SearchSearch using pMachine
You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life - Albert Camus
Monday, August 23, 2010
The numbers don’t add up…
I just got back from a week of vacation where I played US government - I spent way too much money on feel good stuff that yield no actual benefits - and am now because of the time off, busier than a one legged man at an arse kicking contest now at work. But I felt I had to address something that came up during a conversation I had, with a bunch of obvious liberal morons defending the disastrous collectivist policies of the last decade that have reached new limits under demcorat and Obama control, when they blamed Bush and the Iraqi war for anything from $3-$5 trillion in deficits spending. The numbers widely varied apparently even for them, but I was stumped as to why they would be pulling these ridiculous numbers up until I realized the left still wants to make believe that the deficit spending is because of the Iraq wars and defense spending, and not because of the massive growth in wasteful collectivist spending by government.
And lo and behold, it seems that the CBO in this document provides the needed information to break down the facts, and thus, like a someone using a holy symbol or water on a vampire, cause the liberal morons pushing this idiotic meme to scramble for cover. See according to the CBO, the Iraqi war, which I might point out ended in a win just this past week when, on paper at least, the last combat unit left the country, and I must say despite the efforts of so many on the left to force a loss, cost some $709 billion dollars for the duration. In fact, one quick look at the details in the above mentioned document and the numbers in these other CBO documents provides everything needed to create a real nice picture to illustrate the deficit spending from 2003 to this year. A must for your typical factually challenged leftard to see:
The telling numbers, other than the fact that any deficit spending attributed to the cost of the Iraq war are small at best, and all things considered insignificant in the overall deficit spending picture, are the numbers for the last 2 years, where deficit spending skyrocketed. The numbers don’t lie. The total deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost - $706 billion according to the CBO - and you still have the unbelievable sum of $4.02 trillion to account for!
Your average and predictable lib will then just move the goal post, like the people I was talking to did, and tell you that the massive increase of deficit spending since Obama took office and the demcorats ended up in complete control of both the White House and Congress, was to fix all the stuff the Bush broke. Including the trillions wasted on what they feel was a stupid war in Iraq, despite the fact that those numbers are bullshit.
Let’s just forget the illogic in trying to blame the cost of the war for the deficit when anyone willing to do the research, as I showed, can quickly find out that the economic crisis was a product of a combination of idiotic government mandated lending practices and the subsequent need for a massive scam, centered on Fannie and Freddie, to make the stinking heap of bad loans palatable to investors. While Wall Street also should share in the blame, their fault lies with going along with these stupid collectivist policies instead of shutting down the spigot and letting government choke on these idiotic anti-market and anti-reality policies.
Of course, as soon as I pointed the above out, the factually challenged libs I was talking to switched to the other two booggie-boos often touted, Afghanistan and the Bush tax cuts, as the culprits. Unfortunately for them, the numbers in this graph clearly show these two also seem to have really made no big impact on deficit spending, as the numbers for 2003 to 2007 when both were going on show, while not even adding up to the deficit spending for either 2009 or 2010. There is simply no denying that spending went bonkers after 2007, and we all know what happened in 2006, and 2008, respectively. And Bush was long gone when the donkey decided to flush close to $1 trillion – more than the $706 billion for the 7 year old Iraqi war- down the toilet in that patronage bill that served to only pay off demcorat interests and keep public servants living large while the private sector was hammered by the economic policies and regulations of these collectivists.
In fact, there are several social program outlays during the Bush years that far exceed the cost of the Iraqi war during the same period. Federal outlays on defense as a percentage of GDP under Bush were 4%. And one might be inclined to think higher defense spending numbers might be a good thing when you compare to the roaring 60s and 70s when defense spending was closer to 9% of GDP and the economy was booming to the anemic and moribund economy we now have the pleasure of enduring because of the defense hating collectivist running the country. Numbers, facts, and logic make the lib’s weak and emotion based arguments about what really is causing our massive deficits easy to defeat.
Suffice it to say that when I was done pointing out the real numbers to them, these libs all hated my guts for making them look like idiots. I am certain they also completely ignored the facts I showed them and like the politicians that represent them, will continue to run the same tired lines, hoping to fool as many as possible. After all, way too many people don’t have the time to go figure the truth out, and the Lame Stream Media will certainly not do so for them either, so they can get away with these lies. In the mean time, we will never address the real issue while these people can so freely fabricate the history they want to suit their own disruptive and destructive goals.
