Is Trump the True Purveyor of Hope?

Recently, Michelle Obama said this: 'We are feeling what not having hope feels like'.   I don't know who the "We" really is in that statement, but the suggestion is that Trump's presidency provides no hope for our nation.

Hope is a fleeting thing.  It's personal.  What you "hope for" may last for years, or may be fulfilled in just days. or never fulfilled.  Your particular "hope" may not be what someone else is hopeful for.  Democrats always sell hope like some type of "snake oil" that will cure all your ills.  In 1992, the soon-to-be President, Bill Clinton, ran the following ad. In it, he proclaimed the he would "bring hope back to the American Dream".

Whether, either individually or collectively, that "nondescript" promise of  "hope" ever came true is up to each individual that lived through that time.


When Obama ran for President, he, like Bill Clinton, also ran on a slogan of "hope".  Actually, "hope and change". Maybe, Michelle should look at the results of a recent poll about the last eight years:

"...only 30 percent feel they are better off financially now than before Obama became president.  One-in-five says they’re worse off (22 percent), and nearly half feel their family’s financial situation is about the same (47 percent)."

Understand, when 47% say their family financial situation is "about the same", they are saying that things are the same as 2009, when the country was in recession. Where's all the hope in those findings?

The fact is, Obama never fulfilled the most personal "hope" that most Americans have: jobs and better income for themselves and their family.   I think Trump may just be the best "hope" for those who haven't benefited financially during the 8 years of Obama.

References:

Michelle Obama: 'We are feeling what not having hope feels like': http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/michelle-obama-home-oprah-interview/

Fox News Poll: Positive ratings for President Obama as he exits: Despite that...only 30 percent feel they are better off financially now than before Obama became president.  One-in-five says they’re worse off (22 percent), and nearly half feel their family’s financial situation is about the same (47 percent): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/15/fox-news-poll-positive-ratings-for-president-obama-as-exits.html?refresh=true

Michelle Obama's suggestion Trump is end of 'hope' for America gets pushback: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/17/michelle-obama-suggests-trump-is-white-house-is-end-hope-for-america.html

pb

Hillary Touts Bill Clinton's Wage Growth

Yesterday, I briefly caught a Hillary Clinton stump speech in Indiana, in which she stated  that the last time there was wage growth in this country, was when her husband was President (1993 to 2001).  Then, she said it all stopped when a Republican replaced him.  And, yes, if you look at the following chart, she would be correct.

Click on Image To Enlarge

Neither George Bush nor Barack Obama have been able to get the real median household income back to the 1999 peak that occurred during Bill Clinton's presidency.  However, what is also true, is that wage growth under Clinton was all due to the largest increase in income inequality, with the top 1% of incomes generally patterning the peaks and valleys of the chart above (as noted in the following chart).

Click on Chart to Enlarge

At the same time, the bottom 90% (the bottom line on that graph) improved very little under her husband's years in office.

The truth is. that Bill Clinton was in office  during a time when more millionaires were created than ever before.  It was the core years of the dot-com and the Internet revolution.  What is also true is that, as seen above, the top 1% recouped their losses quickly after the Great Recession.  On the other hand, it shows that despite these gains, median incomes continued to fall through 2012.  Thereby implying that 99% had substantially greater losses in income through 2012.   Of course, that doesn't speak well for the current Democrat in office, now does it? 

One last note.  Growth in wages stopped a year before Bush got into office because the dot-com bubble burst; sending the stock market reeling.  Contrary to Hillary's assertion, George Bush had nothing to do with that, or 9/11, which also caused incomes to fall until they bottomed out in 2004. Then they continued to rise again until the Great Recession hit.


References:

Real Median Household Incomes: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N

This chart shows why Hillary Clinton wants to ‘topple’ the 1 percent: http://fusion.net/story/123719/hillary-clinton-income-inequality-topple-1-percent/

 Dot-com Bubble: https://www.google.com/search?q=dot+com+bubble&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Defending Bill Clinton Versus Black Lives Matter On Crime

Apparently, a big issue among blacks, and especially the Black Lives Matter group, is the 1994 crime bill that Bill Clinton signed into law while President, which they believe has caused mass incarcerations of blacks.  At a rally, he was forced to dress down Black Lives Matter protestors over that very issue.

Its not often that I defend Bill Clinton, but the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act along with the gun control bill called the Brady Bill (which Clinton also signed into law that same year), have gone a long way in saving lives and reducing crime in this country.

In the 1990's, when Clinton came to office, crime was out of control; especially violent crime and murder.  Murders hit a record high of 24,700 in 1991 and the incidences of violent crime also hit a record 1.9 million in 1992.   As of 2014, murders hit a low of 14,249 and violent crimes are down to 1.2 million.  And, yes, because of those two laws by Clinton, black incarcerations have gone up.

