The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Obama Watch

Failing Downward

By on 7.25.12 @ 6:09AM

Even by Keynesian standards Obamanomics is an embarrassing flop — yet its only solution is more of the same.

(Page 3 of 3)

Job seekers are only one-third as likely to find a job as before Mr. Obama was elected. Today, a record number of Americans have been out of work for more than six months, and a record number of households have at least one member looking for a job… some employers are shortening the work week or asking employees to take unpaid leave, which doesn’t show up in official unemployment numbers.

But Obamanomics is not even good Keynesian economics. Liebman explains, “The president has also put forward a budget that would reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade and stabilize our debt-to-GDP ratio. But he would achieve that deficit reduction while continuing to invest in education, infrastructure and innovation.”

In other words, the President proposes to increase federal tax rates to finance increased federal spending, which is the worst combination of economic policies possible to promote economic recovery and growth. Even under Keynesian economics, increasing tax rates and reducing spending and the deficit reduces demand, and so means continued stagnation and depression.

The voters understand all this. That is why they delivered a shellacking (Obama’s word) to the Democrat party, with a New Deal size defeat for Democrats nationwide in 2010. The voters are not buying the snake oil that Obama and Liebman are selling. They don’t believe that increased government spending, deficits, and debt promote economic recovery, growth, and prosperity. That is why they delivered a 63 seat swing toward the Republicans in the House in 2010, giving them a strong majority precisely to stop such policies as reflected in the so-called American Jobs Act. Republicans are to be commended for sticking by their campaign promises, and refusing to go along with more Obamanomics stupidity.

Page:   1 23

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 (119) |

Gary B| 7.25.12 @ 6:42AM

If allowing the free market to flourish (the American Dream) is off the table, the only thing left is spending other people's money, which, as we all know, has had a 100% failure rate. Maybe next time we'll pay more attention to whom we're electing.

darcy| 7.25.12 @ 6:41PM

Gary B:

I paid plenty of attention. Problem is there are too many brain-dead, TV-narcotized voters out there, the "unthinking," if you will.

These folks will still be singing O's praises even when the bulldozers push away their dried bones.

Anthony| 7.25.12 @ 7:53AM

Even by Kenyan standards Obozo is turning America into a 3rd world despotic sink hole.
It appears daddy Obozo's dreams about the demise of America have indeed seen reality under his son.
It's time to take a pick and shovel to leftism. The digging begins in November.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 8:01AM

"President Kennedy understood it......"

That's because JFK loved this Country, as well as the Ladies. This new guy - President Mystery Date - HATES this Country, and loves the GUYS at the Harvard Review.

He knows that what he's doing is harmful to this Country. "He's the Smartest Guy, with no College Records, to ever 'Occupy' the Oval Office."

Remember?

He's going about "Fundamentally Transforming" this Country, the same way one would Transform an EGG, in to an OMLETTE.

First you must Break the Egg.

In this instance, The Man Who Wasn't There, seeks to Break our Will, and turn all of us in to one big - Living in Squalor - Black Community. He seeks to put Everybody in to a State of Generational Dependence, on Him, and his kind. - Those who would make of themselves, a King.

He knows that he's only gettin one shot at this. This is why he has done away with any pretexes, anymore. He's a one man perpetual Attack Machine, and to Hell with the Truth.

His Dog. Her Horse. Their Money. His Hair. It won't belong until he accuses Mrs. Romney of FAKING IT, when it comes to her Cancer, to get the Sympathy Vote.

"You think you built that Business? You didn't build it. Somebody else did. You're a lying, thieving Son of a B*tch, and your Mom spends her weekends down at the docks, servicing the Sailors as they get off the boat."

That's where we are, right now.

He's got his own internals. He knows that his time is just about over.

Can you say - SCORCHED EARTH?

Bob Grant| 7.25.12 @ 9:06AM

TLP, one of your better rants.

President Mystery Date...very nice.

I'm both fascinated and disturbed at how far left he's running, even farther than Carter in '80 or Johnson in '64.

What's even more disturbing is his high approvals. He continues to be in striking distance of a second term by running the most leftist campaign since FDR. No modern president has DARED to campaign on such a platform and the fact that his poll numbers are not in the low 30's indicates how far left our country has shifted. Win or lose, he's blazed a new path for future democratic presidential candidates.

Now, consider the frightening prospect of obama being rewarded for running such a negative, socialist campaign by winning reelection?

Just imagine how an emboldened president obama will govern in a second term, after demonstrating time and time again his socialist tendencies and ignorance/incompetence of all things economic?

Folks, this simply CANNOT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know about you but National Suicide doesn't sound like much of a future.

Make sure you get your friends and family to the polls on November 6th, quite possibly the most important day of your life.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 10:18AM

Have Faith, Bob Grant.

His Death to America Snowball, hasn't even begun to Accumulating all of the snow it most definately will, as it keeps rolling down the Hill towards November.

Trust me.

He's deader'n Maureen Dowd's love life. (Meaning, the Batteries in that Vibrating thing in her Night Stand Drawer.)

He's that Dead.

C'mon Man!| 7.25.12 @ 12:58PM

Who in their right might would do Maureen Dowd, the poster child of liberalism - or Pelosi, Feinstein, Clinton or any of those bags.. ugg, now I don't want sex at all, liberalism ruins everything!

