As an illustration of the difference between Democratic words and deeds, take a look at the two charts in the post. In the first, we see the Administration’s projection of the unemployment rate with their recovery plan (AKA “stimulus”) (darker line) and without (lighter line). The red line represents the actual unemployment figures since that the President signed the Democratic proposal. Unemployment is “now higher than the White House forecast it would have been without any stimulus at all.”
We’ve posted the next chart before. As has Glenn Reynolds (on multiple occasions). He challenges “Obama shills to explain why — if the Bush spending was so bad — the much-bigger Obama spending isn’t much worse.”
I just had an idea. I think I’m the first to come up with it. Since National Socialism is the order of the day under Obama, why don’t we national-socialize another one-seventh of the economy – namely, health care – and see what that does to spending, and to health care, and to people’s jobs and lives? Oops, I’m not the first to think of it. Bismarck, Hitler, Obama, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid and certain GP commentors have beaten me to it.
The spending under Bush was so bad because it was on the WRONG things!
The excess spending under Bush was on Democratic programs that he supported in an effort to work with those across the aisle.
And the Dems took the programs, belittled them for not being enough, continued to demonize and ridicule him, and ultimately hated those Dem programs as much as they ever hated any Republican program.
(Wanna really PO a Dem? Start talking about how much you dislike Ted Kennedy’s NCLB. They absolutely froth.)
Thanks for the new chart on top GPW. Obamas red unemployment line looks like a NASA launch. But there are serious consequences….the millions unemployed, pained, hungry children. The media and the Democrats belittle them. Saying “things are turning around”. Huh? They are so out of touch. Uncaring morons.
Mark Levin mentioned some Bureau of Labor stats the other day that included people who are under-employed: those who are want full time jobs but can find only part time jobs. If you include these numbers, the rate is above 16%.
If you were to include those who are working full time in jobs that pay far less than what they were earning (e.g. laid off aviation worker now working full time at 7-11), there’s no telling what the number is.
Levin’s show notes cite this:
http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/06/08/unemployment-numbers-may-be-worse-than-you-think/
…and people around the world are suffering as well.
But what everyone needs to keep in mind, Gene, is that this is just a small fraction of the economic suffering liberals want to inflict on the world.
Remember, Obama hates that we are only 5% of the worlds population, yet supposedly use 20% of the world’s resources. Liberals hate consumerism. They want us to “reduce, reuse, and recycle”. They encourage everyone to do with less.
…which is exactly what is happening. people around the world are going hungry, becoming homeless, being thrust back into the poverty they escaped because people have cut back.
increasing poverty, hunger, homelessness and suffering is EXACTLY what liberalism MEANS.
not to mention how ANTI-progress, progressives really are.
I couldn’t do it. The New York Times had a front page article showing that the deficits are mostly due to Bush and not Obama. I could not bring myself to read how they constructed this front page above the fold fairy tale.
The point is: Who you going to believe? Hope and change or your lying eyes and cold, hard, verified statistics.
The latest Obamagasm is that we must rush into national health care before health care free of government control wrecks the economy. Not that Social Security and Medicare are not unsustainable NOW. Heck, if we add national health care to the mix it will cure the other problems in a wink. Hope and change. They are powerful potions. As long as you keep the Jews from messing them up. Gotta watch those Jews. Reverend Wright himself has said so.
The NYT cited most of the rise in unemployment and deficiets were because of decisions made the past 10 years. One of which was the Republican senior RX drug benefit. Which liberals and the NYT at the time railed against for NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH! The hypocrisey on the left is amazing.
Then when it goes for a roll onto it’s back and heads out over the Atlantic, we’re really screwed.
Guess the NYT didn’t read the election returnsn of 2006 nor the Constitution. Democrats won a majority back then & that august document gives that branch of government the power of the purse; the deficit started exploding when Democrats took charge.
Still, amazing that the Times repeats the tired trope of the left, that it’s all Bush’s fault.
One problem with the budget deficit spending projection chart is it assumes come 2012 Obama will still be in office and Dems still holding the Congress. That might not be true if Dems do over here what Labour did over in UK, after twelve long terrible years of mismanagement of every type conceivable, producing the first Soft Totalitarian State ranking #5 in loss of individual liberties (only North Korea and a few others were more intolerant, aka politically correct to the extreme) and the recent expense report scandal finally blowing them out of the water.