But, understand, according to FBI statistics, blacks commit more crimes relative to their percentage of the population.  While they makeup just 12% of the population, they commit 52.2% of all murders/manslaughters.  They commit 56% of robberies, and overall, 28.3% of all crimes categorized by the FBI.  So, its only logical that they would have a higher incarceration rate (32%).  Also understand, that blacks have a higher rate of recidivism which is generally blamed on higher rates of poverty which stands at 27% compared to 15.4% for the general population.  Additionally, higher black rates of unemployment and higher rates of illiteracy force them to commit higher amounts of crime.  According to the Department of Education, 70% of prison inmates are functionally illiterate.

The bottom line is that Clinton accomplished a reduction of crime.  Especially when you consider that the population of this country is 22% higher than it was in 1994.  Therefore, proportionately, the reductions are even more dramatic.  Now, while the crime bill itself really only addressed getting criminals off the streets, it fell woefully short in reducing the very reasons for crime.  That's what Black Lives Matter protesters should be focused on and not the 22 year old crime bill itself.  Also, blacks need to take responsibility for their high rates of crime and incarceration; starting with education, leading to improved literacy rates, and ultimately, better jobs.

References:

Bill Clinton spars with Black Lives Matter protesters: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/bill-clinton-black-lives-matter-protesters/index.html

20 Years Later, Parts Of Major Crime Bill Viewed As Terrible Mistake: http://www.npr.org/2014/09/12/347736999/20-years-later-major-crime-bill-viewed-as-terrible-mistake

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2014: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

U.S. Population 1994: https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s+population+in+1994&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

FBI: Arrests by Race and Crime: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

Prisoner Populations in 2013: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf

Criminal Recidivism: the Plight of African American Male Youth: https://psychsocialissues.com/2013/11/20/criminal-recidivism-the-plight-of-african-american-male-youth/

Poverty in Black America: http://blackdemographics.com/households/poverty/

Illiteracy Statistics:  http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/

Echoes of Clinton's North Korea Nuke Deal Haunt the Iran Deal

When North Korea announced its detonation of a hydrogen bomb, many of us were reminded of the nuke deal struck by then-President Bill Clinton in 1994, when North Korea supposedly agreed to "freeze and dismantle its nuclear program".

In so many ways, the words of Bill Clinton are nearly the same as President Obama regarding the Iran nuke deal.  This is why so many people on the political right believe that lightening will strike twice and Iran will get the bomb quicker than the President  would have you believe.

pb

Bernie Sanders: Jail Wall Street CEO's

On October 6th, Bernie Sanders said this:

“It is an obscenity that people in this country are getting arrested at near record rates for smoking marijuana, but not one Wall Street CEO has been prosecuted for triggering the Great Recession in 2008. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college because of the greed on Wall Street. We can no longer tolerate a criminal justice system that treats Wall Street executives as too big to jail when their actions have ruined the lives of so many Americans.”

Simply, the reason that no Wall Street CEO was ever charged with a single crime during the financial crisis, was that two Democratic-controlled Congresses and two Democratic Presidents -- Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton -- were responsible for the housing bubble and the fact that banking institutions were engaging in investment activities by bundling loans and selling them on Wall Street. A fact that the Obama Administration didn't want made public with a series of federal trials. 

In 1977, Congress passed a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA); which President Carter signed into law. That law "encouraged" any banking institution receiving Federal Depositors Insurance to provide increased loan activity to low income neighborhoods in the area they served. In other words, banks were forced to relax their lending requirements and take on more risk by lending to lower income families.  Banking institutions not in compliance could lose FDIC and be barred from any expansion of their operations.

Enforcement was lax until Bill Clinton became President in 1993.  His administration heavily cracked down on banks and expanded the mandate to increase the percentage of low income families being served by the law. Thus, they were seriously forced to take on more risk and severely reduce lending requirements.  This resulted in people getting  loans that never should have. In the following video, Clinton brags about the fact that since 1977, 85+% of the funding in low income neighborhoods had come after his 5 years in office:

Then, too, Clinton also signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed those parts of the 1933 Glass-Stegall law which had prohibited investment banking.  Therefore, banks got the green light to use Wall Street to bundle mortgages and sell them in the stock market in order to shield themselves from the increased loan risk from low income families.

Basically, it was the federal government that created the financial mess that occurred just 6 years after Clinton left office.  And, any CEO being charged with some kind of fiduciary malfeasance -- as Bernie Sanders has suggested -- would have easily escaped  any fines or prison time because of  "the devil made me do it" defense; where the devil is really President Clinton.

