My Substitute Reality -You're just jealous cause the little voices only talk to me-

Here’s one for you to ponder.

Why did Obama put off the Obamacare Employer Mandate until after next year’s election?  You don’t think it could have anything to do with how screwed up this year’s Individual Mandate is do you?  You don’t think it could be because 50 MILLION people are likely going to lose their healthcare plans instead of just 6 MILLION that have lost theirs so far under the Individual Mandate do you?

It couldn’t be because Obama and his cronies, Nancy P and Harry R realize if they do it before the election they would not only lose the house and senate but there would likely be a Republican Super Majority in both could it?

The Democrats are worried and they have good reason to be.  The ACA is the biggest piece of one-sided crap that’s ever been foisted on the American public and the American public is realizing it.  At least the ones that aren’t sheep.

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

Politifact .com has called that the lie of the year.

I know how Daryl loves Politifact and how much he loves to show how I’m always wrong when I say Obama is doing something or saying something that Daryl is sure he hasn’t done or said.

I wonder if I’ll get an apology?

Probably not.

This person expressed his opinion on liberal America so well that I had to borrow it.  You can see his whole blog here.

“This essay is a bit of departure from my usually reasonable and logical approach to important issues.  That’s not to say that the essay isn’t well-reasoned and is bereft of logical argumentation, but I freely admit that it’s polemical, in nature.  Sometimes you’re just pissed, and you need to vent.  Here’s my vent…

Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically.  No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers.  I know that you’ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.

Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to.  If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears.  If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you.  If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at.  If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy.  If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading.  Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.

First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think.  Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government.  As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.

Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation.  You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor.  The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem — it’s our attitude towards the solution.  We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved.  For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began.  You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away.  We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,

Government is not the solution to our problems;  government is the problem.

Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are.  While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect.  However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service.  There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.

Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda.  First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”.  In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress.  What is the ideal towards which you are striving?  An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away.  So, what is your ideal society?

Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy.  The rights that FDR cited are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you?  What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated?  These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”

I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America.  After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right?  Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human?  Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.

If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list — none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being.  Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else.  Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens.  Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone.  A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet — and it is unconditional.

FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”.  It’s a list of demands.  If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me?  If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me?  If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?

You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursuethose things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he?  If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not?  Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.

You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy.  It’s quite simple — your political beliefs are a threat to liberty — not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well.  I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.

How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask?  In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents.  If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you.  If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.

The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish.  You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom.  If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity.  If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally.  If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.

However, you cannot say the same for liberalism.  If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea — you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor.  If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket — you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.  You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs.  You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens.  Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty — it’s an axiomatic truth.

What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur.  You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi.  Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.

I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom.  What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.

I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:

“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation.  In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up.  You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else.  In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

In your society, I don’t have the same freedom.  If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders.  In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it — why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become — the harder I will fight you.  It’s nothing personal, necessarily.  If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest.  But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.”

Here’s another post from my buddy Grouchy Old Cripple.  He calls em like he sees em and I agree with everything he says here.

http://grouchyoldcripple.com/2013/11/new-eupemism/

“Remember how the LSM had to make up a new demographic, “white Hispanic” to brand George Zimmerman a white racist in the St. Trayvon of Skittles circus? Yeah. Me too. Now, the New York Slimes (motto: All the news that fits our views) has made up a new euphemism for lie. It’s called an “incorrect promise”. (Thanks to Roger in the comments for alerting me to this.) That’s how they are defending Jug Hussein Ears Downgrade’s promise that Americans could keep their doctors and their health plans if they liked them, period. No asterisk. No caveats. Period! He was not lying to us. He was just making an incorrect promise to us. Get it? Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink. They must think we’ll believe anything and why not. We elected and reelected someone to the highest office in the land who is woefully incompetent and was totally unprepared to govern even though Valerie Jarrett said they were ready “to rule from day one”. All he’s good at is campaigning and reading words someone else has written for him off a TelePrompTer.

