The Obama ‘interview’ you WON’T see!


Leave it to The Economic Collapse blog to approach the scandal ridden Obama administration as NO mainstream media outlet would have the guts to do!..Never mind that it’s only what we would like to see happen…hard hitting, nonetheless!


“Does Barack Obama have any idea what is going on in the government that he is supposedly running?  Scandals are erupting all around him, and he supposedly was not aware that any wrongdoing had taken place in any of those instances.  It is almost as if every major government agency has gone rogue and Obama has no idea what the heck they are doing.  According to Obama, he often doesn’t learn what those under his authority are up to until he sits down and turns on the news.  Should we believe him when he claims ignorance over and over again, or is Obama just trying to protect himself?  Whether you are a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent, the revelations that have come out in recent days about the IRS, the seizure of AP phone records and Benghazi should be very alarming to you.  Taken together, these scandals paint a picture of a federal government that has become drunk with power, and no matter where you may fall on the political spectrum that is something that nobody should want.

Posted below is a fictional interview that I have created between an anonymous reporter and Barack Obama about the IRS scandal, the seizure of AP phone records, Benghazi and other sensitive topics.  Yes, this interview is a bit absurd, but so is the notion that Barack Obama is completely ignorant about so many important things that are going on inside his own government…

REPORTER: “President Obama, the IRS has publicly admitted that they were specifically targeting patriot groups and Tea Party organizations for ‘extra scrutiny’.  When did you first learn about this?”




REPORTER: “But how is that possible?  We have now learned that the targeting of patriots and Tea Party groups began as early as March 2010.  The head of the IRS tax-exempt organizations division was informed about this targeting in June 2011, the chief counsel for the IRS knew about this targeting by August 2011, thedeputy commissioner for services and enforcement knew about this targeting byMarch 2012, and IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller knew about this targeting byMay 2012.  Throughout this period of time, the IRS repeatedly lied to Congress when they were specifically asked about the targeting of conservative groups.  Are you claiming that nobody from your administration ever had any contact with anyone from the IRS about this?”





REPORTER: That is what the IRS was claiming at first.  But now the Washington Post is reporting that “IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups.”  That would seem to indicate that this was being coordinated on a nationwide level by someone at the IRS.  Would you care to comment on that?





REPORTER: But you were just commenting on it.  Don’t you think that the American people deserve the truth about this?




REPORTER: Okay, let’s switch gears.  Did you know that the Justice Department was spying on AP reporters just months before the 2012 election?  Did you know that two months of cellular, office and home telephone records were secretly obtained without any explanation last April and May?




REPORTER: The Associated Press is now the enemy?  Without a free and independent media, what would keep us from descending into tyranny?




REPORTER: But shouldn’t we be alarmed when government agencies target specific groups of people for their political beliefs?  Breitbart is reporting that the EPA “has routinely charged conservative and watchdog groups fees that the agency has waived for the mainstream media and ‘green’ groups”.  Do you know anything about this?





REPORTER: I understand that these are tougher questions than you normally get from the media.  But I think that the American people deserve some answers.  For example, would you like to discuss Benghazi?




REPORTER: Very funny Mr. President.  What about the Fast and Furious scandal?  Would you be willing to talk about that?




REPORTER: Are there any difficult subjects that you would be willing to discuss?  I have questions here about the Secret Service prostitution scandal, Solyndra, the new NSA spy center out in Utah, government ammunition stockpiling, the NDAA, drone strikes, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers.  Would you be willing to answer any of those questions?”





There you have it, folks! All of your questions answered! The air has been cleared! Happy now?…..


More stuff….




Washington: Where nobody gets fired and everybody eats lunch! – Charles Hurt @ The Washington Times




Is anyone home in the White House? – John Hinderaker @ Powerline

Democrats in triage mode on White House scandals – Shane Goldmacher @ National Journal










Hand in Hand….


I suppose it’s time to return to the hypocrisy and stupidity that passes for public policy in today’s United States.

Found these two articles…from different sources offering a somewhat common view of the media’s dereliction of duty, when it comes to government these days…



THE FOUR YEAR HONEYMOON – Fred Barnes @ The Weekly Standard

Will the press EVER give Obama tough coverage?

“President Obama never disappoints. When the monthly unemployment rate fails to drop, forget it. What’s important is the number of jobs created. But when the rate actually does drop, forget the growth (or lack of it) in jobs. It’s the rate that matters. And don’t blame Obama for the persistence of slow economic growth and high joblessness. That’s the “new normal.” As for the millions of dropouts from the job market, that’s no big deal, hardly worth more than a passing mention.

