The American Spectator : Obama's Debacle

Text Size

Obama’s Debacle

By Peter Ferrara on 5.16.12 @ 6:09AM

Welcome to the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

(Page 2 of 2)

The Reagan recovery blossomed into a 25-year economic boom, from 1982 to 2007, which Art Laffer and Stephen Moore called in their book The End of Prosperity, “the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet.” In the first 7 years alone, 20 million new jobs were created, which grew into 50 million new jobs over the entire boom.

In contrast, as the Wall Street Journal reported on May 5-6, “Nearly three years into the [Obama] recovery, the U.S. still employs five million fewer workers than before the recession.”

When Reagan entered office, the first thing he did was lead Congress to enact the initially much-derided “Reagan budget cuts,” which have now been dumped down the Left’s memory hole. Federal spending was cut by nearly 5 percent. In sharp contrast, the first thing Obama did upon taking office was pass his nearly $1 trillion so-called stimulus bill.

At best, that stimulus did nothing to promote growth, because borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to increase government spending by a trillion dollars does nothing to enhance the economy on net. But Norquist and Lott argue that “The Stimulus made things worse.” Indeed, Lott published an article at FoxNews.com on February 3, 2009, predicting, “President Obama and the Democrats’ ‘stimulus’ package will increase the unemployment rate,” contrary to the administration’s prediction that unemployment would stop rising once the stimulus was passed. Lott proved more prescient than the entire administration’s army of hired economists.

Norquist and Lott report, “Business economists and forecasters had consistently been expecting the economy to begin positive growth in the second half of 2009. But passing the Stimulus appeared to dampen the recovery economists were anticipating…. Paul Evans, the editor of the Journal of Money, Credit and Banking and an economics professor at Ohio State University, agrees, and told us: ‘Most likely the economic recovery would have been more rapid at this point without [the Stimulus package].’”

Norquist and Lott note that Wall Street Journal-surveyed forecasters cut their growth expectations in half by May, after the stimulus passed, from January, before the stimulus passed.

Norquist and Lott explain why the stimulus spending was counterproductive: “The resources the government spends have to come out of someone else’s pocket. Spending almost a trillion dollars on various stimulus projects means moving a lot of resources from the private sector, eliminating the jobs many people currently have.” This shift from market-directed employment to government-directed employment causes dislocation, as workers shift from one job to another, which is a net drag on the economy.

On top of that, the government-created jobs are likely to be temporary and fewer than the number of jobs destroyed elsewhere. The simple reason is that many of these new jobs are artificial and will only exist as long as the government continues heavy subsidies…. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors wrongly assumes that all of the Stimulus jobs are filled by the unemployed. But that is clearly wrong. Indeed, most of those getting the new [stimulus funded] jobs already had a job to begin with…. Whatever jobs might have been created, they did not come cheap….Accepting the Administration’s most optimistic 3.6 million number, it cost $200,000 per job. And if the survey of recipients is right, the cost per job created soars to over a million dollars…. In many cases, the money was just wasted completely. For instance, at Solyndra, the scandal-plagued solar energy company that got $535 million from the federal government, what had originally been counted as long term jobs soon disappeared when the company went bankrupt and took the half billion government loan guarantee with it.

The bottom line is that what drives economic growth and recovery is not government spending, as the Obama administration’s Keynesian throwbacks imagine. What drives economic growth and recovery is incentives for increased production. That is what Reagan proved, first by cutting taxes 25 percent across the board, and then by cutting the top tax rate from 70 percent, where it was when he entered office, to 28 percent, and slashing the rate for middle income earners to just 15 percent. Cuts in tax rates, not just tax cuts, enhance incentives, because producers can then keep more of what they create.

What most people do not know is that, just the opposite, Obama has already led the enactment in current law, for next year, of increases in the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. That is because the Obamacare tax increases go into effect, and the Bush tax cuts will expire, as Obama refuses to renew them for the nation’s small businesses, job creators, and investors. This is on top of the U.S. corporate income tax burden, which under Obama is already the highest in the industrialized world at nearly 40 percent on average, counting state corporate taxes. Yet, under Obama there is no relief in sight. Instead, he has spent the past year and a half barnstorming the country calling for still more tax increases.

These pending tax rate increases help explain why so much money is sitting on the sidelines in a capital strike, or fleeing overseas in a capital flight, like in a third-world country. And that missing investment helps explain why there are no jobs.

Obama is also following the exact opposite of Reagan’s policies by vastly expanding rather than reducing regulatory costs, supporting a record amount of easy money at the Fed, and restricting rather than maximizing American energy production. If Obama’s policies are not quickly reversed, the result without a doubt will be another whopping recession next year.

But the decline and fall of America is not inevitable. The economy is poised to boom again, at all-time records of capitalist prosperity, if the American people will only free it this fall from the socialism of Obamanomics.

The Real Obama
John Lott speaks from direct personal experience with the real Obama during the days when they were both junior professors at the University of Chicago. Lott relates these personal interactions in the book, saying,

When I was first introduced to Obama, he said, “Oh, you’re the gun guy.” I responded, “Yes, I guess so.” “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns,” Obama replied. I then suggested that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement sometime. He simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation. That was the way that numerous interactions with Obama went…. It was very clear that Obama disagreed on the gun issue and acted as if he believed that people who he disagreed with were not just wrong, but evil. Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama simply showed disdain.”

This ideological rigidity and extremism are what people paying attention to Obama as President should have expected.

Page: < 12

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 (161) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

oldfart| 5.16.12 @ 6:54AM

How many people will suffer? How many will be unemployed? How many jobs will disappear? How many young people will think they have no future? Before the idiots that believe in Keynesian economics and central planning realize it just does not work. In the 1930s the rest of the world was in recovery while the USA was in the economic pit of despair. While I don't believe the FDR actually wanted war – it took a war to absorb the unemployed before the USA recovered economically.

Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 7:07AM

I agree with most of what Mr. Ferrara has written. How is Mitt Romney going to change anything for the better? Bailouts for his rich buddies and endless war seem like not a good program to run on. His program is nothing but bandaides on an amputation. We need to reduce the Federal budget and slash taxes. You can't do that without closing down these wars and bringing the troops home from overseas. He hasn't proposed closing down whole Depts and doing the radical things necessary. His program like his pals the Bush's is just more of the same. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Romney is just more of the same. It just varies in degrees.

oldfart| 5.16.12 @ 7:26AM

Good points Jack - but we certainly cannot continue on the current path of TSA taking away personal freedoms, a Justice Department that is biased and central planning by economic czars responsible to no one but the Executive.
It is going to take a multifaceted approach. Starting with a change in the Executive and then moving to the Congress where term limits are vital for the House. Also a return to having Senators appointed by the State Legislatures will help decentralize power.

Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 7:34AM

Old Timer: I don't want Obama back anymore then anyone else. Is Romney going to tackle any real problem? Is he going to take on the Unplanned Parenthood, the homosexual Lobby, the Israeli and military lobbies, or most of all his pals in the banking business. For 7 straight elections, including this one, the Republican Party has offered worthless candidates who are mostly making things worse. I wish we could nominate someone who had a clue on how to stop the slide.

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 7:53AM

Ron Paul quit yesterday, Jack. And he wouldn't get off of square one. Just as he has not in his twenty eight years in Congress.

Shut up, quit yer bitchin' and start pulling your weight. The boat's got a hole in it. It's not too big, we can still save this thing - but not if every body just sits around and bitches about it. Doing that is unAmerican!

Romney might not be Reagan - but he is so much closer to Reagan than the socialist queen Obama that Romney will be a good start, a damn good start.

Obama re-elected, an ugly, pathetic, disappointing end to freedom and democracy in this world. Where else are you going to go?

GROW THE HELL UP!

Richard Ryan| 5.16.12 @ 8:34AM

Ann Coulter recently pointed out that Romney just might be another Reagan. Who are we to know? I have lamented Romney's apparent lack of stones and boldness many times, but when their records as governor are directly compared, Romeny measures up pretty well (dealing with a much more liberal legislature). I do agree with your point: we go down a road that leads to certain disaster, or we choose a road that might get us home. Pretty simple choice for level-headed folks.

Tommy Frisco| 5.16.12 @ 11:53AM

Richard, Coulter's first choice was Chris Christie. Her thougths are no longer worth consideration.

old white guy| 5.16.12 @ 2:48PM

richard, romney is not another reagan. president reagan had a presence that the current group do not have. the fact that americans have been dumbed down so far they think obama is intelligent just shows how stupid and uninformed the electorate is. jeez, it is sad.

Bob Grant | 5.16.12 @ 10:08PM

In a time of crisis, he might very well become another Reagan.

Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 8:37AM

Ron Paul did not quit, yesterday. He is still campaigning for delegates at state conventions. He will go to Tampa Bay and try to change something for the better, which is more then I can say for Mr. Goldman Sachs and Mr. JP Morgan Obama and Romney. Romney is just more of the same or worse. He is even a bigger chickenhawk then Obama. Both party's stink to high heavens. Maybe that is why most people are calling themselves independents these days. I predict not even a majority of people will even bother to vote in this election.

Mike Hawk| 5.16.12 @ 8:53AM

Oh STFU, you chicken blowhard.Your crackpot is out of it and retiring in November.

sinanju| 5.16.12 @ 12:20PM

Jack is a more sophisticated type of troll. Rather than mindlessly insulting us and calling us names. This is the "Eeyore," telling us to despair, throw our hands up and stay home on election day.