So now that the Dimocrats have seen what a disaster Obummercare is they’re running away from it. There’s panic in the ranks. It’s like someone has turned on the lights and the cockroaches are scurrying for cover.

Ted Cruz was right. Mike Lee was right. Mitt Romney was right. Paul Ryan was right. The Republican Party was right. No Republicans voted for this job killing and healthcare destroying bill. It was rammed down the throats of the American people in the dead of night and was passed using legislative tricks. I was right. The Tea Party was right. The right side of the Blogosphere was right. The only people wrong were Obungler, Dimocrats, the LSM, and liberals progressives and rat bastard commies. How do like Obummercare now America? How do you like the Obamessiah? How’s that hopey changey stuff working out for you? Sarah Palin was right. Now that really has to hurt you Obumbler minions! Sarah Palin was right and Oblunder, Plugs, exSpeaker Blinky, and Horrible Harry were wrong.

Just wait. Even though Ditzy Debbie Whatshername Sluts think Dimocrats will win running on Obummercare next year, most of her party doesn’t and I hear that Obeavis has delayed still more of Obummercare until after the 2014 election.

So now we’re gonna have Dimocrats running to “fix” Obummercare. Got that? Fix it. Not repeal it but fix it. The only fix that will work is to scrap the whole thing and start all over from scratch and actually draft a bipartisan bill and a bill that we won’t have to “pass it so we can find out what’s in it”. We need to see what’s in it before we pass it. (Stuff like this is why we shouldn’t elect booger eatin’ moh-rons to Congress) We need to do this in the open (like Obutthead said when he made the “incorrect promise” that that was what he would do with all legislation. He obviously specializes in incorrect promises) and not behind closed doors. We need a bill that the American people will support, not one that they are against.

Unfortunately, the American electorate is made up of idiots. I have made this prediction before. Mary Landreiu, Mark Pryor, and the rest of the red state Dimocrats are running away from Obummercare. They voted for it. They own it. Now, they’re gonna tell their constituents that they’re gonna fix it. It’s sad to say that the American electoate is dumb enough to believe this bullshit. I’m predicting here that five of the ten red state Dimocrat senators running for reelection will be reelected. No. I have no faith in the American electorate. Exhibit A? Obeauzeau.

We’re doomed!”

Here’s a great article from Forbes that really answer the question “Is Obama’s recovery really a good one?”

Well, the article really asks if Obama could be our worst president but I think that’s a given by now.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/02/economically-could-obama-be-americas-worst-president/

“The recession ended four years ago, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. So Obamanomics has had plenty of time to produce a solid recovery. In fact, since the American historical record is the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery, Obama should have had an easy time producing a booming recovery by now.

Obama likes to tout that we are doing better now than at the worst of the recession. But every recovery is better than the recession, by definition. So that doesn’t mean much.

The right measure and comparison for Obama’s record is not to compare the recovery to the recession, but to compare Obama’s recovery with other recoveries from other recessions since the Great Depression. By that measure, what is clear is that Obamanomics has produced the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression, worse than what every other President who has faced a recession has achieved since the Great Depression.

In the 10 previous recessions since the Great Depression, prior to this last recession, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession after an average of 25 months after the prior jobs peak (when the recession began), according to the records kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So the job effects of prior post Depression recessions have lasted an average of about 2 years. But under President Obama, by April, 2013, 64 months after the prior jobs peak, almost 5½ years, we still have not recovered all of the recession’s job losses. In April, 2013, there were an estimated 135.474 million American workers employed, still down about 2.6 million jobs from the prior peak of 138.056 million in January, 2008.

Ronald Reagan suffered a severe recession starting in 1981, which resulted from the monetary policy that broke the back of the roaring 1970s inflation. But all the job losses of that recession were recovered after 28 months, with the recovery fueled by traditional pro-growth policies. By this point in the Reagan recovery, 64 months after the recession started, jobs had grown 9.5% higher than where they were when the recession started, representing an increase of about 10 million more jobs. By contrast, in April, 2013, jobs in the Obama recovery were still about 2% below where they were when the recession started, about 2 ½ million less, or a shortfall of about 10 million jobs if you count population growth since the recession started, as discussed below.