Full credit is due Obama for his role in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. He was cleverly “leading from behind.” But the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three others in Benghazi—the president bears no responsibility for that. Perish the thought.

Meanwhile, in the months before his reelection in November, Obama doled out government favors to Democratic interest groups like unions, Hispanics, teachers, and single women. This may have looked like shameless exploitation of his high office, but it really was unusually skillful politicking by a master of the game.

My drift here ought to be obvious. I’m referring to the way the media treat Obama. It’s not always adoring. It’s intermittently fair and even-handed. But overall, what’s distinctive about the press coverage of Obama is the absence of fault-finding, criticism, and dogged questioning. And when Obama makes excuses, as he often does, the media tend to echo them.

No president in my lifetime has been covered so favorably and so gingerly. Never has the press corps been so unwilling to pursue stories that might cast the president in an unflattering light. As a group, the media pride themselves on taking an adversarial approach to politicians and government officials. But in Obama’s case, the press acts like a helpmate.

Along with that, the media seem fearful of offending Obama. This is a new phenomenon in presidential coverage. To my recollection, Obama is the first president to instill coverage anxiety, conscious or unconscious.

Compare Obama’s coverage with that of President George W. Bush. The difference is startling. There was no fear of affronting Bush. He faced relentless scrutiny of his tactics in the war on terror: wiretaps, renditions, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act. The media raised questions about his motives, the constitutionality of his policies, and his brainpower. White House press conferences became tense and hostile events when national security issues were broached.

Obama’s adoption of these same policies has drawn minimal attention, much less the kind of media wrath that Bush endured. Last week, for example, Obama signed a bill extending the use of warrentless wiretapping to gather intelligence on America’s enemies. Bush was harshly criticized by the media on this very issue. Obama got a pass.

Bush was also hassled for so-called signing statements citing provisions of a bill he might not enforce. Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe, won a Pulitzer Prize for “his revelations” about Bush’s practice. And, not surprisingly, Obama promised not to do signing statements. Yet he has continued the practice, eliciting some coverage, but none of the outrage that was directed at Bush.

In his efforts to combat terrorism, Bush was accused of exceeding presidential authority. But Obama has made recess appointments when the Senate wasn’t in recess and rewritten parts of immigration and welfare law by executive order, clearly stretching his authority beyond constitutional limits. The press praised the immigration change and winked at the others.

It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with actions that would have aroused the press if committed by Bush, but didn’t with Obama. The list is long. Both the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal and the Benghazi killings would have led to months of stories, investigative reports, and outraged commentary. But the media proved to be largely incurious in Obama’s case.

Hurricane Sandy created damage in the billions in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The role of Obama and his administration in handling the emergency was scarcely addressed. It’s doubtful Bush would have been let off so easily. He certainly wasn’t in 2005 after Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast.

What if Bush had claimed in speech after speech that Democrats who opposed his policies were putting “party before country”? The media response to an insinuation that Democrats were unpatriotic would have been along the lines of, “How dare the president make such a dastardly claim!” But repeated mentions of “party before country” by Obama have been treated as perfectly acceptable.

And what if Bush had insisted on selective enforcement of federal immigration law and refused to defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton? Or if the Bush White House had leaked highly classified national security intelligence to make the president look good? The press would have been in high dudgeon and rightly so. But Obama, guilty on both counts, received media immunity.

Broken promises are the least of Obama’s shortcomings. But the press corps loves to zing presidents for reneging on campaign vows. Obama, as I recall, promised a press conference a month, an immigration bill his first year in office, regular meetings with leaders of both parties in Congress, and unprecedented transparency throughout his administration. He kept none of them, prompting media near-silence.

Might the treatment of Obama harden in his second term? I’m moderately hopeful. I suspect a few in the media are privately embarrassed by the oh-so-soft coverage and would like to apply some accountability to the Obama presidency. If they do, they’ll discover Obama disappoints like other presidents and perhaps more often.”




