Jun 16

Who Thought We Could Have A President Worse Than Carter?

See also Reagan's Brandenburg Speech in post from June 13th for a true comparison (Reminiscing About The Greatness and Leadership of Reagan and Saddened By Our Present Predicament).


Print This Post Print This Post
Feb 25

Intellectual Dishonesty and Immorality Permeates Even The Highest Levels Of Our Society

We have come to expect as routine, duplicitous politicians who want to “have it both ways” when dealing with different elements of their constituencies. It is a sad commentary but infinitely true. Unfortunately, like an aggressively metastasizing cancer, this wanton lack of integrity and sincerity has increasingly invaded other areas of our culture that had previously been somewhat respected.

Most recently, we have witnessed the global collusion of numerous scientists involved in the Climategate scandal, manufacturing or cherry picking data in order to fraudulently substantiate their flawed, perverted beliefs and ideologies. If their schemes hadn’t been uncovered, it could have cost this country tens of trillions of dollars and strangled our economy and standard of living.

In the past, you might have figured a Nobel Laureate should be worthy of respect, a person who has achieved so much in their field and who, by definition, has made supreme contributions to the world or society.
No more! It has largely become a sham with many of these individuals possessing the same ethics as your white collar criminal though on a more grandiose scale.

To wit: Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and Yassar Arafat all receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. And let’s not forget the epitome of corruption and a vacuum of morals, Al (Global Warming) Gore.

There is another member of this pantheon of corrupt and dishonest intellectuals: left wing economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

It is most evident that in the world we live today, we are forced by circumstances to teach our children to be infinitely cynical, trust no one, and that “facts” including “scientific discoveries” may just be fiction. We can’t believe our Government and have witnessed far too much egregious behavior, absence of integrity, and intellectual dishonesty to trust our teachers, scientists, clergy, etc.

Bush's Deficit Bad, Obama's Deficit Good: So Sayeth Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate
By Larry Elder                       02/11/2010

Left-wing economist, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman hates deficits in tough economic times — when the president of the United States is named George W. Bush.

In a November 2004 interview, Krugman criticized the "enormous" Bush deficit.

"We have a world-class budget deficit," he said, "not just as in absolute terms, of course — it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world — but it's a budget deficit that, as a share of GDP, is right up there."

The deficit in fiscal 2004 was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product.

Back then, a disapproving Krugman called the deficit "comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country. ... The only time postwar that the United States has had anything like these deficits is the middle Reagan years, and that was with unemployment close to 10%."

Take away the Social Security surplus spent by the government, he said, and "we're running at a deficit of more than 6% of GDP, and that is unprecedented."

He considered the Bush tax cuts irresponsible and a major contributor — along with two wars — to the deficit. But he also warned of the growing cost of autopilot entitlements:

"We have the huge bulge in the population that starts to collect benefits. ... If there isn't a clear path towards fiscal sanity well before (the next decade), then I think the financial markets are going to say, 'Well, gee, where is this going?'"

Three months earlier, Krugman had said, "Here we are more than 2 1/2 years after the official end of the recession, and we're still well below, of course, pre-Bush employment."

In October 2004, unemployment was 5.5% and continued to slowly decline. At the time, Krugman described the economy as "weak," with "job creation ... essentially nonexistent."

How bad would it get? If we don't get our "financial house in order," he said, "I think we're looking for a collapse of confidence some time in the not-too-distant future."

Fast-forward to 2010.

The projected deficit for fiscal year 2010 is over $1.5 trillion, or more than 10% of GDP. This sets a post-WWII record in both absolute numbers and as a percentage of GDP. And if the Obama administration's optimistic projections of economic growth fall short, things will get much worse.

So what does Krugman say now? We must guard against "deficit hysteria." In "Fiscal Scare Tactics," his recent column, Krugman writes:

"These days it's hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we're told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world.

"These claims generally aren't stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they're reported as if they were facts, plain and simple."

He continues: "And fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction."

Krugman believes Bush lied us into the Iraq War. Just as people unreasonably feared Saddam Hussein, they now have an unwarranted fear of today's deficit.


• Didn't Krugman, less than six years ago, call the deficit "enormous"?
• Wouldn't he, therefore, consider a $1.5 trillion deficit at 10% of GDP mega-normous?
• Didn't he describe the economy with 5.5% unemployment as "weak"? Isn't the current economy, at 9.7% unemployment, even weaker?
• If the 2004 deficit was "comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country," wouldn't today's much bigger deficit cause even more heartburn?

Nope. Now a huge deficit is actually a good thing: "The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs."

The deficit "should be bigger"?!

Long term, Krugman says, we've got concerns about revenue and spending. But as for now:

"There's no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade."
In 2004, Krugman warned that without a "clear path towards fiscal sanity" before "the next decade," we faced a "crunch."

Presumably, we now have this "clear path."

Let's review. In 2004, an unhappy Krugman criticized Bush's "weak" economy and "miserable" job creation. Running an "enormous" deficit was a bad thing. Times were awful — "by a large margin" the worst job crash and performance since Herbert Hoover.

