrong?

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 4.27.11 @ 1:50PM

Can someone please explain to me (I have always wondered about this) how we had a surplus in the 90's but our public debt still went up?
This link: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/
histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Shows that ther last time the debt went down on a year to year basis was 1957.

This link: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....histo5.htm

shows the oughts'.

Where did the myths?? of the Clinton budget surplus come from?

JP| 4.27.11 @ 4:02PM

That is because the Congress actually spent (borrowed) against the surpluses. So much for Newt and the fiscal conservatives.

jackc| 4.27.11 @ 1:52PM

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Beware of government command, control, and interference.
The Obama virus has effectively initiated the demise of America, in the the diabolically disguised voice of change.
The illiterate and the non-discerning are being manipulated by the power-hungry charlatans in government.
Fire Obama, and his ideology must be terminated
The dinosaur political systems - republican/democrat etc. must be eradicated, with a new vocabulary, framework and conversation, built on a global economic leadership strategy.
Minimum administration, and regulation are the foundational pillars for a self-sustaining market driven model, where success is rewarded, self-improvement encouraged, education promoted, and failure abandoned.
Hire Trumph - for business savvy leadership, with stellar advisers, to chart a recovery of company America.

Steve A| 4.27.11 @ 1:52PM

martin, The short answer is because he is a liberal.

a: deficit & spending is fine in his book
b: Oil & gas are evil & will kill the planet.
c: he did not see that coming
d:does not know what to do
e: see a
f: he thinks he has
g: our allies are evil capitalists
h: whatever it takes to win & champion justice
i:he thinks they are wrong & must be defeated

He does not want to "collapse the nation" he wants to "fundamentally transform it, " remember.??

youfamissim | 4.27.11 @ 2:00PM

I love the comments nearly as much as the articles - Pete always drives it off the screws and that is appreciated, even when his words confuse Progressives - who live in a Land of Make Believe. Progressives want the federal gov't controlling our lives to the point where some nebulous and ever shifting "Equality of Outcome" is obtained.

I say let the whole damned thing go down in flames. Let the Progressives have their way. Vote Democrat. Let everyone experience firsthand, the eventual outcome of Progressive policies. Conservatives resisting - when the size, the scope, the control points of government, academia, the Courts and other regulatory bodies, hold all the cards to prevent Conservative solutions, merely slows down the inalterable outcome.

Pay off, or release, your debts. Buy guns, gold, and goods - hunker down and watch the Progressives reap the rewards of their preferred policies.

Most Americans refuse to see past their daily desires. They hate on, and are bitterly jealous, towards anyone more successful than themselves. They have not suffered - ever - in most cases. Until the day of suffering impacts them, (and their families) severely... long term... they will never - Get It. Most are too stupid to comprehend the consequences of their actions anyway. Less than 5 percentage points separate the dependents from holding the majority needed to vote themselves a pay raise each election cycle. The printing presses run around the clock. Inflation has set (it never retreats) the world scrambles to replace the dollar - some nations refuse to take the dollar. Its' all over but the crying. DO not sit on the sidelines hoping Republicans will stop this onslaught. Prepare and protect your families. If you think the USA is out of woods - economically - and on a path to recovery, you are wrong. Another, much more severe, depression is heading our way. Holding a majority in the US House can not prevent Progressives from achieving their goals.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 5:08PM

"Pay off, or release, your debts. Buy guns, gold, and goods - hunker down and watch the Progressives reap the rewards of their preferred policies."

Yeah - you know, because shooting your neighbor will solve the problem.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 5:35PM

Yeah - you know, because shooting your neighbor never occurred during the foundation of the United States.

Yeah - you know, because shooting your neighbor never occurred during the emancipation of slaves in the United States.

Yeah - you know, because shooting your neighbor never crossed the mind of the author of our document establishing our individual rights.

Yeah - you know.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 5:41PM

I dibs Skip's head.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 5:41PM

:) just playing

skip| 4.27.11 @ 6:32PM

Your comment made me smile. Well played. The additional comment was unnecessary (though considerate).

