The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Obama Watch

Obama’s Calculated Deception

By on 8.1.12 @ 6:08AM

How the Obama campaign is trying to deceive you on the economy.

Calculated Deception. That is the central theme of the Obama campaign. Calculated Deception is the term I use for Obama’s rhetorical practice of trying to take advantage of what he calculates the average person does not know, and his party-controlled, so-called mainstream media won’t report. And that can be seen over and over in the Obama campaign.

Obscuring the Worst Recovery Since the Great Depression
In Monday’s Wall Street Journal, Edward Lazear, former Bush chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, notes, “A graph titled ‘Private Sector Job Creation’ on the Obama-Biden campaign website… announces proudly that 4.4 million private sector jobs have been created over the past 28 months.” But that factoid is meaningless out of any context, more like a pediatrician boasting to you that under his care your 16-year-old son has grown to 4 feet 4 inches. At the same point during the Reagan recovery, the economy had created 9.5 million new jobs.

Moreover, Lazear correctly adds, “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.” That’s right, contrary to the Obama campaign’s misleading claim of 4.4 million new jobs created, total jobs today are still half a million less than in January 2009 when Obama entered office.

Lazear continues, “Moreover, the unemployment rate, which we were told would not exceed 8% if we enacted Mr. Obama’s stimulus package…has never fallen below 8% during his presidency. The rate has averaged 9.2% since February 2009.” In sharp contrast, after Bush’s tax rate cuts were all fully implemented in 2003, the economy created 7.8 million new jobs over the next 4 years and the unemployment rate fell from over 6% to 4.4%. We won’t see that again until Obama is out of office.

President Obama and his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Alan Krueger, brag that private sector jobs have now grown for “28 straight months.” Obama and Krueger apparently think most Americans do not know that job growth is the norm and not the exception for the American economy. In the 62 years from January 1946, after World War II, until January 2008, jobs grew in 86% of the months, or 640 out of 744. Reagan’s recovery produced job growth in 81 out of its first 82 months, with 20 million new jobs created over those 7 years, increasing the civilian workforce at the time by 20%. Even George W. Bush oversaw 52 consecutive months of job growth, including nearly 8 million new jobs created after his 2003 capital gains and dividends tax rate cuts became effective (which Obama is dedicated to reversing).

The relevant streak of Obamanomics was extended in the June jobs report. That report established that under President Obama America has suffered 41 straight months of unemployment over 8%, which the Joint Economic Committee of Congress confirms is the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression almost 75 years ago. Indeed, the last time before Obama unemployment was even over 8% was December 1983, when Reaganomics was bringing it down from the Keynesian fiasco of the 1970s. It didn’t climb back above that level for 25 years, a generation, which is a measure of the spectacular success of Reaganomics.

But Krueger tells us about that June jobs report, “It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.” The Obama Administration, however, has said the exact same thing for each of the last 30 months, as documented July 6 by Bryan Preston for PJMedia.

How Stupid Does He Think We Are?
President Obama keeps telling us his economic program should be judged by comparison to the worst of the recession. Look, we have turned the corner, he says, and the economy has started growing again, just like your teenage son. But the correct comparison is to prior recoveries from past recessions. As Lazear explained, “Yet we know that all recessions end and that labor markets recover eventually. What distinguishes this labor-market recovery is not that jobs are finally being created but rather the growth rate is so slow that it will be 2016 before we return to pre-recession employment levels.” Obama is campaigning as if he were certain that a majority of Americans do not know that all recessions end and that labor markets recover eventually.

American recessions since the Great Depression previously have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest at 16 months. But this latest recession began in December 2007. The June labor report showed that the most commonly cited U3 unemployment rate remains stuck at 8.2%, with the number of unemployed Americans actually rising over the last 3 months by 76,000, 54 months after the recession started, and 3 years after it was supposedly over, the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression.

Barack Obama knows that history, even though he is sure a majority of you don’t. That is why he was confident enough to tell Matt Lauer and the nation in February 2009 regarding economic recovery: “If I don’t have that done in three years, then this is going to be a one-term proposition.” And it is why the Administration so confidently labeled the summer of 2010 “Recovery Summer,” as by historical standards the recovery was already way overdue by then.

Obama’s tragic jobs record reflects the dismal economic growth under his administration’s throwback, Keynesian economic policies. For all of last year, the economy grew by a paltry real rate of 1.7%, only about half America’s long-term trend. The average so far this year has been no better. That dismal growth is further reflected in the Census Bureau reports of falling real wages under Obama, kicking median family income back over 10 years, with more Americans in poverty today than at any time in the more than 50 years that Census has been tracking poverty.

In sharp contrast, in the second year of Reagan’s recovery, the economy boomed by a real rate of 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Real per capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in those first 7 years of the Reagan boom alone. The poverty rate, which had started increasing during the Carter years, declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. That is the proper comparison for Obama’s economic performance.

Obama cannot explain away the disgraceful failure of his Keynesian economic policies by arguing it is because the recession he inherited from Bush was so bad. The American historical experience is that the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, as the American economy snaps back to its world-leading, long-term, economic growth trend line. Based on this historical record, we should be enjoying the third year of a raging economic recovery boom right now.

But the dismal economic performance we have suffered instead, with no real recovery from the steep 2008-2009 recession at all, is because Obama has so thoroughly followed the opposite of every policy of Reaganomics. I first argued in the Wall Street Journal in February 2009 that Obamanomics was going to produce the opposite of Reaganomics as a result. That is what is now just beginning to happen.

“The Rich” and Their Fair Share
 We can see the same Calculated Deception in regard to President Obama’s tax policy, where he has been barnstorming the country for three years now telling us that “the rich” (whatever that is supposed to mean) do not pay their fair share of federal taxes, and the middle class pays more as a result. But the CBO issued a report last month that proves him grievously wrong.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

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

Letter to the Editor View all comments (206) |

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.1.12 @ 6:53AM

All politicians are deceptive but you only skimmed over the true evil of Barack Obama and his administration of crafty weasels.

Whether it's cover ups at the DOJ or out of control spending and parties at the GSA, our entire government has become corrupted and exists with a sense of entitlement under Obama.

Couple that with evil plans of the EPA shutting down coal fired power plants around the country and throwing people out of work on nothing more than a whim of a bureaucrat and we have the seeds of a real disaster looming in our future unless Obama is sent packing by legitimate voters.

Ron Ackenberry| 8.4.12 @ 2:24AM

And the answer to the Obama Armageddon is Mr. Romney. Surely you jest.

What do you mean you aren't kidding me?

Well then sir, you are truly kidding yourself.

TLP| 8.1.12 @ 7:10AM

I disagree with your Premise, that Obama is trying to Fool the American People. He can SAY anything he wants, but it's the Job of The Press, and The Media, to tell us THE TRUTH.

It's their job to Inform the Public, and put the Lie to his Scurrilous Pronouncements. 8.2% Unemployment? Please. Now let's try it, again, and this time, let's count ALL OF THE PEOPLE who are Unemployed. Okay?

Let's stop Lowballing the Numbers, every week, on how many New Claimants signed up for Unemployment. Stop it, already, with the whole "Adjusting the Numbers UP" after every Friday's Bogus, Bullsh*t Numbers. Tell everyone how many weeks that number has been OVER 300,000.

When was the last time we got an UPDATE on the Number of Foreclosures, under President No House?

How many Americans are on Food Stamps, TODAY, as opposed to last year, at this time, under President Government Cheese?

Has HOMELESSNESS Disappeared from our shores? Has President No House eliminated Homelessness. And, I don't mean - Just in the City that the Democrats have their Conventions in - I mean Everywhere. Cause you would THINK that those Numbers would be Off The Charts, in 21st Century Amerika.

Did you know that GM just completed a Deal to Advertise with a FOREIGN Soccer Team? Oh, yeah. An English Soccer Team. President "Romney Outsources Stuff" just finished a Deal that will OUTSOURCE $600 Million, from a Company that WE OWN, to a Foreign Country, after REFUSING to sign a Deal with the Made In America SUPER BOWL.

TLP| 8.1.12 @ 7:36AM

Do you have any idea how many Billion$ in Stimulus/Slush Fund Money, President Piss it Away, sent to Overseas Companies, or to Companies HERE, so they could Build a New Plant over THERE?

How many people know that President Tax the Rich, has a guy named - Jeffery Immelt - running his "American Jobs" whatever thingy, that's there to find a way to keep American Jobs here? How many know that he has all but Packed Everything Up, at his Company (GE) and Moved it to CHINA?

Did I mention that he paid NO TAXES, on $5 Billion in Dirty Profits, last Year, under the Reign of President I scratch your back, you scratch mine?

Did you know that President Propaganda has had ONE get together with his Brilliant "Let's roll up our Sleeves, and Fix this Economy" JOBS COMMISSION?

It's True.

It's all True.

And, just like the Video of Barack Hussein Obama at the Going Away Party of Terrorist Recruiter - Khalid Rashidi - all of these things need to be SAT ON, for The Greater Good, of THE CAUSE.

That's how the old Walter Durante saw it.

That's how the New Ones see it.

And, that's why this African Muslim Pale Rider isn't the 20 points behind, that he otherwise would be.