Jeff1000| 7.25.12 @ 3:51PM

And the latest NBC/ WSJ poll was D+11.

Obama's heading for a shellacking of a lifetime.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 7:29PM

Exactly.

All you need to know is WHO'S POLLS these are.

Gallup?

I'm paying attention.

The Parent Company of Fat Slob Ed Schultz, Bull Dyke Racheal Maddcow, Cink Ugar, Al -Kill the Jews, Burn the White Interlopers at Freddie's to the Ground, and Tawana Brawley - Sharpton, Stockholm Syndrome/Sling Blade Morning Joke, and Edit 911 Calls from White Hispanic Zimmerman and the Poloce Department?

Fool me twice.

These Polls are as reliable as The Muslim telling the Truth, when his Lips are moving.

Warrior| 7.25.12 @ 12:29PM

This is not as close as the pollsters and main stream want you to believe. Remember, Scott Walker was supposedly losing Wisconsin in the polls leading up to the election and all during the exit polls. Also remember that Reagan was supposedly trailing Jimmy Carter for pretty much the entire campaign in 80. One last thought, an out of state convict almost beat Obama in the WV primaries and "no candidate" got 42% of the Democrat vote in Kentucky. Stop listening to the media, it is not close at all.

Drunken Sailor| 7.25.12 @ 2:41PM

Exactly. Most of the polls that show Obama ahead poll registered voters, not likely voters. All the ones that poll likely voters show Romney ahead. And lets not forget that 80% of the time the undecided's break mainley for the challenger.

Let Obama keep explaining his "you didn't build that" moment. He is doing us a favor.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 3:23PM

His "Favorable Numbers" are at 36%.

I think that ties him with Jerry Sandusky.

Which is just about right, if you think about what he's doing to our kids.

Bob Grant| 7.25.12 @ 3:48PM

....and Joe Paterno is to Jerry Sandusky what the Mainstream Media is to obama.

Albertus Magnus| 7.25.12 @ 5:48PM

That is the best analogy I have yet heard. Good one!

Gary B| 7.25.12 @ 7:21PM

Ditto

C'mon Man!| 7.25.12 @ 12:52PM

Yes, Pres Mystery Date, that's a winner!

Bill84728| 7.25.12 @ 3:19PM

"Your mom walks around the burger joint with a mattress on her back, hollering 'curb service!'"

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 3:38PM

I guess that Liberal's sense of What's Funny, is right up there with their sense of what's best for this Country.

A recent Study found that 20% of the American populace suffers from a Mental Disorder.

Gallup tells us that 20% of Americans identify themselves as Liberals.

And, in 2008, roughly 20% of The American Population voted for Obama.

Surprised?

JimH| 7.25.12 @ 8:54AM

They say one definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same action in expectation of a different result.

Albertus Magnus| 7.25.12 @ 9:37AM

This of course, is based on the assumption that President Bozo actually expects a different result. Stupidity combined with malevolence can be very destructive.

Bob Grant| 7.25.12 @ 10:03AM

With obongo, it's a combo deal. The only question is the ratio. I believe it's 2 parts abject stupidity, 1 part (" I wanna be the next Mao, Hugo, or Benito")

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 3:50PM

Actually, it's an Assumption, by The Muslim's supporters, that 4 more years of President Gun Runner/No Jobs/$5 Trillion in Debt/Trillion Dollar Deficits/Record Unemployment/Record Foreclosures/Record Numbers of Americans on Food Stamps, Welfare and Soc. Sec. Disability/Record Numbers of Americans living At, or Below, the Poverty Level/the Worst Housing Market since the Depression, and a Downgrade of this Country's Credit Rating for the 1st time in our History, is just a prelude of better things to come.

Only in Amerika.

Al Adab| 7.25.12 @ 9:38AM

Once we accept, ala Tom Dewey, the legitimacy of the administrative social-welfare state, we abandon the theory of liberty and limited government on which this nation was built. Giving up on the entire concept of self-government and free markets is, it should be clear by now, the road to statism and central planning.

If the GOP continues to follow the lead of the accomodationists in its ranks we are presented with a distinction without a difference. Apparently the GOP accepts that central government and social welfare is a legitimate use of the government power. The only claim they make is to manage it better. We must reject this view and return to those policies which made this nation the freest and most prosperous in history. This is the moment. If not now, then when?

Jack London| 7.25.12 @ 10:45AM

What policies should we return to, Al, and when do you think we were at our most prosperous?

Jack of Spades| 7.25.12 @ 11:03AM

For starters,why not have the government budget for what it expects revenues to be, rather than spending what it wants to and borrowing the difference on an ongoing basis?

Of course,this would mean drawing up a budget to begin with, which the Democrat-controlled Senate has refused to do for three years now.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 12:30PM

How about the Bush years? The deficit ranged from 158 billion to 459 billion. We had record receipts to the treasury. We had record low unemployment. We had jobs created by the hundreds of thousands every month.

What's wrong with that? Also:

What cost a trillion dollars more today than five or six years ago? What are we spending that money on today that we positively cannot do without? What things have gotten a trillion more expensive in a few short years?

Look at 2007 and look at today. Just what is the difference and why is it better today? So the answer is: The Bush Years.

