President Obama and U.S. Credit: Unprecedented

Sure, the headline is sarcastic. "unprecedented" has been Obama's favorite word. But look at these "unprecedented" things:


1. Worst deficits of any U.S. President.


2. Worst debt of any U.S. President--including the worst PERCENTAGE to GDP--at least in modern times.


3. Highest SPENDING of any U.S. President, including the highest percentage of GDP since World War II.


4. Now the FIRST downgrade in the credit rating of the United States, EVER.


If you do not know (hard to avoid), Standard and Poors has DOWNGRADED the credit rating of the United States, from AAA to AAplus.


No, this has little practical effect, although the psychological effect is to be determined--as first measured by the stock market on Monday. However, as I properly instructed Rush Limbaugh when he called the low stock market in 2009 a Wall Street vote on Obama from people who know the economy, the modern stock market does NOT operate on a ratioinal judgement of the economy. Limbaugh had to eat his words, when the stock market was HIGH, desite lthe Obama failures on the economy. Wall Street is-now more than ever--a computer gaming casino, where real world economic matters are only a minor catalyst in a computer gaming universe. Obama has again shown that Wall Street CAN do well, even if the economy is not doing well, IF you are willing to BAIL OUT the Stupidest People on Earth (the people on Wall Street and in our financial system, who share that designation with the people of the mainstream media).


Should our credit rating have been downgraded? Of course. See my previous article. Thaat previuos article was being posted AS the announcement of the credit downgrade was being made. I am often asked: Are you ever wrong? Under the official audit, I have not been wrong, on any substantive matter, in a full two years. My accuracy rating is now 99.9% overall, from the beginning of this blog.


Note the significance of the previous article. On the very DAY that Standard and Poors would downgrade this country's debt, President Obama was saying that we "are getting our fiscal house in order"--a phrase that was to be REPEATED tonight by the partisan political hacks on CNN. Way to go, CNN. You have PROVEn yet again that you are merely a propaganda outlet for the Obama Administration.


But it goes beyond that. Read the previous article on this blog again. Today, President Obama proposed to INCREASE the deficit for next year in a number of different ways--including this GIMMICK of a "payroll tax cut extensioni". These proposals would ADD much more to the deficit than the proposed "cuts" in the debt ceiling "compromise", for the only year that really matters (NEXT YEAR beginning on October 1). What President Obama is roposing to do is ADD to the deficit EVERY YEAR, until some magic year 8 to 10 years from now when we suddenly get serious. That approach--also the establishment Republican approach--deserves RIDICULE. It gets ridicule from this blog.


Message to John Chambers (head of Standard and Poors): You, sir, are an economic fascist--a person who believes that Wall Street and the Federal Government should combine to CENTRALLY PLAN our economy, according to the direction desired by Wall Street.


Yep. Standard and lPoors, as proven during the lead up to the financial collapse in 2008, is part of The Stupidest People on Earth. They actually proved it with a supposed 2 TRILLION dollar mistake in their analysis that led to the ratings downgrade (a mistake found by the similarly mentally challenged people in the U.S. Treasury). No, I don't endorse Standard and Poors. But Obama's speech today shows just how right they are to worry about whether we are SERIOUS about fiscal discipline. The debt ceiling deal did NOT begin "getting our fiscal house in order." It merely accomplished what the politicians wanted to accomplish: A SHAM to get the politicians past the beginning of this fiscal lyear, and preferably past the next electon.


Who elected John Cahmbers, economic fascist, President of the Untied States? I ask that question because Chambers came out and basically criticized the Bush tax cuts, and the failure to include "revenue increases" in a deficit reduction plan. It goes wihout saying that Cahmbers, and Standard and Poors, have NO business either assessing "blame" OR saing what should be done to reduce our deficit. There job, should they choose to accept it (which they do MUCH less often than the Missin Impossible people), is to evaluate the credit worthiness of countries and other organizations. CNN has already bought into the Obama "spin" on this (no surprise at all): That Obama's "balanced" approach, and "big deal" approach, is the RIGHT way, and that the attmept by Republicans to get to fiscal discipline via the debt ceiling was the "wrong" way. Even though Obama and the mainstream media are already ATTACKING Standard and Poors, they still want to USE Chambers and Standard and Poors for their SPIN. Get set for another series of contradictory statements from the Obama Admiinistratin, as Chambers and Standard and Poors are villified as part of the evil people on Wall Street that got us into this, while they are cited as the smartest people around for criticizing the debt ceiling debate and the failure to include revenue raising measures.