Mike G| 8.1.12 @ 10:27AM

"How many Americans are on Food Stamps, TODAY, as opposed to last year, at this time, under President Government Cheese?"

According to this administration, having more Americans on food stamps stimulates the economy.

spike59| 8.1.12 @ 12:19PM

"What was the US population when ObaMao took office? What is it now?"

"How many Americans were working when ObaMao took office? How many are working now?"

the answers to those questions are MIGHTY inconvenient for ObaMao, and you'll NEVER hear the MSM mention them

TLP| 8.1.12 @ 5:04PM

I thought that Unemployment Checks, Welfare Checks, and Bottle and Can Deposits, stimulated the Economy?

Jack in Wi| 8.1.12 @ 7:22AM

Of course Obama is terrible and an awful liar. But what does Mitt Romney offer but a program that does not appeal to a huge number of people. Tax cuts for the rich, endless wars, and giving the banksters cart blanche is not my idea of a good program. I have yet to see something from Romney that gives me some hope he can change anything for the better. I live in hope, that he will.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.1.12 @ 8:05AM

You live in hope? Do you live in change? You sound like an Obama acolyte.

Jack of Spades| 8.1.12 @ 9:15AM

"Tax cuts for the rich" make sense because it's the rich paying most of the taxes, and you can't cut the taxes of people who don't pay any. This is the classic leftist term for any meaningful tax cuts. You really need to wrap you head around the notion that "the rich" aren't here to be the State's ATM.

PolishKnight| 8.1.12 @ 10:03AM

The left's latest narrative, Jack, is that they're for the "middle class." When I hear a new narrative, I perk my ears up like Sherlock Holmes and ask myself why. In the past, the left was always about taking from the rich and giving to the poor or the worker, like Robin Hood. But now the "middle class." Why the paradigm shift? Because they've got the poor in their back pocket, that's why. They're importing them by the millions. Also, keep in mind that most of the "middle class" the left protects are highly paid government unionized workers and cronies. To them, an office worker in DC earning $200K is "middle class". But secretly, they regard the plumber fixing their ancient rat infested shower in Alexandria as "trailer park trash."

And sadly, many on the right feel the same way. It's clear that the Republican elites despise working class whites and NASCAR dads almost as much as the left does even as they gripe that the left is "stealing" from the rich. Small business owners hire illegals to save money on hiring white American born citizens and justify it by saying "everyone else is doing it" and "the taxpayer can foot the bill for the rest" and then, again, when their taxes go up they gripe: "Why don't those lazy white guys get up and protect MY rights?"

Is the economy important? Sure. But these major race and gender issues are like an elephant in the room begging to be noticed. Someday it will.

Jack of Spades| 8.1.12 @ 12:03PM

"Tax cuts for the middle class" are favored by the Democrats and the left for obvious political reasons. "Tax cuts for the rich" is a phrase employed for much the same reason, more specifically to discredit cuts in the top brackets, never mind whether the lower brackets' rates are raised, lowered or left alone.

spike59| 8.1.12 @ 12:20PM

we could USE a Robin Hood; he actually took the money BACK from the GOVERNMENT, which is why he was considered an enemy of the state

ElGordo| 8.1.12 @ 9:56AM

ROMNEY'S POLICY WILL BRING US PROSPERITY
Romney would utilize our new energy resources, eliminate our dependence on mideast oil, and bring an era of prosperity to the U.S. Even with onerous federal government restrictions, look at how prosperous No. Dakota has become with drilling for natural gas .
Through tv ads and speeches, Romney should show the difference between a vibrant Romney economy based on our new energy resources versus the regressive economy of Obama under green energy.
Further, as a leader in energy production, the U.S. could affect the world price of oil and indirectly control the international actions of Venezuala, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and other nations heavily dependent on income from oil.

PolishKnight| 8.1.12 @ 10:05AM

I think Romney's policies (or basic common sense when it comes to energy and fiscal policy) certainly helps, but it's not the solution. The USA is in the middle of a culture war, plain and simple, and its performance will always be anemic as long as the left can draw upon the resources provided by the right without getting called on it.

spike59| 8.1.12 @ 11:56AM

you're the most transparent O'troll on the web...

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:03PM

Jack in Wi,

Confirmed again as an Obama supporter...

Mimi | 8.1.12 @ 7:28AM

The 97word last paragraph of your article, Peter, will be the nutshell of the last 97 days of this Presidential Campaign.
You said: " come out in force to defeat the ENTIRE Democratic party root and branch"
Over the last 3and 1/2 years you have tracked and reported the activities of this Party, the fiscal dismantling and destruction...their stubborness to self correct the malicious spending even after citizens took to the streets in the form of The Tea Party!
Now the audacity to think they can lie their way to win another term.....They know not the strength and resolve of all people to see them as what they are.....the TRUTH will set the people free!

Von Mises Jr| 8.1.12 @ 8:32AM

The TRUTH is that the Obama regime and the liberal/progressives have assaulted the private sector in an FDR style. It will result in the same if Obama is re-elected, a depression.

While Peter Ferrara is correct in his portrayal of the facts, it is not simply the misallocation of resources from a centrally planned economy that is destroying the private sector. It is an organized and purposeful plan.
From the bailouts of GS, BOA and Citi through the takeover of AIG, to the GM bailout (BTW they are down 40% in value from $33 to $19 and reeling), the Chrysler bankruptcy cheating bond holders of their investments (they were pension funds too), Porkulus slush fund, Solyndra and other "green energy" scams to the disastrous legislation of ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank; the Obama regime could not be more socialistic and destructive than the policies of Stalin and Hitler.

That is the problem. Companies are scared to death of a communist regime taking their profits, so they hide their money and "hope" for a "change" in November.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 7:50AM

We all know the economy is bad. That's what happens in a Depression. Why don't you tell us what Mitt the Twit will do to change the economy? We all know what Obama has done. Why not tell us about the Republican you should know something about. You have no clue what Obama thinks or plans, you're just spit-balling. But you should know by now what the Twit will do - do you or don't you? You don't need to convince anyone here where the economy stands - tell us how it will be changed and made better by Mitty, ok?

CJW| 8.1.12 @ 8:03AM

Obamaboy purpie
When will you answer:

1. Explain how Michelle got a raise from $100,000 to $317,000 per year as "community relations attorney" from the Chicago hospital that got a million dollar earmark courtesy of Senator Obama?

2. Explain why and how Chicago crook Rezko partially paid for Obama's property.

3. Why doesn't Obama help his starving poor half brother in Kenya from his millions, or does he need an earmark for that too?

4. Why won't Obama release the records of Fast and Furious under subpoena when he has leaked and disclosed all our interrogation methods, our internet wars against Iran, the details of Seal Team Six, and other nationa security matters?

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 10:47AM

Off topic.
And moreover #1,2,3 were from the last campaign.
F&F records have all been released up to the point of what the White House decided was Executive privilege material. The President hasn't leaked anything, and no one says he has. Leak, yes, President no.
But I'm still waiting for answers on how Mitty will "fix" the economy. He knows how to make money for himself - what about creating jobs for us? Hmmm?

CJW| 8.1.12 @ 11:45AM

Obamaboy purpie

Off Topic?? Is that the best you can do? You sound like a street lawyer saying it its irrelevant and beyond the statute of limitations.

You will get fired if you can't answer the questions.

Mitt will fix the economy by cutting taxes, cutting spending, drilling for oil, repealing Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, reducing regulations, and retiring Obama/Biden. This was explained to you numerous times, most recently by Dr Right this morning.

Can't you read and comprehend?
Now answer the questions on the merits. You can't.

jpmccn| 8.2.12 @ 11:10AM

Yes, call his(Purps) hand and he will Not have the answers.

TLP| 8.1.12 @ 5:07PM

Explain why that very same Hospital, ELIMINATED the Wookie's Job, after her Husband got Elected?

That's the one I'd like to hear.

Ryan| 8.1.12 @ 8:19AM

Not the point of the article, I imagine.

Though I doubt Mitt will be conservative enough economically for a good recovery to occur...

Doesn't mean voting for Obama is the answer.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 10:48AM

You're right, it doesn't make a bit of difference who wins.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 11:34AM

Are you kidding?

Just KNOWING that idiot-boy Obama has lost will be enough to jolt this economy back to recovery.

An orange-juice can could do better than Obama.

WillyP | 8.1.12 @ 12:27PM

Just think what a can of cling peaches could do.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 12:30PM

Let's not be needlessly optimistic...

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 9:22AM

Here's what Mitt Romney will do to help the economy:

1. Cut taxes
2. Cut spending
3. Sign the repeal of ObamaCare (if the GOP-led House and Senate has any balls).

The fact that you don't understand that the above is a prescription for a healthy economy, and that what Obama is doing is EXACTLY the opposite means that you are too stupid for words.

Seriously. You're as dumb as they come. You're a drone. You recite talking points like a parrot. You know not what you post. You're a joke.

And come November, we will crush you like an insect.

It's coming, Purpie...better find a closet to crawl back into.

The times, they are a changin'...back!

Von Mises Jr| 8.1.12 @ 9:33AM

Fellas, ignore the troll. He is an "atomized" collectivist that spews illogical rants based on a movement. His masters use the mob such as Perpy to advance their movement, and if the people are converted into the unthinking masses, we will be slaves just like Perpy.
Pity the poor monster, Caliban.

