Thomas Sowell: ‘Barack Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter’

I think Thomas Sowell is one of the smartest men in the world!  Watch his interview with Neil Cavuto and read the following from  via the Daily Caller.

Some conservatives will readily admit that Republican presidential nominee  Mitt Romney has his share of flaws as a candidate. But he is still much more  preferable than the alternative, President Barack Obama, according to Hoover  Institution scholar-in-residence Thomas Sowell.

“I don’t think Mitt Romney is going to be sparking riots against the American  embassies around the world,” Sowell, the author of “Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded  Edition,” said said in an appearance on Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto” on Thursday. “[I]t’s not a question of whether they love you or not. The  question is whether they respect you. You know, I’m sure the Iranians did not  love Ronald Reagan.  But the fact is they’ve made it their business to get  those hostages loose before Ronald Reagan took the oath of office — in fact,  hours before Ronald Reagan took the oath of office.”

Responding to Romney’s much-publicized 47-percent remarks about those living  off the government last week, Sowell said you want to make that point with your  policy proposals and not necessarily just rhetoric, as Reagan managed to in the  1980s.

“Undoubtedly, I think that’s one of the reasons they don’t come out and say  what they want to say,” Sowell said. “I don’t think there’s anything callous  about wanting able-bodied men to work. You know, what I think is truly callous  is having a system and a set of policies that, in fact, hurts the poor.  I  mean, most — you mentioned Reagan. Now, I came across an old real copy of The  New York Times, which had the front page headlines that the black-white income  difference had narrowed slightly during the 1980s. Now, that’s the Reagan  administration.  More recently, the black-white income difference has  widened greatly under Barack Obama. And yet, Reagan is never regarded as being  someone who’s for the poor or for what not. And Obama is.”

“So the real question is not what is — how does he talk, how does he come  across,” Sowell continued. “The question is what do his policies do to people?  And I think, for example, minimum wages — I was shocked to hear Romney say he’d  be for it. Minimum wages have done enormous damage to young blacks. If you back  to the mid-1940s, the unemployment rate among black teenagers was a fraction of  what it is has been — it was a fraction in 1949, which was a recession year, of  what it has been and even in the most prosperous years since then.”

“And the difference was that in 1949, the minimum wage law had not been  upgraded since 1938. So for all practical purposes, it had been destroyed by  inflation. Once you start reinstating the minimum wage with increases, then you  begin to get to 20, 30, 40 percent unemployment rate among black teenagers. But  in the late 40s, there were years when a black 16-year-olds had unemployment  rates under 10 percent.  Now, the question is not whether you’re  empathizing or not. The question is whether your policies are ruining  people.”

Cavuto later asked Sowell if he thought Obama is like Reagan’s 1980 opponent,  little-loved former President Jimmy Carter.

“I think Barack Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter,” Sowell said. “Carter had  many foolish policies internationally as well as domestically. But I think Obama  has outdone him in both respects.”

Read more at Daily Caller

DNC delegates want to ban or cap profits – Are you listening Hollywood?!? (Video)

As usual, if you want to appear smart at a Democratic convention, just ask a stupid question.  When radio personality Peter Schiff went to Charlotte for the DNC, he did just that. Posing as an anti-business crusader, Schiff found a number of DNC delegates and attendees who support explicitly outlawing profitability.  I would have loved for him to ask these same zombies if they would also support a cap on the salaries of Hollywood actors, recording artists, and sports figures.

 

Or how much money Hollywood moguls and team owners can earn.  If so, Eva Longoria, Bruce Springsteen, Jeff Bridges, LeBron James and Kobe Bryant might be singing a different tune and Hollywood might not be so liberal!  There is enough Capitalism in Hollywood and the sports world that the Marxist agenda may meet with some strong opposition.

What these brainiacs haven’t figured out yet is the ‘simple’ formula the IRS uses – the more you make, the more you pay in taxes!

 

 

If you want to know how 1%er Will Smith feels about paying higher taxes, watch this interview:

 

 

Even the top 1% draw the line somewhere! Again, if you limit what they make, you limit the amount they pay in taxes – it’s the economy stupid!

