Obama and Living Within Our Means: Liar-in-Chief

I saw about 15 seconds of Wolf Blitzer's interview with President Obama. It was the wrong 15 seconds for my present mood (soured by the propaganda campaing building out there for both a "jobs' program and a sell-out deal from that "gang of 12" because we again HAVE to aovid the suposed, artificial, catastrophe if there is no deal).


This blog has written abut this particular lie of President Obama time and time again, but he keeps saying the same thing. It is absurd. As he has done those numerous times before, Obma told Blitzer (without challenge, of course) that there are tow things we need to do right now.


1. (quoting Obama): "We need to show people that we are living within our means."


2. (quoting Obama again--with a whiplash WARNING): "We need to have a jobs program which puts people back to work. We have to invest in our future."


Absurd is a kind description of the above contradictory lie, within the same paragraph. How does Obama intend to show people that we are "living within our means"? He doesn't. It is a LIE. Obama used to add "like ordianry families" to that, but has stopped doing that because it highlights the lie. Probleem: We are borrowing more than 40 cents out of every dollar we are spending Obama proposes to do NOTHING about that this next year, or for many years to come. (so long as he is President, really, even if he wre to get anothr term--scary as that thought is).


Instead of proposing to CUT the deficit, Obama prooposes to RAISE the deficit with yet natoher "jobs/stimulus" program. You can see why I call Obama "Liar-in-Chief". How can you possibly "show" that we are "living within our means" by SPENDING MORE (and adding more to the deficit with GIMMICKS like that "payroll tax cut").


Ask Dave Remsey whether you can borrow 40 cents out of every dollar you spend, and not be reducing the principla of your debt at all, and even argue that you are "living within your means." This is beyond absrud, and it drives me crazy every time I hear Obama say it (without a peeop from our "commentators" wh go ballistic every time Meichel Bachmann says a LESS outrageous, dubious thing). You just cannot reman a credible person and say outrageous whopppers like this, and then contradict yourself within the same paragraph. No, desite what Obama seems to think, we are NOT "living within our means' by doubling down on our exessive spending and debt NOW, while waving a magic wand and saying we will "solve" the prblem ten or twenty years fro now. It is like a family trying to borrow 40% of its living expenses, including servicing its growing debt, while the debt itself keeps growing. We have more than a 14 TRILLION dollar debt that is increasing, and we are borrowing 40% of everything we spend, WITHOUT paying a dime down on that debt (in terms of prinicpla). By the most optimistic projections---probably to optimistic--our debt is going to INCREASE to at least 20 trillioni by 2020. The way Obama wants us to go, we may well reach 20 TRILLLION by 2015 or 2016.


No, there is NO definition (except Obama's own) by which this is "living within our means".


Further, look at that "jobs" program Now the PROPAGANDA out ther--aided by the failure of Repubicans to make clear their own philosophy--is that we "have" to have another GOVERNMENT "jobs"/"stimulus" program. From the Repubican point of view, that is totally false, and has been proven to be false over the Obama Presidency. The Repubican "jobs" plan is to get government OUT of holding back the private sector--NOT to keep doing more "central plannening" government programs that raise our debt without creating any sustained job growth. What is it people do not understand abut the past 4 years (counting back to the end of the Bush Administratin, when there was also a "stimulus")? Repubicans should NEVER accept that Congress should "do something" abuot jobs, otehr than to repeal ObamaCare, eliminate restrictions on oil and gas drlling, reduce and stop ridiculous job killing regulations (such as the absurd regulations designed to hurt the coal and energy industry, while increasing the cost of energy--cucifyng us on the cross of "gloal warming" and greenhouse gas control)., and things like real tax reform. Republicans DO have a "jobs" program It is jsut not a direct GOVERNMENT program to create dead end jobs at the cost of economy killin gdebt. I know, by the way, why Reeublican politicians jsut refuse to make this pont too clearly. At heart, too many of them are still Big Government guys and gals. Hell, you can even throw "tort reform" in there if you want, although it is hypocritical to say that is not a violation of the Consitution (under the normal principles asserted by Republicans). I agree with Governor Perry that part of the reason for Texas being attractive for business is its tort reform (and conservative Supreme Court). But there is nothing stopping other sates from adopting the same thing. I sy this as a former TRIAL LAWYER (you know, like Joh Edwards, although not nearly as successful).


Look at what Obama is proposing!!!! Infrastructure spending, which was SUPPOSED to be in the first Obama "stimulus" which FAILED. Payroll "tax cut" (which is really the Social Secuirty tax that was supposed to make Social Security self-sustaining when FDR frist sold the program, and is now jsut being used as a political football to try to GIVE MONEY to people). Unemployment benefits extnesin (again> Note that the "payroll tax cut" and the unemplyment benefits extension" were part of the disgraceful 2010 "deal< in the lame duck session, that ADDED more to the deficit than Republicans have CUT (through the end of the next fiscal year, and probably beyond, as I don't count far future cuts that have not yet happened). Now Obama wants Republicans to DO IT AGAIN: to pass MORE SPENDING, and more "stimulus", which will again add MORE to the deficit/debt than Reupublicans have supposedly "cut", over the same period of time (the ony "apples to appples' comparison there is)


What do we know about that "payroll tax cut" and that extension of extended unemplyment benefits? We know tht IT DID NOT WORK Yes, we KNOW that those particular measures did NOT "crate jobs", because the unemplyment rate has STAYED THE SAME. Meanwhile, as stated, those measures have ADDED more to the deficit, over the same period of time, than ANYONE has "cut" over that period of time (including the next fiscal year, where no one is proposing any real "cuts".).