Obama, of course, cannot get away with this. His LEADERSHIP has failed. It does not even matter whether Republicans are right or wrong (and they are right--wobbly as they are on it) about revenue increases. It is President Obama who REFUSED to engage this issue until it was too late, and then refused to engage it seriously on the ground that the deadline pressure would force a face-saving "deal" (as it did--the problem being the deal was obviously a sham). And it is President Obama who IMMEDIATELY tried to dismiss the debt/deficit problem as "solved" (his plan all along, as this blog has stated), proposing massive ADDITIONS to the deficit and saying that we could not let the deficit/debt prevent us from spending the money we need to spend. Was Standard and Poors listening today? They should have been.


As stated in this blog, and almost ALL consrvative sources, conservatives FAVOR cuting special tax braks (like the ones Obama proposed today), so long as the money is primarily used to LOWER TAX RATES. Conservatives--real ones--do NOT favor government subsidies--not for farmers or anyone else (excdept that we see reality, which means that eliminating the housing interest deduction is a DANGEROUS thing when the housing industry has already been destroyed by government policy, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).


What conservatives oppose, and should oppose, is CLASS WARFARE, and the idea that we can solve our sdeficit/spending problem by "taxing the rich". That is a recipe for disaster, and conservatives know it. Standared and Poors may not, economic fascists that they are, although I got the impression that Chambers wants ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire. Are you ready for that out there? Raising the tax rates on EITHER the "rich" or the middle class (most of the Bush tax cuts, to the tune of 3.3 TRILLIN dollars as gainst 700 billion) will likely complete the destructin of this country. Nor will it raise the revenue projected, as it hurts the private economy. Further, Obama has TOLD you what he wants. He wants NO spending "cuts"--no real ones. What he wants is a SHAM, where the only real items in a bill are the revenue increases (fictitious as they will turn out to be, in terms of money raised). Then Obama wants to SPEND the tax increases, ADDING to our spending. Obama's speech today made it clear that is his whole "plan" for using GOVERNMENT to produce "growth".


Then there is the Standard and Poors/media 4 TRILLION DOLLAR LIE. Yes, Standard and Poors said that it wanted 4 trillin in deficit reduction over 10 years. You can see this STARTS with a LIE (yes, Chambers and Standard and Poors, I just called you liars). This is just a Soviet Unioin five year plan, made more ridiculous by making it over TEN YERS> How absurd can you get!!!!! Just like in sports, it is the CURRENT GAME that matters. That is the only thing you can do anything about. And youu can't win the Super Bowl without first winning individual games. That means deficit reduction, to be at all credible, must start NOW. And you can't plan for ten years, unless lyou figure out a way to make it BINDING (like with a Balanced Budget Amendment--which stil does not solve the problem of what to do between now and the time it takes effect).


Sure, there are SOME measures that would have long-term effect. You could restructure Medicare (as Ryan has proposed, althoug he waits an unconscionalbe 10 years to really do it). You could ELIMINATE Medicaid as a Federal program (horrors!!!--but WE DO NOT HAVBE THE MONEY), and need to get away from the inherent Federal excesses in that program, including fraud). Already you see the problem. Obama and the Democrats will NOT let this happen, unless virtually forced to it. Nope Thsi downgrade will not force them. What Obama and the Democrats will do, and what Obama has already PROPOSED (in that usual speech after the Ryan budget came out), is to make vague "cutgs" TEN YEARS FROM NOW. Obama and the Democrats never expect most of those cuts to take place. That is the "grand deal" that Obama wants: REAL tax increases and SHAM spending "cuts". Obama and the Democrats will expect any supposed "cuts" in Medicare and Social Security to never take place. They wil surely not even BEGIN until the relatively far future. Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats DO expect the "revenue increases" to happen, because those will be BINDING LAWS that would have to be repealed. As I said, Standard and Poors, you are a knowing participant in a r TRILLION DOLLAR LIE. The 4 trillion dollar "grand deal" is just a device to do SHAM spending "cuts", combined with REAL tax increases.


Tax reform? Forget it. Democrats are NOT for it, except to give it lip service and propose more shams. Democrats are more TAX AND SPEND than they have ever been. Yes, I lived as an adult through the Johnson years (well, as a young adult), and Democrats were not this bad even then. Everything else is a deliberate SHAM. I know it. YOU know it. THEY know it.


No, we can't afford ObamaCare. As stated in my prior article--basically proven to be correct within minutes--WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY. We don't have the money for all of those Obama "stimulus" proposals--made even after that approach has consistently failed, except to get our credit downgraded and our debt inflated. WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY for any of this stuff. We should be cutting the deficit by 1/3 THIS NEXT YEAR. Instead, we are not cutting it at all. The TOTAL proposed "spending cuts"--outweighed by spending increases--amount to LESS than 1% of our total spending. We NEED a ONE YER PLEAN, and a two year plan, and a three year plan. f we can pass BINDING restructureing for the longer haul, fine. But here is NO credibility unless we are taking MAJOR strides in the NOW.


