(*WINCE*)
Yep. Two 8th grade Catholic School graduation parties this weekend - one for my little buddy Kevin Jimick and one for my little sweetie Maddie Bonsignoire.
Beer at the Jimick function... wine at the Bonsignoire soiree... good times at both!
Luckily for me... lots of water to go with lots of... er... not water.
(*WINK*)
4 comments:
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/
* YOU'VE GOTTA READ THIS, FOLKS; I'M BEGGIN' YA!
The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality.
Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”
Peggy Noonan aptly summarized in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal the take away...of Americans living in the real world: "[W]hy would he go out there waiving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That’s more alarming, isn’t it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.”
Rest assured, Ms. Noonan, that the President is not as nuts as he may seem at times. He knows very well that he is not a careful spender. His whole mission is to transform the U.S. not into a Big Government country, but a Huge Government country, because only a country run by a Huge Government can be satisfactorily controlled by superior, all wise and beneficent individuals like himself.
The analysis by Internet commentator Rex Nutting (on which Obama based his claim) begins by telling us “What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress.”
Not exactly.
The previous administration, or President, proposes a budget. The previous Congress approves a budget. And what Congress approves can be radically different from what the President proposes.
As Art Laffer and Steve Moore showed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, President Bush began a spending spree in his term that erased most of the gains in reduced government spending as a percent of GDP achieved by the Republican Congress in the 1990s led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, in conjunction with President Clinton.
* NOTE: "LED BY FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH." FOLKS... I TOLD YOU THEN AND I'LL REPEAT IT NOW... THE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT DESTROYED GINGRICH EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT AS PRESIDENT HE'D ATTEMPT TO RECREATE THE ECONOMIC SUCCESSES OF HIS TIME AS SPEAKER! UNDERSTAND, FOLKS... THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT IS NOT THE PARTY OF SMALL GOVERNMENT - THEY'RE SIMPLY THE PARTY OF "SMALLER" GOVERNMENT AS COMPARED TO THE RADICAL DEMOCRATS!
[F]or fiscal year 2009, President Bush in February, 2008 proposed a budget with just a 3% spending increase over the prior year. Fiscal year 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. President Obama’s term began on January 20, 2009.
Recall, however, that in 2008 Congress was controlled by Democrat majorities, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House... As Hans Bader reported on May 26 for the Washington Examiner, the budget approved and implemented by Pelosi, [then-Senator] Obama and the rest of the Congressional Democrat majorities provided for a 17.9% increase in spending for fiscal 2009!
* FOLKS... PLEASE... RE-READ THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH! POINT OUT THESE FACTS TO YOUR FRIENDS, RELATIVES, ASSOCIATES...
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Actually, President Obama and the Democrats were even more deeply involved in the fiscal 2009 spending explosion than that. As Bader also reports, “The Democrat Congress [in 2008], confident Obama was going to win in 2008, passed only three of fiscal 2009’s 12 appropriations bills (Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security). The Democrat Congress passed the rest of them [in 2009], and [President] Obama signed them.”
[President] Obama played a very direct role in the runaway fiscal 2009 spending explosion[!]
* LET'S GO DEEPER INTO HISTORY... TO 1981:
Note as well that President Reagan didn’t just go along with the wild spending binge of the previous Democratic Congress for fiscal year 1981 when he came into office on January 20 of that year. Almost no one remembers now the much vilified at the time 1981 Reagan budget cuts, his first major legislative initiative. Then Democrat Rep. Phil Gramm joined with Ohio Republican Del Latta to push through the Democratic House $31 billion in Reagan proposed budget cuts to the fiscal year 1981 budget, which totaled $681 billion, resulting in a cut of nearly 5% in that budget.
Obama could have done the exact same thing when he entered office in January, 2009, even more so with the Congress totally controlled by his own party at the time[!]
Reagan then ramped up the [domestic/entitlement] spending cuts from there. In nominal terms, non-defense discretionary spending actually declined by 7.1% from 1981 to 1982. But roaring inflation at the time actually masks the true magnitude of the Reagan spending cut achievement. In constant dollars, non-defense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this non-defense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms!
By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars[!]
Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which, remember, won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending as a percent of GDP declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%, a huge achievement.
In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point. ... Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.
* FOLKS... AGAIN... I'M BEGGING YOU - READ THE FULL ARTICLE! IT'S CHOCK FULL OF INFO!
TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 OF 2)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/07/the-ongoing-disgrace-that-is-obamanomics/
President Obama has led America into an accelerating downward spiral. Destination: Argentina. Last Friday’s calamitous jobs report was just a signpost on the way.
Argentina enjoyed the world’s fourth highest per capita GDP in 1929, on par with the U.S. at the time. But then the nation lost its way through its embrace of a leftist, union allied government, which took control of the economy and imposed wildly irresponsible taxes, spending, deficits and debt. After World War II, the hugely popular Juan Peron came to power and institutionalized the madness. It has been all downhill for Argentina ever since. Sound familiar?