Today the deficit is four times as large in an even weaker economy with much higher unemployment. Times are awful. Now, though, the deficit is a good thing and should be even bigger.

Krugman's flip-flop on the deficit demonstrates a modern economic equation. Hatred of Bush + love for Obama = intellectual dishonesty.


Print This Post Print This Post
Jan 17

How Abominable Is Obama As President? He Is Making Jimmy Carter Look Like a Superstar Choir Boy In Comparison.

Whew! As incompetent, naïve and damaging to our country as Jimmy Carter was as President (and among the worst), he shines in comparison to Obama who hasn’t even completed his first year in office. As argued below, Carter was honest to a fault at times whereas Obama doesn’t know the meaning of the word. The former was part of middle America and aimed to serve and do what was best for the country even if his policies and implementation were poor. On the other hand, Obama comes across as angry, contemptuous foreign conqueror of a land he despises and has little interest in except as a source for personal aggrandizement of wealth and power in order to feed his insatiable narcissism and hedonism ala Nero. His goals for America are Evil - to impose his ideologies and ways on others, transforming the country to fit his perverted vision of what he feels America should be.

Comparisons Of Obama To Carter Are Inapt And Unfair (To Carter)
By Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins    01/05/2010

Because of President Obama's outrageous profligacy with the public purse, strong policy tilt to the left and weak performance on the world stage, some commentators foresee a failed presidency that does profound and permanent harm to the nation.

Others, although not predicting Armageddon, point to the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter when, like today, there was a confluence of economic crisis at home and dangerous timidity abroad.

But comparing Obama (and his potential destructiveness) to Carter (and his failure to achieve) is neither apt nor fair to President Carter.

Carter was mostly a typical Democrat of his time: naïve about the economy, enamored with government-engineered solutions, meddlesome by nature and weak on national defense. On the other hand, he was steeped in the traditions and values of middle class Americans. It was probably they who Carter-the-Baptist-Sunday-school- teacher had in mind on Inauguration Day when he swore to "preserve, protect and defend."

In contrast, Barack Obama's connections with mainstream America are slight. Before moving to Washington, his main experience was at Harvard and in the Hyde Park district of Chicago, both sui generis and certainly atypical of America.
Judged by his life record, his regard for the ways and worth of the American middle class is low.

Early in life (at about the same age Carter was when he joined the U.S. Navy), Obama joined the hardcore left in the "community organizing" business. He honed his skills and instructed his constituents in the techniques of using government power to gain money and wealth for themselves — at the expense of other people. He has since put this technique to good use in Washington.

Obama played in Chicago politics, sometimes aligning with practitioners of "grievance" politics who take a critical, often race-based view of America and its past, demanding redress, condemning market capitalism and, in some cases, disparaging America's Anglo-Saxon traditions of civil governance.

When he ran for president, Obama concealed his left-wing ideology, but true to its principles, eschewed the normally obligatory campaign obeisances to middle-class values and America's exceptional place in the firmament of nations.
Instead, he talked about "transforming" America and gulled 60 million voters into thinking that change meant restoration, not destruction.

Once elected, he lurched back to the left and has spent his first year in office assiduously laying the foundation for dismantling much that most Americans hold dear.

Somewhat reminiscent of Carter, Obama has failed to stand up to Iran, tends toward being neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (except when prodded vigorously) and has taken a weak, apologetic stance on behalf of America in world affairs.

Carter's dovishness in the 1970s reflected his own piety and humility, as well as his near-messianic belief in his anointed role as world peacemaker.

In Obama's case, the evidence suggests a very different explanation for his behavior: He simply is not an admirer of America and its longstanding ethos. He wants to change America's economic system, redistribute its wealth, recast its essentially middle-class Judeo-Christian culture and switch its foreign alliances.

Obama seems not to have his heart in the war on terrorism. In Afghanistan, he's phlegmatically gone through the motions, sending more troops to be killed while he's planning to withdraw.

In the meantime, military commanders still fighting to win are cautioned not to "overreach."

Obama either doesn't understand, or doesn't like, free market capitalism. He continues to prescribe high-risk government elixirs that, when administered in greater quantities, will permanently damage the economy.

Obama does, however, understand how to loot the American middle class with his onrushing combination of monetary, tax and spending policies designed to rob them of $5 trillion to $10 trillion over a decade.

When Jimmy Carter ran for president, he said, "I'll never lie to you." And he didn't. He was honest to a fault, once confessing to a journalist that he "lusted in his heart." From day one, Barack Obama has been the Great Pretender, spinning webs of half-truths calculated to deceive.

The ObamaCare monstrosity, stuffed with pork and deception, claiming to do what it does not and pretending to do good while inflicting harm, is a national disgrace, an insult to the intelligence of every American and a fitting monument to President Obama's first year in office.

Jimmy Carter was not the greatest, but he wasn't the worst president America has had. Barack Obama is so far winning the race to the bottom.

• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the treasury in the Ford administration.
• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.



Print This Post Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed Follow Us on Twitter
To Contact Members of Congress To Contact Media News Editors Government Run Health Care