Steve A| 4.27.11 @ 2:07PM

youfamissim, I agree with your take on things. The problem is this: If we let it all go down the tubes, do you really think any of these fools will admit they were wrong?? No. It will be all about blaming & villifying the "affluent." It will be open season scalp hunting on those of us who saw it coming & prepared. Now, part of me says, bring it on. The other part of me, the dad & spouse, says; It's not too late to spare my family the nightmare that is sure to follow if we take your advice. We are surely on the edge though, like it or not.

youfamissim | 4.27.11 @ 2:07PM

Tired Tax Payer - your answer is found in the dot com bubble - lotsa wealth created. The web and personal computer peripherals. That was a time when Everyone bought a computer, printer, software, etc... Recall the NASDAQ reached 5600 in 1999. People were investing - all that income was taxed.

Some gov't spending reductions, and an onerous tax rate combined to draw down the debt. Clinton was Not allowed to spend as he wanted. Recall too - Oil was $18 per barrel. Energy was cheap.

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 4.27.11 @ 2:32PM

But, But, the question was not HOW it supposedly happened. the question is "How did the debt go up if we were having budget surpluses"?

Is this an example of magic government accounting?

youfamissim | 4.27.11 @ 2:15PM

It will not matter Steve. States will leave the Union. They will have to. I am hoping a few do that now. Provide an enclave where Conservatives may gather and produce wealth, live as the founders blessed them, and worship freely - the success of our form of government is contingent upon two elements - a Judeo-Christian, Western European majority of citizens. Our form of government was created by people who shared common values and moralities - even if they did not practice them accurately. That is the missing aspect and it becomes more diluted each day. A man who owes his allegiance to a God, cannot be controlled, will not be controlled, by men. PC violating contributing factoid - no Democrat is elected in the 20th century if women do not vote.

Nancy in NC| 4.27.11 @ 2:46PM

What a stupid post...I know many women that are fighting with all they have to defeat Obama.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change (Obama, his minions, the ideologues)
the courage to change the things I can (stay solvent personally, be responsible and prepared for the future...guns and food)

the wisdom to know the difference.

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 4:47PM

How can you expect people to take you seriously?

It's really hard to be logical when you have a completely inconsistent set of beliefs.

On the one hand, you suggest you're a believer in god (who advocates benevolence), and in the same sentence you're suggesting using guns against humans.

This makes no sense! I'm pretty sure YOU and YOUR PEERS are the problem with this country.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 6:42PM

"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe" (Luke 11:21)

How do we take you seriously?

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 6:51PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....strong_man

"Interpreted in this context, the strong man represents Satan, and the attacker represents Jesus."

Sorta funny to put yourself in the role of Satan.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 7:05PM

Sorta funny to cite wikipedia as a source.

How do we take you seriously?

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 9:09PM

You can take me seriously as is, with a shot of whiskey or a bit of salt. Your choice. Either way, you'll need a chaser.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 9:37PM

When satan fully armed guards hell and its inhabitants Jesus can't touch him.

Makes as much sense as your pell grant investment drivel.

I'm gonna need a fifth of single malt however.

John2| 4.28.11 @ 9:56PM

It is an idiot interpretation. You could not take it as a serious effort to get at the sense of the scriptural passage.

Don't put yourself in the role of Satan. It won't be funny for long.

Morgan| 4.28.11 @ 2:25AM

I suppose it is easier to fantasize about seceding into some enclave on a hill than to confront the fact that while we conservatives may indeed remake this country (though probably not within what remains of my span on this rock), it will require resolution, clear thinking and the ability to bring people who are sympathetic but not committed around over time. We will have a lot to unwind before we can even begin to rebuild. So do us all a favor and commit to the arduous foreseeable future and leave the fantasies to nighttime reading for your children. Let's get to work and stay on the job this time around.

Red Ryder| 4.27.11 @ 2:20PM

In college some classes were known as "dumbell English." Are there similar remedial groups in economics? That's where Obama belongs.

