Here's another steaming pile of intelligence from our President:
We won’t win the race for new jobs and new businesses and middle-class security if we cling to this same old, worn-out, tired `you’re on your own’ economics that the other side is peddling. It was tried in the decades before the Great Depression. It didn’t work then. It was tried in the last decade. It didn’t work. You know, the idea you would keep on doing the same thing over and over again, even though it’s been proven not to work. That’s a sign of madness.” — Barack Obama
From the above comments, one wonders how the United States Of America ever managed to become the world's premier superpower without the brilliance of Barack Obama showing us the way. How did we ever create jobs, a middle class, and the richest country in world history with our "on your own" economics (that some would call 'liberty' and 'free markets') ??? It must have been some kind of miracle, akin to the parting of the Red Sea. We're sure lucky Obama appeared like the Messiah to save us from our "old, worn-out, tired" failing ways. One hopes a second Obama term will lead us finally to that long-awaited, elusive, successful America, to a more glorious government-dominated future, like that of, say, Cuba, where they don't have any of that nasty wealth inequality (because nobody has any wealth).
Let's look at little closer at some of the Messiah's claims...
"this same-old, worn-out, tired "you're on your own' economics...was tried in the decades before the Great Depression. It didn’t work then".
Things sure must have been bad in America in the decades before the Great Depression, eh ? In fact, things were SO bad here that record numbers of people immigrated to America for the opportunities she presented them. Things were so bad here that 20 million immigrants flocked to "you're on your own" America between 1880-1924.
Things were so bad that the decade just prior to the Great Depression was known as The Roaring 20's, a period of sustained economic prosperity. In the 1920's, unemployment averaged 5.2% (that is considered near full employment). The prior decade, the 1910's, is when America first became a world leader, and somehow we managed to win the "war to end all wars", World War I. How that happened without Obama in charge is anyone's guess. Must have been another miracle. Unemployment in the 1910's was between 3-6%. After World War I, there was a severe mini-depression in 1920-1921, but somehow we recovered from that in eighteen months without spending the country into oblivion, as Obama is doing today.
From 1900-1930, all kinds of technological advances were introduced in our "you're on your own" economy. Among them - sonar, color photography, the automobile, the helicopter, motion pictures, the radio tuner, Geiger counters, toasters, air conditioning, television, liquid-fueled rockets, frozen food, the jet engine, and too many other inventions to mention. How all this happened without the guiding hand of Barack Obama, I have no idea. Must be a third miracle.
Our "same-old, worn-out, tired 'you're on your own' economics" served this country pretty well, I'd say. Virtually ever other country wished they'd had things so good.
But my favorite part of the Messiah's comment comes next:
"this same-old, worn-out, tired "you're on your own' economics...It was tried in the last decade. It didn't work".
Obama is referring to the Bush years here. Bush was so "you're on your own" that federal spending DOUBLED during his years as President. Bush, the "compassionate conservative", increased spending nearly across the board. The Mercatus Center reports:
During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.
During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.
One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.
Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.
President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.
Bush also created a brand new Medicare entitlement, Part D, the prescription drug benefit.
This is what Obama pathetically claims is a "you're on your own" economy under Bush. What a joke. Bush was a big spender, just like Obama, and just like Obama, Bush added nearly $5 trillion to the national debt. The only difference is, Obama is running up debt twice as fast as Bush did.
In conclusion, when Obama says "doing the same thing over and over again, even though it’s been proven not to work. That’s a sign of madness"...he is correct. What he doesn't tell you is, the madness belongs to Obama. He's the one doing the same things over and over. He's doing the same things Bush did almost down the line, only this time on steroids - huge spending increases, wars, big deficits and debt, huge entitlement expansions, etc.
Don't believe in the madness of King
About This Blog