H/T Sumeet Gohri

‘2016: Obama’s America’ and ‘The Hope and The Change’ – Must See Documentaries for ALL Voters!

Many voters are uninformed – either by choice or circumstance.  If it is by choice, I respectfully request they listen this time!!!  Most Americans never knew the real Barack Obama (Barry Sotero) and voted for a pig in a poke…..much to their dismay.  The following two documentaries explain who Obama really is and the reason for his ideology – and why some of those who voted for him finally see through the smoke and mirrors of his 2008 campaign.

I urge you to see 2016: Obama’s America - 2016 Obama’s America takes audiences on a gripping visual journey into the heart of the worlds most powerful office to reveal the struggle of whether one man’s past will redefine America over the next four years. The film examines the question, “If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?”   Contrary to what the MSM is reporting, it is not an anti-Obama film. It is one of facts – from his birth in Hawaii, his life in Indonesia, and the people who helped shape his life.  It also helps to explain the reasons for his decisions and his vision of what he thinks America should be.

 

 

And The Hope And The Change – The surprising personal journeys of 40 Democrats and Independents from across America who supported Obama in 2008.  I was impressed with some of those interviewed by Sean Hannity.  Most are middle-class who were raised in predominately Democratic voting households and now wonder why they continue to do so.  One gentleman is Independent because his father was Republican and his mother was Democrat.  Another is an African-American minister who was raised to vote along strict party lines.  At least one is currently unemployed, one lost her home, and many others are struggling with day-to-day living.  They bought the ‘Hope and Change’ hype and are still waiting for it.

 

 

We only have one more shot to save our country and be able to once again say ‘God Bless America’!  Be informed and get involved – America needs you!

Dictator Obama Once Again Ignores Laws and Defies Congress by Gutting Welfare Reform

As if the Dictator-in-Chief hasn’t done enough shredding of our Constitution, he has now decided to ignore the 1996 Welfare Reform Act passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton.  Even though Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from waiver authority, the Dictator has now authorized HHS to do just that.  When will the narcissistic man-child stop acting like a dictator and more like a leader?  When will he stop giving the American people the middle finger and follow our laws? Never!  That is why he has to go…….

From Amy Payne via Heritage

The imperial Presidency has overturned Congress and the law again. Not content to stop at rewriting immigration policy, education policy and energy policy, yesterday, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that were the foundation of the Clinton-era reform.

While this real news occurred yesterday, most of the media remained fixated on political ads and speeches, letting a major and unilateral shift in America’s welfare system go nearly unreported.

Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Heritage Foundation played a pivotal role in building bipartisan consensus for the reform and providing many of the recommendations that became part of the law. The whole point was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.

This reform was very successful. TANF became the only welfare program (out of more than 70) that promoted greater self-reliance. It moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs so that they were providing for themselves. Child poverty fell, and single-parent employment rose. Recipients were required to perform at least 20–30 hours per week of work or job preparation activities in exchange for the cash benefit.

Now, Obama’s HHS is claiming that it can waive those work requirements that are at the heart of the law, and without Congress’s consent.

When it established TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from waiver authority. They explicitly did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of HHS bureaucrats. In a December 2001, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service clarified that there was no authority to override work and other major requirements: “Effectively, there are no TANF waivers,” it reported.

But that did not stop the Obama Administration, which has been increasing welfare spending at an alarming rate already. President Obama has added millions to the welfare rolls, and his Administration has come under fire lately for its efforts to expand and add more Americans to the food stamp program.

This is a chronic problem: Over the past two decades, welfare spending has grown more rapidly than Social Security and Medicare, education, and defense. The TANF reform was one small step in the direction of reducing Americans’ dependence on government programs and getting them back on their feet. Cutting its work component is likely to unnecessarily swell the ranks of welfare recipients and with no way to pay for it.

Heritage experts Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley explained further in their comprehensive analysis of yesterday’s announcement:

In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. Now that the Obama Administration has abolished those standards, we can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work. The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama Administration clearly guts the law.