(*SIGH*)
Today, Argentina ranks 53rd in the world in per capita GDP according to the International Monetary Fund... (But its national debt at 51% of GDP is actually less than that of the United States under the Obama Administration, where we are rocketing towards 70% of GDP by the end of this year, and 200% in 25 years, according to CBO.)
Friday’s jobs report shows Obama’s Juan Peron trend. While a measly 69,000 jobs were created in May, the report adjusted downward the jobs created in March and April by 49,000, leaving actually only 20,000 new jobs on net. The number of jobs created has declined every month this year.
While Obama and his propagandists claim 27 consecutive months of job growth, employment growth is the norm and not the exception for the American economy. In the 62 years from the end of World War II in 1945 until 2008, jobs grew in 640 out of 744 months.
(But Obama and his propagandists think you are too stupid to know the country you live in. They know at least their MSNBC base will believe them.)
Reagan’s recovery produced job growth in 81 out of its first 82 months, with 20 million new jobs created in those first 7 years alone, increasing the civilian work force at the time by 20%.
Compare that to the disgrace of Obamanomics.
While Obama likes to claim 4.3 million new jobs created, total jobs by May, 2012 were still over half a million less than in January, 2009 when he entered office.
Even George Bush oversaw 52 consecutive months of job growth, including 8 million new jobs created after his 2003 capital gains and dividends tax rate cuts became effective (which Obama is dedicated to reversing).
[O]ver 23 million Americans [are] still [numbered] in the army of the unemployed or underemployed. [N]ot only did the headline unemployment rate rise last month to 8.2%, the total U6 unemployment rate including the unemployed and underemployed jumped to nearly 15%. All this 53 months after the last recession started, and 35 months after the recession supposedly ended in June, 2009.
Real economic growth for all of last year was a measly 1.7%. The first quarter of this year was just revised back downward to 1.9%. (By contrast, by just the second full year of the Reagan recovery, the economy boomed with real economic growth of nearly 7%, the highest in 50 years.)
Because of Obama’s continued stagnation, the number of long term unemployed for more than 6 months also rose in May from 5.1 million to 5.4 million. They now represent 42% of the unemployed, the highest since the Great Depression.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING...
(Obama barnstorming the nation continues to mislead audiences by saying, “manufacturing is hiring at its fastest pace since the 1990s.” But the BLS reported last Friday that manufacturing jobs increased by all of 12,000 in May, after increasing by all of 9,000 in April, none of which is even worth mentioning. The truth is you can’t believe a word of what the man says, because he thinks you are as disconnected from the real world as he is, and so can be easily deceived.)
[O]nly 58% of the civilian working age population is working, the lowest since the late 1970s. Investors Business Daily reports that the rate of new business start-ups, historically the source of most new jobs, has plunged to an all time low of 7.87% of all businesses. These are the reasons why over half of recent college graduates under 25 are jobless or underemployed, and 3 in 10 young adults can’t find jobs and live with their parents, the highest since the 1950s. Obama’s campaign slogan is “Forward,” but under his misleadership America is hurtling backward to the past, like Argentina under Peron.
[W]e know Obama loves the poor, because his policies are creating so many of them. Unemployment for African Americans under Obama has been well into depression level double digits for his entire term, remaining today still at 13.6%. Black teenagers continue to suffer depression unemployment at 37%. Hispanics too have suffered long term double digit unemployment under Obama, still stuck at 11% in May. Census reports that almost 1 in 6 Americans is poor, higher than when the War on Poverty started in 1965, with 49.1 million Americans suffering poverty, the highest in the 51 years ... The 45 million Americans on food stamps is also an all-time record.
Hispanic poverty at 28.2% is higher than African-American poverty at 25.4% for the first time ever.
African American home-ownership under Obama has fallen 30 percentage points below white home ownership, the biggest difference in 20 years, and one of the biggest on record.
[T]he national home ownership rate at 65.4% is the lowest in 15 years.
An all time record of 47% of Americans are now government dependents receiving some form of government benefits. Yet virtually half of all Americans (49.5%) pay no income tax.
This sorry record is the disgrace of Obamanomics. But the greater disgrace is that Obama came into office pretending not to know anything about the spectacular success of the new supply side economics since Reagan adopted it in 1981. Instead he went all the way back to the failed Keynesian economics of the 1970s that Reagan and all other thinking people left for dead when it managed to create both double digit unemployment and double digit inflation at the same time.
This is why there has been no real recovery from the recession under Obama. He should have known that would be the result, since Keynesian economics is not only illogical, but has never worked, in the U.S. during the depression and since, or anywhere else in the world. But Obama’s foolish pursuit of Keynesian policies is why federal spending under his Administration has been the highest since World War II, as documented by CBO and Obama’s own budgets.
[W]hat drives economic recovery and growth is not government spending, deficits and debt, but incentives for productive activities, like savings, investment, expanding businesses, starting new businesses, job creation and entrepreneurship. Those incentives come from reduced tax rates (not tax credits and deductions), reduced regulatory costs and barriers, and stable, sound money.
These are the policies of the supply side economics of Reaganomics, which achieved the supposed impossible in solving double digit inflation and double digit unemployment at the same time.
Post a Comment