So Bernie, maybe it is Bill Clinton who needs to be behind bars; and not some Wall Street CEO.

References:

Bernie Sanders wants Wall Street execs jailed for 2008 financial crisis: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251653762

A Brief Description of CRA: http://www.ncrc.org/programs-a-services-mainmenu-109/policy-and-legislation-mainmenu-110/the-community-reinvestment-act-mainmenu-80/a-brief-description-of-cra-mainmenu-136

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

To Hillary, Bill was the King of Income Inequality

On June 13, Hillary Clinton was about to relaunch her presidential campaign after its horrible launch weeks ago, that came amid all the Clinton Foundation scandals.  But, prior to her appearance, a close campaign confidant leaked an excerpt of the speech she was about to give in the Business Insider magazine. It concerned income inequality. The text follows:

Republicans think it’s time to go back to the old top-down playbook that failed us before.  They think it’s time for lower taxes for the super-rich and fewer rules for the biggest corporations. We’ve seen this before.  And we can’t let it happen again.

Really? Failed us?  This from a woman who makes more money giving a one hour speech than nearly 4,000 minimum wage workers would make in a year working 40 hours a week with no vacation or sick days?  Not exactly an "I really feel your pain moment"!

That aside, one measure of income inequality is how the top 10% of the nation's income earners fare against the rest of us.  To that point, let me thank two liberal (actually socialist) French economists for the following chart:

As you can clearly see, in 1928 (a year prior to the Crash of '29), the top 10% were almost earning 50% of what all the rest of the country earned.  Then came the market crash, the Great Depression, World War II, and the Korean war, so that by 1953, the super rich had only controlled a little more than 32% of all incomes.  Until Democrat Jimmy Carter became President, the richest incomes meandered sideways from 32-1/2 percent to 35% with the years under Republicans Nixon/Ford being the most stable.  Then, in 1979, under Democrat Jimmy Carter, the current increase in super rich wealth began. From that point forward, the rich not only regained their high percentage of income earning power they enjoyed from pre-1929 levels, but exceeded it by now earning in excess of 50% of all incomes in 2012 and under Democrat Barack Obama's watch.  Further, under Obama, we have historically high levels of poverty. 

Interestingly, the steepest and least interrupted growth in income inequality occurred during the years that Hillary's husband, Democrat Bill Clinton was in office from 1993 to 2001.  During those years -- starting in 1995 -- the super rich grew from 41% of incomes to nearly 47% by 2000.  A gain of nearly 15% in just 4 years.

Once again, Hillary is making a campaign issue out of a lie.  More often than not, gains in the rich's earning power increase under Democrats because the super wealthy feed off higher government spending, policies, and regulation. For example, right now, the rich are making money hand-over-fist in the stock market which is reaching record highs because interest rates have been so low.  At the same time, those who are lucky enough to have some money in the bank are seeing interest rates that are less than inflation; meaning that they are losing money on every penny of savings they have.

Hillary may talk like "Robin Hood" regarding the rich, but she's not going to do anything about it. Hillary and Bill love the rich.  That's who pays them for all those speaking engagements and that's who supports the Clinton Foundation.  These are also the very people who will give Hillary enough money to run her billion dollar campaign. 

References:

Hillary Clinton, in Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges to Close Income Gap: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/hillary-clinton-attacks-republican-economic-policies-in-roosevelt-island-speech.html

Hillary Clinton's 'talking points' for 'friends and allies' just leaked: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-talking-points-for-friends-and-allies-just-leaked-2015-6

Chart source: How do we know income inequality is getting worse?: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dreaming-of-a-better-gini/

That's rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all

How Did the Clintons Become So Rich? [and help their rich friends at the same time]: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-did-clintons-become-so-rich


pb

Torture Under Clinton Was Far Worse Than Under Bush

Senator Dianne Feinstein has released her Democrat-staff-written report on CIA torture during the George W. Bush years following 9/11.  In that report, we will find that the CIA used various forms of "psychological" interrogation techniques -- which Feinstein calls torture -- such as water boarding; which makes the person feel that they are drowning, when in fact, they are not, or, we see that we used various forms of sleep deprivation.

But, nowhere in that report will you find extreme forms of physical torture used like those seen in other countries where people are left bloodied by constant blows, have their bones broken, have certain parts of their bodies electrocuted, or have fingers and toes cut off.

As a country, we don't torture people in those ways. We've signed both the Geneva and UN Conventions that ban tortured interrogations on any prisoners or prisoners of war.