Morgan| 4.28.11 @ 2:31AM

When I went through personal bankruptcy I had to take online credit counseling classes as part of the bankruptcy program. It was a little silly listening to how to manage my income when I had none, but go through the courses I did.

Economics 101: The central theme in both courses was this: coming to budget sanity begins with controlling spending. However much money you put into the purse at the start, if your spending remains uncontrolled you will never achieve balance.

Economics 102: The same is true for government. Before you address revenue issues you have to put spending on a tight leash. Otherwise, no matter how much you raise in taxes it will all just be spent. That's why freezing the debt ceiling is critical: it leaves government no option but to start figuring out how to live within its means. Unless and until the GOP is ready and willing to draw a line in the sand on this issue, not only will no progress be made but the Obamazoids will know that in fact they (and by necessary implication we) have no real stomach for the fight -- and the battle will be over before it is even begun.

Prioritize debt payment and wages/benefits for the military, and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.

Steve A| 4.27.11 @ 2:25PM

We tried that in 1861 & it did not turn out too well then & I do not see it happening now. Be realistic. Do you really believe Texas could successfully secede ? Not gonna happen. Sounds good on paper but we are all in the mix now. Just my 2c.

Thom| 4.27.11 @ 6:11PM

Steve A, in 1861 the South was outnumbered better than 4 to 1 in able bodied men and that was the least of the advantages the North had over the South. Republicans control 30 State governments today? Rather than succeed from the Union why not just vote to have the minority of Blue controlled States leave the Union this time? I just don't see the Blue states fighting to stay in the Union... given the odds are a little different today than they were in 1861.....

I'm kidding of course but should an actual vote take place by 30 state governments throwing out the others would kind of be an eye openers for those that think they are entitled to a life time of government cheese and alike.

youfamissim | 4.27.11 @ 2:25PM

What would stop the Progressives in their tracks? Return the requirements for voting to what the founders definded - Proper Age, Literate, Property Owner (Tax Payer), "Free" Man/Woman. No gov't dependence whatsoever. Anyone receiving benefits from the Federal Government May Not Vote. What chance of passing do you give the only solution?

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 5:07PM

"Anyone receiving benefits from the Federal Government May Not Vote. "

You do realize that's every single American, right?

skip| 4.27.11 @ 7:08PM

You do realize the United States is a constitutional republic, right?

Hamilton Lucas| 4.27.11 @ 9:02PM

Do you answer every question with a question of your own?

skip| 4.27.11 @ 9:40PM

No.

Thom| 4.27.11 @ 6:20PM

Youfamissim, the root problem with the voters is that they are disconnected from bearing the burden of their votes. Having no skin in the game as they say gives weak and ignorant minds nothing to measure their actions against. Hence, half the population votes like children for things that are more whims than substance. The Founders tempered this with a proportionate tax system to keep ones contributions to support government actions in line with one’s means to pay for such things. The 16th amendment destroyed that. As long as we have a disproportionate tax burden in place the majority of the population will vote like children. I understand the trust of your argument and every Democracy has died or is doing so because it removed proportionate responsibility and accountability from the exercise of power at the polls…..

Steve A| 4.27.11 @ 2:28PM

Zero chance of passing. It would be viewed as "UnAmerican" today by a vast majority. It would be slammed as racist, discriminatory vs the poor & poll at about 20% tops.

RCV| 4.27.11 @ 3:19PM

SteveA: Though we disagree on many things, it is always a genuine pleasure to read your posts - rationale, thoughtful and respectful. Thanks from a fan!

Steve A| 4.27.11 @ 3:51PM

Hi RCV, Mutual feelings here. You always, always make me think. I like that. Regards, Steve

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 4.27.11 @ 6:55PM

RCV | 10.23.10 @ 9:30PM

"I abhor sanctimonious conservatism of the tea party brand, an ideology wholly lacking in intelligence or a shred of real Christian love and compassion. Every policy it espouses is dangerous, damaging, and detrimental to our country and it's future. It will have a lifespan much like its intellectual forebearer, Know-Nothingism.

darcy| 4.27.11 @ 8:30PM

Food for thought, indeed, Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus.