The comments sections on conservative sites are rotten with this type, dumping all over the Republican lead candidate/s for being less-than-perfect and telling us that voting is a useless exercise or advising us to throw our votes away for the far-out, libertarian/independent/kook candidates.

Don't fall for this line.

USSAlabama| 5.16.12 @ 7:45PM

Fellow, you are.

Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 10:11AM

Jack...what are you going to do with your Tuxedo? You know...the one you were dusting-off for Ron Paul's inauguration..?

Back into the closet..?

Dick Nome| 5.16.12 @ 10:32AM

Jack doesn't have a Tux. He was planning on wearing his formal Ron Paul jockstrap. Clint was going to take his RP blowup doll with a wig as his date.

Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 10:35AM

I have been to 2 innaugerations with my old tux, Reagans in 1984 and Bush in 1988. I have a new one ready if I need it.

Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 10:53AM

Yes...YAWN...we all know about your Tuxedos.

It was a boring story when you first told it, and it's boring now.

Crassus| 5.16.12 @ 10:55AM

CHICKENHAWK!!! CHICKENHAWK!!!

SUBVET| 5.16.12 @ 10:18AM

You had HIM.......the only one who knew where all the dead bodies were berried. Lets hope HE gets a position to do some good.

Ya he's an insider but no one's perfect. This goes back to "we can't drill because it will take 5 yrs. to receive the benefits".....well you have to start some where.

Changes take time it took the last 60 yrs. to get where we are now. I say quit looking for the perfect ONE and use what we have.

I think people have seen where we have come and are willing to stand up for what they believe.

I don't know about you but I am ready for CHANGE.

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 3:22PM

I thought we got Hope and Change. Oh I remember, Hope is gone and Change is all we have left in the bank.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 5.16.12 @ 8:11AM

I used to disagree with you, and strongly. It is only after the emergence of a really, really lackluster campaign that seems bereft of the ideas that you put forward re reducing federal spending, including military funding and slashing taxes (which seems more prudent than radical), I have come to realize that you are exactly right when it comes to Romney

Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 8:19AM

Good grief, you are tedious...

Alej| 5.16.12 @ 9:19PM

Take your gloom and doom and put a medium coat of KY Jelly on it, Jackwi. You going to write in Ron Paul now, and give a vote to Obama like all the other whiners ?

TLP| 5.16.12 @ 8:19AM

Once again, our side labours under the False Assumption that He, who's entire Life History remains SEALED IN A VAULT, on an Island in the Pacific Ocean, never to be seen by the eyes of Men, WANTS people to have jobs. One need only open their eyes, to find the Truth.

He had $1,000,000,ooo,ooo to use for his Shovel Ready Infrastructure Jobs deal.

Did he use that money, for that purpose? Or, did he use it for HIS Union Thug Private Army, instead?

Why is he locking the Gates at Coal Mines, and Coal Powered Electrical Plants? Why did he have his Energy Secretary and his Interior Secretary FORGE DOCUMENTS, so as to bastardize a Report from a Commission, that He, Himself, hired, so as to make it say the exact OPPOSITE of what they wrote, in an effort to Shut Down Drilling in the Gulf, and off the East, and West Coasts. A Federal Judge rebuked his efforts, TWICE, whereby, he put the (ILLEGAL) Moratorium in place, anyway, killing THOUSANDS of good paying JOBS.

If he really wanted Americans to have Jobs? He would have signed off on the Keystone XL Pipeline. His claim was that the State Department (who APPROVED the Pipeline, after 3 YEARS of Environmental Studies on it) needed more time, and that the Republicans were to blame, for setting a Due Date for him to Sh*t, or get off the Pot, as my late Nana used to say.

How long was Boeing left hanging by an obvious Abuse of Power from his Union Thug Hacks at the NLRB?

How many Million$ went to his Butt Boy Money Bundlers' bogus Solar Panel Companies, to keep them flush with Cash, for this Years' Election? (How many of you know, that he had the rules CHANGED, so that these Scumbags would be the first to receive money, in any Bankruptcy Proceeding?)

He has clamped down on Farming and Commercial Fishing. The Criminally Insane Husband, of his former Press Liason, and current MAO acolyte (Anita Dunn) - Cass Sunstein - has spent the last 3 years piling Thousands of new Job Killing, REGULATIONS on American Companies, and New Start Ups, so as to make it IMPOSSIBLE to do business in this Country.

We now have the HIGHEST Corporate Tax in the World, to go along with the HIGHEST Capital Gains Taxes, and a Death Tax, that came right out of the Communist Manifesto.

If He's not Killing Jobs? His EPA is. If His EPA isn't Killing Jobs? His Interior Dept. is. If that Cowboy Hat wearing Puerto Rican, at Interior, isn't Killing Jobs? His NLRB is.

"I'm not an Ideologue. I'm not."

Oh, but he is. He is a Committed Marxist, with a Communist bent. He seeks the same Equality for us, that Mao provided for his people. In his Evil mind, he truly believes that HE is the one we've been waiting for. And he will carry out his plans to Supplant all those who came before him. Caesar. Augustus. Charlemagne. Ming. Mohammed. CHRIST.

And he will not stop, until he has built a Tower to the Sky, on the backs of the American people, and their Children, that he might shoot his Arrow in to the Clouds.

Wake Up.

He doesn't want us to have Jobs. In fact, he's doing everything in his power, to PREVENT us from getting one.

ACCUM'S RAZOR.

Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 10:54AM

Do you mean "Occam's Razor"???

TLP| 5.16.12 @ 2:53PM

No.

I mean you're an idiot.

Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 8:35AM

As I've said in the past, any U.S. president who would intern 125,000 American citizens because of their race, would have no problems allowing for a sneak attack to get America into a war FDR was itching to join.
The uneployment rate on 12/7/1941 was 17.5%, after 9 years of FDR.
This is the real legacy of the "great" FDR.

david7134| 5.16.12 @ 11:53AM

FDR wanted war so bad he could taste it. He did everyting in his power to provoke Japan. Our own park service even acknowledges this, next time you are at Pearl Harbor, go to the Japanese lecture on the battle.

Why do we concern ourselve with the rich? If we tax them more, that is just fewer dollars going to development. That is more DC waste. Lets tax everyone that votes.

old white guy| 5.16.12 @ 2:41PM

does anyone not see the true numberss of unemployed which is 18% plus. the real number is difficult to nail down because government lies constantly. the numbers are designed to obscure the truth. if and when people wake up the sh-t will hit the fan. what will it take to wake people up?

Appleby| 5.16.12 @ 6:54AM

I have four sisters, and three of us five have applied for Social Security (we are 64 and 62 years old) on the assumption that we will never find full time jobs again; our youngest sister is working temporary and has turned a hobby into a business to fill in the blanks. I am working at a temporary job and will probably continue to do so in the future. Canada is beginning to understand that when the USA goes under, the Great White North will be close behind.

If you don't believe in Satan, ask Saruman how his deal with Sauron worked out....

oldfart| 5.16.12 @ 7:29AM

We are already starting to see a movement to part-time employment. The costs imposed on a business for full time employees is prohibitive. It is like the Feds want to move to a system where the people MUST depend on the Feds for survival. Then they have you by the _____.

safely anonymous| 5.16.12 @ 8:04AM

Oldfart,

You are right, and they are trying to put as many people on Social Security Disability as possible. Look at the number, they are way up.

I was at the IRS a few days ago to take care of a few things. In passing I mentioned that I had injured myself, missed some work, but was now back at work, though not healed completely, it was healing well. The IRS agent told me I should apply for Disability. When I told him that I could work, the response was to do it anyway.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 7:02AM

There is another critical difference between the Reagan economy and the Obama economy.

The types of jobs being created over the last three years are mostly minimum (Or below) minimum wage. Also, for the last two years more jobs were created overseas than in the United States.

The percentage of low paying no collar jobs under Obama versus the white collar/blue collar jobs under Reagan is what is keeping the economy on its back.

Read more:
http://www.moneynews.com/Micha...../id/438469
In the first three years of the Obama presidency, the total number of jobs declined by about 2.7 million but the number of those working for the minimum wage, or less, rose sharply.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, as Barack Obama took the oath of office there were about 2.2 million workers receiving the minimum wage or being paid even less than that. There are actually a number of exemptions to the minimum wage law and 1.9 million workers were making less than $6.55 an hour in January 2009.

The minimum wage has gone up since then, and so has the number of the lowest paid workers. At the end of 2011, there were 3.8 million Americans working for $7.25 an hour or less. The number of minimum wage workers grew 466 percent in the last three years. Those being paid less than the minimum wage grew by 18 percent. The total number of jobs in the country during this time fell by about 2 percent.

There has been a 75 percent increase in the number of adults (over the age of 25) working for minimum wage, outpacing the growth of teenagers and young adults in entry level positions.

Those working full-time at the minimum wage would earn about $15,000 a year before taxes. Most work less than full-time and rely on various government assistance programs, which may be the only sector of the economy growing as fast as low wage jobs.

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 7:40AM

Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize (when you still had to do something to earn them) for figuring out the concept of 'crowding out.'

Crowding out is when the government borrows so much money that there is no credit left over for the private sector. Surely the additional 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS in Obama borrowing is crowding out the entirety of private borrowing globally. Greece, Spain, and Italy all borrowing together couldn't generate numbers like that.