Obama certainly didn’t tell people he was going to gut welfare reform when he was running for President in 2008—and why would he? “Welfare horror stories helped elect Ronald Reagan,” wrote Mickey Kaus of The Daily Caller. “A promise to ‘end welfare as we know it’ elected President Clinton…And in 2008, Barack Obama didn’t dare suggest that he wanted to do what he has done today.”

While the 1996 welfare reform successfully moved people from welfare into work, it did not “end welfare as we know it.” Now, however, the Obama Administration has ended welfare reform as we know it. The President cannot hide his disastrous unemployment record by depriving Americans of the hope of a job. He should immediately reverse this course, and offer constructive ideas for economic growth rather than government dependence.

Fact Sheet on Welfare Reform

For more click here.

Deliberately Destroying America – Obama’s ‘Mission Accomplished’?

By Alan Caruba

It has taken three and a half years into Barack Obama’s presidency for most Americans to realize that he has been deliberately destroying America by driving up the nation’s debt and deficit, reducing privately held wealth, forcing millions onto the public dole, undermining its moral structure, and weakening the nation’s reputation internationally..

His latest lie is that “the private sector is doing just fine”, but the numbers tell the whole story and one can find them on an excellent blog, Economic Collapse, that offers seventy examples:

– The official U.S. unemployment rate has been above eight percent (8%) for 40 months in a row. Unofficially, it is estimated to be closer to fifteen percent (15%).

– In 2007, about ten percent (10%) of all unemployed Americans had been out of work for 52 weeks or longer. Today that number is above thirty percent (30%).

– An astounding forty-nine percent (49%) of all Americans live in a home where at least one member is receiving government benefits.

– The middle class is shrinking. Ninety-five percent (95%) of the jobs lost during the current recession were middle class jobs.

– Instead of cutting spending to reduce debt, the Federal Reserve is “monetizing” much of the U.S. debt. It purchased “approximately sixty-one percent (61%) of all government debt issued by the U.S. Treasury in 2011.

– Perhaps the most frightening statistic cited was a survey that found that sixty-three percent (63%) of Americans “believe that the U.S. economic model is broken.”

It is not broken. The economic model that propelled America into a superpower would continue to provide prosperity if the nation’s “entitlement” programs were reformed, if the obscene government spending and production of regulations were reduced, if government housing finance entitles such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were eliminated, if the federal government’s purchase of the nation’s land mass was ended, if environmental laws without any basis in science were struck from the books, and if government control over the exploration and extracting of its vast energy reserves was greatly reduced.

It’s a tall order and it would require cleaning out a Congress that has imposed unsustainable burdens, including the highest corporate income tax in the world, and a level of taxation that requires those still holding jobs to annually work 107 days to earn enough money to pay local, state, and federal taxes.

If you check out the Progressive Caucus website, you will find nearly seventy members of the House are members and there is one from the Senate, the Socialist Bernie Sanders. In the 1950s they would have correctly been identified as Communists.

When Liberals and liberalism became unpopular, they began using the term Progressives. They are the descendents of every Democrat that voted for the New Deal, the War on Poverty, the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the creation of the Departments of Energy, Education, and the Environmental Protection Agency. These are the people who in the early years of the last century imposed the income tax and engineered the creation of the Federal Reserve, a banking cartel that controls the economy.

At this point most conservatives have heard of Saul Alinksy’s 1972 book, “Rules for Radicals”, a guide to bringing about the destruction of the nation’s capitalist economic system and replace it with the kind of government that Barack Obama has tried to impose with the help of the many Communists and liberals in Congress.

Lesser known is the roadmap spelled out in 1988 by Columbia University sociologists, Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven, both members of the Democratic Socialists of America.

The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” advocated a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls” in order to sabotage it and bring about “a political and financial crisis.” As it turned out, it was the collapse of the housing market that brought about the financial crisis they wanted, but following the Bush administration emergency bail-out of the banking system, the Obama administration with its Democrat-controlled Congress set about imposing historic debt through its $821 billion “stimulus.” Present debt exceeds the entire annual Gross Domestic Product.