Our resident liberal has revealed himself many times over in this forum. Thank you for reminding us of that fact.

youfamissim | 4.27.11 @ 2:39PM

The outcome is inevitable. Radical change is needed to prevent the bad outcome. My solution is but one. However, any real solution that MAY prevent the bad outcome is extreme and will meet resistance by a majority. Time works against us too. Late 2012 will mark the time. (No I'm not pointing to that prophecy stuff. Quality economist speculate that Oct 2012 is when the fun will start. Read Jeremy Grantham, and others, they share the same vision, if not the same equation / path for arriving there. The solution therefore becomes suffering and collapse. Don't know how old you are Steve. My Parents who lived thru the Great Depression were weird - they saved everything. They were all terrified of spending. They so feared a return to the Depression. Suffering leaves a lasting impact - it changes people permanently. Sans suffering, I see no solution that will pass a vote.

youfamissim | 4.27.11 @ 2:40PM

Thanks for the exchange Steve. Gotta run.

Steve A| 4.27.11 @ 3:52PM

youfamissim, Same here. Come on back sometime.

skip| 4.27.11 @ 3:16PM

Imagine the shock, upon discovery of an article, by an august member of The Ronaldus Magnus Administration no less, titled "What (idiot liar) Doesn't Understand", performing quick mental calculations over length, whether less than a thousand pages even reasonably conceivable, whether only a hundred pages remotely adequate to convey proper conclusion, only to discover it two.

shipley130| 4.27.11 @ 4:05PM

The problem is a president that spends like Imelda Marcos at the Payless Shoe Store.

martin j smith| 4.27.11 @ 4:25PM

Steve A: I am sorry to say that it is worse than "Liberal" Far worse.

Oldefarte| 4.27.11 @ 4:42PM

Some of you sadly don't get it. If his/their purpose was to CHANGE the system from within due to a philosophical difference of opinion with the mainstream, then the correct/proper mechanism would be to do so legislatively through laws passed by the majority. He/they adversely speak about CHANGE but in reality use their political power gained in November of 2008 to ADMINISTRATIVELY/REGULATIVELY change the system from within. His/their WELFARECARE and NON-STIMULUS was a regulatory-type change [by using the temporary political gains from the 2006 and 2008 elections which gave he/them superior/majority control of government]. His/their use of the EPA, the D of J, the CPSC, employed czars to end run congress, the SCOTUS via two liberal female justices appointed, etc. He/they know that mainstream America is adamently opposed to their secretive policies/philosophies, so therefore they use their political power gained to force same upon the country. It beyond changing the country via legislation; its a trojun-horsed ursurpion based upon elected power!!!!!!!

AT| 4.27.11 @ 4:59PM

>> "If all we're doing is spending cuts and we're not discriminating about it, if we're using a machete rather than a scalpel and we're cutting things that create jobs, then the deficit could actually get worse because we could slip back into a recession."

As a Nevada resident, I wholeheartedly agree with this. God knows how many jobs would be lost if not for federal spending on the cowboy poetry festival. For many Nevada entrepreneurs, those sweet rhythmical serenades were just the inspiration producers needed to magically create jobs out of nowhere. Yes sir, it's a fact. Without cowboy poetry, we'd all be screwed.

Hey Michigan, how you guys doing? I heard you've got bears and packs of feral dogs running around downtown. Want to borrow some of our cowboy poetry money? It creates jobs!

Sheesh. When Obama says stuff like this, it makes you want to swat him on the nose with a newspaper and say, "NO. BAD OBAMA. BAD."

Thom| 4.27.11 @ 5:29PM

The thrust of this article is that King Obama is making mistakes with the economy because he does not understand economics? While there is a chance the latter part of that statement may be true it is irrelevant to the goals of a Marxist. What is the primary focus of any Marxist? To control the production of goods and services and redistribute wealth from that for the benefit of those that are faithful to that goal. Simply put control over as many people’s economic lives from cradle to grave…. as possible.