Fast and Curious| 8.1.12 @ 11:51AM

Exactly. You cannot exchange ideas with children such as these. They were drawn to the left by emotion, so facts and history do not matter. Children misbehave to get attention sometimes, red-faced and foot stomping, they will go away if you ignore them.

Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 9:38AM

Finally we see the word "depression" used by The Left. Honest of him. I doubt that he understands that the policies of his preferred party caused it following their 2006 takeover of Congress. From 1983 to 2006 we experienced an almost continuous period of expansion. Lower taxes, less spending, market wages and business expansion are the policies which answer. Economic centralization and central planning will not solve this depression. Confiscation and redistribution will not work. One set of policies works (regardless of any "it worked" mantra) while the other policies fail. Who will pursue the proper policies?

Von Mises Jr| 8.1.12 @ 10:15AM

Al, my friend. Watch Agenda21 YouTube "for dummies" and the UN elites make no secret of their desire to destroy wealth and set us up in virtual "concentration camps" known as
Sustainable Development" and "Smart Growth."

Paul Kengor from AT just released a book connecting Obama to Frank Marshall Davis whom the One cites 22 times in "Screams from my Victims," of whatever he called that socialist diatribe.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 10:57AM

Read the "Creature from Jekyll Island" and you will know what's going on - and it doesn't matter what political party you prefer. They are both involved. It's worse than you think, pal.

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:11PM

Noticed a very interesting thing, just now.

Notice how the trolls, Purp, vtwin, Jack in Wis are endlessly singing a chorus of

"There's no difference between Barack and Mitt!"

Why are they doing this?

They are using every thing they can think of to discourage us in supporting Romney.

Well, remember this, TAS readers - Obama represents a dark, ugly, socialized future for the country and Romney represents a chance of turning back the country to the light of Constitutional government.

DO NOT LET THEM DISCOURAGE YOU!!!

Trolls you are soulless cretins - you shall enjoy your just desserts!

Don't Tread On Me!

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 12:39PM

DTOM,
I noticed that as well. First thought that popped into my head was "What ever happend to the argument that Obama was a shoe in thanks to the good job he is doing"?
It would seem reality and maybe desperation are setting in on the left.

Boar Hunter| 8.1.12 @ 8:55PM

Think about it.

If even these idiots, these liars and lovers of lies cannot think of one single make believe reason to vote for Obama that isn't laughably pathetic, all they have left is to attack Romney.

An old attorney once said; If you cannot argue against the truth then you attack the person who is telling it.

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:06PM

VMJ,

Did you really not notice BHO's love and fascination of Davis just now? This was known in 2008, well before the election.

Your pointing it out as "news" at this late date does not speak well of your political awareness...

CJW| 8.1.12 @ 10:35AM

Von and Al
Purp posts the daily Obama line that he probably gets from emails from Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and DebbieW. which saves us the trouble to listen to the MSM.

I believe purpie works as a $10 and hour troll for some Soros outfit such as WorkingAmerica. I know several persons who were "canvassers " for WA, going door to door, handing out lefty liberal pamphlets, and asking people to register to vote. Somewhat like an annoying political version of Jehovah's Witnesses. They were paid $10 and hour, and were probably selected for the canvassing because they had a nice personality and people skills. Purpie has beeen assinged to work from his basement as a keyboard troll for obvious reasons.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 11:01AM

CJ - what you believe is irrelevant. I am in the top 2% of earners, nobody pays me, and I don't get "talking points" from anyone.
Nothing you say will ever push me away. Better than you have tried and you cannot escape me. I am Dick Cheney and say to your opinions or beliefs - So what? I am here and you can't do a thing about it. It's a free country and as long as Mitty isn't elected it will remain free and open.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 11:28AM

There's simply no way anyone as dumb as you are could be in the "top 2% of earners" unless you inherited it or are leaching off of some aging, wealthy queen...

The type of incurious stupidity you display on a regular basis simply does not lend itself to self-made economic success.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 12:02PM

Hell Dr. First you tell us Purp is lying about his money making abilities, next you will be telling me that Smiling Bob is lying about male enhancment.

CJW| 8.1.12 @ 11:39AM

Purpie
Maybe you cannot read and comprehend. I never asked you to leave. I want you to stay and post your daily lefty drivel.
You still cannot answer the questions, purpie. Best you can do is say it is off topic. Obama's qualifications are not off topic
Ask DebbieW for better talking points.

spike59| 8.1.12 @ 11:59AM

being awarded the most bags of Cheetos by the ObaMao campaign doesn't qualify you for the 'top 2% of earners', twurp

Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 11:25AM

W:
As you allude, all centralization, from Left or Right, is bad policy. What works are free markets, low spending and low taxes. Should we not return to those? Spending cuts coupled with tax reduction WILL allow the economy to expand. Especially true if we include reduction of regulation across the board. That is simply an expense we can no longer afford.

CJW| 8.1.12 @ 11:48AM

Al Adab
I agree. Too many look for complicated plans when the answer is simple.

Von Mises Jr| 8.1.12 @ 11:52AM

Perp also answers to the name Jefferson, CJW. He did so with John Navatrill (excuse me John if I misspelled you last name, but you can confirm if you read this.).
Margie also responded as Tim. Make you wonder about the plumbing?
In any case, it is a Soros/Move On trick to have each $10 troll use at least four names. Then they appear to be many and are paid more equivalent to their intelligence, $2.50 per hour.

Just ignore his specious arguments and call him out as a POS troll when he bothers others. Two can play by Alinsky's Rules.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 10:56AM

Yes, the Bush Depression. I like it.
No one has advocated or done economic central planning or economic centralization except to the 1% under Republicans.
Confiscation and redistribution are just words - you pay your taxes as a price for living in any country and where the money is spent is determined by the representatives WE elect.
If you don't like the government, how can you say you're an American? The Founders gave us this system and you dis them? Are you a commie? A terrorist?

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 11:31AM

Confiscation and redistribution are "just words"???

...And you're in the "top 2% of earners"???

Uh, no...you're not. Because if you were, even as a liberal you'd have accountants and tax-shelters aplenty to hide your cash.

See, Liberals like being rich, too...but since most of you are parasites, you just don't want to work for it. That's why you have the government steal it for you (or "confiscate" it).

I stand by my original assertion; you ar NOT in the top-2% of earners. You're simply too dumb.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 9:02PM

I couldn't care less what you believe. I know where I stand.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 11:33AM

Anyone who equates "government" with "country" is a complete ignoramus.

The Founders gave us an independent nation with a LIMITED government, dummy.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 9:19PM

DA - the Founders gave us a system of government and the way to Amend the Constitution and so we have. By Constitutional law, we have a different government today, but completely within the system of government as Constitution laid out for us as the Founders gave us. Limited government was in their time, with no Nazi Germany, no 9/11 Terrorism, no internet, no battleships, no smart phones. The world has changed and so has the government. But our system of government hasn't changed. If you don't understand the difference, perhaps you should catch up.

George S| 8.1.12 @ 11:42AM

Not liking a government and violently overthrowing it is what made America in the first place.

CJW| 8.1.12 @ 10:25AM

I agree that Mitt does not need some complicated economic plan . All that is needed is to cut taxes, cut spending, repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, and at least stop issuing new regulations every day. Most importantly, allow for drilling of oil and gas, especially in Alaska.
Dems love big complicated economic plans because they want to control the economy. Our plan should be to get the government out of the economy except for the bare minimun necessary.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 10:52AM

How stupid can you be. Screeching at me like an Owl that can't find his feet, and wanting to go back to the GW Bush policies, ya that's a winner. We didn't have Obamacare under Bush - what happened? If you don't know how Bush screwed up, no wonder you like Mitty - he's Bush on Steroids - only Mitty isn't likable at all. Who would want to have a beer with the Mormon Cricket? Certainly not the British or the Americans - seen the latest polls? Have a nice day.

Oldefarte| 8.1.12 @ 11:43AM

We don't want ObamaWELFARECARE, get it? Also nieither you nor anyone else will have it after 2/1/13 because it will be repealed!!!!!!!!

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 9:21PM

Too bad for you, it's law passed by Congress and the President, and supported by the Conservative Supreme Court!
It won't be repealed and Mitch McConnell himself warned you about that already.

spike59| 8.1.12 @ 12:01PM

umm.....you might want to tell your bosses that they need to make the script a bit more believeable; posting the 'just like Bush' crud all of a sudden just gives you away as a campaign operative-and if you're the brightest thing they can scrape up at the methadone clinic, O'vomit is in SERIOUS trouble

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 9:24PM

Campaign operative? RomBot's campaign spokesman used those words - "... Bush on Steroids", when describing Mitt Romney's plan - not Obama's campaign.
I think it tells us you're not very bright or ill-informed. Either way you don't know much.

KennesawJack| 8.1.12 @ 9:40AM

Purp, NOBODY has a clue what Obamarx thinks or plans. The man is incapable of being truthful about anything.

TLP| 8.1.12 @ 5:12PM

Actually, we know EXACTLY what he wants to do.

He's been Doing It for the last 4 Years.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 9:26PM

TLP is correct. Obama has been helping the middle class and hurting among us for 4 years now and will continue for 4 more soon.