Obama’s so-called recovery included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment above 8%, 43 months, from February, 2009, when Obama’s so-called stimulus costing nearly $1 trillion was passed, until August, 2012. It also included the longest period since the Great Depression with unemployment at 9.0% or above, 30 months, from April, 2009, until September, 2011. In fact, during the entire 65 years from January, 1948 to January, 2013, there were no months with unemployment over 8%, except for 26 months during the bitter 1981 – 1982 recession, which slayed the historic inflation of the 1970s. That is how inconsistent with the prior history of the American economy President Obama’s extended unemployment has been. That is some fundamental transformation of America.

Moreover, that U3 unemployment rate does not count the millions who have dropped out of the labor force during the recession and President Obama’s worst recovery since the Great Depression, who are not counted as unemployed because they are not considered in the work force. Even though the employment age population has increased by 12 million since the recession began, only 1 million more Americans are counted as in the labor force. With normal labor force participation rates, that implies another 7.3 million missing U.S. jobs, on top of the 2 ½ million missing jobs we are still short from when the recession began, for a total of about 10 million missing jobs.

If America enjoyed the same labor force participation rate as in 2008, the unemployment rate in December, 2012 would have been about 11%, compared to the monthly low of 4.4% in December, 2007, under President George Bush and his “failed” economic policies of the past. We will not see 4.4% unemployment again, without another fundamental transformation of America’s economic policies.

The number of unemployed in January, 2013, at the end of President Obama’s first term, was 7.7 million. Another 7.9 million were “employed part time for economic reasons.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Another 2.3 million were “marginally attached to the work force.” The BLS reports, “These individuals…wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. [But] [t]hey were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

That puts the total army of the unemployed or underemployed at nearly 18 million Americans in January, 2013. They are all counted in the BLS calculation of the U6 unemployment rate, which still totaled 13.9% that month.

But the Shadow Government Statistics website for nfl picks also includes in its “SGS Alternative Unemployment Rate” long term discouraged workers, those who wanted and were available for work for more than a year, and had looked for a job, but not in the prior 4 weeks. That is how the BLS U6 unemployment rate was calculated prior to the changes made in the early 1990s under the Clinton Administration. Including these workers as well raises the SGS unemployment rate for April, 2013 to 23%. That seems more consistent with how the economy still feels for the majority of Americans, despite Democrat Party controlled media cheerleading.

This utterly failed jobs record of Obamanomics reflects the more basic reality that the economy has not been growing under President Obama. In the 10 post depression recessions before President Obama, the economy recovered the lost GDP during the recession within an average of 4.5 quarters after the recession started. But it took Obama’s recovery 16 quarters, or 4 years, to reach that point. Today, 21 quarters, or 5 plus years, after the recession started, the economy (real GDP) has grown just 3.2% above where it was when the recession started. By sharp contrast, at this point in the Reagan recovery, the economy had boomed by 18.6%, almost one fifth.

Obama’s economic performance has even been much worse than Bush’s. Jeffrey H. Anderson, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, writes in Investors Business Daily on January 13, “Prior to Obama, the second term of President Bush featured the weakest gains in the gross domestic product in some time, with average annual (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth of just 1.9%, [according to the official stats at the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)]” But average annual real GDP growth during Obama’s entire first term was less than half as much at a pitiful 0.8%, according to the same official source.

Even Jimmy Carter produced 4 times as much economic growth during his one term as Obama did during his entire first term. In fact, as Anderson notes, real GDP growth under Obama has been the worst of any President in the last 60 years!

But it’s even worse than that. Obama’s real GDP growth has actually been less than half as much as the worst of any President in the last 60 years. In other words, even if you doubled actual GDP growth under President Obama, it would still be the worst record of any President in the last 60 years!