However, other countries are well versed in those physical torture techniques and, there is nothing in either the Geneva or UN Conventions that prevent us from using those countries to obtain information by those means that we, ourselves, are prevented from using.

That is why President Bill Clinton authorized the CIA to use something called "extraordinary rendition" to transfer abducted enemies-of-the-U.S. to countries who practiced true physical torture.  In this way, America could (theoretically) keep its hands clean in the process.  When Bush took office, that practice was stopped and the CIA used "enhanced interrogation" techniques at American facilities.  Techniques that were well restrained in comparison to what Bill Clinton authorized and which the Bush Administration felt were acceptable under previously signed Conventions.

Another thing that Feinstein doesn't seem remember is the fact Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, used sleep deprivation against the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas.  Yes, that's right Texas.  For days, loud music and high intensity spotlights were used to deprive the Dividians of sleep.

It is interesting that Dianne Feinstein solely focused on the Bush years, and never once, thought of  including the Clinton years in her report, when the torture process was totally unrestrained. 

Lastly, Senator Feinstein claims the interrogation techniques used were ineffective because they yielded false information that was purely being given to the CIA interrogators in order to stop what she calls torture.  Really?  Does anyone really think our CIA was so stupid to think that people wouldn't attempt to lie to them during an interrogation?  Everything that was learned had to be verifiable.  This was especially true when enhanced interrogation techniques lead to the disclosure of Bin Laden's personal courier's name.  It was the courier's house that Bin Laden was staying in when he was killed by our Special Forces team.  Also, if enhanced interrogation was so ineffective, why did the CIA continue to use it for six years after 9/11?

References:

CIA torture report brands post-9/11 program as brutal and ineffective: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released

Extraordinary rendition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

January 2009: Panetta faces rendition queries: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/15/panetta-faces-rendition-queries/?page=all

The deaths of Special Agents Todd McKeehan, Conway LeBleu, Robert Williams and Steve Willis resulted in a prolonged stand-off involving psychological operations tactics from the mission to capture Manuel Noriega in 1989. These included the playing of loud music, recordings of planes and chanting in addition to the use of spotlights to deprive the Branch Davidians of sleep: https://www.hsdl.org/blog/view/s_4524


United Nations Convention against Torture - Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture

Enhanced interrogation techniques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques

Did Harsh Interrogation Tactics Lead To Bin Laden?: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136005405/did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-lead-to-bin-laden

Operations In Iraq: 4 Presidents Spanning 24 years and Counting

Thanks to Michele Hackman at the Wall Street Journal, the following graphic is the most concise but informative overview of the United States actions in Iraq.

Hillary's Claim Of Being Broke When Leaving the White House

In an interview with Dianne Sawyer about her book "Hard Choices," Hilary Clinton claims that when she and Bill left the White House, they were in so much debt that they had to 'Keep Working Really Hard' to keep their heads above water.  Simply, she told Sawyer: "We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's education. You know, it was not easy."

Here's the how ridiculous that statement is.  In September of 1999, just a year and 3 months prior to leaving the White House, the Clintons bought a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua.  Then, just a month prior to exiting the Presidency, in December 2000, the Clintons purchased a $2.85 million home in Washington, D.C.  Now, if they were in such financial straits, why not live in that, relatively speaking, "little" Chappaqua house until they could get back on their feet?

And, poor little Chelsea had to literally struggle to get educated because her parents were so deep in debt.  I suppose that's why, they could only afford to send her to Stanford for her undergraduate degree and Oxford and Columbia for her master's.  None of these schools are cheap. Stanford estimates the annual cost of education at their university to be in excess of $60,000.  The average American family doesn't make $60,000 in a year.

This woman is a complete B.S.'er.  That's why no one should trust her Benghazi narrative either!  I don't know who's the bigger liar: her, her husband, or Obama.

References:

Hillary Clinton On Post-White House Debt: We Had To 'Keep Working Really Hard': http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-post-white-house-debt-working-hard/story?id=24064204

The Clintons say they left the White House in debt. Wait, what?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/09/the-clintons-left-the-white-house-in-debt-wait-what/

Chelsea Clinton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Clinton

The Student Budget: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/undergrad/budget/

The Clintons Are Coming and Chappaqua Braces: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces2000/stories/chappaqua090499.htm

Clintons Buy $2.85 Million Washington Home: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/30/us/clintons-buy-2.85-million-washington-home.html

Did Clinton Just Give Obama A Wake-up Call In Dealing With Putin?

One of the observations -- and certainly a criticism -- regarding President Obama's handling of difficult situations is that he doesn't seem to see things the way they really are.  Many times he takes actions that aren't in proportion to the seriousness of the event.  Certainly, his "baby steps" handling of Putin's takeover of Crimea has given his critics a perfect example of this weakness.