We are here today because collectivists refuse to accept the fact that there isn’t enough wealth in the world to give everyone everything for free. Consequently what we end up with when we let their economic and social policies run wild is what they had in the USSR: everyone equally miserable and poor. But to these social justice idiots, that’s better than having some guy that works hard get rich while they don’t.
Update: Looks like the left blaming the costs of the Iraq war and evil Boosh for the deficit spending on their watch has been doing a lot of rounds as is the research by Hoven’s research and graph I used to easily disprove this lie. Considering that just Obama’s stimulus/patronage bill cost more than the expenditures on Iraq so far, and we have not seen the impact of the most massive government infringement on our freedoms in the healthcare take-over Congress pulled, I bet you they are going to get slammed if they keep this idiotic stuff up. The rebuttal is going viral as I expected it would. No, the problem ins’t that the recession is forcing government to spend more at the same time that tax receipts are drastically down: it’s that government is spending way, way more than we can afford, period. The problem is the stupid collectivist policies and economics, and don’t let the liars try to tell you otherwise.Close this post...
Posted by AlexinCT on 08/23/10 at 12:44 PM in Deep Thoughts Elections Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2010 Left Wing Idiocy Politics Law, & Economics The Press Machine War on Terror/Axis of Evil • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Campaign promises, fiscal responsibility, debt, ethical scandals, and hope and change
Democrats ran and won in 2006, and then again in 2008, on the bad behavior of republicans. Republicans were successfully and correctly painted as having lost their fiscal sanity for the deficit spending prior to 2006, only to have democrats gain control of congress and the spending purse after the 2006 elections, and set new spending records they then blamed Bush for. The leftwing machine’s manipulations of the facts, with big-time help from a complicit media that didn’t point out democrats were always worse at that stuff anyway when in charge, allowed them to run on the lack of fiscal responsibility of the republicans in 2008 again, using the crisis of their own making that they then blamed on Bush yet again, to win big, only to then proceed to set new deficit spending records. Here is the graph for those of you that want to dispute the deficit spending facts, so spare us the bull:
As this projection showed Obama’s deficit spending in his first year ended up being more than all 8 years of Bush. Oh sure, as I already pointed out Obama is blaming Bush for having to do so. Democrats have successfully convinced so many that the financial crisis we are in isn’t tied to those idiotic collectivist economic lending practices they forced upon the market in the last 3 decades. Even worse, they successfully have covered up the rigged games Franks and Dodd set up with Fannie and Freddie to keep those faulty economic policies afloat, and how those trading scams then led to the implosion of the housing market and then the financial sector. But that “It’s Bush’s fault” excuse is wearing thin as people are slowly seeing the truth. Almost $2 trillion of the tax payer’s dollars has been funneled to democrats and their friends, through one collectivist economic scam or another promising salvation, but delivering nothing but a drastically growing government bureaucracy, while the private sector continues to bleed jobs and contract. And the WH remains focused on tacking on trillions more in new taxes and debt so they can give government control of healthcare moneys and decisions, with a scam which purports to reign in costs and be fiscally responsible by of all things taxing us for 10 years to provide 5 or 6 years of coverage, while ignoring the economic disaster they are leaving in their wake. And the one thing they should be addressing, the lack of jobs, gets nothing but some meaningless political play. In the mean time the hole is growing deeper and the spending of money we simply don’t have continues to rise. This year is looking like it will set even higher and wasteful deficit spending records as this February’s $220.9 billion single month record is showing. This seems to be our economic future thanks to the democrats and their economics. But the fact that democrats are destroying our economy, and are trying hard to destroy healthcare, is not the thing I want to address here. I want to talk a bit about one of the other lies they told to get themselves elected.