Until some grownups take control in D.C. this will not stop, end, or get better. The lot there now is just cooking the books - understating inflation and unemployment, overinflating the currency, and understating real interest rates, to keep themselves in power. They have to grow up and stop the growth of government taxing, spending, and borrowing.

Mr. Boehner, a few trillion here or there is just deck chair re-arranging on a sloping deck! Man up and shut the GD government down to get REAL cuts, cuts that are BIGGER than the Pelosi-Reid-Obama cancerous growth spurts of the last four years.

And NO bank is TOO big to fail - because if you say it is, then whatever bails it out will fail. And the USA is NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL.

Wake up! Smell that coffee!

Don't Tread On Me!!!

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 7:44AM

Hey BHOS!

The minimum wage is nothing but a law that outlaws low value jobs.

If we ended it, which we should, there would be a huge upsurge in hiring. And lots of bitching from those people filming and interviewing the people go back to work. Maybe not so much from those working. But once all those people got a little money moving, they would figure out how to do more to make more. Uh, that's how it has always worked.

End the minimum wage now!!!!

chuck| 5.16.12 @ 8:13AM

We need to go back to 2008 levels of spending, eliminate Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley, reduce regulation on business, eliminate the EPA, eliminate the Depts. of Education, Energy, Commerce, HUD, privatize Social Security, reform Medicare, eliminate Welfare at the Federal level, replace the tax code with the Fair Tax, repeal the 15th and 16th amendments, and reform Congress with no pensions, no life-time Health care benefits, and term limits.

And do this on day one.

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 8:58AM

I'd be okay if it took a couple of weeks, wouldn't you?

BlitheBunny| 5.16.12 @ 4:18PM

Chuckie Boy,

I understand the logic behind repealing the 16th Amendment, but the 15th Amendment? Really Chuck? Why would YOU want the 15th Amendment repealed? I'm interested in hearing your reasoning on that.

chuck| 5.16.12 @ 5:45PM

Sorry, I meant to say the 16th and 17th amendments, which authorize the income tax and direct election of Senators.

Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 8:24AM

I just finished Milton Friedman's book "Money Mischief." Until 40 years ago, the world governments only adopted fiat currency for brief periods mostly during war. Now we are printing money like no time before in history. Rome debased its currency but because they were using metals as their money, it took 1,000 years to collapse. The dollar and Euro on depreciating at record speeds of some 10% ranges per year that means that the value of your savings is cut in half every seven years.
People think that they are getting something for nothing. But when the currency collapses, they will have nothing and will have sold their children into slavery.
The reason that the economy is not rebounding is simple: we are experiencing life under fascism. Want more: re-elect Obama and give Ben "the Bank" Bernanke another term!

chuck| 5.16.12 @ 8:29AM

"Helicopter" Ben should be fired. Then tried for treason for the policies that he has implemented. He is destroying the dollar.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 8:29AM

Good comment! Few will understand.

Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 9:49AM

It is time to stop treating people like idiots. The left idolizes Keynes. But John Maynard Keynes wrote: "There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." (Friedman "Money Mischief" p. 189)
Now we are living it Bill, so more than one in a million has at least figured out that something is VERY WRONG.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 10:50AM

Another good comment.

Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 11:59AM

Thanks Bill. It is not hard to figure out with all the crazy and outrageous material coming out of this government.

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 9:35AM

Sadly we keep preaching to the choir. The economy would recover quickly if government stopped trying to mansage it. Cut spending, cut taxes, allow wages to seek their own lever and eliminate the counter-productive regulations. That was the formula followed in the 1920s but rejected in the '30s. Which recovery went smoother? Beyond economics as well, haven't we learned that central planning fails every time? It simply cannot react as quickly as markets to changing conditions.

Tim the Enchanter| 5.17.12 @ 4:12PM

Al Adab- you're assuming that those in charge are acting in good faith. They're not.

SUBVET| 5.16.12 @ 10:27AM

It all is told in "The Creature from Jekyll Island" plane and simple.

Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 5:48PM

I have had that book recommended to me recently. You just put it on my wish list for the next Amazon Order. Thanks SUBVET.

numbatdog| 5.16.12 @ 7:41AM

Welcome to the new normal. Under socialism, that is.

The dragging economy that seems impossible to really thrive again, the super powerful government bragging about it's imaginary achievements, the dull sour feeling that pervades the population with their shrinking bank balances and poverty staring them in the face, the feeling that Americas best days are behind them and reliance on government handouts is the best we can hope for, the angry young who see no future for themselves and are urged by government to blame the wealthy for their lack of prospects, the finger pointing by each group at the other, their separation and outrage at imagined slights encouraged by divisive leaders.
Unbelievably, all this happened in the last few years.

Recessions come and go but this country wide hopelessness is the hallmark of how far we have fallen under Obama. If he is re elected, we will think of these bad times as the good old days.

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 7:47AM

So, are you going to sit around and wait and see? Or are you going to talk to everyone you see and tell them that Obama has to go?

If you are an American, you'll start pointing out our naked emperor to everyone you meet!

Damn the torpedoes...

They're going to call you a racist, no matter what you do or say, so forget about it!

Don't Tread On Me!!!!

Indy| 5.16.12 @ 8:00AM

Just saw this and thought it was interesting, click on the link to see the pic of the reference to the Weather Underground...

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/0.....ore-113997

Mitt: “A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation and every day we fail to act that fire gets closer to the homes and children we love”
HT / WZ
"You tell me: Is Mitt’s metaphor an indirect reference to Bill Ayers’ connection to Obama?"

Thoughts? Have a good day all, work calls.

Tommy Frisco| 5.16.12 @ 12:33PM

Indy,
Let's hope that Romney, or his speech writers, are using the Prairie Fire analogy as a means for exposing Obama...and not that they are studying the same material.

I do wonder when Obama's association with Bill Ayers is going to be discussed more. Their relationship goes back to the late 1980s, if not earlier. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Ayers communicated with Frank Marshal Davis because of their communist ties. For sure, the public should know more about Ayers since he groomed Obama for public office and because they share the same ideology. I don't things would have been any different if we had elected Ayers to POTUS.

If I were Romney, I would first expose Bill Ayers' past in detail and then expose the fact that he groomed Obama for public office. Then, I would run the video of Obama saying he knew Ayers as a "guy that lives in the same neighborhood."

Indy| 5.16.12 @ 6:37PM

Tweety| 5.16.12 @ 8:00AM

I am a lawyer. I have three clients who have seperately invented various different improvements to the internal combustion engine, which, if developed, would see huge savings in fuel consumption, help the environment and cut business costs and dependency on foreign fuel. I've had other good profssional engineers and academics check them out and they;ve all given an excited thumbs up. But there is no capital to develop or market them as there would have been during the Reagan boom. Anither aspect of tragedy ...

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 8:59AM

Tweety,

Where are they wrt/AIA?

That law is incredibly evil in my book!

sinanju| 5.16.12 @ 12:27PM

Yo, Tweet, as a child in the 1970's I was told that whenever someone invented a perpetual motion machine or an engine that would run all day on a thimbleful of peanut oil that the evil car or diabolical oil companies immediately bought their invention for a fortune to keep it off the market.

Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 8:28AM

22.3% unemployment. " I sometimes forget how bad this recession is", Barack Husean Obozo. Better Hope people wake the hell up and get ready to make a real Change.
Meanwhile, it's great people are finally beginning to expose the real Obozo to America. Too bad all these people were silent in 08.
The wheels are beginning to fall off the Obozo Express train to nowhere.

Cynicon Implant| 5.16.12 @ 8:33AM

As someone who has been unemployed for over a year, I am holding Obama personally responsible for the lack of job opportunities out there. Granted, it can take more senior execs like me to find employment, but his complete and utter failure to do the right things has me very pissed off. And to all of you who think Romney won't be much better... really? You don't think he knows what policies need to be in place to provide incentives for businesses large and small to invest? There is no doubt in my mind that he does.

somnolence| 5.16.12 @ 9:00AM

If Obama is reelected there is the potential to make Night Of The Living Dead seem like a picnic.

tsd| 5.16.12 @ 9:12AM

Ron Paul is dead, Santorum is dead, Gingrich is dead... it is now time to get with the band wagon and start to help push it. In November if Obama is not defeated we will have 4 more years of constitutional violations and at the end even the most liberal fool will see him for the lying tyrant he really is. IT IS NOW ALL FOR ROMNEY... that's it!!

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 11:29AM

"Thi9s is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper."

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 11:31AM

"This" the fat fingers betray.

Mimi| 5.16.12 @ 9:41AM

Reagan's recovery was remarkable...25 years of prosperity and growth of wealth ! Obama did the " EXACT OPPOSITE " and brutally failed the country with results the exact opposite .
Proof....we have a " GRAND" loser in the Whitehouse now...Stubborn, lazy, a failure with consequences that we ALL will pay for for a LONG TIME
Lets now commit, and be grateful for Mitt and Ann Romney...right now our only HOPE to end this tragic, horrible choice and willingly choose to serve this country to get us bag on the road!