Anderson adds, “In fact, the real GDP in 2009 was lower than it had been three years earlier (in 2006).” That has happened only twice before in the last 100 years at least, maybe in American history. One was in 1933 and 1934, at the height of the Great Depression. The other was in 1946 – 1948, when the World War II economy was powering down.

And what happened in the years after those two experiences? From 1935 – 1937, real GDP growth reached a peak of 13.1% in one year (1936). From 1949 – 1951, real GDP growth reached a peak of 8.7% (in 1950). That reflects once again the basic principle for the American economy that the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery. That is what Obama should have produced for America. But under Obama, real GDP growth in the following years, 2010 – 2012, peaked at only 2.4% (in 2010). “[A]nd never again hit even that meager mark in the two years following ObamaCare’s passage,” Anderson adds. Yes, Obama and his sycophants really are transforming America, into a banana republic.

Even if the economy finally breaks out into some real growth during this year, that is only because of the long overdue real recovery that is still straining to break out inside this economy, as indicated by the data above for 1936, in the depths of the depression, and the postwar boom that started in 1950. That and the startling Reagan recovery from the 1970s are the standard for Obamanomics. Don’t be fooled by some way overdue short term growth spurt this year that just reflects the basic cycles of the economy. Unless the fundamentals of Obamanomics are changed, the result will be long term stagnation compared to the historic, world leading, booming economic growth of the American Dream.

In his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama said, “A growing economy that creates good, middle class jobs, that must be the North Star that guides our efforts.” But the slow growth, and negligible job creation under Obama, in turn have caused steeply declining middle class incomes. The latest numbers compiled from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey show that real median household income declined by more than $4,500 during Obama’s first term, about 8%, meaning effectively that the middle class has lost annually the equivalent of one month’s pay under Obama. Even President Bush again did better during his disastrous second term, when real median household income at least rose by 1.7%, not enough, but still positive rather than negative.

Even if you start from when the recession ended in June, 2009, the decline in median real household income since then has been greater than it was during the recession. Four years into the supposed Obama recovery, real median household income has declined nearly 6% as compared to June, 2009. That is more than twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009. As the Wall Street Journal summarized in its August 25-26, 2012 weekend edition, “For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”

Despite his rhetoric, Obama has failed to deliver for the poor as well. But we know Obama loves the poor, because he has created so many of them. Indeed, the only thing booming under Obamanomics has been poverty. Poverty has soared under Obama, with the number of Americans in poverty increasing to the highest level in the more than 50 years that the Census Bureau has been tracking poverty. Over the last 5 years, the number in poverty has increased by nearly 31%, to 49.7 million, with the poverty rate climbing by over 30% to 16.1%. This is another natural result of negligible economic growth, paltry job creation, declining real wages, and the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

These dismal results of Obamanomics have been produced because all of Obama’s economic policies are thoroughly anti-growth, indeed, the opposite of what is needed for long term booming growth. Instead of cutting tax rates, which provides incentives for increased production, Obama has been focused on raising rates. Instead of deregulation, which increases the cost of doing business, and results in barriers to productive activity (see, e.g., Keystone Pipeline), Obama has been all about increasing regulation. Instead of cutting spending, Obama entered office exploding spending during his first two years, and was only restrained when the people elected Republicans to control the House.

And instead of adopting monetary policies that would produce a stable dollar, Obama’s monetary polices have mimicked the devaluationist ones previously embraced by George W. Bush on the way to sagging investment, and with the latter, slow growth. President Obama derided Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign as proposing to bring back the same economic policies that led to the financial crisis in the first place. But it is Obama who is bringing back precisely those policies, overregulating banks to make loans on the basis of supposed fairness. Moreover, Obama’s Fed has thrown oil on the bonfire with its zero interest rate, and runaway quantitative easing policies. With those policies having been in place for years now, they are the foundation of the current economy, which is just another bubble that will pop when the Fed tries to implement any exit strategy.