HEADLINES OF THE DAY – John Hinderaker @ Powerline Blog

“It is hard to exaggerate the political importance of the Democratic Party’s control over the news media. The steady drip-drip of pro-Democrat and anti-Republican propaganda is perhaps the dominant fact of American political life in the 21st century. One place where we see this is in headlines, which are important because they are what low-information voters mostly see. Here are just two examples of the impressions voters will get from yesterday’s headlines:



This one is a classic: the AP, probably the most important source of news media bias, packs multiple attacks on the GOP into a single headline. In the world of news media, only Republicans are ever “angry.” Democrats, no matter how numerous the death threats and wishes against, say, the NRA, are never angry. Likewise with “divided.” The Democrats have just come off an ideological battle that resulted in their raising taxes on all working Americans, via a 2% increase in the Social Security payroll tax. There is an interesting story there, but the news media kept it a secret because it did not reflect well on Democrats. And note that Republicans being “angry” and “divided” is nothing new: they are as divided and angry as ever! Which is news, I guess.

Then we have this, from Yahoo News:



This one made me laugh out loud, but really, it isn’t funny. Yahoo News headlines are seen by more people, I would guess, than those in any newspaper. This one, too, kills several GOP birds with one stone. Why can’t those grumpy Republicans ever be happy? That’s one theme–even though sociological research has shown over and over that Republicans are happier people than Democrats. Then we have the implication that in the current series of battles over the budget, the Republicans can never be satisfied. They got everything they could possibly want in the fiscal cliff negotiations, right? So why can’t they be satisfied and cave in to the Democrats in the debt limit negotiations? And yet it is the Democrats who, last week, got all the tax increases they have always said they wanted, and now tell us they want more. Never will you see a headline suggesting that the Democrats should be satisfied and stop trying to tax and spend more.

As I have said before, I do not think we can even imagine what it would be like to live in a country without a left-wing news media.”


Gotta hand it to the President and the Democrats…They have successfully turned the narrative into a damnation of ANY attempt..ANY ATTEMPT AT ALL…at restoring common sense and fiscal responsibility to government. We have become a nation of irresponsibility and discourse. And the sad part is, we don’t care…..

A ‘game changer’?…I doubt it…

Do you think tonight’s debate will actually change some minds?…I don’t think so. Well, maybe a fraction of the ‘undecideds’. I’m still very puzzled about how someone could be “undecided” in THIS election! The contrasts have NEVER been more stark! Nevertheless, I don’t see any real momentum coming from the Romney campaign out of the first meeting between the two candidates.

That also describes my feeling about the “Obama speech” The Daily Caller was touting last evening. It garnered screaming headlines on Drudge and other conservative media. It may as well be an afterthought this morning.

There’s nothing revealing about it. Nothing about this dangerous man anyone with any common sense didn’t already know. And it will not change any minds or votes. Proponents of such can’t seem to grasp the fact that this is no longer a country that cares for much of anything more than a day or two, at the most. Attention spans are miniscule….concerns beyond one’s own doors hardly exist. Yet this sort of sensational material is STILL considered invaluable to some operatives. Add to it those that SHOULD see it or hear it rarely ever do and those that do just shrug their shoulders and move on. We have become a jaded country lacking in passion and hope. And the irony is the man who can be credited with that attitude is asking for four more years as President. And he will probably get it.

Back to my main focus…the debates….

Powerline Blog has a great piece about the questions that will NEVER be asked….have to say I agree whole heartedly!

QUESTIONS YOU WON’T HEAR TOMORROW NIGHT (actually “tomorrow” is now “tonight”)

The web site e21 (Economic Policies for the 21st Century) has collected a number of questions from several sources which tomorrow night’s moderator, Jim Lehrer, should ask the candidates. They really are very good. Here are a few samples.

Charles Blahous:

On Social Security: For the past two years Social Security’s payroll tax has been reduced and the program given over $200 billion in subsidies from the general government fund to compensate for the uncollected taxes. This policy ended decades of bipartisan commitment to FDR’s original vision that Social Security would be a self-financing system of earned benefits, supported entirely by separate payroll taxes paid by workers. Explain why you supported or opposed turning Social Security into a general-fund-subsidized system. Do you think that Social Security benefits will retain their historical political support now that they substantially exceed what today’s workers and beneficiaries have paid for?

David Malpass:

In order to expand its regulatory powers, the EPA has declared that carbon dioxide is poisonous. People produce carbon dioxide when they breathe out, and plants require carbon dioxide to grow. If the EPA ruling is enforced, it will cost thousands, maybe millions of jobs. Do you think carbon dioxide is poisonous? How will you enforce or modify the EPA ruling?