Mimi| 5.16.12 @ 9:42AM

"BACK on the road"

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 10:22AM

I'm tired of these bum arguments like Ferrara's. He blames Obama for a "RECOVERY" (which is dumb in itself) when Republicans with tax cuts that didn't stimulate business and unpaid for wars and medicare drug benefits put a permanent weight on the budget. The problem is NOT Obama. Romney would not have done any better because they have little to do with the economy. For those of you who look at the numbers (I hope there are some intelligent readers out there), you'll see that the big drain on jobs is NOT the private sector, but the public sector where teachers, firemen, and policemen are losing their jobs. While federal government is getting larger, local government is getting smaller -- much smaller.

There is no question in my mind that Romney will do a better job than Obama, but real fiscal conservatives should understand the issues. We must spend less on defense, be strong on reducing entitlements through raising the retirement age and installing means testing, support liberty by not trying to have a theocracy on abortion, gay marriage, etc. (thereby making government smaller), making government agencies smaller, and considering radical alternatives to our insurance based health care system which now costs our country almost twice as much as other industrialized countries.

Doing this while installing a flat tax would go a long way to solving our problems. Tax cuts do not stimulate business -- we know that from the data -- so actually paying for some of what we have received in the past through small tax increases does make some sense.

I'm tired of these dumb arguments we hear from the radical right about Obama. We need to tackle the real issues and neither party is doing that. We need to get rid of lobbyist influence by putting in term limits so the primary job of politicians is governing rather than raising money for the next election.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 10:52AM

My own opinion is that Obama is destroying the economy on purpose.

You don't need the radical right or left to see it.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 11:03AM

Obama is not destroying the economy anymore than George Bush did. Our budget has grown because of unfunded wars, tax cuts that did not stimulate growth, and entitlements that were not paid for. The increase for the Medicare prescription drug plan was far greater than Obamacare.

The fact is that you get votes by giving your voter's deals. This is entitlements on BOTH sides and lower taxes. Who cares if you get more than you pay for? Well, I do. If we want it, we should pay for it. That is the only way to get people to cut spending, if they actually have to pay for it.

Another fact is that the Romney budget creates MORE of a deficit than Obama. So the Obama giveaway is not as large as the Romney giveaway. This "get something for nothing" mentality is something we see on both sides. At some juncture, the adults are going to need to govern this country.

I hope when Romney gets in, he will be an adult and not cut taxes as much as he has planned and reform entitlements. However, I'm not holding my breath.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 11:30AM

Oops! You left out the fact that Obama wasted (And admitted he wasted) 760 billion on a failed stimulus. Is Obama part of the radical right?

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 11:35AM

Fiscal:
What you and many of those who share your perspective overlook is that the militay and national defense are one of the few legitimate powers the federal government has. Of course a sharper pencil is needed, but let us remember, "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute." The US military must remain second to none. We could not today mount the first Gulf War if we needed to. Russia thretened a preemptive strike against NATO should we install anti-missle defenses in Eastern Europe. Just how seriously do you think our enemies take us today?

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 12:02PM

I agree. However, when a Congress votes for weapons systems that the Pentagon doesn't want (because of a local plant) and we have expensive private contractors doing jobs a less expensive military can do, and we have so much in waste, I can't see a problem in having both a strong military and a much lower budget. I know this not only because of the numbers, but because I was in the military myself.

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 12:14PM

Oh correct indeed. We would not argue that considerations other than military necessity are out of line. They horse trade programs and bases as though they were chips in a hig stakes game of "Keep my cushy job".

fiscal = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 11:45AM

"Obama is not destroying the economy anymore than George Bush did"

What George Bush did:
cut taxes in 2001
cut taxes in 2002
cut taxes in 2003

total federal revenue 2003: $1.782314 trillion

total federal revenue 2007: $2.567985 trillion

total increase in federal revenue 2003 to 2007: $0.785671 trillion

total increase in federal revenue 2003 to 2007: 44.08%

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 12:12PM

If you had half a brain, you'd know that federal revenue is not related to economic growth. That measure is GDP. If you knew anything about analysis, you'd know that point in time justification skews the data and you should be looking at graphs.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

You'll notice that we had a huge drop in federal revenues when Bush took office and another huge drop just before Obama took office. The years you mention are why people show that numbers can often mislead -- as you have shown. The fact is that from the beginning to the end of the Bush administration, revenues actually declined. You should learn to do better analysis.

Furthermore, if you look at GDP, you'll see no correlation between marginal tax rates and GDP.

Now let's see if you can make an intelligent argument.

W| 5.16.12 @ 12:26PM

"Federal revenue is not related to economic growth."

What? If the economy grows, then employers are hiring, there are more workers earning income upon which they pay taxes, and employers are expanding their business by buying more products and machines, all of this results in more income which means more income tax, and sales tax, and other taxes paid to the goverment.
It is taxes not revenue. Let's use the correct term.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 12:43PM

It is not necessarily true that when the economy grows, employers do any significant hiring in the U.S.. You assume a national economy rather than a global economy. If Apple introduces a new iPhone, it makes the economy grow, but the jobs produced are in China. The U.S. economy is currently based on consumption, not production. You make the same mistake as most people who oversimplify economics. The game has changed from 50 years ago when what you say was true. It is not true today. Furthermore, most revenue increases were in the financial sector, i.e., Wall Street, where jobs are not produced -- only wealth for private investments.

So you are right, let's use the correct term.

W| 5.16.12 @ 1:09PM

The only assumption is that the US economy grows. If it grows then there must be an increase in national income, income to taxpayers, and wealth, which will result in an increase in taxes collected by the various methods of taxing, income tax, transfer tax on real estate, gasolinge tax, property tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, estate tax, ad nauseam.

I have mad no mistake in over simplifying. You cannot accept that you made a general statement that tax revenues are not related to economic growth, which is false, and you know it. Take the reverse, if we have a general decline in the economy, as opposed to growth, we will have less tax collected, unless you raise the rates. But raising the rates will affect economic growth, and at some point raising the rates will not raise the tax collected. To reduce your argument to the absurd, If the economy reduces to near zero there will be no tax, right? According to you , though, there is no relation.
Just admit you made a mistake and move on.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 12:28PM

Not to place too fine a point on it, but in one statement you claim that Obama is not wrecking the economy but then claim anyone with brains knows GDP is important. Well, GDP under Obama is weak to non-existent.

Was that your other half talking?

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 12:46PM

Wrong again. Here is a graph of GDP over the long term. Notice that we had a severe decline at the end of the Bush term, but that it is growing again. Also note that the slope of the increase is close to the slope prior to the Bush recession.

http://www.google.com/publicda.....=gdp+graph

I don't know where you guys get such faulty information...

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 3:28PM

Markets will adapt even to disasterous government fiscal policy. Growth albeit small has returned, but the levels are not near those reached before '08. Depends on where one puts the baseline. That is the danger here. If we accept this economy as the new norm we lower our expectations and set ourselves up for mediocrity not prosperity.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 12:50PM

One more comment.... I do not give Obama any credit for the GDP growth -- he has done very little to help the economy. Furthermore, if you look at the employment data, you'll see that most job losses are in the public sector with the private sector doing just fine. In fact, profits in the private sector are higher than before. However, they are not hiring more people in the U.S. because hiring is not about how much they make, it is about the demand for their goods.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 12:54PM

The private sector is not doing fine. And you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, claiming Obama is not wrecking the economy but ignoring the fact that GDP which is your standard, is weak.

Also, you made the comment that tax cuts do not increase revenues, but the chart you provided clearly shows that under Reagan revenues increased significantly.

Also, you claim GDP is growing again and it is not. It has topped out and just skids along.

I know who you are now. You were here 4 years ago and tried the same nonsense.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 1:04PM

You made the comment that GDP growth was non-existent -- we do have growth. The weakness in GDP growth is relatively minor compared to the past. It is still growing at a 2-3% clip if you look at the data.

As for the private sector sector profits, here is the data:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix.....l-profits/

If you can show me graphical data to the contrary, I'm willing to change my mind. However, I go where the data leads me and don't listen to the liberal or conservative pundits who pull the wool over most of your eyes.

fiscal = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 8:07PM

"I go where the data leads me and don't listen to the liberal or conservative pundits who pull the wool over most of your eyes."

LIBERAL PUNDITS,

LIKE FELIX SALMON,

THE 'BLOGGER' YOU CITED FROM YOUR LINK,

A FREQUENT GUEST ON NPR,

WHO ANDREW SULLIVAN,

OF ULTRA-LIBERAL 'THE DAILY BEAST',

LIKES TO QUOTE,

WHEN NOT QUOTING JARED BERNSTEIN,

BIDEN'S EX-ECONOMIC ADVISOR,

THESE LIBERAL PUNDITS?

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 1:08PM

One more comment, you can't look at selected data to come to a conclusion, you have to look at all of it. You'll notice that GDP had a larger growth rate under the tax increases of Clinton than with Reagan. The same is true of revenues.

When you come to a conclusion, you must look at all of the data. Under Bush, where we had large declines in tax rates, we did not see the economic growth or a growth in revenue. Therefore, you cannot come to the conclusion that there is any correlation.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 1:11PM

One last comment. You do realize I'm a Romney supporter over Obama, right? Obama has been a disaster as an executive in terms of leadership -- perhaps one of the worst I've seen in my life. But that does not mean I should look at the world in a biased manner.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 1:50PM

Yawn.

fiscal = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 2:31PM

"The fact is that from the beginning to the end of the Bush administration, revenues actually declined. You should learn to do better analysis."