Recently, just a day before Crimea successfully voted to secede from the Ukraine, Bill Clinton was asked to comment.  Interestingly, he said this about Putin:

“The one thing I will say about him is he was always pretty transparent. He never pretended to be what he wasn’t..."

Well, one thing I can say about Clinton is that he is a very skilled wordsmith; never wasting words and always making sure that, what he says sends a clear political message.  Rarely does he ever gaffe when talking unscripted.  Therefore, I think that the quote, above, is something that he has thought about and clearly wanted to say.  For this reason, I believe the former President was trying to send a wake-up call to Obama by telling him that he needs to take Putin's words and actions seriously.  Otherwise, he would never have wasted a single word in mentioning something that, to too many people, was clearly obvious.

Source: Clinton On Putin: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/17/bill-clinton-putin-highly-intelligent-but-has-flawed-view-of-greatness/

Why Obama's Executive Orders Are Lawless

When Barack Obama took the oath of office, he agreed, before God and our country, that he would "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  In doing so, he also agreed to Article Two, Clause Five of the Constitution which states that the President must "faithfully execute the laws of the land".  The word "faithfully" in that statement is clearly defined by Webster's Dictionary as "strict or thorough performance of one's duty." Faithfully does not mean that the President can arbitrarily execute the laws of the land.  Nor, does it say he can ignore those parts of the Constitution he doesn't like.

In our power-balanced system of government, only Congress has the right to create or amend laws; and, once signed into law they become the responsibility of that President and all future President's to "faithfully" execute and uphold them.  If, however, the law is somehow unconstitutional, the courts can strike it down; but, not the President. Therein lies the problem with a number of executive orders issued by Obama.  Especially those associated with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that he, himself, signed into law.  If he didn't like the mandates of the ACA, including the dates of implementation, he should have vetoed it.  That was his right under our Constitution.  But, instead, by signing it into law, he agreed to "faithfully" execute it.

Some on the left, like Juan Williams, a writer for the Hill.com and a Fox News contributor, seem to think that the issue of lawlessness is, somehow, just a numbers game; arguing that George Bush and Bill Clinton issued twice as many executive orders than has Obama.  I suppose, then, from this, we are to believe that both Clinton and Bush were twice as lawless as Obama. That argument is just a another canard; being served up for the benefit of the dumbest in our society who don't know any better.  Both Clinton and Bush were cautious to issue executive orders that could not be construed as being unconstitutional.  Clinton even waived off an opportunity to kill Bin Laden because he thought that it could be interpreted as an illegal or unconstitutional act.

In Obama's case, he revels in blatant, in-your-face violations of the Constitution.  Neither Clinton nor Bush would have issued an executive order forcing "all" religious organizations to  provide free contraception methods and abortive drugs to their employees; thus, violating the protection of religious rights and freedoms. Yet, in the case of President Obama, he is taking this lawlessness all the way to the Supreme Court, with many experts believing that the "contraception" order will be found unconstitutional.

We should have known from his earliest days in office that Obama would use his "pen" to violate the laws of the land for purely political reasons.  In February of 2009, just days before he signed his $787 billion stimulus package into law, he issued an executive order entitled: "USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS".  In effect, this was payback to the unions for their help in his election.  Under that executive order, union work rules and union pay scales were mandated for all Federal construction projects; especially all those projects that were being outlined in the Stimulus Package.  So, when it was eventually signed into law,  the vast majority of all of those so-called shovel-ready jobs were invalidated by the President's previous executive order on union work rules and pay.  Then, all those projects had to be rebid at higher costs with either union or union-like labor.  That's the primary reason that the $787 billion Stimulus Package wound up costing the taxpayer $831 billion and why so many shovel-ready projects were cancelled or delayed. Then, in 2011, Obama looked back and quipped that "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected!" as if he had nothing to do with it.

In my opinion, Obama's continued use of executive orders just proves his ineptness in the "horse trading" skills that we have seen, and have come to expect, from our past presidents.  This president simply cannot negotiate or compromise.  There are no carrots in his quiver; only sticks.