(Actually, they are now at the point of indoctrination of child-domestic spies of ages 7 y/o and up, trained to trust nobody and constantly turn into authority anyone not following the Nanny State rulebook – and it’s a thick long rulebook too – 3,000+ Nanny laws – I hope Dems don’t do the same over here, but they might.)
If the Dems push too hard for socialism over here, it might just blow up in their faces come 2012 as it did in UK – even EU moved center-right this time with a lot of anti-EU sentiment building up over too much centralized control in Europe – 24 bureaucrats in an inner-circle appointed by higher-up-political-elites to dictate laws to MEPs who run back to home countries, sucking the sovereignty out of them along with basic constitutional guarantees, which is why the European and UK socialist experiment of the last decade is running into a brick wall currently. The same might happen here in time. US is actually behind the times and rushing into what the UK and Europeans are starting to come out from under.
So the chart may be nice, but it depends on come 2012, if they still manage to hold office. The movement overseas is moving very much against the socialist parties, Labour in UK might even have died this time around, completely.
And with Pelosi last month lip-locked (literally and grossly) with the most-hated Gordon Brown, PM of UK in the international press photo that went around the world, one of the gorriest most horrid photos ever taken in fact – they both looked wretched, it goes to show they are very close to one another (Dems/Labour), over here as they are (“were” by this point) over there.
The biased BBC in UK is not much different than the overly-liberal MSNBC, CNN, CBS, etc. over here (propaganda artists in other words), in failing to make clear what just happened to UK and are still trying to hide Labour’s faults – but the facts are quite clear if one sees the election results, reads the blogs, sees how Labour fell out of power completely, lost all respect except with a tiny little core of left-wing radicals – again, the same here possibly by 2012 if (well not “if” as they’ve already crossed the “if” line) but when they go too far down the socialist path, Dems and Obama/Pelosi/Clinton/Geithner/etal. might meet rejection at the voting booths.
As for this idea about health care costs rising – the pharmaceutical giants have infected the governments at all levels, DC included and with Lautenberg, others, fully on their payroll (as well as Obama appointments of paid lobbyists to CDC, HHS, other health related departments and positions of high authority) – what is going to keep getting swept under the table and maintained transparent in the propaganda rags passing as newspapers these days is the amount of pure total profit-making being done by pharmaceuticals – some of these drugs in the range of 30,000x mark-up over cost, even after taking research costs into account.
That plus proliferation of TV drug advertising creating artifical needs for drugs not always necessary, driving demand from the consumer instead at doctor level, is really adding to the cost of health, or is it fake-“health” in relation to some of what the pharma-industrial-complex hatches up and then sells at a gazillion-times mark-up.
(I mean really, are thinning eyebrows legitimately a “disease” now “needing” expensive Rx, yet such a drug is being advertised and promoted for that “disease”. Viagra, a “need” thus driving up costs. Take that attitude in general then spread it across the entire line and certainly there are health care costs and then there are “health care costs” of a more dubious nature – and having direct monthly money transfers, from taxpayers to bureaucrats into pharmaceuticals, it will be as obscure and unaudited as to what is being spent on need, versus “need” – as much so as the Federal Reserve is obscure in regard to their goings on – which of lately, the Fed apparently misplaced several hundred million dollars and can’t account for it, found in one of the more obscure news sources last month.)
A national health care didn’t work well in Canada and in England their NHS gets nothing but constant complaints for lack of service and sheer bureaucracy trying to get any decent care in a timely manner at all.
Once they implement the NHS over here, it will be the government “owning” our bodies at that point, failure to vaccinate, even if you don’t believe, want or feel a need for some of them – and some of the vaccines are questionable as to safety – it won’t matter – Government Says So will be the name of the game with our own bodies once we go down that road – the ultimate socialist control – our bodies.
May as well stick the microchip implant in us by that time and mark us for the anti-christ, because when it gets that far along will be too late to vote them out – all elections cancelled by then – too late.
I may be speaking a little facetiously tonight, but just wanted to have a go at it too.
Thanks.