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 2:15PM

“The Bush Years.” Joking right? Bush failed to stop 9-11 which cost the lives of 4,000 Americans, started two wars which took another 5,000 American lives, collapsed the world economy, doubled the national debt and, left the nation with annual deficits in excess of $1.3 trillion.

Drunken Sailor| 7.25.12 @ 2:43PM

Clinton had the chance to get Osama and let it slide after the first WTC bomb. Not to mention he practically gutted our intelligence community. Now who let 9-11 happen?

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 3:46PM

"Clinton had the chance to get Osama and let it slide after the first WTC bomb. "

Fair enough, but Bush had eight f**kin' years!

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 3:57PM

The only reason we got Hit on 911, was the FACT that, after 8 Years of Attacks against American Interests, around the world, with IMPUNITY, Osama Bin Laden came to the conclusion that America was "A Weak Horse".

His words, not mine.

And you can throw in Jamie Garelick's Wall of Seperation between the Intelligence Services, that made "Connecting The Dots" IMPOSSIBLE.

I guess vtwin stands for: Someone of limited intellect, who just like to write Sh*t on web sites.

And, if it doesn't?

It should.

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 4:20PM

Sure it was eight years? Maybe it was…since Reagan cut and run from Lebanon in 1982?

CJW| 7.25.12 @ 6:27PM

Bubba did nothing to respond to the WTC bombing in 1993, the Khobar Towers bombing, the emabassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole. Janet Reno was busy incinerating women and children at Waco, and Eric Holder and Bubba were busy selling pardons. And we know what Bubba was busy with, learning the definition of "is" and "sex."
Clinton passed on having Obama picked up in 1995.

They did not have time to defend our country and we got 9/11.

Sue| 7.25.12 @ 9:56PM

Great factual response! Sad to say, The Frank Church Commission under Carter started the downfall of our intelligence committees. Every republican president tried to change circumstances but with the entrenched democrat bureaucrats, there is no salvation, the past, present, or for the future.

Riff Raff| 7.25.12 @ 2:46PM

Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9-11 by issuing executive orders PREVENTING various agencies (CIA, FBI, BATFE, etc...) from communicating with each other and sharing intelligence. Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9-11 by NOT taking any action whatsoever after the World Trade Center bombing on 1993, effectively INVITING follow up attempts. I'm no fan of Bush, but put blame where it belongs.

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 3:12PM

Timeline:

Bush inauguration: January 20, 2001

"We urgently need . . . a Principals level review on the al Qida [al-Qaeda] network." To: Condoleezza Rice, From: Richard Clarke: January 25, 2001

al-Qaeda attacks U.S.: September 11, 2001

First Principals level review on al-Qaeda in the Bush administration: September 12, 2001

Declassified Memo from Richard Clarke:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N...../index.htm

George S| 7.25.12 @ 3:36PM

Brilliant! You criticize Bush for reacting with force to 9-11, yet you criticize Bush for NOT responding with force when that memo was issued.

Just to be clear: prior to 9-11, the liberal universe would have cheered GWB had he started a war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq or Iran based on Richard Clarke's memo?

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 3:51PM

No, I'm not and didn't "criticize Bush for reacting with force to 9-11." I'm critizing Bush for starting TWO wars, one of which is still going on.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 4:00PM

You're confusing him, George.

CJW| 7.25.12 @ 6:28PM

Why then did Obama expand the Afghan war?

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 3:59PM

Rochard Clark?

You gotta be kidding.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 4:01PM

Rochard, Richard, Dick.

Same thing.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 3:11PM

No joke, just facts. The deficit was 459 billion when Bush left office. That 1.3 trillion was courtesy of Obama's stimulus, passed in February of 2009, yet "credited" technically to Bush since he left office in the third week of 2009. You think if the stimulus gave us a surplus it would have been credited to Bush? Now that is the stuff of jokes.

Two wars started by Bush. No. They were started by Al Qaeda and the response was sanctioned by the United States Congress (per the Constitution) and the U.N. If you can prove Bush intended -- and was able -- to go to war absent 9-11, then you would have a point.

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 3:37PM

Timeline:
January 7, 2009
“The sharp downturn in housing markets across the country, … has led the United States into a recession that will probably be the longest and the deepest since World War II.”-- Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

“CBO projects that the deficit this year [2009] will total $1.2 trillion.” --Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

January 20, 2009
Inauguration of Barack Obama

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41753
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau......3.1.shtml

The deficit increased, as projected two weeks before Obama took office, because the nation GDP collapsed under Bush and revenues were expected to fall.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 4:04PM

And, we'll all just ignore the $5 TRILLION IN NEW DEBT, because dumb@ss says so.

I think it's time to just IGNORE the Idiot in the room.

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 4:47PM

The CBO wasn’t projecting a deficit of $1.2 trillion 2009 alone. The CBO was projecting ANNUAL deficits of $1.2 trillion, reoccurring deficits year after year until the BUSH recession of 2008 ended. Has the Bush recession ended? No, so do the math:
2009 $1.2 trillion
2010 $1.2 trillion
2011 $1.2 trillion
2012 $1.2 trillion
Close enough to $5 trillion for government work wouldn't you say?