WHAT DECLINE?

WHAT FACTS?

"If you had half a brain, you'd know that federal revenue is not related to economic growth. That measure is GDP."

WHAT DOES THE 'G' IN THE FORMULA FOR GDP STAND FOR?

GDP = C + I + G + ( X - M ).

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 2:46PM

The "G" stand for government spending -- not government revenues. Do you know the difference between the two?

fiscal = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 5:49PM

WHAT DECLINE?

WHAT FACTS?

WHAT IS THE FORMULA FOR 'G', FROM THE FORMULA GDP = C + I + G + ( X - M )?

Alej| 5.16.12 @ 9:31PM

I thought you'd made your last (inane) comment !

fiscal = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 11:37AM

"Tas cuts do not stimulate business -- we know that from the data"

WHAT DATA?

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 11:52AM

The Star Trek character...

"The American Spectator" Cuts?| 5.16.12 @ 12:04PM

"Tax" cuts!

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 12:15PM

Take a look at a graph of GDP over a long period of time and overlay marginal tax rates. You'll find virtually no correlation between the two. That is not to say that stimulus does any better -- it doesn't... That's why we need to keep the government out of this game on both taxes and stimulus and leave it to the private sector. We need to first decide what we want the government to do, and then pay for it with taxes. Personally, I want the government to do much less both on the economic and social fronts. Let's leave it to the people to decide their own fates.

fiscal = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 2:41PM

"Take a look at a graph of GDP over a long period of time and overlay marginal tax rates. You'll find virtually no correlation between the two."

GRAPH?

CORRELATION?

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE OR HONESTY
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
FEDERAL REVENUE DECLINED
DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 3:06PM

Skip doesn't understand graphs or charts and refuses to accept anything evidence that contradicts his worldview-don't waste your time. Unless, I suppose, you really enjoy his changing names. Quite a wit, our Skip.

DRed| 5.16.12 @ 3:07PM

whoops-any evidence.

fiscal = DRed = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 5:53PM

"The fact is that from the beginning to the end of the Bush administration, revenues actually declined."

WHAT REVENUE DECLINE DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?

Slacker| 5.16.12 @ 12:50PM

My firm was awarded a design project funded by the stimulus. The funny thing is -not funny to us but you folks will find this amusing -we lost our asses on the project.

The stimulus projects were awarded by competitive bid (lowest cost) so everyone had to price jobs at the bare minimum. Nobody anticipated the GSA influence. The bureaucrats encumbered stimulus projects with absurd requirements, processes, and constraints.

The cost of complying with their ridiculous bullshit was yours to eat. A private client can be reasoned with but, the GSA people are drunk with power and stupid in general. Time isn’t money when you work for the gov’t.

In the end some other government goon tallies how many jobs were saved or created. Lost is the fact that, although people worked, their private employers actually lost money. We had a net drag on the economy.

Liberals cannot fathom the distinction between working and making money.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 12:59PM

Your firm needs to take responsibility for not doing their homework and underbidding the job. Furthermore, when public funds are used to buy your services, I would hope there would be some oversight or the scammers would have a field day.

As for your last statement about liberals, consider that most of the wealth in the U.S. is owned by liberals like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros. I think they do understand about how to make money but I'm not sure your bosses do.

The problem with liberal POLITICIANS, is that they buy their votes with entitlements that we cannot afford. However, liberal business people are every bit as good as conservative ones -- maybe more so.

Slacker| 5.16.12 @ 2:04PM

I’m not crying about losing money on a job. The point is that many stimulus funded projects were destined to be losers for any firm involved.

Gates and Buffet buy liberal indulgences and kiss liberal asses but it is nothing more than a business practice. They see which way the wind blows.

Soros is no starry eyed liberal utopian, he’s an evil man who uses the left as his useful idiots.

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 2:21PM

Oh, you are funny - if they hadn't been concerned about watching the taxpayers dollars (like under Bush who allowed Halliburton a field day with NO-BID contracts ), you would be howling about Obama's spending habits. You are really funnyu.

Slacker| 5.16.12 @ 4:23PM

The GSA demonstrated their concern for the taxpayer in Vegas. The taxpayer actually got doubly hosed in this case because money was spent on a superfluous project that didn’t stimulate.

GSA bureaucracy spoiled any possible stimulus force. Net the companies working would have been better off sitting on their thumbs. Any employee working at a money losing operation will not be working for long, which is exactly how the stimulus played out.

Americans would have been better off without Obamas help. No surprise, as incompetent help is always worse than no help.

Obama wasted approximately as much money on a failed stimulus as Bush did in Iraq so I’d call it even.

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 5:10PM

Of course, you are wrong and the non-partisan CBO estimates that 3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus. You won't hear that on Fixed News of course. It is simple economics, when demand drops, jobs disappear. The Federal Government steps in TEMPORARILY (which is what you all miss) to fill the gap in demand until the private sector recovers and then the Feds step out.
The private sector is now recovering and the Stimulus did it's job (although it probably should have been 4-500 billion more, according to many economists).
You really should stop spreading the anti-stimulus propaganda we all can look back and see that the stimulus worked. It makes you look either ignorant, stupid or just evil.

Riff Raff| 5.16.12 @ 5:46PM

"...3 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus."

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 8:56PM

Laugh at the facts ... yep, that's the right wing-nut for ya ... ... Where do you get YOUR information, Chuckles?

Purp = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 10:19PM

FECAL-BRAINED LIBERAL TROLL,

CHUCKLES?

WHAT ARE YOU?

12?

GET A CLUE FECAL BREATH.

Purp| 5.17.12 @ 7:47AM

Useless drivel, as is your brain.

Riff Raff| 5.16.12 @ 11:14PM

Facts?!

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Purp| 5.17.12 @ 7:48AM

You still don't know do you? Never research anything do you? Lame, very lame.

Riff Raff| 5.17.12 @ 11:35AM

Research?! You?!!

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

You just regurgitate the nonsense fed to you by CNN, CBS, et.al. You would know actual research if it kicked you.

The notion that this boob in the White House "saved or created" 3 million jobs is ludicrous, absurd, ridiculous. It is so nonsensical, it requires no refutation. Believing this is equivalent to believing in the Tooth Fairy and the Great Pumpkin. How does one measure jobs "saved?" This is not even a statistic. It is a claim and nothing else. That you fatuously repeat this fatuous nonsense only proves your own inability to think critically. My goodness, you're dim.

Paul McGrath| 5.16.12 @ 1:09PM

"many people have given up looking for work and have completely left the labor force, and the government no longer counts people as unemployed after they give up looking for a job. "

I have seen this phrase an awful lot lately, but I do not understand it. Would some smart person here be kind enough to explain to me how the government knows that someone has given up looking for work?

I mean this sincerely and am hopeful that someone will respond. Thank you.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 1:24PM

This will explain the employment data:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

The formula is quite complex but they get the data for those that have left the labor force by sampling the population and asking them. When one stops looking for work, it could be that they are frustrated, or it could be that they are retiring. With the growth of boomers, there are more retirees than in the past and they are collecting social security sooner (which puts more of a strain on social security).

From my perspective, the loss of employment in this country is structural -- i.e., it is a natural outgrowth of our development and can't be fixed through artificial means. We have increased productivity in this country (which makes companies more profitable) and have lost manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor. Add to that the fact that more women are working than in the past, and you'll see this is an almost impossible problem to solve for any ideology.

Eventually, the growth development of third world countries like China and Vietnam will put pressure on their labor costs and make us more competitive. Germany is a good example of a developed country that has maintained jobs through a government planned action to support higher end manufacturing through targeted education and government support.

I wish I had an answer, but in the longer term, while there will be some pain, I think you'll see us come back because of the diversified strength of our people who are the most innovative in the world.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 2:20PM

Your comment that we've lost labor to countries with cheaper labor is ridiculous when you consider that minimum wage jobs have exploded under Obama. Of course, that's not his fault either, is it?

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 2:40PM

Now you've made yourself completely unbelievable. Wage rates in China are about 20 cents an hour for minimum labor. Obama is not at fault for the increase in minimum wage job. This occurs after every recession.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 2:49PM

Oh you are funny without even trying. Where are your charts to prove that? It's not true and you know it. There's an article posted above which proves that minimum wage jobs have exploded under Obama. Yes, Obama is at fault but your problem is you're too much of a liberal to admit it. Well, facts are facts and those are the facts.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 3:01PM

Like I said, minimum wage jobs always increase during a recovery. They did under Reagan as well.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 3:17PM

No charts? Sorry, you don't have a point.

fiscal = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 8:14PM

"Obama is not destroying the economy anymore than Bush did."

THE FORMULA IS QUITE SIMPLE, LIBERAL TROLL, OBAMA WILL BE THE ONLY PRESIDENT EVER TO LEAVE OFFICE WITH LESS EMPLOYED THAN WHEN HE ENTERED OFFICE, THERE IS YOUR ANSWER YOU NO LONGER NEED TO WISH FOR.