Next week I will discuss why and how these misguided, Keynesian monetary policies will only lead to another, even worse financial crisis, probably during Obama’s second term, and why only fundamental monetary reform can restore America to its traditional booming, economic growth.”

His lips are moving.  Yes, I’ll be here all night.

But seriously, does the man ever tell the truth?  Remember back in 2008 when he was telling us how terrible Bush was for raising the debt to *GASP* $9 TRILLION dollars?

Well here it is just 5 short years of King Barack’s rule later and do you know what our national debt is now?  That’s right, it’s fast closing in on $17 TRILLION.  In other words he’s coming close to doubling the debt since he raged about how terrible Bush was for having it so high.

Do you remember him telling us one of his first priorities would be to balance the budget (right after he closed Gitmo on his first day in office).  What’s that you say?  Gitmo is still open?  Yes, and the budget is still not balanced.

The saddest part of this is seemingly intelligent people think Obama has it under control and actually knows what he’s doing.  That must have been what the Romans were saying too….

Here’s a good article I found on this subject.

Link
President Obama likes to say that raising the nation’s borrowing limit “won’t add a dime” to the federal debt, but he neglects to mention that the government already has borrowed the equivalent of more than 60 trillion dimes since he took office.

When Mr. Obama became president in January 2009, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion. This week, it hit $16.7 trillion — an increase of 57 percent. In the same time frame under President George W. Bush, total federal debt rose 38 percent. Under President Clinton, it rose 32 percent.

The administration says the government will run out of authority to pay its bills by Oct. 17 unless Congress raises the debt limit again to allow more borrowing. The president portrays the move as one of simple responsibility.

“It does not increase our debt,” Mr. Obama said. “It does not grow our deficits. All it does is allow the Treasury Department to pay for what Congress has already spent.”

The president rarely mentions that he, by law, approves congressional spending, and his argument glosses over the nation’s burgeoning total debt.

“It’s certainly not the whole story,” said Alex Brill, a budget specialist at the American Enterprise Institute. “We’ve seen a dramatic increase in the debt held by the public in the last four or five years, and it’s projected to only get worse.”

On Oct. 4, the debt held by the public — not including Social Security and Medicare — had risen 89.3 percent since Mr. Obama took office, according to FactCheck.org, a nonprofit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The administration recently projected an annual deficit of $750 billion in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 and $626 billion the year after that.

“At that rate, the debt owed to the public will more than double during the Obama presidency,” FactCheck said in its quarterly statistical report on Mr. Obama’s tenure in office.

Many Republican lawmakers say that is the reason spending cuts and entitlement reform should be part of the discussion to raise the debt limit.

“We are in trouble financially,” Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, said Tuesday. “We are $30 trillion in the hole, plus another $17 trillion in debt. Wouldn’t it be smart if we started addressing that problem before we blankly allow an increase in the level of the credit card?”

Mr. Obama said he won’t talk about long-term budget issues until Republicans agree to reopen the government and raise the debt limit without conditions.

The office of House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Wednesday that linking spending reforms to increases in the debt limit is “common, bipartisan practice.” The Republican leadership pointed to a Congressional Research Service report last month that said Congress has used debt-limit laws to change fiscal policy 20 times since 1917. In that same 96-year span, the nation’s debt limit has been raised 103 times.

In the increasingly contentious showdown with Congress, Mr. Obama also is fond of pointing out that budget deficits — the annual red ink that contributes to the total debt — have been falling at the fastest pace in 60 years. That’s true largely because spending rose dramatically in his first term as the administration tried to blunt the impact of the Great Recession.

Although a “grand bargain” on spending and entitlements eluded the president and congressional Republicans in 2011, Mr. Brill said, it is the kind of approach still needed to get the debt under control.

“It’s logical and appropriate what we’re hearing from many Republicans that we need to not only deal with the debt limit itself but we need to deal with the underlying cause of this pressure to increase the debt,” he said. “That means we need to deal with entitlements.”