Found it on Facebook: Everything that’s wrong with a poster from the Left

One of my Democrat Facebook friends put this poster up on her feed:

Leftist view of the last two administrations

It’s a fascinating looking-glass view at the world, insofar as it sums up most of the last 14 years in a way precisely the opposite of the way in which conservatives see those years.  The praise for the Democrats is like looking at the glassy surface of a pool, only to discover the rot that lies beneath it.

I.  Let’s see what lies beneath those “Democrat miracles”:

[Read more...]

The one thing Obama does really, really well

You know that old joke, the one that goes “How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.”  That’s Obama.

I think Obama’s skilled lying arises from the fact that he is a borderline personality, whether malignant narcissist or sociopath.  These specific border personalities lie better than ordinary people because to them, the truth is always what they need it to be at the precise moment they’re speaking.  During SOTUs, Obama needs the truth to be that he’s all about deficit and debt reduction, job growth, affordable insurance, and cheap energy.  He therefore confidently, and with every appearance of honesty, makes statements to that effect.  When he’s actually running the country, though, his truth becomes something quite different.

This short GOP video perfectly sums up Obama’s variable truths:

The U.S. debt in terms we can all understand

A friend sent this:

This helps to understand the US debt:
• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget.
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

CLEARER, huh?

What’s wrong with this picture; or, is there something wrong with this picture? *UPDATED*

This picture showed up on my liberal friends’ posts at Facebook today:

As for me, over the past two years, I’ve been spending my time looking at this picture, or ones very similar:

The first image is about debt and the second is about deficit.  Is that the only difference?  Can someone please explain to me why the first one, which is circulating freely amongst liberals, makes it look as if Obama’s a piker when it comes to spending, while the other one, the chart conservatives drag out, makes it appear that Obama is very quickly driving us into the poor house?

What occurs to me looking at the first chart is that, fearsome red lines notwithstanding, the country was thriving under Reagan (and it did pretty well under Bush too).  Conversely, the country is struggling under Obama, despite that little blue 16% line.  Meanwhile, the second chart, which shows serious red Obama years coincides with serious economic despair in the country.

I know I’m being stupid and simplistic about this.  I can only blame a combination of economic ignorance and severe sleep deprivation (call it Insomnia “R” Us).

UPDATE:  You’re all correct (of course).  As this fact-check from PolitiFact shows, the chart falls into the lies, damn lies, and statistics category.  Thank you, cuneiandro, for the link.

Why the President’s proposal regarding student loans is even worse than it first looks

I have to admit that I’ve gotten to the point with President Obama that, whatever he’s for, I’m automatically against in the first instance, at least until I’ve had a chance to check it out.  Take, for example, his recent proposal for a “three-year freeze on discretionary, ‘non-security’ spending.”  My very first reaction was, “What’s the catch?”  That reaction was separate from the fact that it’s an obvious attempt to make a populist statement that will appeal to people’s non-thinking lizard brains, and it was separate from the fact that it’s a stupid and lazy way to deal with a massive budget problem.  Of course, I then found out that it is also almost completely meaningless.  Yes, it might save $250 billion over three years, but when one compares that to the trillions of dollars the Democrats have committed on our, the taxpayers’, behalf, who really cares?  This is meaningless theatrics.

In other words, a year’s worth of experience with Obama’s approach to politics demonstrates pretty clearly that virtually everything he does is a lie, a Trojan horse, or ineffectual.  The only area in which he gets a small pass is for sticking it out in Afghanistan.  Otherwise, he also fails in national security, where he’s been responsible for some heroic flails, such as his disastrous Iran policy, his being asleep at the switch both before and after the flaming panties bomber, and his decision to try KSM in federal court, but at least he’s held sort firm on Afghanistan, which is something.

For these reasons, I automatically assumed that there was something dreadfully wrong with Obama’s proposal to nationalize student loans.  This assumption was separate from the fact that I don’t want to nationalize anything, since I think the federal government already has too much power.  My suspicion was that there was something beyond the obvious to dislike about the proposal — and I was right.

“Magic negro” engages in magical thinking

You remember when an LA Times opinion column told us that Obama was the “magic negro,” don’t you?  I think Obama took that idea way to seriously, because he’s now engaged in some magical thinking.  He assures us that, despite economic freefall, despite a trillion dollars in added debt, and despite the nationalization of our industries with the concomitant creation of busywork jobs that aren’t economically meaningful, he’s going to halve the deficit in four years:

Republican governors reacted skeptically Sunday to news that President Obama plans to halve the record budget deficits to more than a half trillion dollars by 2013, the end of the current presidential term.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty told “FOX News Sunday” that the markets reacted badly to the $787 billion stimulus bill signed into legislation this past week — the market is now down more than 41 percent off its mark of one year ago — and it’s only going to get worse if the president raises taxes.

Pawlenty said if voters think raising taxes will solve the deficit, he’s got “hunting land for you in northern Minnesota.”

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who vehemently opposed the stimulus bill, said cutting in half the annual deficit is a drop in the bucket.

“The operational deficit is a very small component of the larger deficit this country is running,” he said.

An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Saturday that the president plans to cut back the annual budget deficit to $533 billion by time he ends his current term in office. That would be down from the $1.3 trillion deficit expected in fiscal year 2009.

Side me with the skeptical Republican governors, because I do not see how you can dramatically increase the debt, suck money out of the economy, and nationalize major businesses, and then simultaneously decrease the debt.  Am I missing here, or is Obama (at the risk of sounding racist) engaging in voodoo economics?