You should be able to see why I have had it with obth Obama (Liar-i-Chief) and the Repubicans. Republicans should be QUAKING in fear at the idea that they will aDD more to the debt than they have "cut", over identical periods of time. Yet, Democrats and the media keep saying that Republicans "agree" to this absuridty. The problem is that I am morally certain that many Big Government Republicans, and even deluded conservatives, are willng to buy into a fraud called a "tax cut" (which even Obama says is designed solely to "put a thousand dollars or so in the pockets of people", on average--a straight "stimulus welfare payment).. And too many Repubicans are SCARED of terminating the extended unemplyment benefits, because of the SOB STROIES you are gong to get. Hell again. If these people need WELFARE, give it to them. Just don't call it "unemplyment insurance", when the system was never designed to pay benefits over thais length of time. Obama is actually HURTING himself with this one. You have lots of people stayig on the unemplyment rolls because they are still getting unemplyment, when they may really have a hidden source of income or otherwise not even be interested in finding a job. I am not sayin gthat is widespread, but I personally know of a number of case whre it has aahappened (includng one lawyer who went to CHINA and stil collected unemployment). You will note that this tends to INCREASE the uunemplyment rate, although that is offset by the "discouraged workers" and other examles of how the unemplyment rate is UNDERSTATED.


As far as I am concerned, this is a TEST. WE know Obama lies when he says he intends us to "live within our means". But I am afraid it is true, although not quite so obviuos, that too many Repubicans have learned exactly NOTHING. They remain COWARDS, and Big Government guys at hear. Well, if they go along with ANY of the Obama "jobs" program--excluding only things that do not add at all to the defiicit and which Repubicans have advocated--that is when I WALK AWAY from the Republican Party FOREVER. It is my expectatin that the Republican Party is goihg to betray me on this, and/or on that BLAKMAIL about a "debt deal" from the "gang of 12", that makes me so confident that I wWILL end up walking away from the Republican Party. The odds remain 80-20 that the Repubican Party is gong to end up DEAD to me. Cynic that I am, I still have some small hope for a MIRACLE (the 20%). No, I will accept no exuses on this. Republicans agreeing to the things I have described above, that Obama wants because HE is a Big Governent guy, means that they (Republicans) are DEAD to me. (as Reppublicans anyway, and I will give the benefit of the doubt AGAINST all Repubicans who have not shonw amazing consistency toward my point of view). I will give NO Repubican a "pass" on this, and will OPPOSE everyRepubican who votes for this kind of thing. It is not the vote itself that is so bad. It is the BETRAYAL of princiiple that the vote represents, and the DECEPTON involved (as I have explained before while explaining how I COULD support Ron Paaul, even though I STRONGLY disagree with him on his isolationsist views--as an honest man).


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). And yes, I realize that the maistream meida is gong to CRUCIFY Republicans if they block the entire Obama "jobs program". So wht. If Repubicans FEAR the mainstream media, then I have no use for them. As I have often stated: "A coward dies a thousand times, while a brave man dies but once." . If Repubicans cnnot learn to stand up to these mainstream media propaganda campaigns, then the Repubican Prty is ultimately dead anyay. And if Repubicans cannot learn to EXPLAIN to the public why Democrat BRIBES do not ultimately help people, then--agian--the Republican Party is dead anyway. Can Rick Perry do it, as a more effective Michele Bachmann? I have some hope, but my problem is that I now too much aoubt Rick Perry ("my governor" for 11 years, and an elected official in Texas before that). So I am sticking with Michele Bachhmann. What would cause me to convert to Perry? Well, IF Perry were to actually STOP Republicasns from agreeing to a SHAM debt deal, AND from agreeing to an insane "jobs prgram" increasing the debt more than Republicans have "cut" (on an apples to apples basis), that would do it. You might say that I am expecting too much of Perry. But unelss he does at least SOME of that, I will hold hi responsible for a Repubican betrayal. I don't hold Michele Bachmann ressponsible, because I KNOW who she is, and turst her. I know Rick Perry (not personally), and don't trust him. Even there, I DO count it against Michele Bachmann that she can't seem to influence these debt and deficit "deals", and things like a "jobs program". She vortes, and says things, but she does not INFLUENCE much---even the Tea Party people in Congress (r supposed Tea Party people). I do hold that against Bachmann. I just am willing to give her credit for what she does do, even if I could wish she were more efffective. See. I AM willing to take less than perfect. I just am not willng to take BETRAYAL, and I assume betrayl when something could have been stopped and isn't.