Stephen Goldsmith:

Do you believe the federal government has too much or too little control over American families and communities? If you think it is too much what one or two major reforms would you advocate that might change that balance?

James C. Capretta:

Mr. President, you held a fiscal responsibility summit in February 2009 during which you pledged that your administration would make the tough choices and yet, during your term, the fiscal outlook has deteriorated rapidly. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that U.S. debt will reach 90 percent of GDP under your policies. Why didn’t your administration tackle these tough issues, especially during the two-years when your party had sizeable majorities in Congress?

e21 Staff:

After previous deep recessions, the economy and labor market had strong recoveries. Why is growth so meager and unemployment so high this time?

What makes economies grow and incomes rise? And where do government spending and taxes fit in your view?

The questions are generally at a high level, and focus on the issues that badly need to be debated. Let’s hope we get more questions along these lines, and fewer like “Why don’t you stop making war on women?”

Irresponsible Democrats!

Alabama’s Senator Jeff Sessions (R) blasts a broadside at the President and the FAILED Democrat leadership in Congress: THAT MEANS YOU, SENATOR REID, AND YOU..MS. PELOSI!


Senator Jeff Sessions delivered the Republicans’ radio address this morning. He took the opportunity to excoriate President Obama for lying about his budget plan, and Senate Democrats for ignoring their legal duty to adopt a budget. He addressed his listeners as though Americans, preparing to vote in November, were a jury:

Hello. I’m Jeff Sessions, United States Senator from Alabama. I’m also the Ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

Before entering politics, I was a federal prosecutor. I tried many cases and spoke to many juries. The brilliance of our legal system is that it places judgment in the hands of everyday citizens. Twelve complete strangers, from all walks of life, sit in a jury box, carefully weigh the evidence, and then reach an impartial verdict.

Our democracy works much the same. Voters hear the arguments, weigh the evidence, and then go to the ballot box and render a verdict.

As a prosecutor, I learned to trust the wisdom of these everyday citizens. I also learned, more than anything else, jurors want the facts. Today my goal is to present to you the facts as honestly and directly as I can.

Americans feel right now like the world has been turned upside down. They sacrifice to pay their bills and then watch federal workers throw lavish parties on their dime. They hear warnings of a debt crisis and yet learn that we still borrow nearly $4 billion a day. They send their tax dollars to Washington on the hope those dollars will be wisely guarded and then discover that those dollars have been lost and wasted and abused. They balance their family budgets only to find out that the United States Senate, under Democrat control, will not even bring a budget plan to the Senate floor.

The American people see the financial chaos. They know it must stop. They know their families are at risk. And that their country is in danger. Yet the President does not rally the country to action. Instead, he says our debt course is nothing to worry about. He continues to insist that his budget plan will pay down the debt.

This is the pivotal question of our time. This is a question on which our future depends. Does the President’s plan pay down our debt? Or does it leave our nation on a certain path to financial disaster?

Let’s review the facts.

To pay down the debt requires a surplus. Under the President’s 10-year budget, there is never a surplus. The single lowest annual deficit is $543 billion. The annual deficit in the 10th year grows to $652 billion. Despite $1.8 trillion in new taxes, his budget increases our spending and debt every year, adding $11 trillion to the debt overall. Just the interest alone on our debt would exceed defense spending in seven years. These are not my numbers; they come from the tables in the President’s own budget document that he printed and sent to Congress.

For the President to say his plan will pay down the debt is one of the greatest financial misrepresentations ever made to the American people.

Adding to the chaos, the Senate Democrat Majority has decided to adjourn through November having utterly failed to meet its most basic obligations. For the last three years, in a time of national crisis, Senate Democrats have deliberately violated the legal requirement to produce a budget plan. How can they ask the American people to send them one more dime in new taxes when they won’t even meet their legal duty to write a financial plan and tell how that money will be spent?

They also failed to pass a single annual appropriations bill—not once, but twice—the first time a single spending bill wasn’t passed in Senate history. They would not even bring up the crucial national defense authorization bill—for the first time in 50 years. And they presented no plan to prevent the huge tax hikes and steep cuts to defense known as the fiscal cliff.

All these failures create uncertainty and weaken the economy.

People should know that the Republican-led House on the other hand, met its obligations. Most significantly, it passed a budget to rescue America from a debt crisis. Compared to the President’s plan, the House budget achieved $3.3 trillion in greater deficit reduction while fostering economic growth.