Drunken Sailor| 7.25.12 @ 4:51PM

It didn't? Then what was all that summer of recovery crap Obama was selling to us? Wish you libs would make up your minds. First Obama ended the great Bush recession, worst since the Depression. Now you say it hasn't ended.

Which is it, your boy is supposed to get credit for dragging a recession out with goverment interference or your boy couldn't do his damn job and end the recession after 3 1/2 years and the big "Stimulus Bill" that only stimulated union flunkies?

Drunken Sailor| 7.25.12 @ 4:55PM

Hell even CBS doesn't buy your BS.

"National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....nder-bush/

Drunken Sailor| 7.25.12 @ 5:00PM

Wrong link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

George S| 7.25.12 @ 4:21PM

You throw out data without explanation. If you want to break it down, here is how the deficit goes by the quarter (in billions):

2008
Q-1: 297.4 (Oct Nov Dec 2007)
Q-2: 431.3
Q-3: 794.2
Q-4: 740.9 (Jul Aug Sep 2008)

2009
Q-1: 776.6 (Oct Nov Dec 2008) Obama elected
Q-2: 1,112 (Jan Feb Mar) Obama in office
Q-3: 1,378 (Apr May Jun) Hello stimulus
Q-4: 1,379 A new baseline forever

So what does GDP have to do with this?

DRed| 7.25.12 @ 4:33PM

Aside from the stimulus, which specific programs were passed under Obama that increased the deficit? After all, the stimulus was a one off, and about a third of it was actually tax breaks.

Drunken Sailor| 7.25.12 @ 5:00PM

Start here. They did a 3 part series on it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

DRed| 7.25.12 @ 5:02PM

Which specific programs? That doesn't mention one.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 5:01PM

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln...

Most of the spending is entitlement spending that kicks in by law, such as social security and Medicaid. We have to borrow up to 40% of that, which causes debt interest to pile on. This is why spending always goes up regardless who is in the White House or controls congress.

And right in the middle of the Bush years the Baby Boomers start retiring, placing further stress on the budget. The stimulus set up a new base line on top of all. The tax breaks were mostly tax credits, meaning you get cash back if you have no tax liability.

If the stimulus were truly a tax cut, here is how it would have improved the economy:

787 billion divided among 140 million taxpayers is roughly $5,600 per taxpayer. Imagine if the treasury sent out debit cards to every taxpayer after taxes were collected in April of 2009. These debit cards are good for $5,600 and expire in one year. Therefore you have to spend the $5,600 within a year. Spending money grows the economy, right?

So how come Obama didn't do it that way? Hint: Democrats need to get reelected and very few people would send that $5,600 to Solyndra.

DRed| 7.25.12 @ 5:05PM

Obama didn't cause a massive spending increase-that's what you're saying? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 5:19PM

The difference was the stimulus. Everything else would have been just baseline provided that revenues kept pace. But Obama's handling of the economy impacts businesses, resulting in lower tax collection. Combine that with unemployment, food stamps and disability entitlements and the deficit rises.

Stimulus + Obama economic policies = 1.3 trillion deficit and growing.

But wait until ObamaCare kicks in.

DRed| 7.25.12 @ 5:26PM

When the stimulus was passed revenues were decreasing faster than they had any time since the great depression. Why would you assume they would have 'kept pace' without the stimulus? That makes no sense.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 5:46PM

I don't know what "revenues were decreasing faster than they had any time since the great depression" means. But here is the data (same from the response to vtwin @4:21 pm):

2008 Revenues in billions
Q-1: 4,220
Q-2: 4,196 (-0.4%)
Q-3: 4.006 (-4.5%)
Q-4: 4.052 (+1%)

2009
Q-1: 3,950 (Obama elected -6% drop)
Q-2: 3,680 (Obama in office, bungee drop!)
Q-3: 3,663
Q-4: 3,704

I just don't see where the drop in revenue at the election of Obama (Q-1 2009) can compare to the Great Depression.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 5:49PM

sorry, Q-1 2009 is a 3% drop, not 6%

DRed| 7.25.12 @ 6:10PM

Revenue decreased half a trillion dollars in two years and you don't see a big drop in revenue? Yes, the collapse was not as bad as the great depression-but it was worse than anything in the interim. I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Obama, obviously, can't be held responsible for the subprime mortgage bubble and the financial panic that followed. As you said, this lead to a decrease in revenue at the same time federal spending automatically increased, which lead to massive deficit growth. Out of that, somehow, conservatives tell us that Obama's runaway spending caused the increase in debt.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 6:43PM

And why is Bush responsible for the mortgage bubble collapse? Because of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003? We already established that had no effect in reducing revenue to the treasury, and it certainly had no effect on increased spending. But the liberal argument is the tax cuts were "not payed for" - which would be valid had treasury receipts dropped AND spending stayed constant. But they didn't.

But to see the effects of Obama, you have to take into account the massive regulations put in place since -- such as Dodd Frank. This requires more spending on government in addition to the spending that kicks in by law. And the increased costs for regulatory compliance sucks more of GDP every quarter, leaving less in the private sector to be distributed as income -- hence lower corporate and personal income tax revenue.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 6:44PM

To see the Obama effect, we go back to the BEA data:

2008 federal expenditures in billions:
Q-1: 4,517
Q-2: 4,627
Q-3: 4,800
Q-4: 4,793

2009
Q-1: 4,727
Q-2: 4,792
Q-3: 5,041
Q-4: 5,083

2010
Q-1: 5,080
Q-2: 5,188
Q-3: 5,233
Q-4: 5,278

2011
Q-1: 5,347
Q-2: 5,364
Q-3: 5,470
Q-4: 5,418

That is 1 trillion more than what was spent in 2007 (FY2008 Q-1).