If you have been following the whole Eric Massa fiasco, you know this stuff has turned into a soap opera writ large. Frankly I do not know if Massa is telling the truth. He is a democrat after all, and lying is second nature for them. However, I do not put it past this WH to do what Massa has accused them of doing either. Based on what I have seen them do in just this first year, I have no doubt that this bunch is probably the most corrupt crew I have ever seen. We are dealing with Chicago politics here, and this – hope & change! - is SOP for these people. My bet is that since Obama wants this monster passed, his team is going to make it happen. Even if they have to do what Massa has accused them of. In fact I do not put it past them to resort to openly committing felonies to do so considering the vested interest they have in making this the law of the lad. After all, they control the levers of power and the press, so whose gonna be able to do anything about anything bad they do? If the stuff that has been going on so far hasn’t made the case yet, I doubt anything they do will.
And that brings me to my point about this whole Massa thing. If you don’t remember Nancy promising to drain the republican swamp and end the culture of corruption back in 2006, here is just one of the instances the sympathetic press gave her words play. Unfortunately, as case after case proves – Chris Dodd, Barney Franks, Charley Rangel, and a plethora of others – Nancy lied, and the corruption and criminal behavior, like the deficit spending and the fiscal irresponsibility I talked about before, is also setting new records. Don’t take my word for it. The case with Massa is more of the same. Even more important is the fact that while Pelosi is now claiming ignorance that’s a blatant lie because Nancy knew months ago about Massa’s behavior. And while Nancy is playing dumb, just a little research would have made it all obvious from records going back to Massa’s NAVY days showing that Massa was a time bomb waiting to explode.
As is the case in all these other stories of corruption that the MSM is ignoring or down playing, we are being lied to by these democrats that want to pretend real criminal activity and serious ethics violations, stuff that makes what happens when the republicans were in charge look tame, isn’t their modus operandi. And keep in mind that it is this scandal driven congress which is ignoring the will of the people and pushing forward with an unpopular government takeover of healthcare. Why isn’t the MSM up in arms about all this corruption and the will of the people being ignored? I guess that’s more of that hope and change for you.
Posted by AlexinCT on 03/11/10 at 10:59 AM in Decline of Western Civilization Elections Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2010 Health Care Left Wing Idiocy Politics Law, & Economics The Press Machine • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink •
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Win At All Costs
No, this can’t be true. Not with an administration as ethical and above board as this one.
I’m curious, exactly how many laws does this administration have to break before someone begins to care?
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The NYT does a story on voter fraud, and generally makes the claim that it doesn’t appear to be anywhere near as bad as it is. Then it sticks this whopper about two thirds in.
I don’t know what planet the authors of this piece have been living on for the past 10 years or so, but after every frigging election there has been a deluge of plaintive wailing from the left about massive fascist conspiracies of voter fraud. Why? Because it was the only way they could wrap their minds around the fact that—once again—the Democrats had lost. Convinced of their own righteousness and superiority, the only conceivable reason that their party didn’t ride into power on a tsunami of popular support had to be because those right-wing bastards stole the election.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Speaking Truth To Power
I am often asked why, given my disillusionment with the Republican Party and the conservative movement in this country, I am still such a fan of John Hawkins and his blog Right Wing News. The answer is simple: he’s very, very good at stating his positions, and he’s not afraid to speak his mind. I respect that to no end, even if I fundamentally disagree with him a lot of the time. As an example of that, I give you this post, which is John guest blogging at Tom Delay’s website.
Who makes more sense, John or the excuse-makers in the GOP? Read the whole thing.
He Be Strokin’
NOTE: If you’re coming here via a link from another blog full of righteous indignation, make sure you read this first.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe God does want a Republican majority in the Senate.
While anyone suffering a stroke is a tragic event, how fucking hilarious would it be if the Democrats lost control of the Senate right before they were to assume power? I’d laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh…
Update: His staff is now saying no stroke. Stay tuned to see if this is really nothing or if the Democrat politburo is pulling a Fidel Castro.
Drunks With Scalpels
There’s been (ahem) a few people lately who have essentially blamed me for the loss of Congress because I didn’t vote for the GOP. Their argument is that no matter how bad the GOP is, the Democrats are worse. In many respects this is true, but I’d like to illustrate this concept with an analogy.
Say you need surgery and you have to choose between two doctors. Both of them are drunk. One is more drunk than the other. Since a drunk doctor is in no shape to perform surgery, does it really make any difference which one you end up with? Is it really that significant that one doctor is slightly less drunk than the other? No matter which one you select, you’ll end up maimed or dead.