If given the chance, Republicans will get this government under control. A Republican Senate will pass a budget. Failure is not an option.

We believe in a better way forward. A way that brings us closer to—not further from—our heritage as a nation.

We believe in growing the economy, not the bureaucracy. We believe in helping more people live good and prosperous lives. We believe in preventing the safety net from becoming a restraint. We believe in lifting people onto the employment rolls instead of leaving them on the welfare rolls. And we believe that compassion should not be defined by much money the government spends on poverty but how many people we can help rise out of poverty.

And we believe in the good, decent, hardworking citizens of this Republic.

These are the facts. The case is in your hands. God bless you, God bless our troops, and God bless America.

Point of No Return?

With President Obama enjoying a slight, post convention bounce in the polls, it brings again to mind, how FRIGHTENING and DANGEROUS a second term for him will be. There are those out there…myself included..that are now back to the mindset it could be a REAL possibility. And, as Powerline’s John Hinderaker points out, the Republicans are partially at fault. At the same time, PoliPundit says the “bounce” may be fleeting for Mr. Obama. Back to Mr. Hinderaker…See what you think of his piece:


For a long time I have been predicting that Mitt Romney would get the Republican nomination, and that he would then win the general election. I have said that the election will be reasonably close–demographic realities dictate that all national elections will be reasonably close, for the foreseeable future–but not a squeaker; more like 2004 than 2000. Given President Obama’s dismal record, that seemed like a safe prediction.

But it now appears that the election will be very close after all, and that Obama might even win it. It will require a few more days to assess the effects (if any) of the parties’ two conventions, but for now it looks as though the Democrats emerged with at least a draw, despite a convention that was in some ways a fiasco. In today’s Rasmussen survey, Obama has regained a two point lead over Romney, 46%-44%. Scott Rasmussen writes:

The president is enjoying a convention bounce that has been evident in the last two nights of tracking data. He led by two just before the Republican convention, so he has already erased the modest bounce Romney received from his party’s celebration in Tampa. Perhaps more significantly, Democratic interest in the campaign has soared. For the first time, those in the president’s party are following the campaign as closely as GOP voters.

So the Democrats’ red meat, over-the-top attacks on Republicans apparently worked at least as well as the Republicans’ more positive, low-key approach.

On paper, given Obama’s record, this election should be a cakewalk for the Republicans. Why isn’t it? I am afraid the answer may be that the country is closer to the point of no return than most of us believed. With over 100 million Americans receiving federal welfare benefits, millions more going on Social Security disability, and many millions on top of that living on entitlement programs–not to mention enormous numbers of public employees–we may have gotten to the point where the government economy is more important, in the short term, than the real economy. My father, the least cynical of men, used to quote a political philosopher to the effect that democracy will work until people figure out they can vote themselves money. I fear that time may have come.

At National Review, Andy McCarthy poses the same question–why isn’t this election a landslide?–and posits a somewhat different explanation. Andy faults today’s Republicans for not being principled enough, or conservative enough:

After a first term that has been historically abysmal, President Obama stands a good chance of being reelected. How can that be?

Here is the blunt explanation: We have lost a third of the country and, as if that weren’t bad enough, Republicans act as if it were two-thirds.

The lost third cannot be recovered overnight. For now, it is gone. You cannot cede the campus and the culture to the progressive, post-American Left for two generations and expect a different outcome. …

Certainly, the media, the academy, and most of our society’s major institutions are heavily influenced by progressives, if not outright controlled by them. It is therefore a given that elite opinion will portray Republicans as villains. Yet, that longstanding challenge for Republicans has never before been an insuperable one. In America, at least until now, the avant-garde has never been able to tame the public. It has always been possible to run against elite opinion and win — if you make a compelling counter-case.

Today’s Republicans do not. Indeed, they cannot, because they have accepted the progressive framework. Their argument is not that the welfare state, deficit spending, federalized education, sharia-democracy promotion, and the rest are bad policies. Their argument is not that Washington needs to be dramatically downsized. It is that progressive governance is fine but needs to be better executed.

Ain’t that something to rally around! The counter-case is supposed to demonstrate why the other guys are deeply wrong. You’re not going to get very far with “We’re not as bad as they say we are.”