You tell me: what costs a trillion more today than 2007 and why can we not cut back to 2007 spending? What will we have to do without? At no point in our history did we have this kind of a spending increase.

What I am trying to say -- no, what I said -- is that Obama is far worse than Bush and that Bush had nothing to do with the mess that we are in.

DRed| 7.25.12 @ 7:00PM

I keep asking you what specific programs Obama and the democrats passed that increased spending that much.

The Bush tax cuts were bad because, in typical republican fashion, he (he, of course, is a shorthand for Bush and Congress) cut taxes and increased spending. Obviously, two wars are expensive. Add the terrible Medicare Part D expansion to the tab. Bush and the republicans didn't pay for any of this. In the meantime, while real earning was decreasing, Bush's Fed pushed interest rates low, and helped set off a frenzy of cheap borrowing. The prudent thing to do when the economy is doing fairly well is to save money, so that you have a cushion for bad times. We did the opposite. Basically, the mild economic growth during most of Bush's presidency was fueled on credit. Then the bill came due. I have no idea how you can look at the massive economic collapse that occurred while Bush was president (seriously, does anybody think that the economy would be in bad shape if the economy had not collapsed in 2008?) and conclude that Bush had nothing to do with the mess we're in. That's insane.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 9:22PM

And I keep pointing to the fact that we spend a trillion more today than five years ago with nothing to show for it. Spending went from an average of 18 to 20 percent GDP pre-Obama to 25 percent. That's what it is; ascribing it to a specific piece of legislation is a red herring.

So now we have to raise taxes on the wealthy to attack the problem, yet the obvious place to start -- the spending -- is seen as inviolate. Why? There is no way those who earn over 200,000 per year can pay down a 1.3 trillion deficit because that group of taxpayers reported 1.9 trillion of income in 2009. The top earners (million plus salary) reported 800 billion of income. We need 3.6 trillion every year. Are we going to tax them at 100% which will only be a one-shot 2.7 trillion?

How then, does taxing the "rich" solve anything. Oh, those stubborn facts.

If that does not show a spending problem derived from a Euro-style welfare state, then nothing does. Back in the good ole days of 70 - 90 percent marginal income tax, we had no Medicare and social security was only paid to retirees. Today over 60 percent of what is collected is transferred to other people. How is that something that needs to be "paid for"? What are we buying?

That's what the problem is with Obama, his ideology is turn us into wards of the state, dependent on the government for the basics. And with trillion dollar deficits he will succeed. That's the problem, not just one piece of legislation.

DRed| 7.26.12 @ 12:45AM

Spending is what's seen as inviolate? Is that why Repbulicans have repeatedly refused spending cuts that are tied to tax increases? Do you not remember when every single Republican presidential candidate said they would refuse a deal that cut spending 10 times the amount of a tax raise? Get real. Obama has no communist plan to turn you into a ward of the state. That's a straight up fantasy. If you're really worried about deficits, you'd certainly be open to some sort of spending cut/tax compromise.

The Bush years saw a sustained period of real wage stagnation for the poor and middle class. At the same time, income for the wealthy grew at a much faster rate. We kept the economy going through deficit spending and consumer credit fueled by the housing bubble. Now the bubble has burst, and the Republican answer is to pay down the deficit (a deficit fueled in significant part by taxpayer bailouts of the very wealthy) by cutting taxes for the rich even further and slashing benefits for the poor and the elderly. The rich, who you claim are terribly over taxed, are the only segment of America doing well right now. That's a fact. But yeah, you need to go along with that because Obama's a muslim communist who hates America.

Finally, if you think we have a Euro style welfare state, you need to actually study some European countries.

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 4:49PM

When the GDP falls, revenues fall, Duh!

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 7:54PM

His Watch, with Super majorities in both of his first two years.

He got everything he wanted, and we're paying the price.

What say you, now, Dumbass?

Sue| 7.25.12 @ 10:03PM

Late to respond, sorry. Remember, GDP includes all of the government spending as well as private spending, so I do believe the situation is quite worse than reported. Take out the government spending in the GDP and compare the numbers then.

Jack London| 7.25.12 @ 3:03PM

If you mean GW, George, the record is absolutely clear: he took an economy that was in great shape after Clinton and trashed it to hell and back.

And if you want proof that putting our economy on the twin course of tax cuts for the wealthy and deep austerity, look how well that's doing for the Brits right now.

Do show me the correlation between low taxes for the rich and economic performance - good luck with that.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 3:29PM

How jack? Just how did he trash the economy? Please explain what is very confusing to me: the George Bush years brought more money into the Treasury than any time in history. How is it then that we could have deficits in the GWB years when more money was collected than the Clinton years when we had surpluses?

That is a rhetorical question because it proves that deficits can only occur when outlays exceed income. So that means that Bush wrecked the economy by spending, not short-changing the treasury. What was the money spent on? Education? Check. Social Security? Check. Medicare? Check. Medicare Part D? Check? Another federal bureaucracy? Check (Homeland Security).