You should be able to see why I expect to walk away from the Republican Party. I am a pessimist, but I just don't see these people standing up to the pressure for a sham "grand deal" that is about to be applied. If they do not stand up to such pressure, it will be the end of the Republicn Party. No, I dno't think everyone is like me (as you breathe a sigh of relief). But more and more people are tired of the endless promises to cut spending, only to have it never take place. The Repulibcan Party says it has "learned". I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU. And I expect you to prove me right in the next few months.


There is going to be a full court press for tax increases in the next few months, and for the sham "grand deal" that Boehner was ready to embrace in the debt ceiling debate. The ONLY "victory" Tea Party Republicans obtained in the debate was to avoid this "grand deal", and the "revenue increases" always intended to be a part of that "deal" (the ONLY part Obama and the Democrats intend to happen, except small adjustments they may agree to for show).


I watched CNN tonight just to see the future, and I was not disappointed. The "super" committee MUST (the CNN view) include "open minded" people willing to put idology aside. Translation: The committiee MUST be composed of right thinking peopole like us, who are willing to trhow conservatives under the bus as the Neanderthals they are. Already (the CNN view), thsose nasty Tea Party people have made our government dysfunctional, by actually trying (albeit not very courageously) to stand by their principles. It is obvious that Obama's "balanced" approach is the "right" approach. That is what WE believe. And what is wrong with extending unemployment benefits foregver, and giving people a thousand or two from the Social Seucrity trust fund? Oops!!! I forgot. That money does NOT come from the non-existent "trust fund", because it is a FRADULENT way to give a "simulus" welfare payment to people to AGAIN try to "stimulate" the economy. And CNN (along with the rest of the mainstream media) is going to concentrate no that 4 TRILLION DOLLAR LIE. All that is going to matter is that bottom line number, over ten years, and no one (certainly not CNN) is going to look at whether that number is REAL. No one (again, cerainly not CNN) is going to ak: What about NOW? How can we say we are gong to "cut" spending in ten years, when we refuse to "cut" ANYTHING now?


No. This looks bad to me. The downgrade was overdue, but has almost no practical effect (beyond whatever pshchological effect there is). Nope. Interest rates will NOT rise significantly--at least not right away. It will seem like a non-event. But it IS going to be the signal for a full court press by the "establishment" (especailly the mainstream media), to demonize the Tea Party and force a deal to their liking. Past experience with timid Republicans facing this kind of pressure is not good.


I stand by what I have said: If Republicans go the route of the "grand deal" (assuming it is the sham I am confident it wil be, where it is mainly the revenue increases that are real), then the Republlican Party is dead to me. I am walking away for good, and never looking back. Further, although I don't pretend it will happen right away, and especially not becuasse of ME, I believe such a "deal" will markk the end of the Republican Party.


Am I wrong about how this is likely to go, for the first time in two years (being wrong)? I assure you I am NOT wrong about how CNN, the mainstream media, Obama and leftist Democrats are gong to try to push this "debate". Thus, the only possibility that I wll be wrong about the result is if they FAIL to intimidate Repulibcans, and FAIL to have people perceive this as an issue of "Can't we all get along, and do things the CNN--correct--way?". I think the public is becoming more and more resistant to the propaganda. But do Republicans know that, and is the public yet resistant ENOUGH to what will be a constant drumbeat of "1984" style propaganda. All propaganda, all of the time, is what we are gong to get until this is over (even worse than the present versioni of the smae approach).


I am not optimistic. But you knew I was a cynic and a pessimist. You may be more of an optimist. Good for you. Abut my favorite movie is "Miracle on 34th Street" (the original). Contrary to appearances, that is not really a Christmas movie--cerftainly not in a religious sense. What it remains is the ultimate anti-cynic movie, and the movie makes what I regard as a conclusive case against cynicism as a philosophy of life. I ADMIRE people who are nt total cynics. I jsut look at the world,. and my mind tells me that cynical is the only way to be if you are facing reality. It is sortof like my rejection of faith. I admire people who have REAL faith (as distinct from the Obama-type convenient adoption of the Christian religion--see, my cynicism appearing again). My mind will just not let me endorse the concelpt of faith as something that trumps human reason. I am perfectly open to the idea that this illusta=rates a lack in ME. I am more than open to the idea that extreme cynicism is a bad thing. I eve BELIEVE that. I BELIEVE "Miracle on 34th Street". I jsut can't force myself to ignore what my mind tells me. I hope you are different. And I really hope I am wrong about the "debate" we are about to have, and the result of the full court press that Standard and Poors has precipitated.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). A cynic would say that I use my eyesight as an excuse, since I really don't like proofreading (which I don't). Am I not lucky that you are not a cynic?