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 2:14PM

Well, you're wrong again, as usual ..
"Obama is also following the exact opposite of Reagan's policies by vastly expanding rather than reducing regulatory costs, supporting a record amount of easy money at the Fed, and restricting rather than maximizing American energy production." - 1) Obama has implemented less regulation than GW Bush did in his first 3 years. In fact, the federal government is smaller than under Bush, 2) Oil and Gas production is booming in the US, leading soon to exports of both from this country.3) Fed money - not in Reagan's or Obama's control.
Comparing the Great Depression II that Obama inherited from Bush with Reagans' tiny cyclical recession is stupid - as is Grover Norquist. Why don't you compare it to the Clinton recession that Dubya inherited? It is more recent and reflective of today rather than 30-40 years ago's economy and population. You know why, don't you?
Compare Obama's response to this depression calamity with FDR's response to Great Depression I - after first holding back and then increasing government spending (stimulus), bringing unemployment down, by 1937 FDR tightened again, and created the mini-depression that was overcome by the start of WWII (government spending again).
The national debt we have is by far accountable to Republican presidents (Reagan and the Bush Twins), by some 10 Trillion of it.
If we were to go back to the Bush policies that caused the crash, which is what Richie wants to do, we would go right back into a bubble that would burst and create Great Depression III. Now wouldn't that be a smart move? The latest 2 Billion dollar casino bet that JP Morgan Chase made should have told everyone who dangerous free reign capitalism is and how this could happen all over again. And Romney wants to repeal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform. How stupid is he?

Jack London| 5.16.12 @ 3:14PM

Thanks for the facts Purp, which no matter how many times they are presented, the stooges here are hooked instead on the liar merchants' snake oil. You are absolutely right that GOP 'policy' (and it's a travesty to use the term) is to return to the very same conditions that gave us the huge Bush bust.

Curtis Rasmussen| 5.16.12 @ 4:58PM

BDS. Obama has had enough tie to turn things around, yet things are much worse.

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 5:16PM

And, the economy has turned around, not enough, but where have YOU been? From 830, 000 jobs/month being lost when Obama sworn in until now, where 4million jobs have been created since. My house appraisal is up 50K from the bottom, and GM is #1 again, mfg has added thousands of jobs, college grads are getting jobs and so are older workers. On top of that, Bin Laden is dead, Iraq War is over - if only the Senate Republicans had gotten out of the way, we'd be that much further along. Now, we have the House Republicans in the way and you want to blame the president alone. Go talk to your idiot friends in Congress that want to drown the government in the bathtub, if you want to blame someone ... Paul Ryan comes to mind. Irresponsible pretty boy.

Purp = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 6:01PM

JOB EQUILIBRIUM = 150,000 JOBS REQUIRED PER MONTH TO OFFSET POPULATION GROWTH.

OBAMA PRESIDENT FOR 40 MONTHS.

40 MONTHS X 150,000 PER MONTH = 6 MILLION JOBS.

2 MILLION JOBS NEEDED JUST TO REACH EQUILIBRIUM.

THEN YOU NEED TO ADD THOSE UNEMPLOYED NOT COUNTED BY GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THOSE NOT COUNTED DUE TO 'DISABILITY'.

THEN YOU NEED TO REMIND YOURSELF THIS DISTRACTION DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT OBAMA IS TOAST IN NOVEMBER.

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 9:01PM

Try typing with civility ... pos. Try your same calculation with GW Bush's Presidency and what do you get? Then laugh at your own stupidity. And, add in why anyone was unemployed on Jan 20th 2009 ?... I suppose you want to blame Obama for the TARP program don't you? And the crash? And the housing bubble bust? Sure, blame Obama instead of the real root cause - GW Bush and Buddies.
And, if that doesn't demoralize you enough, compare Bush's jobless recovery with Obama's 4 million+ recovery - mindlessness is so unbecoming of you.

Purp = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 10:04PM

FECAL-BRAINED LIBERAL TROLL, OBAMA WILL BE THE ONLY PRESIDENT -EVER - TO LEAVE OFFICE WITH LESS EMPLOYED THAN WHEN HE ENTERED OFFICE.

NO PRESIDENT - EVER - GOING BACK TO AND INCLUDING WASHINGTON, HAS EVER LOST NET JOBS WHILE IN OFFICE.

UNTIL OBAMA.

CALCULATE THAT FECAL BREATH.

Purp| 5.17.12 @ 7:51AM

You don't know what you're talking about. GW Bush left office with less net jobs than any President since Herbert Hoover. My God, are you this ignorant, just stupid or plain evil? The caps don't enhance your importance you know. it looks childish, throwing a tantrum. Grow up and do some homework, put the crayons down, get your hands out of your pants and study.

Purp = fecal-brained| 5.17.12 @ 10:52AM

WHAT ARE YOU?

12?

BUSH HAD A NET JOBS GAIN, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT - EVER - DID.

UNTIL OBAMA, WHO IN NOVEMBER WILL LEAVE OFFICE AS THE ONLY PRESIDENT - EVER - WITH A NET JOB LOSS.

STUDY THAT FECAL BREATH.

IF YOU STOP SUCKING ON TURDS YOUR FECAL BREATH MIGHT NOT REMIND PEOPLE AROUND YOU OF OBAMA ANY MORE, SUCKLES.

Oldefarte| 5.16.12 @ 5:26PM

You're a GD liar!!!!!!!!!!!!

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 9:02PM

Was that a brain fart ... have a nice day. Truth hurts, I know...

Purp = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 10:17PM

FECAL-BRAINED LIBERAL TROLL,

WHAT ARE YOU?

12?

DUMBASS.

CAN YOU JUST POST ONCE WITHOUT LYING?

FECAL BREATH TURD BURGLER.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 2:24PM

Here's a little scandal uncovered by the liberals at the New York Times which clearly indicates that states continue to suffer during the Obama economy, but that money that was intended to alleviate suffering for homeowners is being diverted to state budgets and union employees under a slick money laundering scheme. That's another interesting feature of the Obama economy, slick money laundering schemes whether it's energy, mortgages or whatever, and it is his fault:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05......html?_r=1
In a budget proposed this week, California joined more than a dozen states that want to help close gaping shortfalls using money paid by the nation’s biggest banks and earmarked for foreclosure prevention, investigations of financial fraud and blunting the ill effects of the housing crisis. California was awarded more than $400 million from the banks, and Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed using the bulk of that sum to pay the state’s debts.

The money was part of a national settlement valued at $25 billion and negotiated with five big banks over abuses in their mortgage and foreclosure processes.

The settlement, reached in February after a year of talks and intervention by the Obama administration, was the second-largest in history involving the states, trailing the tobacco industry settlement, and represented the first large-scale commitment by banks to provide direct aid to borrowers.

As part of the settlement, the banks agreed to pay the states $2.5 billion, money intended to help homeowners and mitigate the effects of the foreclosure surge. But critics complained that this was the only cash the banks were required to pay — the rest comes in the form of “credits” for reducing mortgage debt and other activities. Even that relatively small amount has proved too great a temptation for lawmakers.

Only 27 states have devoted all their funds from the banks to housing programs, according to a report by Enterprise Community Partners, a national affordable housing group. So far about 15 states have said they will use all or most of the money for other purposes.

In Texas, $125 million went straight to the general fund. Missouri will use its $40 million to soften cuts to higher education. Indiana is spending more than half its allotment to pay energy bills for low-income families, while Virginia will use most of its $67 million to help revenue-starved local governments.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 2:43PM

As I've said, the numbers show that stimulus spending does not do much to improve the economy. So why is this any different? Tax reduction doesn't do much either.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 2:46PM

It clearly shows the Obama economy is in trouble and in more ways than one.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 2:54PM

Again, there is only an Obama economy with the political class and Fox News. Presidents don't have a lot to do with the economy as the GDP numbers show over time. I wish I could find some correlation in the numbers, that would make it easier. But there is not....

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 2:27PM

Contrary to the moronic comments posted above about GDP being great under Obama here are the facts and it's all pinned to Obama. Liberals claim nothing is ever his fault and if you hear someone claim something is not his fault you can bet your life they're a liberal contrary to anything they might state:
http://blog.american.com/2012/.....n-chances/
With six months to go until Election Day, time just ran out for Team Obama to run any sort of plausible “Morning in America” reelection campaign. And it’s not just that the U.S. economy grew at a subpar 2.2% annual rate in the first quarter, according to the Commerce Department.

It’s that this may be about as good as it gets for the economy this year. Most analysts have been looking for the second quarter to be no better—if not worse—than the first. So we could end up having a first half of the election year with GDP growth near 2% or below. As Citigroup puts it: “… 1Q GDP data should limit remaining optimism that U.S. economic growth will accelerate significantly this year.” And IHS Global Insight says it’s “looking for second-quarter growth to be similar to the first—around 2%.”

How bad is that?

1. Research from the Federal Reserve finds that that since 1947, when two-quarter annualized real GDP growth falls below 2 percent, recession follows within a year 48% of the time. In other words, the U.S. economy may be entering a red zone where if anything at all goes wrong—like, say, a worsening EU economy and financial situation —it will lack the momentum to avoid another downturn. Indeed, Strategas Research thinks corporate profits may have declined on a quarterly basis for the first time since 2008.

2. And even if nothing else goes wrong, growth still looks to be exceptionally weak for the third year of a recovery. This is the 11th quarter of the Obama Recovery. Over that span, the economy has grown 7% total. During the first 11 quarters of the Reagan Recovery, the economy grew 18%, more than twice as much as the Obama Recovery.

3. The GDP report also shows the Obama administration needs to rejigger its economic forecasting models, which keep predicting a boom is right around the corner.