References:

Executive Order: Use of Project Labor Agreements (PLA): http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderUseofProjectLaborAgreementsforFederalConstructionProjects

Obama Jokes About Shovel-ready Jobs: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/06/13/obama-jokes-jobs-council-shovel-ready-was-not-shovel-ready-we-expected

Hank Crumpton, Former CIA Officer: Clinton Wouldn't Authorize Osama Bin Laden Kill In 1999: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html

February 14th, Juan Williams to Martha MacCallum on Fox: "I can't even understand why Mr. Limbaugh's so upset, because when I look at the actual numbers, you see that President Obama has used an executive order to go around the Congress, I think it's less than half of the time of Bill Clinton, and just over half of the time of President George W. Bush. So it just doesn't make sense to me, I mean, unless you're trying to demonize President Obama and say he's lawless and he's a bad guy": http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/14/it_s_obama_s_lawlessness_that_matters_not_his_motivation

Dispelling the Myth That George W. Bush Only Benefited The Rich

We've heard it all before.  According to Obama and the Democrats, the George W. Bush tax cuts only benefited  the rich.  Thus, apparently, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during the Bush years.

However, thanks to a post by Jim Lindgren, in a Washington Post blog, we get this very enlightening chart:

As the chart shows, of the last four out-of-office Presidents, the incomes of the lowest 20% of our population under George W. Bush increased the highest at 18.4%.  At the same time, the top 20%, saw declines of  6% in their incomes.  Under Clinton, the poor only saw income increases of 13.3%; but, the richest 1% saw their income rise by a whopping 84.1%.  Reagan was the biggest benefactor of the rich with a 90.9% increase in their incomes in his 8 years.

That, then, brings us to Obama.  Under his stewardship we have a record number of people in poverty: 46.5 million and a 49-year high; as a percent of population. Further, Obama has had to admit that, since being in office, 95% of all the income gains have gone to the top 1%.

If this was a fairy tale, and Obama had a magic mirror, his "fairest of all" question would definitely result in George W's face reflecting back at him.   


References:

Jim Lindgren:  If we want more income equality, should we return to the economy of George W. Bush?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/28/if-we-want-more-income-equality-should-we-return-to-the-economy-of-george-w-bush/

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/?page=all


Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1%: http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/

If The Clinton Economy Was So Great When All The Taxes Were Higher, Let's Raise Them All Again!

All we ever hear from the Democrats is that the economy did well under Clinton when tax rates on the rich were higher.  Then, too, so were all the other tax rates; from the top to, oh yes, the bottom.  With the Democrats arguing that we need more tax revenues to fix our debt problems, then why not raise all the taxes again?  Obviously, the Clinton-Era proved that higher tax rates only helped the economy.

So what if the average family will lose a couple thousand dollars to new taxes?  That should only be a short term problem.  After all, when the economy starts roaring again -- like in those good ole days of Bill Clinton -- all those middle classers should be able to offset those increases by getting newer and higher paying jobs.  Right?

I just think that if you are going to make an argument that high tax rates on the rich didn't hurt the economy or, better yet, actually helped the economy, you should also be able to explain why higher taxes on everyone didn't hurt the economy of the Clinton 90's.  For years, the Democrats have lied that the Bush tax cuts have only benefited the rich.  Yet, now, because of their need to argue for higher taxes on the rich, they are being forced to expose the fact that the poor and middle-class would be hit hardest of "all" if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire.

The fact is that this "raising taxes on the rich" has nothing to do with the economy or deficits.  Its just the proliferation of an old left-wing, ideological belief that the rich, somehow, should be punished for their wealth. It has socialism, if not pure communism, written all over it.

Obama's Lie: Returning The Rich To The Tax Rates Under Clinton

Over and over, again, Obama calls for the "rich" to pay their fair share and simply pay the tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton.  But, that claim is so false, in so many ways, that it is just laughable.

First, there's this outright lie. When Clinton left office in 2001, the top tax rate was 39.6%.  That's the same rate that Obama wants to return to.  However, that rate was only being applied to those taxpayers making $297,350 and above; adjusted upwards from $288,350 in the previous year (see tax table link below).  You see, under Clinton the threshold for paying that top rate was being adjusted, annually, to account for inflation.  That's why, in 2002, the number was upped again to $307,050; and, that is also why, by 2011, the income threshold had been adjusted to $379,150.  But, what Obama wants to do is to take that threshold back to $250,000 for marrieds and even lower for singles making $200,000 or more.

The other distortion -- if not an outright lie -- has to do with tax increases associated with ObamaCare.  Under that law, those making in excess of $200,000 will be hit with a 0.9% with a payroll tax increase. Automatically, this means that the former-Clinton tax rate of 39.6% will be increased to a 40.5% tax rate if Obama gets his way.  Further, ObamaCare adds a new tax to be born only by people making over $200,000.  That tax is the 3.8% surcharge on any capital investment profits; including any profit from the sale of a home.  Additionally, many of those in the $200,000/$250,000 tax bracket are the ones who have purchased "Cadillac" heath insurance policies.   ObamaCare imposes a 40% against any policy under the "Cadillac" criteria.