Of course, you want to jump in and sa "WARS!!". Well, yes, that is an obligation of the federal government. But you Jack voted for it because the Congress authorized and funded it.

Now please explain slowly so I can understand how Bush ruined the economy?

Jack London| 7.25.12 @ 4:31PM

Come on George - I think you're almost wilfully pathological about GW. Here's a bit of reading for you that is most interesting - by Joseph Stiglitz about the Bush years up to the end of 2007. before the crash.

http://www.vanityfair.com/poli.....bush200712

I'll pick out just the opener:

"When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page."

George S| 7.25.12 @ 4:46PM

Joseph Stiglitz, of course. How could I miss that. And I embarrassed myself with BEA data that detailed treasury receipts with outlays.

Erosion of civil liberties? I remember being able to get on an airplane right after 9-11 just by walking through a metal detector. I don't remember drones flying overhead.

I don't remember Bush ignoring a federal judge, rewriting a law, sending troops into combat without congressional approval, making recess appointments with the Senate NOT in recess, firing the CEO of a private company, giving a 500 billion gift-as-loan to Halliburton, or instructing his Attorney General NOT to enforce a federal law. Yet Bush was the Imperial President.

Stiglitz can say what he wants but the bottom line of job creation, low unemployment and record treasury receipts during the Bush years are facts. Including obeying the law. And they are better facts than Obama can ever dare to dream (maybe a new book title for him).

Jack London| 7.25.12 @ 4:33PM

Oh and the very next sentence is:

"I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office."

Wait for it...

George S| 7.25.12 @ 4:48PM

Stop reading and simply compare five years ago to today.

DRed| 7.25.12 @ 4:55PM

5 years ago we were on the verge of the greatest economic collapse since the great depression. That's objectively worse than now, no?

Jack London| 7.25.12 @ 5:25PM

Ha ha ha - biggest laugh of the week. Thanks George - you are good for something.

JD| 7.25.12 @ 5:49PM

Jack, get your head out of the sand. The economy was not "great" when Bush took office. Every seed of the disaster was already sown. Every time someone challenges you to explain HOW Bush ruined the economy, you refuse to answer. That's because you can't answer. You keep going back to "it was good, then it wasn't" and hoping the whole world shares your inability to grasp the possibility that Bush wasn't a deity in absolute control of all that happened while he was in office.

Your refusal to engage with reality is becoming tiring.

Jack London| 7.25.12 @ 6:09PM

Just read the Stiglitz article. You may not think he deserves a Nobel prize – as we know you'd fire every academic who ever took a federal dollar – but he's nailed the Bush record down very well - there's isn't much to dispute as the facts are all there.

BobNY| 7.25.12 @ 3:33PM

That's false. The main driver of the recession was the CRA along with the practices of Fannie and Freddie. And it was dems (Carter, Clinton, Cuomo, Frank, Dodd, and even Obama) who started and contributed to increasing sub-prime mortgages. Bush went before congress and asked them to rein in Freddie and Fannie and Barney Frank and other Dems told him it was all ok, nothing to see here. So Jack, you fail with that answer.
Any correlation between low taxes and economic performance? Ok how about after JFK lowered taxes and the economy boomed, Reagan lowered taxes and the economy boomed. When Bush lowered taxes the economy boomed. For 6 of 8 of Bush's years the economy was booming, after Clinton left him with a recession from the dot com bubble.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 4:09PM

Actually, you can point to the day that Ried and Pelosi took over Both Houses of Congress, just like you would look at the moment the Titanic hit the Iceberg, to explain the beginning of the End of her Maiden Voyage.

This ain't Quantum Physics, people?

Kinda like: "The Muslim All to Prayer is the most Beautiful Sound in the World".

It's that Obvious.

DRed| 7.25.12 @ 4:49PM

What programs did the democrats pass, over W's veto, that caused the recession? Come on Timmy, this ain't Quantum Physics. Even a loudmouth, bigoted former junkie like yourself could point to the programs the democrats rammed through Congress in 2006 that caused the sub-prime mortgage bubble to burst. Because if you can't, then maybe you should shut up for a change.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 7:58PM

They shut down all of the probes into Fab
Nine and Freddie.

How's that, for starters

DRed| 7.25.12 @ 8:26PM

Which probes? When were they shut down? How would those probes have stopped the sub-prime mortgage bubble from ruining the economy?

Timmy, all you have is vague bullshit. You can't even get a simple quote from Obama right (about the call to prayer, what he actually said was it's "“one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”) Almost all the nonsense you spew, day after day, is demonstrably false. As you say, this ain't Quantum Physics.

ps

I notice Obama's been in office longer than 42 months. Where'd you go wrong on that one, champ?

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 4:10PM

You brain-washed fool, Fannie and Freddie, wet up to your ankles while standing in the Pacific Ocean. Turn that fat f**k on the radio off and learn how to read. For the sub-prime mortgage crisis start with "All the Devils Are Here" by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 8:14PM

I'm being called a Brainwashed Fool, by an Obama Brain Washed Fool.

You can't make this Sh*t Up.