Let me see here, Government Schools, Government Health Care, Government Motors, Government Electric, Government Airlines, Government Banks, Government Power Companies, Government Energy Companies, Government Welfare for anyone that ask, Government Press (80 percent of the those that claim to be Journalist parrot the Government line day and day out), Government School Loans, Government housing loans, Government railroads (Amtrak, aka the Poor People’s Express operating at a massive lose every year) etc…….

And which one of these industries does King Obama not want to control and grow more control over? FDR got over 8 years out of milking a crisis for all that it was worth via John M. Keynes theory and the repeat of Keynes ideas in the 1970s by Nixon left a long trail of economic destruction that took over a decade to overcome. We are long past the point where one can plead ignorance on this subject regardless of what courses one took or didn’t take in college. Deliberate destruction of the foundation of our economic prosperity and ultimately our liberty as a people to be individuals and rise to our own potentials and not part of a lowest common denominator herd of like minded fools is on the line here.

I learned in the first week of Econ 101 in 1971 everything that King Obama displays he does not know or does not care about regarding how to make the most out of the study of economic matters with regard to human interactions and what maximizes the benefits of that to the benefit of all, not just those at the top of the pyramid in the “control box” under Keynes’ theory. What King Obama knows or does not know about Economics is moot. The “fruit” of his actions is what we know and that tree bears nothing but poison fruit for those stupid enough to take a bite.

cyberdog| 4.27.11 @ 6:03PM

BO is a liberal. How many liberals truely understand business or work. Seriously. He is what he is. Next time think before you vote.

Thom| 4.27.11 @ 6:26PM

Cyberdog, a liberal gains power by spending other people's money...... If you destroy the engine that produces that money you have less to spend and less to share with other liberals by default. Even by Liberal standards King Obama is reducing the pool of money they can all divide up thus even liberals that support this Marxist are losing out…

UpChuck.Liberals| 4.28.11 @ 9:31PM

Only problem is .... the flaming liberals in SillyCoin Valley are supporting Bozo with their BILLIONS. Just goes to show you can't buy intelligence with money.

Sam H| 4.28.11 @ 12:46AM

Alan Brooks,

You are so right! Let us leave it to "liberal principles", supposing such things exist, to solve our current problems.

That's the ticket! Liberal principles!

The answer is so obvious and I feel so foolish for not seeing it myself.

Thank you sir! Liberal principles! Of course.

I assume you are referring to such principles as the welfare state, the Great Society, war on poverty, affordable housing for all, government-run medicine, marxist-socialist-keynesian economics, "clean" energy, high-speed rail, appeasement when strength is needed, disarmament, peace, receding oceans, alienating allies and emboldening enemies, nonsensical speeches and a national media with a man crush.

Of course! Liberal principles!

Thank you Alan Brooks.

Morgan| 4.28.11 @ 2:20AM

I must admit that I am beginning to wonder whether Obama in fact knows exactly what he's doing, and is not assisting in the destruction of U.S. capitalism for the benefit of his friend George Soros. Inquiring minds want to know: is it malice or just overwhelming stupidity?

On the "tax cuts", taking his words as having at least minimal face value and treating them accordingly, the fundamental mistake he and his blazed-out followers all make is to confuse "rate" with "amount": Twenty percent of 100 is a lot more than twenty percent of 10. Nobody minds paying a reasonable rate even if they pay more from one year to the next; what people (and businesses) mind is having increased rates imposed on static income. That is what is happening now.

Ironically, the system that Obama seems to dream about is the "fusion" of the state and capitalism, a step beyond mere monopoly capital that Marx himself took to signify capitalism in an advanced state of decay and did not consider particularly progressive, nor did it in fact ever prove to be. And here we have it being promoted by the President of the country that has throughout its history been the beacon of free enterprise and individual achievement, with "the young" being hypnotized into thinking that only through the increasingly pervasive power of government can they be made free. Orwell had no idea.