Oldefarte| 8.1.12 @ 11:41AM

What has Barry the Terrorist done, DS?

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 11:58AM

Interesting. You were always the one screaming about how Obama has created so many jobs. Yet it was debunked in this article. Not only do you not challenge it, you change horses and attempt to erect a new strawman.

Why don't you tell us what Obama the liar is going to do to change the economy. You know something different than what he has done so far.

I'll give you one thing, we have no idea what Obama thinks or plans. That's part of the problem. Shouldn't he have some specifics out there to run on? Romney does, go check them out sometime.

Tell us why Obama deserves 4 more years when he has no proof he has done anything right for the last 4?

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 12:06PM

Purp, this was directed at your drivel.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 9:32PM

Oh, you mean the 4.3 million jobs Obama has created over the last 28 months? Those jobs? I thought you finally got it, so no need to trumpet them now.
It wouldn't matter what I said, you know what Obama has done - you have proof of what Romney will do too - stifle job creation and embrace universal healthcare like he did in Massachusetts. That's the closest he's been to being President. Running a business doesn't prepare you at all to be president. Anyone who thinks so is just plain stupid. Some of our best Presidents never ran a business well and some of worst did. It's clear to all who care to look it up. But I'll name several that did not - FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman.

jaytrain| 8.1.12 @ 8:24AM

You didn't read Tom Sowell yesterday . It's called The Big Lie and it can work . And if it works this time ,the people will ,in fact, get the government they deserve

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 8:45AM

jt,

In point of fact, we ALWAYS get the government we deserve.

If we don't like what we have, it's up to each and every one of us to accost everyone we meet and remind them how much damage this wrong-headed socialist has wrought on our beloved country and how he absolutely must be defeated THIS November.

Tell the people you meet in shops, in stores, on the street, on the bus, at work, Just a quick, "Oh, we have got to get this incompetent out of the White House!" And move on.

Let no opportunity be wasted.
Don't Tread On Me.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 11:09AM

Over 65% of the people don't think changing President's will make any difference because this is the Bush Depression and it will work itself out by itself. The election is over and the President sticks for 4 more years.

Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 11:20AM

Perhaps our "centralist" friend here is correct. There has been no recovery as the economy is no better today than four years ago before the '08 election. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by now. Lets examine government policy and decide which ones create prosperity and which ones fail. Is it not about time to go with what does work?

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 9:35PM

Well, that's not true. it is considerably better. or have you forgotten 1000 point declines in the stock market and 780,000 jobs/month lost? Bush's policies created the crash, Obama's have repaired the damage and we need to stay the course to prosperity the right way - not by Bush like bubbles .

Oldefarte| 8.1.12 @ 11:44AM

You LIE worse than those terrorists in the WH, don't you???????

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:18PM

Again, Purp, the only argument you have is that Obama and Romney will be no different.

Which is a patently stupid, irrational argument.

Just listen to Obama and Romney on exactly who built every small business in the country.

If you can't tell the difference - then you are not intelligent enough to breathe.

Alej| 8.1.12 @ 6:07PM

"Over 65% of the people don't think changing President's will make any difference.... ."

Cite your source for this statistic.

And learn the grammatical difference between possessive and plural, Mr Top 2 %.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 9:39PM

If you aren't aware of the latest polls go look it up yourself. Don't be a lazy, do nothing that needs everyone else to help them.
Your last statement makes no sense.

DTOM| 8.3.12 @ 11:03AM

Of course it doesn't to you, you dolt.

Surprise!

Fiscal| 8.1.12 @ 8:56AM

How stupid do you think we are, Mr. Ferrara? You are misstating the facts as much as Obama! For example, on total employment, you neglected to say that the decline started during the last year of the Bush administration and continued AT THE SAME PACE for the first year of Obama's administration. Then it started to rise again. In addition, this low point in employment was still higher than the low point in Bush's administration. You also neglect to say that the rise in employment under Bush was due mainly to the housing bubble -- one that caused a recession much larger than the one Reagan faced. You also say that Obama promised 8% unemployment. This is just a talking point as no one is any good at predicting economic futures. There are a lot more misstatements in your piece as well.

Now I happen to believe that Obama is a lousy President because he lacks leadership, but until the American people start OBJECTIVELY understanding economics, we'll never get the budget problem fixed. But Presidents have little control of the economy. Bush gets blamed for the housing bubble, but there is little he could have done to stop it and he should not be blamed. Obama gets blamed for a slow recovery, but the truth is that you cannot have a fast recovery while the rest of the world is in a meltdown. We are now global, you know.

So please, let's have a discussion about the truth and not right or left talking points.

squalis| 8.1.12 @ 9:43AM

Let me see if I can start to OBJECTIVELY understand economics.

Personally, I need to spend no more money than I receive through income.

My county needs to spend no more money than it receives through income.

My state needs to spend no moremoney than it receives through income.

My country needs to spend no more money than it receives in income.

How is that for a start?

Fiscal| 8.1.12 @ 9:50AM

I totally agree which is why we need a balanced budget amendment. The corollary this is that if we spend the money, we need to pay for it. Only then will the tax burden become so obvious that people will be willing to cut all of those unnecessary programs and tax loopholes out of the federal government. No pain -- no gain. That said, I don't see any politician on the left or right willing to balance the budget. The left wants to continue the social programs and the right wants to increase defense and cut revenue.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 11:13AM

Fiscal - you are mostly correct. Some decisions by President's do matter over the long term, but not so much over 2-3 year timespans.
Decisions on War and Budget matter. On that, I stay with Obama. As do most Americans.
Romney wants a war with Iran, wouldn't have left Iraq and would never leave Afghanistan. No thanks.

Oldefarte| 8.1.12 @ 11:46AM

You can STAY with him/them, and both of you can and will GTH!!!!!!!!!!

Boar Hunter| 8.1.12 @ 9:09PM

You agree with Fiscal?

I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

The two of you agreeing adds as much to the debate on an intellectual level as two dogs barking in each other faces.

DRed| 8.1.12 @ 9:02AM

Why does this article only talk about federal income tax? In 2010, the federal government took in 42% of it's income from income tax, and 40% from payroll taxes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org.....evenue.cfm

Reading this article you wouldn't know payroll taxes is exist. I wonder. . .could it be a calculated deception?

Jack of Spades| 8.1.12 @ 9:21AM

Payroll taxes are seldom discussed because they're collected specifically for Social Security. Which is going broke by the way.

Fiscal| 8.1.12 @ 9:29AM

Actually, money is fungible so a dollar paid for Social Security and Medicare is just as important as the tax on income. It is a well proven fact that a dollar spent by middle income individuals helps the economy much more than a dollar spent by the wealthy as consumption is the major driver in the U.S.

Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 9:40AM

Gee, all this time I thought those payroll taxes were an insurance policy for my retirement. You mean they spend it and there is no trust fund account for me?

Fiscal| 8.1.12 @ 9:52AM

Trust fund? What's that?

Boar Hunter| 8.1.12 @ 10:16AM

No, no, no! It's a lock box!

Boar Hunter| 8.1.12 @ 10:17AM

Of course the lock box has a hole in the bottom of it

DRed| 8.1.12 @ 10:48AM

Anyhow, the point is that it's a tax, and one that is essentially equivalent in importance to federal revenue as income tax. But it's not discussed in the part of this article which purportedly discusses people paying their share of federal taxes.

Jack of Spades| 8.1.12 @ 11:53AM

The payroll tax isn't relevant to this discussion for the reason I mentioned above and also for the reason that, so far as I know, no one has ever made an issue raising or lowering it. Debates about taxes are almost always about the income tax.

Jack of Spades| 8.1.12 @ 11:53AM

The payroll tax isn't relevant to this discussion for the reason I mentioned above and also for the reason that, so far as I know, no one has ever made an issue raising or lowering it. Debates about taxes are almost always about the income tax.

DRed| 8.1.12 @ 12:40PM

If you're talking about our federal tax burden, and who bears what burden, why would you ignore half the individual taxes collected? Because payroll taxes are regressive and are paid for by basically anyone who works. It's harder to whine about people suckling from the federal teat when you factor in the taxes that they actually do pay.

The top income quintile pays around 2/3 of federal taxes, while making about 55% of income. The middle quintile pay about 10%, while earning as Mr. Ferrara says, about 15%. Federal taxes are still progressive when you factor in payroll taxes, but much less so, and it also means a lot more people are sharing the federal tax burden. Mr. Ferrara doesn't want you to understand this.

Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 1:32PM

To say nothing of the fact that payroll taxes increase the cost to business of hiring workers. Why should government policy make it expensive rather than cheap to hire employees?

Mike G| 8.1.12 @ 11:49AM

And there's a suction hose from the vacuum cleaner attached to the hole.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 11:46AM

SocSec is NOT going broke - another right wing myth debunked.

Jack of Spades| 8.1.12 @ 11:56AM

Could you point me to the information that states Social Security is running a surplus and is expected to remain solvent for the foreseeable future? Just saying it isn't going broke doesn't "debunk" anything.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 12:10PM

I'm sure if we search the Huffington post we could find a link to Purp's facts.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:39PM

It took me 22 seconds to find this : www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html
Completely Solvent until 2037 and beyond - if nothing changes at all. Slight tweaks can keep it solvent for 75 years.
Another right-wing myth debunked!