Every Economic Indicator that should be UP, is DOWN, under the Muslim Son of the Atheist Communist, and the Muslim Marxist.

Record Uneloyment. Record Foreclosures. Record Bankruptcies, Bank Failures, and People on Food Stamps. Record number of Americans living At, or Below the Poverty Line. A Record Number of American Cities filing for BANKRUPTCY, being BULLDOZED, or beset by a Record Number of Murders. Record Numbers of Homeless, and a Record Low Housing Market. An Illegal Drilling Moratorium. A Bogus Shut Down of the XL Pipeline, even though his own State Department APPROVED IT. An Ag Department, who's Slaughtering Family Farm's Livestock. A Gun Runner, responsible for Hundreds of Muredered Mexicans, running a Blacks Only Justice Department, and an NLRB that fights against Private Companies from setting up Shop WHERE THEY WANT. Our first EVER Downgrade of our Credit Rating.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 8:17PM

What is it, about all of these things, that your Shit for Brains, doesn't get, Shit for Brains?

vtwin| 7.25.12 @ 2:20PM

Jack, the post war years, 50s, 60s, and 70s, before Reagan and the free ride for the wealthy.

Jack London| 7.25.12 @ 2:57PM

Agreed - it's almost funny - of it weren't so painful to watch - how much these nostalgia merchants are actually hankering after a time of higher taxes on the wealthy, strong labor representation, big federal investment in science and technology, far less inequality and a growing middle class in real terms etc. They really are blind.

George S| 7.25.12 @ 3:17PM

Now that is an in-depth analysis if I've ever seen one.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 4:12PM

It is, George.

It's an In Depth Analysis of The Demented Mind.

It's one of those Teachable Moments, everybody's always talking about.

Crassus| 7.25.12 @ 10:15AM

Obama is the Spread the Misery President.

cicero| 7.25.12 @ 10:32AM

Before we go any further on government spending, we need an acounting for the first stimulus. One trillion dollars dissappeared into the ether, and nobody in Congress has called for an accounting. It was touted as being used to hire police, firemen, and teachers. The problem with that is that we have a surplus of each of those occupations, to the extent that new teachers cannot find jobs, and police and fire departments are not hiring because their ranks are filled. The money actually went to fill the pension coffers of state and municipal workers, including the public school teachers, as their pension funds were woefully underfunded.

Stimulus one was meant to solidify the Democrat base. Stimulus two would have been used for the same purpose. The Dems are not particularly interested in helping the country. Their main goal is to stay in power. If they can keep the money spigot running to their b ase - government workers, welfare recipients, themselves - who cares about the middle class? While this may seem short sited to any sane person, it makes perfect sense to them.

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 4:20PM

That's not exactly true.

The Lion's Share of the Stimulus/Slush Fund, went to the Blue States, so as to keep their Public Sector Unions, on the Job, and Paying Dues, that were then sent back to the Democrat Party's Coffers.

The rest went to Obama's biggest Contributors, and Bundlers, to Bail Out their Front Companies, so that they, too, could return the Favour, with a portion of their new found bounty of Taxpayer's Money, quickly deposited in President No Jobs' Coffers.

My question is: Whatever happened to BP's $20 Billion?

George S| 7.25.12 @ 4:32PM

T, I think I know:

"Obama went to see BP; only this time with Eric Holder. And within an hour, he signed a release, for a certified check for $20 billion. Obama made him an offer he couldn't refuse: Holder held a gun to their head and Obama assured him that either his brains, or his signature, would be on the contract."

TLP| 7.25.12 @ 8:25PM

You got it.

cicero| 7.25.12 @ 10:33AM

Bye the way, thi picture at the top of the artice clearly demonstrated that the Pres doesn't even know how to handle a pick. Could be because he has never really worked a day in his life.

Bob Grant| 7.25.12 @ 10:44AM

I was thinking.The.Exact.Same.Thing.

No one would dare bend their knees that way while driving a pickaxe. Nor would their back be angled in such a position.

It's reminiscent of him throwing that first pitch at the Nationals game. It's obvious he never spent time throwing as a young boy.

The sports guy, "down with the worker" persona MY ASS!!

A fraud in every sense of the word.

Louis Jenkins| 7.25.12 @ 10:45AM

cicero:

He should be arrested and sent down to the rock pile, to make little ones out of big ones, oh yeah, without the gloves to protect his lilly whites, err, lilly blacks. The only time Obama may get a crease out of line is when there's a photo op. One of the posters above said that the Nov. election is the most important day of their lives, well, go one better. It will be the most important day ever. After that day the flag will fly proudly once again, or it will be trod in the dust. Be careful America in the choices that you make. There may very well not be another America.

Drunken Sailor| 7.25.12 @ 10:57AM

I was thinking that as well. Hand placement is totally off. And what the hell is it with the gloves? Everyone knows he was only going to swing it once or twice for a photo op. What was he protecting his hand from? Dirt?

Bob Grant| 7.25.12 @ 11:26AM

He was afraid he might break the nail on his cocaine pinky?

Drunken Sailor| 7.25.12 @ 11:57AM

Maybe Reggie Love didn't like calloused hands?

Bob Grant| 7.25.12 @ 12:44PM

Ironically, the only time obama ever got calloused hands was during a rough weekend with reggie.

Oh the sweet complications of life!