Zoltan| 4.28.11 @ 3:00PM

I think Obama should be let alone to continue his job trying to fix what the Bush Legacy has had many years mess up. Coming from a Non American... but concerned... When the USA gets a cold the rest of the world catches it too. We are all joined at the hip now this globalazation has taken affect... im not sure if the end means will be a one world Government but that might be the reason behind everything we see... the people with Money are running the world behind closed doors pulling the strings.

J. Dangle| 4.28.11 @ 7:10PM

Spot on article. I'm always amazed at perspective of those on the left. They don't really believe that economic laws are real - people don't really respond to incentives, individual decision making isn't based on rational decision making, everyone is better off with govt planning. Great article.

sommers| 4.28.11 @ 8:03PM

I think "kitty" summed it up on the very first post.
Obama "understands" what he is doing, this is intentional. It is painful to keep reading the anguished commentary trying to explain what Obama does or doesn't understand, why can't he learn, this, or that ? He understands full well.

UpChuck.Liberals| 4.28.11 @ 9:33PM

So the old addage of "If you can't dazzle them with Brilliance baffle them with BS" applies to Barry?

David Williams| 4.28.11 @ 9:43PM

This is a strong article if one assumes that Obama is lost or over his head and just really doesn't understand. A more scary thought is that he does understand. Then one would have to conclude that all of his actions and decisions are pointed to an end goal of the deconstruction of the U.S. economy and system. He is doing everything very purposefully so he can destroy an America that he doesn't like so he can rebuild it with a Marxist framework.

jan| 4.29.11 @ 3:29AM

It's over, get it?! Must we remind you of Nov 2010? Let's see....if it wasn't over there would not be TeaParty, it is the natural process and it's already happened the paradigm has shifted. We will not let them ruin our children's future, period. Thank you Gov Palin, she will be our next president. :) grrr!!!!

Eric The Red| 5.1.11 @ 12:43AM

Instead of that senseless program on tv called "Life After People", I'd like to see an informative series called "Life After Liberals". It could show how our economic system would blaze ahead without unnecessary regulation and a fairer leaner tax system. And finally ban Crony Capitalism that is the staple of the left.

Ed| 5.9.11 @ 3:27PM

Your comment that Obama doesn’t know what he is doing is incorrect.
He knows exactly what he is doing.
He is trying to destroy capitalism so his socialist agenda can be complete.
He has been doing everything in his power to achieve that goal.
He controls the justice department & it matters not if his actions are legal or constitutional.

TobyW| 8.4.11 @ 8:53AM

Federal tax revenue has never exceeded 21%of GDP.

Federal tax revenue has never exceeded 21%of GDP.
How can we expect to sustain 22-25% budgets?

Even including the draconian rates and earnings caps during WW II it has exceeded 20% only 3 times, two of them during WW II, the other in 2000 when investors were taking profits and trading against the end of the tech-internet bubble.

In 2007, Bush had a 1.2%, $160B deficit on $2.7T in spending despite:
· Bush tax cuts,
· two wars
· the Iraq troop surge,
· Medicare part D,
· 9-11,
· Katrina,
· No Child Left Behind.

Despite those, Bush spent $2.7T in 2007, had a 1.2%GDP deficit, vs the $3.8B spent in 2011 and growing in the future. Even though now spent, the economic stimuli have been baked into the budget baseline and we are stuck with 22-25% GDP spending from here on out against current revenue at $2.2T revenues, until small business starts thinking they might get to keep some of the hard-gotten "wealth" they earn when and if they go for profits.
We really need an immediate return to an under-$3T budget with a return to a max of 18% GDP spending, with additional progress following rapidly!

State and local taxes have been growing rapidly in recent decades and are a almost equal to federal taxes.
Bottom line, we will be lucky to get 17% long term federal tax revenues.

Historical budget tables from 1930 and earlier through 2016:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/site.....s/hist.pdf

Historical income tax rates:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/p.....w/151.html

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 9:44PM

is good

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|79 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|84 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|36 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|15 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|15 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|26 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|13 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|22 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

Weiner: More Photos of My Junk Might Surface

Kyle Peterson | 12:55PM

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?