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 4:09PM

Did you happen to follow the links it provided to the trustee's reports? And then follow the link to the economic assumptions used to compute those figures?
Somehow I doubt it or you woud have notice this on the 3rd page.

Table A. Ultimate Values for Key Economic Assumptions for the Long-Range (75-year) Projection Period

Follow the table down and see what they ASSUMED unemployment figures would be
4.5-6.5.

No where close are they?

You might want to scroll farther down and see what the productivity growth rate is that they use. Here is a hint, they were using 1.7 Percent.

Can you even name the last time our productivity was at 1.7 percent?

I'm not even a economist and I can see how this report was wrong from the get go because their assumptions were wrong.

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:20PM

Facts, please. Data please.

You have none. You are just a lying liar.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 12:35PM

No, he's right.

Social Security is not going broke.

It IS broke.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:40PM

Stick this in your a** - oops your head's in the way: It took me 22 seconds to find this : www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html
Completely Solvent until 2037 and beyond - if nothing changes at all. Slight tweaks can keep it solvent for 75 years.
Another right-wing myth debunked!

Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 3:35PM

"Slight tweaks", ahhh there's the rub. It must mean either lower benefits or higher taxes or some combination of both.

I don't know if any of you plan on living past 2037 or even drawing SS eventually, but it is about time we faced the unsustainable truth: either print more fiat dollars, devalue the currency, raise taxes or cut benefits. An Inconvenient Truth is true nonetheless eh?

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 3:37PM

I guess you don't like to actually read your own links?

"The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become EXHAUSTED between 2036 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report."

EXHAUSTED. That's another word for "insolvent."

And just in-time to deny payment to a bunch of aging queens posing as an old, married gay couple...

You're not too bright, Purp.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 3:38PM

Hey dummy known as "Purp"!

I found this one in 5 seconds!

http://articles.latimes.com/20.....t-20120424

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 3:39PM

Ooh, look!

Here's another!

http://articles.latimes.com/20.....--20120423

Another leftwing dummy outed as...a leftwing dummy!

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 4:20PM

Odd that even the Obama administration and even the Trustee of that report you link to no longer agree with it. And yes, this article is more current than your link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04.....urity.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04.....urity.html

CJW| 8.1.12 @ 10:52PM

Purpie does this all the time. Makes statements without any evidence, and misrepresents the evidence. Do not accept any statements he makes. Usually lies. Must copy the points from Harry Reid, Schumer, and DebbieWS.
What do you expect from a lowly paid Obama troll?

Boar Hunter| 8.1.12 @ 9:12PM

LOL. Are you mentally retarded?

Sorry never mind, I forgot...Yap yap yap, yip yip yip.

George S| 8.1.12 @ 1:35PM

So?

There are doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, stock brokers, lobbyists, engineers, and CEO's on payroll.

How does that affect the percentages of taxes paid by income group?

Where you are trying to confuse the issue is taxes collected -- before adjustments to get to taxable income.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:41PM

Huh?

JimmyMac1948| 8.1.12 @ 9:07AM

From the end of the recession in the 4th qtr, 1982, through the 4th qtr., 1985 the economy grew 18.5% in real terms. Since the end of recession in the 2nd qtr. 2009, the economy has grown 7.3% through 2012. Over the same period under Reagan, payroll employment grew 10.9%, under Obama, 2.2%. The difference is stark. Reagan's policies worked; Obama's haven't.

Fiscal| 8.1.12 @ 9:24AM

Your data is correct, but your conclusion is wrong. Obama continued the Bush tax cuts and economic policies of the previous administration. Therefore, there was no policy change to cause the difference. Obama and Reagan do have something in common, however, they both increased the deficit dramatically.

Here is a chart of GDP so people can view the numbers in context.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.asp.....oup_Id=230

Now how was Reagan's performance that much different than anyone else? It wasn't. Again, Obama may be a lousy President trying to say his policies were causal to the economic outcome is just plain dumb. In fact, of you were to apply this same correlative argument to global warming, you'd say it was caused by humans. Both arguments lack mathematical rigor.

Nick| 8.1.12 @ 9:44AM

A chart?

Is "Fecal" actually "3/5 Bob", in disguise?
Enqriring minds want to know.

George S| 8.1.12 @ 10:41AM

Taking a 800 billion out of the economy for the stimulus, thus base lining trillion dollar budget deficits along with the uncertainty of ObamaCare are not policy changes causal to the economic outcome?

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 11:50AM

Exactly how was 800 Billion taken "out" of the economy? Roughly 1/3 was tax cuts, 1/3 was to the State governments, 1/3 was infrastructure and other items.

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:23PM

The private economy where wealth is actually created!

Government creates no wealth, only prints dollars which devalues existing currency or confiscates others' wealth or earnings to give to others, which under Obama have been non-private parties, mostly governments.

That is what we mean when we say '$800 billion was taken out of the economy', you ignoramus.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 1:17PM

You're a complete fool. The 800 Billion was pumped INTO the economy, not out. Who got the tax cuts? Where did the States spend the money? What jobs were created by the whole Recovery Act?
You don't know this and YOU call ME an ignoramus? You know nothing.

CJW| 8.1.12 @ 10:54PM

The 800 billion was taken from the economy, moron, and redistributed. You think the 800 billion came from Mars and was pumped in to the US economy?
You are an idiot.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 12:38PM

You utter and complete moron.

The private sector IS "the economy."

Wealth is created in the private sector, NOT the government.

Government produces NOTHING.

Government is a greedy pig.

Let me explain it in a way you'll understand, Purp...

Government is like a guy with his mouth open REALLY wide...

...Sorry, bad image.

Government is like a big, sucking hole...

...Sorry! I did it again! 'Nother bad image!

...never mind...

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 1:17PM

No shit, Sherlock - my you're sharp as a tack. So what's your point?

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 3:41PM

You don't get it, do you dummy?

Obama-boy did NOT "pump money into the economy."

He took money OUT OF the economy, and spent it on handouts to unions and government spending.

Man, you're dumb. I mean really, really dumb.

Did you actually go to school?

Boar Hunter| 8.1.12 @ 9:28PM

The banks (Including foreign) received how much money in government bail outs?

Solendra and all the other money spent on green boondoggles ended up where?

How much of the money Obama denied to share holders has Obama given to a still failing GM?

Obama has given away so much to his people, all while whining about the wealthy not paying their share and yet...GE to Warren Buffett and all of his staff down the line still owe how much in taxes?

How many poor children failed to get their free school lunch because GE failed to pay their fair share?

Better yet. How many poor people could have been fed with the money from just one of Michelle's vacations?

One of her blouses?

Romney's wife is out of touch because she wore a $900 dollar blouse, but the wookie wears a $6800 jacket and...oh never mind.

Liberal hypocrites, one and all. Useless oxygen thieving, wastes of human skin.

George S| 8.1.12 @ 1:04PM

Not tax cuts... tax credits. Difference is:

a tax cut means here is your tax liability now but your will PAY less after the cut. But you still pay. Only less than before.

A tax credit is you get back a credit of X dollars. You deduct that from what you owe. If what you owe is less than the credit, you get the difference in cash from the government. So if you have a $500 tax credit and you owe ZERO taxes, you get a CHECK from the government. Welfare. Handout. Bribe. Any adjective works.

So, money has to be taken out of the economy to fund the tax credits. Another thing the rich have to pay for the privilege of being an American.

That third that went to state governments went to where? Bridges and roads? States get highway funds every year for that, yet the infrastructure doesn't get fixed. Why? Who gets reelected by claiming I painted the bridge or paved the road? No... they get reelected by bolstering the public employee jobs and pensions. That's where that money went.

One third on infrastructure? Really? 300 billion? It is more accurate that "other items" such as green energy boondoggles got that third.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 1:28PM

Nope - 97% of Americans had less withholding taken out after 2009 because of the Recovery Act. A TAX CUT. 300 Billion approx. to Businesses and Individuals. Didn't you notice? Or don't you work?
You didn't get a check from the government under Obama, no one did. But as you say, welfare from Bush - You did get a $500, $600 or $1200 dollar check from Bush's Treasury, from the trickery in 2008 that Bush tried though. You have confused the 2 apparently. That's how right wing myths get started. Stupidity.
State government funds kept a lot of teachers, firefighters and police working. A lot of other maintenance, streets and sanitation workers too. Of course, you don't care, it's the bad old pension bullshit again - right wing hysteria. 40 kids/classroom, let your house burn down, crime run rampant - why would you care?
If you really care where all the funds were spent, you can see it for yourself, from the most transparent administration in history: http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx
Review it and slap yourself for your hyperbole. If you don't review it, just shut the front door.

George S| 8.1.12 @ 2:05PM

Nope.

Out of $232 billion in tax relief, $112 billion were refundable tax credits. The other half were tax credits for first-time home buyers, college education expenses, and earned income tax credit for low-income workers with three or more children. The upper limit for joint filers was around $150,000. This is why everyone seemed to get a deduction.

There were no tax cuts. Just tax credits.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:45PM

Withholding tables changed and required less to be withheld. An employer would know this. Can you explain that one?
Tax Credits do nothing until you file a return. Less withholding gives you more money in your paycheck every payday. There is a difference you know.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 3:42PM

recovery.gov?!?!?