Lastly,  the rich are getting beaten around the head by new and higher taxes at the state level.  In Illinois, taxes were raised by 57%.  A new tax on the rich is on Tuesday's ballot in California.  Put all together, the rich are being massively targeted by taxes.  But, more importantly, these taxes are draining funds from the very people who create more tax paying jobs in America.  Increasing taxes on the rich to solely maintain and grow economy-sucking governments is just idiocy.  Just look at Greece and Spain at near financial collapse and their near 25% unemployment rates.

--- National Taxpayers Union: Historical Tax Rate Tables For Top And Bottom Rates:  http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Which Policies Of Bush Caused The Economic Mess We're In?

Over and over, again, Obama and the Democrats blame the "policies" of George W. Bush for causing the recession and the economic mess we find ourselves in.  Literally, you heard a continuous chorus of those charges being made during the recent Democratic Convention.  But, I ask you this: "Have you ever heard a single Democrat, including Obama, tell you what specific Bush policies caused the recession?"  My guess is no because, as close as I am to politics, I have never heard an explanation or itemization of those supposed bad policies.  In fact, the Democrats, who had complete control of our government in 2009 and 2010, never really held hearings or issued a report blaming Bush for the recession and the banking problems.  Certainly, if Bush and the Republicans were at fault, you would have thought that the Democrats would have never passed up such a juicy political opportunity.  But, they did because too much of their own bad policies led to the recession and the housing collapse.

If you really want to know why banks were able to bundle worthless mortgages and sell them to each other and, again, sell them to banks in other countries, you need only look to the sweeping changes in banking regulation that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1999.  Here's the hype story from the very liberal New York Times; dated November 13, 1999:

"President Clinton signed into law today a sweeping overhaul of Depression-era banking laws. The measure lifts barriers in the industry and allows banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge and to sell each other's products."

It was from this very change in the banking laws that gave the banks and Wall Street firms a green light to bundle and sell so many worthless mortgages; putting their own financial security in jeopardy.  This is the very reason that billions of dollars in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) monies had to be used to save banks, and the securities and mortgage industries.  The fact is, that, if Clinton had left the previous banking regulations in place -- the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act -- we would have never seen the collapse of the banking industry; and, the recession would have definitely been less severe.  For sure, the mortgage industry would have been held to a higher standard and, as a result, the housing collapse might have been averted.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush has remained silent on this and so many other charges that Obama and the Democrats have leveled against him.  But, to me, they are just charges without any foundation. On top of that, you have a left-wing media who has also remained silent and who has been unwilling to expose this constant lie by Obama. To top that all off, you have the obviously economically guilty Bill Clinton, at last weeks' DNC, lecturing us on how good Democrats are with economic issues. 

Reference: New York Times: Clinton Signs Legislation Overhauling Banking Laws: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/13/business/clinton-signs-legislation-overhauling-banking-laws.html

Clinton Fantasy: No President Could Have Restored The Economy In Four Years

In his convention speech, Clinton said that no president, not even him, could have restored the economy in just 4 years.  Well, that, to me, is B.S.  The economy actually began to heal itself just as Obama took office.  Here's the chart:

In fact, by June of 2009 -- 5 months after Obama took office -- the recession was declared to be officially over.  From the above chart you can clearly see a snap-back in the economy.  Unemployment hadn't yet caught up with the recovery because unemployment is always a lagging indicator.  But, by the 4th quarter of 2009, the economy actually grew by 5.6%.  For the last half of 2009, the economy had recovered to an average 4.1% growth.  This was truly a recovery and, if left alone, it could have been a good recovery.

My contention is that as Stimulus money was being applied it weakened the U.S. dollar as debt was being created.  This, in turn, created inflation in  food, gasoline, clothing, and imported goods.  This inflation seriously damaged the purchasing power of the American consumer.  As a result, consumer spending began to slide and the economy has been weakening ever since.  From 5.6% in the 4th Quarter of 2009, we saw economic growth drop to 3.1% in 2010 and to 2% in 2011.  This year, thus far, growth is another abysmal 1.7% but still subject to being reported lower as the next two quarters of growth are reported.

The fact is that Obama stalled a recovery through massive spending.  Cheapening the dollar through massive debt accumulation has its consequences.  That consequence is a slowed economy and weakened consumer spending..  Apparently, something Clinton either doesn't understand or would just prefer to lie about it.


Report: Clinton: No one could have restored economy to full health in 4 years: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13686746-clinton-no-one-could-have-restored-economy-to-full-health-in-4-years?lite

Can You Believe Bill Clinton's Speech Last Night?