Like Andy, I would love to see a radical down-sizing and reorienting of the federal government that would tame, if not abolish, the welfare state at the federal level. But is that really a practical suggestion for this year’s campaign? Would a “phase out Medicare” platform really carry the Romney-Ryan ticket to victory? I don’t think so. Further, I don’t think the problem in this year’s race is “elite opinion,” which, as Andy says, conservatives have been able to overcome rather consistently in the past, and is probably in more disrepute today than ever. I am afraid the problem in this year’s race is economic self-interest: we are perilously close to the point where 50% of our population cares more about the money it gets (or expects to get) from government than about the well-being of the nation as a whole. Throw in a few confused students, pro-abortion fanatics, etc., and you have a Democratic majority.

Maybe this anxiety is misplaced. President Obama has never been able to rise above 47% support in the polls, and perhaps when November comes undecided voters will break against the incumbent, as the conventional wisdom has it. Maybe the election won’t be so close after all. We’d all better hope so. Because, given the rate at which Democrats are frantically adding to the dependency state, another four years of Obama may be enough to tip the balance between the private sector and government dependence once and for all.

Scary stuff, right?…..

Living the Litany of Lies that IS Barack Obama

Last week, in Tampa, we were told the truth. You can disagree on particulars and how it was presented. But you cannot deny what we, as a nation, know. Barack Obama is a failure. A failure with no remorse. No humility.

This week the Democrats get together in Charlotte. I read one story indicating the nomination vote would be unanimous. As if they were validating some communist party chairman. Hey! If the shoe fits….

You are going to be subjected to 3 days of garbage and lies. Three days of the blind leading the blind. The ignorant and the blissfully unconcerned. Speaking of concern, that’s what MOST Americans likely have as an initial reaction to this President. Especially the business community. Mitt Romney can restore confidence and some certainty to the marketplace. Barack Obama fosters UNCERTAINTY. It really is that simple!

What is there to celebrate about this President? Healthcare reform?…I don’t think so! ‘Obamacare’ is complex, costly, and will be poorly implemented. Immigration reform?..a waiver for the children if illegals is hardly a resolution. Granted, the Republicans have failed to offer their own, but Barack Obama, given the opportunity, would issue blanket amnesty if he could. Welfare reform? Give me a break! If you call making it easier to AVOID looking for work ‘welfare reform’, then Obama is your man! Energy reform?..No way! Restricting drilling…halting the Keystone pipeline…advancing Brazil’s efforts…that is not a recipe for energy independence! The same can be said for the millions wasted on so called ‘green energy’ efforts! It was money thrown away at the cost of the American taxpayer.

Barack Obama has virtually ignored ANY and ALL efforts to reduce the national debt. In fact, it will reach a new milestone this week, as Democrats heap praise on this DISASTER of a President. Unemployment reached record levels on his watch. So much for his ‘laser like focus on jobs’!

It’s so ridiculous!…It’s also so sad. The fact that millions in this nation are even CONSIDERING awarding this man with a second term is beyond imagination! They have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to reality. Their collective heads have been in the sand for four years…probably longer!

Should he be elected, will Mitt Romney be able to turn things around?…Who knows?…It will not be easy. But, at least he brings a sense of moving back to a direction with a chance of success. Barack Obama does not. By any means! The Democrats in Congress have done absolutely NOTHING to address REAL problems. The Republicans have made an effort. Half hearted, maybe. But with the Democrats in charge of the Senate, (where Harry Reid (D-NV) has YET to allow a budget to be voted on) the chance of substantive reform is practically non existent.

“We don’t want to hear about your problems..We don’t see any problems…We don’t want to talk about your problems…we’re here to support Barack Obama…and that’s it!” you watch…or maybe I should say ‘WHY would you watch?’ the idiocy in Charlotte, think about what you see in your every day life. Nearly every American is or knows someone affected by the economic malaise President Obama has supported. You can believe the rhetoric spouted  or you can vote this fall to reflect that reality. Think about it!


689 REASONS TO DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA – National Review Online




In case you missed it…

“Hmm…let’s see…about 100 days left to keep up this sh*t….damn, I hope these idiots will still be stupid enough to buy it come election day…”

While everyone is busy with the Chick-fil-a distraction, The American Spectator’s Peter Ferrara points out the President continues to LIE to YOU about the economy….

Obama’s Calculated Deception

The Obama Watch

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.

The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009,” issued by CBO on July 10, reports that the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of federal individual income taxes in 2009, while earning 13% of the income. That means their share of federal income taxes was three times their share of income.