– In August of 2009, the White House—after having a half year to view the economy and its $800 billion stimulus response—predicted that GDP would rise 4.3% in 2011, followed by 4.3% growth in 2012 and 2013, too. And 2014? Another year of 4.0% growth.

– In its 2010 forecast, the White House said it was looking for 3.5% GDP growth in 2012, followed by 4.4% in 2013, 4.3% in 2014.

– In its 2011 forecast, the White House predicted 3.1% growth in 2011, 4.0% in 2012 and 4.5% in 2013, 4.2% in 2014.

– In its most recent forecast, the White House predicted 3.0% growth this year and next, and then back to 4.0% after that. Good luck with that.

In reality, the economy grew 1.7% in 2011 and even 3% is now looking way out of reach for this year.

4. Let’s say the 2012 economy heading into Election Day resembles that of the past three quarters. If you plug those numbers into the forecasting model created by Ray Fair of Yale University , Obama would get just 48.4% of the two-party vote, a decisive loss to Mitt Romney.

Even if growth perks up a bit from here, it seems unlikely that it will be enough to dent the unemployment rate or boost incomes.

President Obama could still win, of course. But given the current economic trajectory, he will be defying historical precedent if he does.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 2:52PM

All of this is true, but as even you've said, economic growth is in the 2-3% range which you denied in a previous post. The two quarter rule is generally used when there has not been a recession in a while. If you had studied economics, you might have known that. If there is a double dip recession, it will have occurred because of weakness in Europe, not because of Obama. Europe is our largest trading partner and bankruptcies in Greece, Spain, Ireland, and perhaps Italy make it worse. Again, this problem is structural, not political.

That doesn't make Obama a good President, however. A lack of leadership is never good for this country.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 2:58PM

Your excuses for Obama get funnier with each post. In fact, the article clearly points out it was Obama and his White House who predicted higher GDP and it's way below their forecasts. I suppose Obama is not responsible for that either. I never denied the GDP growth but the article points out that it is faltering which you deny. It can go down and easy and will in the first quarter of next year. It's almost guaranteed, i.e.:
http://www.canadafreepress.com.....icle/27442
As of 2006 political power in Congress had been transferred to the Democrats. Thus, for the past four years, the economy has been their responsibility even before Obama was elected.

At the heart of today’s economic problems are the Democrat “social justice” programs dating back to the days of FDR. They are unsustainable because the demographics of American society have changed as life spans have been extended.

Social programs such as those supposedly underwritten by the mortgage practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually reflect a liberal utopia, not real world dynamics.

They were intended to make the purchase of homes available to people who clearly could not afford them. Banks and mortgage loan companies were pressured by the government to make “sub-prime” loans. They came to be called “Ninja” loans; no income, no job, and no assets.

As the economy cratered, one of the first acts of Congress was to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as mortgage loan companies failed and as banks and investment firms that had purchased their bundled mortgages as securities began to totter. One, Lehman Brothers, was so far in the well it was immediately allowed to fail while billions in TARP money was allocated to others to avoid a complete systemic failure.

While this was playing out Obama was packing the White House with a succession of “czars”, most of whom were beyond the vetting process of Congress and almost all of whom had ties to hardcore socialist groups or advocated bizarre “science” theories involving a global warming that was not happening.

Obama’s early choices for his cabinet became an embarrassing succession of tax cheats and others with ethical issues who had to withdraw from consideration. The final selection for the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, claimed his own tax errors were the result of a computer program that anyone can purchase and use without similar problems.

None of this went unnoticed in the business and financial communities, nor was it lost on anyone that Obama was ignoring the faltering economy while pulling out all the stops to get his Medicare “reform” package passed. His administration’s tentacles reached out to grasp one sixth of the nation’s economy, healthcare.

At one point, a million people came to the steps of the Capitol to protest. Instead of introducing true reforms, Obamacare added more people to the insolvent program’s rolls while cutting billions from it. It was also, in one important respect, unconstitutional.

At the very heart of the nation’s economic problems are the President’s judgment, his socialist, redistributive ideology, and his highly partisan approach to politics. It was lost on no one that his so-called stimulus package was a huge giveaway of public funds to prop up civil service unions and others.

As distrust for Obama grew, so did the lines at the unemployment offices around the nation.

The joke became, “Don’t tell him what number comes after a trillion.”

Nation is facing some $13 trillion in debt stretching beyond our children to their children and to the following generation. It is unsustainable
All told, the nation is facing some $13 trillion in debt stretching beyond our children to their children and to the following generation. It is unsustainable.

People stopped spending money on any purchase they could defer, particularly major ones like the purchase of a home or even a car. Corporations in their own way did the same thing.

The prospect of a huge tax increase when the current Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year will further drain consumer buying power, the key to recovery. It freezes all decisions regarding the future.

The advent of a Republican-controlled Congress and of many States that will vote Republican governors into office will determine whether the economy will improve. A bloated federal government must be reduced in size to save the nation.

Everyone knows these problems have been exacerbated by Barack Obama and everyone is waiting for him to exit the White House.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 3:08PM

I never look at predictions by politicians, they are wrong as often as weather forecasters and are just stated to get elected. I look at what actually happens. If Obama had any executive experience, he would have sandbagged the estimate as is done by most executives. But this is just another executive leadership issue with him showing his lack of leadership experience.

And you did deny that there was any GDP growth. Re-read your comments.

As to the housing bubble, there were many causes, all acting together, to cause it including, but not limited to, the CRA, Fannie/Freddie, cheap money, lack of reserve requirements, unregulated derivatives, separation of mortgage originators from risk (securitization), etc. Any one of them alone would not have caused the crises, but they all worked together to make it happen.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 2:56PM

And by the way, the Fed gave away cheap money not only under Bernanke, but Greenspan as well. Cheap money helped produce the dotcom and housing bubbles and is contributing to the outsized profits of the large banks where they can borrow money from the Fed at near zero rates and make at least 4% on it from mortgages and trading.

Purp| 5.17.12 @ 7:54AM

Why do you always compare Great Depression II with Reagan's minor cyclical recovery? Why not compare it to GW Bush's jobless recovery from the Clinton recession he inherited? It's much more recent, not over 30 years ago, and a much more similar economy. But you know why, don't you? Hypocrites.

Riff Raff| 5.17.12 @ 4:58PM

"...Reagan's minor cyclical recovery..."

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Endlessly repeating the lies of your keeper does not transmute the lies into truth. You truly are a tiresome, dimwitted, fool.

DrRisk| 5.16.12 @ 2:59PM

Reagan did NOT cut federal government spending. The last time that happened was 1946. He cut the GROWTH RATE of government spending.

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 3:10PM

In fact, he raised taxes 11 times and doubled the social security tax. People today seem to forget that. Because he was a responsible leader, Reagan was a very good President.

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 5:23PM

Strong leader doesn't make him a responsible leader. Reagan started the borrow and spend Republican debacle that GW Bush put on Steroids. "Deficits don't matter" was Reagan's pronouncement and Dubya took it to heart and doubled down on it - then handed Obama Great Depression II and you think Obama is to blame? Nice try. Neither the American people nor history will blame it on Obama or the Democrats. just as with Great Depression I, lack of regulations, poor fiscal management and capitalism run amok created this disaster and Republican Hoover was blame for GD I and Republican Bush is and will be blamed for GD II. Sorry, but you guys can't govern worth crap. And, now we know you couldn't even find a 6'5" Arab to kill... Sad, very sad.

Oldefarte| 5.16.12 @ 5:29PM

You're a GD lying AH! I'll take it back to the Democrats [aka domestic terrorists] in 1977 with their inactment of the CRA. Further, 1965 with their Lyndon Johnson's UNgreat Society. IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JmsA| 5.16.12 @ 8:31PM

They say that with age comes wisdom, and you're proof of it, Oldfarte. Too bad so many, including the resident trolls herein, don't get it.

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 9:05PM

So, Reagan didn't double or triple the national debt? Reagan didn't transform the nation? Really? Is that what you believe? Go look it up Fart, you might learn something.
All this tells me is that you believe anything the right wingers tell you - you really don't know anything, do you ?

Purp = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 10:15PM

FECAL-BRAINED LIBERAL TROLL, THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESS WHO LIED- JUST LIKE YOU ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF - TO REAGAN DID THAT TO THE DEBT.

DUMBASS FECAL BREATH DUMBASS LIAR.

Purp| 5.17.12 @ 7:55AM

Hey DA - who signs bills into law? Who is the final approver of all government spending? You really are a DA.

Purp = fecal-brained| 5.17.12 @ 10:55AM

WHAT ARE YOU?

THIS IS WHY NOT EVEN BOEHNER AND MCCONNELL FALL FOR DEMOCRAT LIES ABOUT CUTTING SPENDING IN THE FUTURE FOR TAX CUTS NOW ANY MORE.

YOU SHOULD MAYBE CUT SPENDING YOUR TIME GARGLING OUT OF THE TOILET BOWL, FECAL BREATH, SO YOU DON'T SMELL SO MUCH LIKE OBAMA, SUCKLES.

WHAT ARE YOU?

W| 5.16.12 @ 6:48PM

Another day, another stupid comment by Purp.

Back to the 6'5" Arbab?

So the American military was incompetent to find a tall Arab? Isn't that racial profiling that you lefties don't approve? What is your point, that Bush was out in the desert looking for a tall Arab?