BWAH-HAH-HAH!!!! Yeah, that's a reputable source!!!!

What an ass-clown you are, Purp!

Boar Hunter| 8.1.12 @ 9:31PM

LOL, Retard.

They say ignorance is bliss. I guess I shouldn't begrudge you your happiness.

As stupid as you are, the world must be a wonderful place.

Denver Todd| 8.1.12 @ 9:22AM

One of my customers was commenting about how she was tired of political ads on tv and she said that both major candidates were alike. I asked her if she knew about Solyndra and she said no. I would imagine that even my smarter friends do no know about the more evil sides of the Obama administration, because they don't read much and they don't value current events.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 11:52AM

Oh, the Solyndra red herring. On balance, the investment in GM and Chrysler and subsequent resurgence in the Auto Industry, as another example far outweighs the investment and loss on Solyndra. So your point doesn't mean much.

spike59| 8.1.12 @ 12:06PM

tell that to the people who were owed money by GM & Chrysler for parts, etc, who were told 'drop dead' while the UAW were given the keys to the place and the combination to the vault...or the taxpayers who are actually paying the costs of the Volt and the bailout and will never see their (confiscated )'investment' returned...Ford did far better without the bailout

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:27PM

spike59,

If you think about it, Obama actually NATIONALIZED GM to an extent. Now they are using 'cramdown' marketing to their dealer networks to sell those stupid, non-economic Volts, and using proven junk mortgage techniques to sell their cars to non-creditworthy customers using federally backed GMAC funds. Wasn't GM excused from their taxes for the last three years and still they lost money!

Yeah, that GM thing worked out just swell!

Purp, you are a paid liar.

WillyP | 8.1.12 @ 12:47PM

Not only that but if you read the latest news from GM, the picture there is not good. GM is reportedly in a slump while the rest of the auto industry is doing relatively well, given the economy.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:46PM

You criticize American inventiveness? Ingenuity? You commie!

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 1:30PM

They would have been told the same under a Mitt the Twit "Let 'em die" scenario. Ford would have collapsed along with GM and Chrysler and their CEO said so in a Congressional hearing, under oath, because of loss of the suppliers. Don't you know any facts?
Other than right wing mythology, what's your point?

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 12:40PM

The Solyndra "red herring"???

Now that's funny!

Obama sends $500 million to subsidize a company with no customer base, and no sustainable business model...

But that's a "red herring."

"Resurgent" auto industry?

Hey, dummy...the VOLT has not earned a single $!

You're a fool.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 1:50PM

Doctor Dum-Dum - GM is the #1 Auto company in the world AGAIN, paid back all it's loans to the United States Treasury with interest, and the $300 Billion Auto Industry is going gang busters. Including the Volt.
Solyndra is 500 million - that's all you got? Hell, that's what the Koch Bros. will give RomBot for play money this year! Solyndra failed, sure, but China's subsidizing it's Solar industry had a LOT to do with it.

George S| 8.1.12 @ 2:26PM

All 60 billion is paid back? Are you sure?

Oh, why is GM making a profit? Are they allowed to do that. After all...

... If you got a car company -- you didn't build that. The taxpayers made that happen.

Profit? I want my piece of it! Don't you? Hey, what kind of bullshit socialism is this?!

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:49PM

All Loans are paid back. Yes they are.
You can invest in GM Stock and own a piece yourself. Go ahead, be a stockholder and stop bitching. $19.72/share today. OMG - it's a public company - quick kill it! So BAIN can take it apart and layoff a hundred thousand people.

Boar Hunter| 8.1.12 @ 9:38PM

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance? AAhhhh what a blissful world LOL.

Did you forget that GM took out a government loan to pay back the government loan?

http://www.escapetyranny.com/2.....taxpayers/

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 3:49PM

The VOLT has not earned a single $, dummy.

Here's some more facts for you: VW is the world's #1 automaker, dummy.

Why? Because, as usual, GM is cooking-the-books.

GM claims to have sold 9.03 million vehicles in 2011. But, this total included the output of a Chinese subsidiary that GM does NOT OWN.

GM's "numbers" are boosted by ownership stakes in China's SAIC Motor Corp. and Liuzhou Wuling Motors Co. While SAIC builds GM cars in China, Wuling's 1.2 million vehicles last year are mostly cheap commercial vehicles used only in China.

Analysts do not to count the Wuling vehicles in GM's global total because GM doesn't have a controlling stake in its partner. "We have to draw the line somewhere and this at least gives us some consistency around the globe," said Jeff Schuster, an analyst with forecasting firm LMC Automotive.

Volkswagen reported sales of 8.16 million vehicles in 2011. Unlike GM, it did not count the numbers of its commercial vehicle subsidiaries MAN SE and Scania AB.

Unlike GM, VW actually owns these concerns. Adding both in boosts VW figures by about 200,000.

So, subtract the 1.2 million Wuling vehicles gives you legitimate GM sales of 7.83 million vehicles.

Nice try, Purpie, but once again...EPIC FAIL!!!

When you mess with your betters (like me), you will ALWAYS look stupid.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 3:51PM

Hey, look "Dummy formerly known as Purp"!

GM admits it: They lose money on EVERY single VOLT they produce!!!!

http://www.greencarreports.com.....t-we-build

LOL!

Man, I love rubbing your face in your own B.S.!!!

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 5:16PM

If you had bothered to to read the article, you might actually hesitate in crowing, don't you think?
It makes the point that the R&D costs for the volt AND the T0yota Prius is part of the start up costs for new technology.
You have a problem with new technology? Really?
You probably would deny the combustion engine in favor of the Buggy Whip in the early 1900's, wouldn't you? You know how THAT turned out.

George S| 8.1.12 @ 1:14PM

GM didn't need the money to build cars, it needed it to fund their retired employee health care and pensions. Since the cost of that had risen to about $3,000 a car, it found itself seriously overpricing the competition and losing sales. Going bankrupt.

If GM went bankrupt, those who would have restructured the company would have not taken on the pension liability at face value. Whatever they offered (5 cents, 10 cents on the dollar, whatever) would have been the ONLY choice the retirees would have had -- and be grateful that it was better than nothing.

But Obama used my money to bail out the retirees. I didn't sit in on those union negotiations nor did by congressman. Yet I am left holding the bag.

This is one of the most egregious lies that the Left hurls -- making us think GM was going broke by greedy inept management requiring the Great One to step in to save the day.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 1:55PM

GM couldn't go into bankruptcy in 2008-9. There was no money being lended by ANYONE privately, including BAIN. Credit was frozen, Money Markets were near collapse, and huge financial firms were failing.
Had the President not stepped in (and Bush before him, to his credit, don't forget), the Auto Industry would have disappeared.
This is one of the most egregious lies that the RIGHT hurls -- making us think GM could have been saved by simple bankruptcy and restructuring privately. It required government intervention and Bush and Obama both did their jobs.
When will you get it straight and stop the right wing mythology spin?

George S| 8.1.12 @ 2:17PM

Huh?

Why were Honda, Nissan and Toyota's US operations doing okay? The answer is labor contracts -- employee pay and benefits, including the non-productive retirees and their families consuming dollars from the sale price of cars.

GM could not compete with their labor structure, especially as fuel prices rose and they could not profitably compete with other makers on smaller cars.

So now the taxpayers are making up for the bloated labor costs. The bondholders would not have purchased that liability (they could have borrowed on their collateral -- the bonds themselves).

The auto industry would not have disappeared. Only the generous pensions. And Obama could not abide that.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 3:03PM

Off topic. But Honda, Toyota and Nissan all said that had GM failed they would have also been severely impacted by losing suppliers.
Bloated labor costs? Starting a job at GM today pays no more than at Toyota plants. GM is more competitive now and is #1 in the World again. And, don't forget about Chrysler, doing even better, though smaller market share.
You're wrong and anti-American apparently, wanting US companies to fail and disappear. you can't abide their success? Shame on you. You should know better George.
Do you prefer the race to the bottom of the wage structure? Really?

ElGordo| 8.1.12 @ 9:39AM

OBAMA'S ENERGY POLICY IS MAKING THE U.S.A. a 2nd CLASS NATION WHILE ROMNEY'S POLICY WILL BRING US PROSPERITY
With our newly discovered riches in ENERGY, especially in natural gas , the U.S. stands on the edge of a golden era of world leadership but Obama's anti-energy policies are holding us back.
Obama keeps promoting a policy of green energy, but winddmills and solar panels are inefficient , unreliable and can't be used to power our planes, trains and cars. Obama has vetoed the Keystone Pipeline which would give us 30,000 more jobs and lower gas prices but he requires the navy to use $55 per gal. gasoline.
Obama has wasted billions backing his friends in green energy projects that have failed. Think Solyndra.

ROMNEY'S POLICY WILL BRING US PROSPERITY
Romney would utilize our new energy resources, eliminate our dependence on mideast oil, and bring an era of prosperity to the U.S. Even with onerous federal government restrictions, look at how prosperous No. Dakota has become with drilling for natural gas .
Through tv ads and speeches, Romney should show the difference between a vibrant Romney economy based on our new energy resources versus the regressive economy of Obama under green energy.
Further, as a leader in energy production, the U.S. could affect the world price of oil and indirectly control the international actions of Venezuala, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and other nations heavily dependent on income from oil.