So, rather than choose the less of two evils, I punted. I’m hoping that by a loss this time around it will cause the slightly less drunk doctor to go to rehab and get his act together. In 2008, I’ll evaluate the two doctors once more. And if they’re still both drunk, I’ll be once again visiting Dr. Libertarian.
Remember, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Suck It, Fundies
You know the old saying “Don’t put your eggs in one basket?” Well, if you want to know why the GOP lost in November, it’s because they put all their eggs in the fundamentalist Christian basket.
That’s a pretty decent sized chunk of voters, enough to swing an election.
Ooooh, that’s gotta hurt! But why were libertarians turned off from a party that they traditionally vote for?
Yep, pretty much. They GOP isn’t conservative or small government any more, it’s Christian socialism and authoritarianism. And it’s not a party I have any interest in supporting. But here’s the kicker.
Absolutely true, which is why I voted Libertarian. I couldn’t lower myself to voting for the Democrats, but there was absolutely no way I could in good conscience vote for the GOP. Now, here’s the clincher, the elephant in the drawing room, the inescapable, undeniable truth of life that the Republican Party has clearly forgotten. If you are a Republican who’s all butt hurt over the ass-whipping you just took, READ THIS PARAGRAPH OVER AND OVER AND OVER UNTIL IT SINKS IN.
No it isn’t.
Friday, November 10, 2006
The Right of the Left
I just got an email message from the head of the California GOP.
Wow. Standard small-government conservatism with a libertarian social policy seemed to work, even in a liberal state like California. How’s that Christian socialism working out for the rest of you?
Sizing Up the Liars
Of course they will, because their listeners want (need!) to feel that they’re a truth detector, a beacon of accuracy in a world warped by the evil grasp of the liberals. As I asked their fans the other day, “Since both of them admitted today that they didn’t really believe the things they’ve been saying for the past few years, how can any of you possibly believe anything they tell you in the future?”
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Perils of Reality
Following up on a point I have made countless times in the past is Jake Tapper.
Exactly. Just because you believe that the Democrats are the sum total of all evil doesn’t mean that the Republicans are any better. Just because you happen to rightly point out that Rumsfeld is astonishingly unqualified for his job does not make you a liberal, and the fact that Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore might hold the same opinion (but for totally different reasons) does not make you a liberal.
The Bush administration has done a lot of bad, bad things. Pointing out this undeniable fact does not make you a liberal, it makes you a believer in objective reality. Dismissing everything as a plot by them durn libriuls? That makes you delusional.
Update: Allow me to elaborate here. The MSM all leans left, that’s indisputable. However, “that durn librul media” has become such a convenient catchword. NY Times reports good news about Bush? Shout it to the world! NY Times reports bad Bush news? It’s media bias, because they hate America. Polling data shows Bush in the lead? Woo hoo, suck it liberals! Polling data shows Bush in the toilet? Well, those polls are biased by the liberal media.
The point of this post isn’t to claim there is no liberal media bias, of course there is. I blog on it all the time. The point is that, for way too many people, bad news for Republicans instantly equals “liberal media.” As Tapper said, sometimes it’s not liberal, sometimes its accurate. “Liberal media bias” has become all-too convenient an excuse for the right to blithely dismiss any reportage it doesn’t like, and that’s a serious problem.
Headline of the Day
From the AP:
“President Bush today announced he was going to bury a hatchet in Nancy Pelosi’s skull.”
Recheck Your Position
I’m going to post on this because it’s been irking me all morning. This was left in a comment earlier today.
Let’s explore this for a moment. What is the point behind making this statement? Simple, it’s to discredit the other party. If you can’t provide a logical basis for an argument, you can always win by trying to turn your opponent into sum durn librul. Allow me to flip this around a little.
Whenever you find yourself supporting a president with a long record of approval ratings in the toilet, you might want to check your position.
Whenever you find yourself supporting a party which just lost control of Congress in a fit of voter dissatisfaction, you might want to check your position.
Whenever you find yourself as a staunch backer of one of the most incompetent defense secretaries in the history of this country, you might want to check your position.