It followed that with an unnecessary and wasteful bail-out of General Motors and Chrysler (instead of permitting a normal bankruptcy that would diminish the power of the unions that brought it about), and massive “investments” in failed solar and other alternative energy companies. The EPA was set free to try to impose regulations that would shut down a major portion of the nation’s producers of electricity.

Even though voters returned majority power to Republicans in the House of Representatives in 2010 the trail of destruction has continued and the bills they have passed to end our present financial troubles have been locked up in a Democrat-controlled Senate that has not passed a budget in the last three years.

We are now five months from an election to remove Obama from power and electing conservative lawmakers to office. It’s a start in restoring America to its former prosperity.

For more click here.

Top Seven Reasons to Re-Elect Obama…..

Just counting the days until November 6, 2012!

Very good video by Natural News highlighting Fast and Furious, Genetically Modified Foods, Vaccinations, Big Brother and Farmers, and Free Education!

More Lies – Washington Post Gives WH 3 Pinnochios for Obama’s Spending Growth Claims

By  via The Washington Post

“I simply make the point, as an editor might say, to check it out; do not buy into the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration. I think doing so is a sign of sloth and laziness.”

— White House spokesman Jay Carney, remarks to the press gaggle, May 23, 2012

The spokesman’s words caught our attention because here at The Fact Checker we try to root out “BS” wherever it occurs.

Carney made his comments while berating reporters for not realizing that “the rate of spending — federal spending — increase is lower under President Obama than all of his predecessors since Dwight Eisenhower, including all of his Republican predecessors.” He cited as his source an article by Rex Nutting, of MarketWatch, titled, “Obama spending binge never happened,” which has been the subject of lots of buzz in the liberal blogosphere.

But we are talking about the federal budget here. That means lots of numbers — numbers that are easily manipulated. Let’s take a look.

The Facts

First of all, there are a few methodological problems with Nutting’s analysis — especially the beginning and the end point.

Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you dothemath, was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.

Nutting acknowledges that Obama is responsible for some 2009 spending but only assigns $140 billion for reasons he does not fully explain. (Update: in an email Nutting says he attributed $120 billion to stimulus spending in 2009, $5 billion for an expansion of children’s health care and $16 billion to an increase in appropriations bills over 2008 levels.)

On the other end of his calculations, Nutting says that Obama plans to spend $3.58 trillion in 2013, citing the Congressional Budget Office budget outlook. But this figure is CBO’s baseline budget, which assumes no laws are changed, so this figure gives Obama credit for automatic spending cuts that he wants to halt.

The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

So this is what we end up with:

2008:  $2.98 trillion

2009:  $3.27 trillion

2010:  $3.46 trillion

2011:  $3.60 trillion

2012:  $3.65 trillion

2013:  $3.72 trillion

Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent.  Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)

2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)

2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.

Another problem with Nutting’s analysis is that the figures are viewed in isolation. Even 5.5 percent growth would put Obama between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in terms of spending growth, but that does not take into account either inflation or the relative size of the U.S. economy. At 5.2 percent growth, Obama’s increase in spending would be nearly three times the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, Nutting pegs Ronald Reagan with 8.7 percent growth in his first term — we get 12.5 percent CAGR — but inflation then was running at 6.5 percent.

One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product):

2008: 20.8 percent

2009: 25.2 percent

2010: 24.1 percent

2011: 24.1 percent

2012: 24.3 percent

2013: 23.3 percent

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

We sent our analysis to Carney but did not get a response. (For another take, Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute has an interesting tour through the numbers, isolating various spending categories. For instance, he says debt payments should be excluded from the analysis because that is the result of earlier spending decisions by other presidents.)

The Pinocchio Test

Carney suggested the media were guilty of “sloth and laziness,” but he might do better next time than cite an article he plucked off the Web, no matter how much it might advance his political interests. The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context — context that could easily could be found in the budget documents released by the White House.

The White House might have a case that some of the rhetoric concerning Obama’s spending patterns has been overblown, but the spokesman should do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used.

Three Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

 

 

Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker

For more information click here.