Fiscal| 8.1.12 @ 9:58AM

Are you kidding? Changing to natural gas means a huge infrastructure investment for a grid and also a huge investment in a delivery mechanism. In addition, Romney's campaign is highly funded by the CURRENT energy industry. This won't occur until we have a fundamental change in political fundraising AND we change the tax code to eliminate tax benefits for energy companies so they can pay for their lobbyists.

Don't get me wrong, this needs to be done, but if you think it will be much better under Romney, you're drinking too much KoolAid. You'll notice that this is not a major agenda item for Romney other than a campaign talking point because he hasn't included it in his budget.

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:33PM

Oh gee. Let's see. We shouldn't invest in energy infrastructure to provide domestic energy sources because it's expensive?

I thought you were one of those who said we couldn't afford overseas wars. If we could access the oil just located in the Dakota, we could STOP importing oil altogether the minute the pipeline could connect wells to refineries...

Yeah, we need to NOT produce our own energy cause it's expensive. Get the STUPID government out of the way and let private investment take care of this. The problem would be solved in four years!

You are the one who's kidding! Or are you just too stupid to get it?

Again, the TROLLS argument is: NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND ROMNEY, SO DON'T BOTHER TO VOTE!

WHICH IS PURE, UNADULTERATED CRAP!

Kwan| 8.1.12 @ 11:12AM

When trying to convert a world super-power into a third-world nation you change the energy sources from carbon rich fossil fuels to carbon deficient "green energy" sources. Do you actually believe that the psychopaths of the left actually care about the environment? It's all a con-job so they can convert the country into a pre-industrial revolution hard scrabble backwater.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 11:58AM

Really Kwan? When exactly did this theory of yours actually change a Superpower into a 3rd world country?
Those people who lived near anyone with Solar Panels providing electricity to them when the East Coast lost power for days, would not agree with you. They enjoyed a neighbor that still had power. Neither would those in India dependent on the "Grid".
It' s a matter of survival, even if you don't care about the environment. Don't you want to be an independent individualist? Or do you prefer to suck off the oil tit as dependent infant that can't make his own energy? Some day it will matter and we are given warnings every so often.
If you had solar panels and a nissan leaf or chevy volt for example, you could kiss the electric grid goodbye - and be truly independent.

Kwan| 8.1.12 @ 12:33PM

Once again we have pro0f that if you drink the leftist Kool-Aid your chances of falling victim to terminal brain-rot is 99.999999999%. This poor fellow Burp seems to be in the advanced stages of the disease and the only remedy is a brain-transplant. But due to the situation I'm willing to overlook his leftist inclinations and will generously donate 25 cents to the "Burp brain-transplant charity fund".

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 12:46PM

Kwan, My guess is Purp suffers from Tertiary Syphllis, more specifically Neurosyphilis and is beginning to suffer from dementia and Tabes dorsalis. Poor creature.

Kwan| 8.1.12 @ 2:42PM

Yes your evaluation may be correct. I was going to call 9-11 to request an ambulance to transport him to a medical facility for some type of emergency treatment, but I didn't know which freeway overpass he was currently living under.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 3:04PM

Yap, yap, yap ...

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:39PM

LOOK AT SPAIN WHO TRIED IT IN THE MID 2000's.

And right now, 1 in 10 human beings are in the dark right now because INDIA has moved away from dependable coal to unreliable renewables.

And you don't need to convert a sizable percentage of your generating capacity to unreliable renewables to end up with an unreliable grid - it only takes a minor shortfall in generation capacity to cause grid failure.

Purp, paid liar that you are, called out yet again!

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 12:42PM

Purp is NOT a liar; he actually believes the stupid things he posts.

He's a moron.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:10PM

Interesting how you know so much more than the rest of the world. India contains 300 million tons of coal proven reserve. That compares to just what the US uses in 1 year of 400 BILLION tons of coal.
India cannot support it's needs on coal and they know it. You don't. Another right wing myth debunked.
Their current issues are poor grid related, not generation related. Take your head out of your a**.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl.....a-19043972
http://www.sfgate.com/world/ar.....748157.php

Oldefarte| 8.1.12 @ 5:01PM

Everything made/produced/transported in this nation [and the world] is through oil. Your environmentalists wacko's solar panels might be useful on the moon, which is where you loons of the left should relocate to. Because of your radical-in-chief and his slanty-eyed Interior Chief, oil companies are relocating their offshore of Louisiana drilling rigs to Africa in droves. Recently the price per gallong has begun rising again.....my last fillup was at $2.99/gallon and today required $3.26/gallon.....thanks you environmental morons!!!!!!!!!!!!

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 5:19PM

You can thank the Big Oil companies for the price of oil ... and it's so much more complicated than you could possibly fathom Fart. So I won't muddy your mind with facts and figures. You go on believing whatever you like while the world passes you by. It's okay, Fart Blossom, we know, your days of learning are over.

Alej| 8.1.12 @ 10:27PM

"You can thank the Big Oil companies for the price of oil "

Supply and demand, uneducated, grammatically challenged nerd.

Kwan| 8.1.12 @ 10:44AM

Obama's campaign speeches are essentially about trying to convince the electorate that what is happening is not happening, or who you gonna believe your "lying eyes" or me. The more often that voters decide to believe their "lying eyes" and not the serial-liar Obama's lies, the greater chance there is for a Obama defeat in November. Let's remember that to Obama and his fellow travelers that profit, capitalism, free enterprise, or any freedom whatsoever are alien concepts that don't fit-in with their plans to create an egalitarian society.

Oldefarte| 8.1.12 @ 11:50AM

What this editorial says is pure TRUTH, and the sad point is that the American people/voters [ie "Purp" etc] STUPIDLY elected this group of lying terrorists that are now in charge of this country. We have been conquered, captured etc; and if/until the Americna electorate WAKE UP and stop voting like DA's, this country will continue it accent into the depts of the toilet bowl. How could this country be so stupid, so imbicilic etc as to elect this group of worthless community organizers? Please answer my question.....HOW????????????????????

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 12:02PM

We are not terrorists, but you're right that we will continue to elect the President. Mitt the Twit just isn't up to the job. Neither was Bush - look at the messes he left behind. That's how you elect the other side. You got nobody worth salt on your side to elect. Who? Mitt the Twit? Moonbeam Gingrich? Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin? Sad to say, you have no one, your ranks are dwindling and soon your party will be back where it belongs - a minority party in bed with the rich.
Let the Democratic Party, the party of the people, lead the way to prosperity and Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

spike59| 8.1.12 @ 12:13PM

"We are not terrorists"
--------------------------------
but we launch our political careers in their homes, let them write our autobiographies, and funnel money to their foundations (ObaMao/Ayers)kiss their fannies (Carter), ignore their repeated attacks(Carter, Clinton)...

the Democrat party, the party of the people? well, if you define it as 'the People's Party" as in 'The People's Republic of China", you have a point...as for 'prosperity', the only thing the Dems have anything to do with 'properity' is when they squander the prosperity created by conservatives and the eeeeevil rich-until they run out of other people's money, that is...

DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:40PM

He meant to say "the people's party" like the communists.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:11PM

Yap, Yap, Yap ... tired right wing mudslinging.

Oldefarte| 8.1.12 @ 4:53PM

Then leave and go to the NYT etc blog site where your excrement will be welcomed!!!!!!

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 5:20PM

NO. I'm looking for a little more intelligent and imaginative banter. You do not provide it.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 12:43PM

I'd rather be in bed with the rich than with the uneducated, parasitical rabble.

The rich smell better...and they don't listen to Hip-Hop.

George Collins| 8.1.12 @ 1:13PM

Please don't knock hip-hop, a great American creation and export. And BTW, I'm rich and listen to it all the time.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:11PM

I am in with the rich. Your sorry a**es don't know any better. You're like pigs in shit and you love it.

Doctor Right| 8.1.12 @ 3:56PM

No, you're not.

You're too dumb to have made a dime on your own.

You either inherited it, or are mooching off of some aging gay man's wealth.

Without giving away any confidential information, exactly WHAT business are you in? And how have you become so "rich"??

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 5:28PM

You're hilarious Dr. BooBoo. I will confess I am not in the Idle SuperRich class that need not work - like Mitt the Twit. Top 2% yes.
I have had and sold 2 businesses. Currently, I have a small online retail business. Suffice to say I know enough about what businesses face regarding regulations and what individuals face in their daily lives to understand each of those positions. And, I can tell you, the only thing that pushes businessmen to hire workers is demand for their service or product when they can no longer produce enough from giving overtime to the workers they already have. It has nothing to do with taxes, healthcare, or anything else. You have customers, you need to make what they want - or you're losing money.
It amazes me how many of you work-a-day types believe the right wing myths that you are indoctrinated with day in and day out.
Now, as a doctor - tell us about the healthcare industry - why is it so expensive? Why do costs keep spiraling up? Are doctors worth that much more? Where does the money go? Tell us, we'll listen.