Whenever you find yourself as a gung-ho flag waver for an administration which is more concerned with the manner in which a war is fought rather than in actually winning it, you might want to check your position.
Whenever you find yourself defending the astonishing corruption of the Bush-era GOP, you might want to check your position.
Get the point? It’s not me that has anything to apologize for. What remarks like the one above are intended to do is throw up some kind of evil boogeyman, against which all “normal” people will rebel. It’s exactly the same logic that we’ve seen in this election cycle. “If the Democrats win, then those gay homosexuals will be in the elementary schools converting your children to their sick lifestyle!” Rather than defend the policies of the Bush GOP (which is virtually impossible to do), they throw up a red herring like the impending homosexual invasion to muddy the waters. It’s the politics of fear and intimidation, Karl Rove’s masterstroke, and it just didn’t work any more.
Disagree with my views? Refute them all you like. But remember this, it wasn’t my party or my ideology that just got kicked in the nuts yesterday.
It’s A Split
I have to admit that I’m quite happy that Jim Webb won. Allen was a moron, and Webb is exactly the type of guy I wish we had more of in Congress. Good for him.
A while back I wrote a post about gridlock, and how divided government is always something we should strive for. In this post I asked whether you would prefer a Democrat president and a Republican Congress or vice versa. If I had to pick one, it would be a Democrat president. Now we’ve got the opposite. Let’s see how well this works, too.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
On the Simpsons
I have another comment here which I think deserves a response on the main page.
That’s partially true, but not entirely right. Yes, two years ago I voted for Bush. I wasn’t thrilled about it, but I thought that at the time he was, even with all his faults, the best man for the job. If the election were held today, and I had to make the same choice between the two candidates, I’d probably choose Bush again for the same reasons I did before. If I remember correctly, at the last minute I went back on one of my pledges, and donated $20 to the GOP, simply because I thought Kerry was singularly unfit to prosecute a war of any description, let alone a non-conventional war like this one. So in that sense I was pro-Bush.
However, I was also anti-Bush at the time, but not as overtly so. I was very critical of the president’s spending policies, and some other general stuff like that, but the Iraq War was still new enough to where it had not yet turned into a goatfuck, and this it was all-too easy for us to write off the bad news as nothing but reports by the durn librul media trying to sabotage the war. Where I failed in this regard is that, yes, the media were trying to sabotage the war, but this didn’t make their reports any less accurate. So when they reported on , say, Abu Ghraib, I was all too willing to dismiss it as agitprop by the anti-war contingent of the American left.
Since his reelection in 2004 we’ve been treated to Teri Schiavo, then the hurricanes and the incompetent rescue, not to mention the aftermath. Then the video of Bush surtfaced receiving his final briefing prior to the hurricanes making landfall, where he just sat without asking a single question. It was mindblowing seeing this transpire, and it really showed a level of monumental self-delusion. This was really the beginning of the end with me. When I started reading the resumes and pedigrees of some of the people Bush put into key cabinet posts I was just floored.
As things started going south in Iraq I got to thinking if the media stories we were hearing might, y’know, be true after all. And they were. We learned about the people sent to Iraq to fulfill jobs for which they had no experience of qualifications other than being campaign donors for the GOP, or interns at the national party apparatus. So they’d send someone to Iraq, for example, to set up the Treasury or some other vitally important institution, and this guy would have zero experience at everything except raising GOP money. I also read about how there was, literally, no counterinsurgency plan in place because the fundamentalists had convinced Bush/Rummy that they would ever become established.
In 2002 I was gungh-ho Bush.
I wanted the GOP to lose and lose big because they absolutely deserved it. If there was a way to do so without helping the enemy I would do so, but there isn’t, so I didn’t. The Bush/Cheney/Rummy cabal needed to be stopped, and they showed no inclination themselves towards self-restraint and self-policing.
At any rate, 2004 saw me as lukewarm at best when it came to Bush. By 2006 I had learned so much new information I was just disgusted. And I voted accordingly.
Update: I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why I named this post what I did. I was really tired last night, and this was the last thing I did before I went to bed, so I guess in my mind this was some great witticism, but I’ll be damned if I can remember what it was. Apologies.
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 27587
Links and Info
The ACLU and Terry Jones
Most recent entries
This page has been viewed 42173599 times