I suppose Obama was looking every day on the golf course for a tall Arab and finally saw one so he ran up and killed him with his bare hands.
Back on Halliburton again, I see. Halliburton is a profitable American company employing Americans and providing a return to its shareholders. Halliburton is probably in your retirement plan, but I forgot, you don't work, except for your imaginary job in a Fortune 10 company that pays you hundreds of thousands of dollars for your consulting.

My God, you are truly stupid, a lefty cliche parrot.

Purp| 5.16.12 @ 9:17PM

Are you this dense? The President sets the agenda, he gives the orders. Others execute it. Bush didn't order it, Bush didn't set the right agenda. Therefore, it wasn't executed. He was more interested in making money for his cronies. God you can't be this ignorant.
President Obama set finding Bin Laden as Job #1, and ending the Iraq War and Afghan War. So far, he has accomplished #1 and #2, and on his way to #3. None of them Bush could accomplish. Poor management = poor execution. It's Bush's fault we didn't get Bin Laden. It's Bush's fault we crashed the economy.
Personally, you know nothing about me. I don't lie, don't need to. But your insults do nothing - I simply consider the source... a poor one at that. Not even good insults I might add. You do seem to projectsyour own shortcomings on everyone you disagree with - not with facts mind you, just your opinion (and you know what that's worth). I'd just as soon you stop the name calling - that really is all you are able to do apparently. It doesn't help your cause at all.
So when did you miss the part that Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, and Halliburton just happened to get billions of dollars in NO-Bid contracts ? You do know what that is, don't you? And, yet, Bush couldn't supply armor and helmets and personal body protection to the troops. He was an idiot, hurt the troops and hurt the country in dozens of ways to make an ideological point that blew up in all our faces.

W| 5.16.12 @ 9:54PM

Purp
Not trying to insult you. You started using the name Purp instead of Purpleguy when I started calling you Purp for short. So you are open to learning.

Obama is the worst president. Period. The economy is a mess, the deficit is up by 5 trillion. He surrendered in Iraq and left, as he will do in Aghanistan. He did not close Guantanamo as promised.

The SEALS killed Osama based on the info developed by the CIA using interrogation methods approved by Bush, and opposed by Obama and you. Any president, except Clinton based on his refusal to capture Osama three times, would have given the order to kill.

Get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Obama is a one termer, and will be viewed as the worst president after Carter.

Get over Halliburton. Cheney donated over 6 million dollars to charity. Halliburton is a publicly owned company, it is not owned by Cheney. Are there any proven charges of illegality with Halliburton? No.

All you can do is repeat cliches like "Halliburton" without any analysis. Your posts have gone downhill. You sound like Keith Olberman.

Purp| 5.17.12 @ 8:08AM

Actually, it doesn't matter if I give you links to truth and facts - everyone argues the same, so why bother? If you want to give credit to Bush for Bin Laden, then you have to give him credit for all the economy crashing, since it too began in his administration. As for the debt, he too added over 5 Trillion to the debt, so what?
Halliburton? Remember, it isn't the truth that matters, it's what they can prove. Look how long it took to catch Bernie Madoff? That doesn't mean it wasn't happening. And, Halliburton was the largest paid contractor in Iraq AND coincidentally, I'm sure, was Cheney's old CEO position, made billions, AND it was NO-Bid contracts (Why), and the troops were without proper gear for years while the cronies got rich. Blackwater, KBR, and on and on.
And, no, not any president would have given the go on a 60% success proposition. Not any president would order drone attacks in Pakistan, nor a midnight raid into another country. No, that isn't so. It was the change in focus ordered by Obama that made the difference. You don't remember Bush saying "I don't know where he is, i don't lose any sleep over that" ... he took his eye off the ball, and let him roam free. I don't think Bush understood special ops - only massive invasions. But Obama proved how worthy the Seals and Special Ops can be. He is a very strong leader.

Purp = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 10:11PM

FECAL-BRAINED LIBERAL TROLL,

EVERYONE KNOWS YOU ARE ONLY CAPABLE OF LYING HERE. EVERY POST. EVERY SENTENCE.

WHAT IS THE DEATH TOLL OF U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL IN AFGHANISTAN UNDER BUSH?

WHAT IS THE DEATH TOLL OF U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL IN AFGHANISTAN UNDER THE FIRST HOMOSEXUAL PRESIDENT - EVER - OBAMA?

TRY TO NOT LIE - FOR THE ONCE AND ONLY TIME HERE - EVER.

FECAL BREATH DUMBASS.

Purp = fecal-brained| 5.17.12 @ 10:58AM

WHAT ARE YOU?

ALWAYS SUCKING TURDS, FECAL BREATH?

WHAT IS THE AFGHAN DEATH TOLL UNDER BUSH?

WHAT IS THE AFGHAN DEATH TOLL UNDER OBAMA?

WHAT ARE YOU?

BESIDES FECAL BREATHED?

Calvin| 5.16.12 @ 5:32PM

Well the Senate voted the Obama budget down 99-0. This brings back memories to when the house voted it down 414-0 in March. Oh yeah, he is quite the leader. What does it mean when even your own party doesn't want to support you? Not even one member. The big O is toxic. He has offerered the failed programs of progressive Europe and we can see what is happening in Europe. In our own country the dead enders that run California, Illinois and New York have done nothing about their fiscal disaster and will pay for it soon. Lets follow the example of states like Indiana, New Jersey, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and other states that have elected responsible leaders. Obama and every Democrat in the Senate and House need to returned to the private sector.

POST American| 5.17.12 @ 12:57AM

In this, the beyond question, 11th hour
of the 4 decades on, CFR--RED China
handover, takedown, USURPATION,
OCCUPATION and FINAL EUGENICS OP-----

"---The Globalists sit there, and watch
you, refusing and/or unable to break
your trance as they CON-solidate their
plunder and takeover ---and LAUGH!"
-Informed Radio online

Meanwhile, still waiting for that FIRST
piece taking any of it to task.

-------TICK ----TICK ----TICK -----TICK

Still waiting

--------------------TICK ---TICK ----TICK ----TICK!

HUAC ---has NOW become Nuremberg 2012. . .

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|26 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|16 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|18 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|27 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|4 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|11 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|9 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

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?

The American Spectator

The Recession Spectator

Obama’s Debacle

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (161) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

oldfart| 5.16.12 @ 6:54AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 7:07AM

oldfart| 5.16.12 @ 7:26AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 7:34AM

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 7:53AM

Richard Ryan| 5.16.12 @ 8:34AM

Tommy Frisco| 5.16.12 @ 11:53AM

old white guy| 5.16.12 @ 2:48PM

Bob Grant | 5.16.12 @ 10:08PM

Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 8:37AM

Mike Hawk| 5.16.12 @ 8:53AM

sinanju| 5.16.12 @ 12:20PM

USSAlabama| 5.16.12 @ 7:45PM

Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 10:11AM

Dick Nome| 5.16.12 @ 10:32AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.16.12 @ 10:35AM

Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 10:53AM

Crassus| 5.16.12 @ 10:55AM

SUBVET| 5.16.12 @ 10:18AM

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 3:22PM

emilio lizardo, PhD| 5.16.12 @ 8:11AM

Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 8:19AM

Alej| 5.16.12 @ 9:19PM

TLP| 5.16.12 @ 8:19AM

Doctor Right| 5.16.12 @ 10:54AM

TLP| 5.16.12 @ 2:53PM

Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 8:35AM

david7134| 5.16.12 @ 11:53AM

old white guy| 5.16.12 @ 2:41PM

Appleby| 5.16.12 @ 6:54AM

oldfart| 5.16.12 @ 7:29AM

safely anonymous| 5.16.12 @ 8:04AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 7:02AM

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 7:40AM

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 7:44AM

chuck| 5.16.12 @ 8:13AM

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 8:58AM

BlitheBunny| 5.16.12 @ 4:18PM

chuck| 5.16.12 @ 5:45PM

Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 8:24AM

chuck| 5.16.12 @ 8:29AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 8:29AM

Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 9:49AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 10:50AM

Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 11:59AM

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 9:35AM

Tim the Enchanter| 5.17.12 @ 4:12PM

SUBVET| 5.16.12 @ 10:27AM

Von Mises Jr| 5.16.12 @ 5:48PM

numbatdog| 5.16.12 @ 7:41AM

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 7:47AM

Indy| 5.16.12 @ 8:00AM

Tommy Frisco| 5.16.12 @ 12:33PM

Indy| 5.16.12 @ 6:37PM

Tweety| 5.16.12 @ 8:00AM

DTOM| 5.16.12 @ 8:59AM

sinanju| 5.16.12 @ 12:27PM

Anthony| 5.16.12 @ 8:28AM

Cynicon Implant| 5.16.12 @ 8:33AM

somnolence| 5.16.12 @ 9:00AM

tsd| 5.16.12 @ 9:12AM

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 11:29AM

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 11:31AM

Mimi| 5.16.12 @ 9:41AM

Mimi| 5.16.12 @ 9:42AM

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 10:22AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 10:52AM

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 11:03AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.12 @ 11:30AM

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 11:35AM

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 12:02PM

Al Adab| 5.16.12 @ 12:14PM

fiscal = fecal-brained| 5.16.12 @ 11:45AM

fiscal| 5.16.12 @ 12:12PM

W| 5.16.12 @ 12:26PM