Gary B| 7.25.12 @ 7:31PM

Is it possible he's a really good hologram? May as well be for all we actually know about him.

BackToBasics| 7.25.12 @ 1:20PM

There's always something that looks out-of-place in a lot of his staged photo ops. A classic that Drudge posted is the science fair pic next to the serious 12 year old.

Obam told the kids that they inspired him. If the 12 year old has any dreams of getting into NASA, good luck after Obam's cuts there.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/n.....-fair.html

Another that Drudge posted was the binocular photo-op from the DMZ in Korea as well. You'd think they'd make sure the "commander-in-chief" near a potential war zone didn't look so tired or bored for at least 30 seconds while they were taking the picture.

http://images.search.yahoo.com.....rs+n+korea

Butch| 7.25.12 @ 4:49PM

I noticed that, too. Are you surprised, given his sterling first pitch at the baseball game?

Howard| 7.25.12 @ 12:55PM

I am also amazed at the Keynesians cavalier attitude towards the deficit currently in place. Classical Keynesian economics would indicate that we (along with Greece) should be in a Golden Age. $1,500,000,000,000 of ongoing deficits per year should be producing enormous activity if Keynes theories are correct!!

BackToBasics| 7.25.12 @ 1:30PM

Besides the fact that government stimulus spending doesn't work, Obam and the democrats (that's the name of a 60's band I think) always sing the same old song of roads-and-bridges, bridges-and-roads; that's from the 30's.

Meanwhile government grants for scientific research for NASA and the military are being cut to the bone.

BackToBasics| 7.25.12 @ 1:34PM

I will add that his recent referral to the building of the Golden Gate Bridge was not only incorrect in that it was not totally a government project but that was also from the 1930's. He left out another 1930's project though and that was the building of he Hoover Dam. Of course leftists do not like dams so maybe that's something a future democrat administration can tear down under another WPA-like look-to-the -future government program.

BackToBasics| 7.25.12 @ 1:49PM

To clarify, government spending for the military and for NASA is necessary and yet these are the places it is being cut. The bulk og government spending and the Keynesian "priming-the-economic-pump" type of spending nor the huge amount of wasted spending does not work in causing the economy to grow.

BackToBasics| 7.26.12 @ 12:32AM

sp - of
corr - ...and the huge amount

ONTIME| 7.25.12 @ 2:17PM

Were there just one economic policythat followed the keynes thinking logically there may have been a slight chance this Fraud in the WH could have made headway but it wasn't even a philosophical thoght, it was statism and a agenda of marxism, alinsky and FDR all tied together and it was a miseble piece of junk thinking that has gotten us in one hell of a mess. The worse part is many of us can say this was malice aforethought and intended to finacially leave us in a lurch 2nd term or not, it is a much a fraud as is the marketed Fraud in the Oval Office....vengenance is mine sayeth the right and the deemers of the jackass party know it's coming...

Skippy| 7.25.12 @ 3:04PM

More cowbell.

Drunken Sailor| 7.25.12 @ 4:05PM

Just had a Christopher Walken moment. Thanks

Bob Grant| 7.25.12 @ 5:57PM

Your talkin' to me all wrong, it's the wrong tone.

Bob Grant| 7.25.12 @ 7:01PM

Correction. You're talking...

Alej| 7.25.12 @ 8:15PM

Look at how far apart that fag's hands are on that pick... what a weakling. You can tell Michelle's the one that does the ****ing in that relationship !

rocky01| 7.25.12 @ 9:30PM

The mistake is making it personal. It's the policies that are harmful. Don't do it. Otherwise you look like a troll trying to make the website look bad.

marvl | 7.28.12 @ 6:45PM

True enough, but the OP's statement is still factual.

rocky01| 7.25.12 @ 10:50PM

Oh for crying outloud -- the thick, ideologically-driven skulls in the administration are way beyond failing to understand. They are terrific eggheads, hardened ones who now are drunk with power (after having done weed and a dabbled in a little coke, thank you very much). It's not about being in over their egg-heads. Let's not ignore that the chief executive officer actually came out and said himself: capitalism doesn't work. Whyizzit when people tell you who they are, some fail to believe them?

marvl | 7.28.12 @ 6:44PM

Obama's grasp of economic principles is on a par with that of a pet rock or a boiled turnip. There is just no way to comment intelligently about his economic [sic] policies.

http://www.foramberwaves.us

More Articles by Peter Ferrara

More Articles From The Obama Watch

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

May 22, 2013 | George Neumayr

Anyone Still Believe Me?

May 21, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

Obama’s Far Left Hand

May 15, 2013 | George Neumayr

That Is What We Do

May 14, 2013 | Jay D. Homnick

Turning on Obama

May 7, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/25/failing-downward

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|114 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|66 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|61 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|11 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|12 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|26 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|21 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

Muslims Murder British Soldier in London

Ross Kaminsky | 2:00PM

Anthony Weiner’s Campaign Video

Patrick Ryan | 1:33PM

Congressional Democrat Outraged Over IRS Scandal

Kaylin Bugos | 12:57PM

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

Nixonian

Yogi Love | 11:54AM

Moore, OK by Steve Breen

Patrick Ryan | 11:50AM

He’s Just Not That Into You

Ross Kaminsky | 11:34AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.