And that is down from 2007, before President Obama was even elected. In that year, after 25 years of Reagan Republican tax policies, the top 1% paid 40% of federal individual income taxes. That was more than double the 17.6% of federal individual income taxes paid by the top 1% when President Reagan entered office in 1981.

Also in 2007, again before Obama was even elected, and after 25 years of Reaganomics, the bottom 40% of income earners on net as a group paid less than 0% of federal income taxes. Instead of paying at least some income taxes to help support the federal government, the federal government paid them cash through the income tax code.

Does that reality sound like what you hear in President Obama’s deceiving speeches?

CBO further reported that in 2009 the top 20% of income earners, those earning more than $74,000, paid 94% of federal individual income taxes, virtually all of the net total. That was 85% more than the share of national income they earned.

Yet, in that same year, the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, paid 2.7% of total federal individual income taxes on net, while earning 15% of before-tax income. And the bottom 40% of income earners, instead of paying some income taxes to support the federal government, were paid by the IRS cash equal to 10% of federal individual income taxes on net.

That means altogether the bottom 60% of income earners, which includes the middle class, paid less than 0% of total federal individual income taxes as a group on net. Instead, as a group, they received net cash payments from the IRS on net.

Ignorant or Lying?
The Obama campaign continues its Calculated Deception in saturating the Internet with advertising alleging that Mitt Romney’s “tax plan” would raise taxes on the middle class and working families. Not only has Romney proposed no such thing. House Republicans have already voted for Rep. Paul Ryan’s tax reform plan that would cut the federal income tax rate for all families earning less than $100,000 to 10%, and Romney has endorsed that as well.

Indeed, the whole history of Republican tax policy going back to Reagan is that Republicans have never raised income taxes on the middle class and working people. Quite to the country, Reagan and his Republicans abolished federal income taxes on what the Left calls the working class, and almost abolished them for the middle class, as the official data discussed above shows.

That began with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which grew out of then Governor Ronald Reagan’s famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972, where he proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare, with the credit serving as a way to offset payroll taxes for the poor and low income workers. As President, Reagan cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%. He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing working people into higher tax brackets.

In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan reduced the federal income tax rate for middle and lower income families all the way down to 15%. That Act also doubled the personal exemption, shielding a higher proportion of income from taxation for lower income workers than for higher income workers.

Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that also reduced the tax liabilities of lower income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income taxes could still get the full credit. Bush also adopted a new lower tax bracket for the lowest income workers of 10%, reducing their federal income tax rate by 33%.

That is how we reached the point by 2007 where the bottom 40%, or even 60%, of income earners as a group on net were being paid by the federal income tax code instead of paying federal income taxes. So when then candidate Obama said in 2008 that Republicans cut taxes for the rich, but haven’t “given a break to folks who make less,” was he ignorant or lying?

Obama’s lying allegation regarding Romney flies in the face of that reality. Rather, it is Obama who has raised taxes on the middle class, in gross violation of his 2008 campaign pledge not to do so. That has been held, in fact, by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the individual mandate in Obamacare is constitutional precisely because it is a tax. And that individual mandate tax applies to the middle class, and working people. Moreover, Obamacare includes several other tax increases that apply to the middle class, and working people, such as the new tax on medical devices, the new tax on health insurance, the new tax on prescription drugs, and others.

Blame Obama on the Democrat Party
The Obama campaign is trailblazing new realms of dishonesty in the history of American politics, bringing to America for the first time Soviet-style propaganda that flies in the direct face of reality, buttressed by dishonest, party-controlled media operations. Moreover, it is a classically abusive Saul Alinsky trick to accuse your opponent of planning to do exactly what you have done, as Obama does in continually accusing Romney of proposing to raise taxes on the middle class. Only an idiot can fail to see that the entire Democrat party’s spending plansrequire sweeping tax increases on the middle class.

The bottom line is that the entire Democrat party needs to be held responsible for Obama, the abusive dishonesty of his campaign operation, and the accelerating downward spiral of America his neo-Marxist policies are producing. Those policies in fact are not unique to Obama, but represent the heart and soul of today’s Democrat party. This is a Paul Revere moment for the American people. The only way to save your country is for each of you to rally your friends, neighbors, and relatives this fall to come out in force and defeat the entire Democrat party root and branch.

More reading:

Class Warfare: Sequestration Edition


Powerline Blog

Just Open Up Your Eyes And Look – 65 Signs That The Economic Collapse Is Already Happening

The Economic Collapse Blog