Oldefarte| 8.1.12 @ 4:52PM

Yes you are "terrorists" since you blog here when no one else agrees with your socialistic ideas and especially with ya boy. The arrogance of insinuating his competitency is asinine and verbalizing """""STUPIDLY""""sinc that moron with a taxpayer-subsidized and paid for degree from Haarvard couldn't and wouldn't profitably manage a Chick-fil-A in downtown Detroit. His sorry ARS never held a paying job of substance until the American people had mental seizures and elected him on 11/4/08 [and are now paying the price for same]. STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! Try reading "AMATEUR" by Klein and become educated as to the ineptness of Barry the neophyte pretending to be a POTUS!!!!!!!!

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 5:30PM

You do remember the 1st Amendment? Freedom of Speech?
You cannot muzzle me and you will NOT! I am an American. You cannot infringe on my right to free speech.
Why don't you think about the fact that you might not have all the answers, ya know? Could you possibly be wrong on anything? THINK.

kbs55| 8.1.12 @ 6:22PM

The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is to be repealed by the Anti-Hate speech legislation

Slacker| 8.1.12 @ 12:19PM

You are right, which is why is actually encouraging that the economy refuses to budge for Obama. It means economic realities still trump bullshit. It means Obama’s deception is detected. It means the media doesn’t get to control reality. It means people like Purp are wrong and will always be wrong.

We don’t want a recovery based on stimilus, monetizing debt and negative real interest rates. We don’t want a healthy economy under a radical leftist president. In a way things are going as they should.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 5:50PM

Too bad you are so misinformed by those that simply what to be in charge - that's how every President has recovered from a Recession or Depression.
How transparent of you - "We don’t want a healthy economy under a radical leftist president. In a way things are going as they should." - while I don't agree with your 'radical leftist' bs, I've always known you all preferred America fail, just like Rush said, to get rid of the black man. Well, you've hitched your wagon to the wrong wagon guys - Mitt the Twit is losing Fla, Oh, Pa and Mi - he is toast and his campaign knows it.
His "Big money" donors are holding back, not wanting to spend their money on a losing proposition, so it's almost over.

Slacker| 8.1.12 @ 7:42PM

Get a grip on your emotions. It makes no difference in outcomes if I want Obama to fail or succeed. It is irrelevant if I like him or hate him. He is failing all on his own.

I don’t even like Mitt. When Obama win reelection I will get a certain satisfaction in watching things go from bad to worse.

Mimi | 8.1.12 @ 5:04PM

HOW ? O.F.....The people were lied to ! He ran like a middle/road type and was a STARK RAVING LIB !
One hundred Senators .....and he was said to be 1st as the most LIBERAL Senator...and the STUPID voted him in. What we didn't know was the CHARACTER defects, The lack of leadership, and ambition and the grave absence of the TRUTH and dishonoring the vows to uphold the Constitution....No VETTING. The election of 2008 was a grave mistake. A MARKED CORRECTION should be in order...in 97 DAYS!

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 5:52PM

He was the 16th most liberal ... another right wing myth debunked.
No vetting - that's a laugh. What a joke. Are you off your meds Mimi dear?

Nick| 8.1.12 @ 11:53AM

Meanwhile.....in other news:
Boehner & Co. sell the American people down the river, yet again.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07.....ppointees/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll537.xml

Remember, back in the spring of '11, when the first budget battles was winding up? And, Boehner/Cantor/McCarthy/Ryan were lying to conservatives about cutting $100 billion in the budget deal?
Remember when Boehner & Co. were telling us to wait until Sept., '11, when they could really cut the budget?
Remember when Boehner & Co. promised that if the GOP took back control of the House, they would publish ALL BILLS 3 days before a vote?
Remember, a year ago, when Boehner & Co. sold-out to O'Bama on the debt-ceiling increase, and didn't give us 3 days to read the bill?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Boehner has got to go!

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 12:03PM

It's not just Boehner. But that's a start.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 12:19PM

"Obama is campaigning as if he were certain that a majority of Americans do not know that all recessions end and that labor markets recover eventually."

Unfortunately he is right. Most do not understand that. Look at trolls like Purp. For months they have been screaming how Obama has created jobs, not understanding that Job growth is the norm not the exception yet Obama's job growth doesn't even keep up with the population growth.

Purp| 8.1.12 @ 2:13PM

Sure we get it. But you guys can't accept he's a good President. That's okay. But get used to 4 more years, it's a comin'

Bill Carson| 8.1.12 @ 12:51PM

Say what you will, but people still love him. His deception is working like a charm. I just wish that only the fools had to pay for it and not take everyone down with them.

crs52| 8.1.12 @ 1:02PM

Mr. Ferrara, based on an examination of your work, you ought to know all about dishonesty. The number of distortions and outright falsehoods in this article alone is a case in point. Since I find it hard to believe that you're unaware of all of them, I can only assume that your lying through your teeth.

Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 2:05PM

Point them out and use facts to dispute them then.

Mimi | 8.1.12 @ 5:20PM

The NEW play acting by the DEM'S....They are suddenly displaying FAKE OUTRAGE....using words we have spoken for three years...LIKE.... dishonest,un-patriotic. Even Obama is copying our lingo trying to come off as a full blown Conservative...American loving, patriot....It is sickening to watch the pandering after the blunt destruction we have witnessed. I hope people do not get sucked in...He'll try the role but it will be only lies and a fake nice!

Rmm| 8.1.12 @ 8:57PM

So you say. Fact check, please!

Pecos Pete| 8.1.12 @ 1:13PM

The comedy act of the trolls (today it is Violet) keeps the comment section entertaining.

drmaddogs| 8.1.12 @ 1:52PM

Left unsaid is the continual reliance on public sector jobs being created.
We should remember the effect of J. Carter and overall limited spending growth. Reagan rebuilt the Navy and spent close to a trillion. Likely the last time Defense spending massive increases will work as the 'every project must be bigger-more costly along with with massive combining of Defense companies; ie Lockedup Martin.
We had a chance when Bush Jr came in but 7 days later the Fed head pronounced the risk with the U.S. not having debt/housing bubble startup.

So, relying on the Bubble/Burst as described by Potus comparisions,one has to wonder just how a bubble could really happen again, when there has only been a short term 'cooling off period'-deleverging?

How ever the bubble starts to reflate, the one unifying factor will need a sustained drop in growth of Regulations(cost of doing buisness-enforced by additional public jobs). Something Obamma seriously cannot understand, or is unwilling to empliment... I guess popularity with Public sectors is more important than succeding for the American way of life.

Stick| 8.1.12 @ 3:44PM

This is so unfair. We all know that Obama's words were taken out of context.

Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 5:03PM

Out of context like the words, "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

The context notes the words, "to the best of my ability" and in this case he has little if any ability.

kbs55| 8.1.12 @ 6:20PM

One of the highly developed talents of President Barack Obama is the ability to say things that are demonstrably false, and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring. That talent was displayed just this week when he spoke about the economy. In short, he is simply lying. But Obama is much smoother. On this and on many other issues, you would have to know what the facts are to know that he is lying. He is obviously counting on the fact that, in this era of dumbed-down education, many people have no clue as to what the facts are.
He is also counting on something else -- namely, that the pro-Obama media will not expose his lies. One of the many ways of lying smoothly is to simply redefine words. Barack Obama is a master at that as well. Obama's lies are big but not as visible, and the media that exposed Nixon is covering for Obama.

Rmm| 8.1.12 @ 8:40PM

One has to wonder, after three years of dismal numbers, whether this effort to grow our economy is being run by people who don't know their ass from their elbow or it is by design to scuttle our economy. Lets face it, what has been done is NOT working, too many unemployed,too many under-employed, too many have given up hope of ever finding a decent job. This sucks!!! And the yahoos in Washington just keep flapping their gums.

Americanpatriot| 8.1.12 @ 9:55PM

Obama is not fooling the majority of people. He is one and done and good riddance. Worst and most corrupt president in our great nations history. I was on the NYT site today and almost all of the comments were against Obama. The tide is turning folks and this man is going to lose by a landslide. Many of the comments were from blue states and they are saying no one they know is voting for Obama. They are driving thru neighborhoods that in 2008 were for Obama and had yard signs and bumper stickers and they are pretty much gone.

Ron Ackenberry| 8.4.12 @ 2:21AM

Obama the neo-Marxist?

Have you no shame?

No brain?

Reaganomics is better than Obamanomics?

Saul Alinsky....again?

This whole schtick must be getting wearisome to even you guys. The rant never stops. It's on full loud, totally disconnected from reality, history and mother earth. I'm not sure how you guys even keep your feet on the ground anymore.

What worries me is there are so many of you totally detached from the rational world, at least when it comes to politics.

Indeed I would wager a good sum you like many of my radical winger neighbors and friends are hard working, responsible even gracious guys EXCEPT when it comes to politics.

I hope you and the rest of your fellow political Martians get well real soon. The country needs you to come back to earth.

Ron Ackenberry| 8.4.12 @ 2:31AM

Reply to all:

I think Bill would be ashamed and aghast at your idiotic commentaries.

Have you NOTHING of substance to say?

More Articles by Peter Ferrara

More Articles From The Obama Watch

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

June 19, 2013 | George Neumayr

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

June 18, 2013 | Matthew Sheffield

The Way They Are

June 14, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

The Dragnet Widens

June 13, 2013 | Kevin Mooney

The Casual Tyrant

June 12, 2013 | George Neumayr

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/01/obamas-calculated-deception

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|44 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|37 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|26 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|53 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|15 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|17 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

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

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.