Rush Limbaugh has said that Bill Clinton is the only politician he knows of that can lie to you, straight faced, and you don't mind being lied to.  Hence, his widely held nickname of  "Slick Willie". Certainly, much of what he said last night was just that.  And, how do I know this? In making his points, he used that same boney, word-by-word cadenced finger pointing that he used when saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."  This kind of scolding gesturing is his way of saying that "you'd better believe me" (even though I'm lying). Otherwise, when telling the truth or when making honest comments, he tends to express himself with open outstretched-hands or with a hands-on-chest gesture as if to pull the audience into what he's saying.

Oh, and by the way.  Don't expect the liberal media to fact-check anything Clinton said last night.  That's because he is their god, and, to fact check god would be akin to blasphemy.

Not All Democrats Have Decried Paul Ryan and His Budget Plan

While Obama and other Democrats have spent the last few days demonizing Paul Ryan, it wasn't but a few month's ago that two influential Democrats were giving Ryan "props":

Bill Clinton:



Erskine Bowles:



I guess Bill Clinton doesn't seem to think that Paul Ryan is going to throw Granny off the cliff! 

The Democrats Still Haven't Learned From Their 1990 Tax-The-Rich Fiasco

In 1990, the Democrats in Congress convinced President, read-my-lips, no-new-taxes, George H.W. Bush to sign into law a luxury tax on expensive boats, furs, aircraft, and automobiles.  You know, all those things that the envious Democrats find to be disgusting toys and symbols of the rich and famous.  Blinded by their ideological zeal to punish the wealthy,  they truly thought this tax would help line the coffers of the federal government and reduce the deficit.  But, the tax backfired.  The revenues from it failed to materialize because the "rich" just stopped buying all those new toys; especially from U.S. manufacturers and suppliers.  Many went overseas or north to Canada and south to Mexico to buy them.  Then, too, they also bought used.  After all, a 10-year old Ferrari is still a Ferrari and still quite the status symbol; maybe even worth more than a new one.

In the boat building industry, alone, more than 16,000 highly paid  craftsman and workers lost their jobs.  Others, too, not directly involved in the actual boat building, like mechanics and sales personnel, lost their jobs.  Decades old, custom boat builders shuttered their doors, and some communities, who were primarily dependent on that industry, saw people move away to greener pastures; leaving it with barely any tax base to survive on.  States lost sales tax and income tax revenues.  And, the federal government lost income tax revenues from all those previously healthy boat builders and from the incomes of their workers.

Just, three years later, the Democrats and Bill Clinton quietly repealed the luxury tax.

So, here we are, again, with the Democrats and Obama wanting to sock it to the rich by extending the Bush tax cuts on everyone but the rich.  Obama says that it will bring in a much-needed $85 billion a year in increased tax revenues to reduce the deficit.  But, the rich are likely to respond, as they did in 1990, by avoiding those taxes.  Further,  that $85 billion is money that the rich won't have to spend; and, just like 1990, you can expect that some of the non-rich will pay, big-time, by losing their jobs.  That will result in higher government spending to pay for the increased unemployment claims.  In addition, the states will lose income tax revenues since state income taxes aren't calculated until after Uncle Sam takes his share; so those revenues are sure to proportionately decline.  That, in turn, will force some states to raise their own taxes to make up for the shortfalls.  And, as always: "He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it!"

The False Argument That Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich And The Economy Boomed

With Obama running around calling for increased taxes on those making $200,000 individually, and on families making more than $250,000, there are those, including the President, who are mis-characterizing what actually happened to the economy in the nineteen nineties when Bill Clinton was in office.

It is true that when Clinton took office in 1993, he and the Democrats in Congress raised the top marginal tax rate of the highest income earners from 31% to 39.6%.  And, it is also true that the economy did well despite the higher taxes on the rich.  What people are ignoring are two critical economic events in the 90's that helped offset the deleterious effects of that tax increase: (1) the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on January 1 of 1994 and (2) the Dot-Com boom; starting in 1995.

NAFTA alone has seen our inter-North American trade triple since 1994.  The Dot-Com boom created more millionaires and businesses than any other time in our nation's history.  So, to paraphrase Mr. Obama on Clinton's success:  "He didn't do that, someone else made it happen!"

One last point.  The so-called budget surpluses that Bill Clinton created came about because of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America; announced during the 1994 election process.  Once the Republicans took over Congress, they worked with Clinton on the passage and implementation of several bills in 1995-1996 that were designed to reduce federal spending.  As a result, the country went into budget surpluses; starting in 1998.  Any Democrats claiming that Bill Clinton's taxes on the rich created a better economy and reduced deficits is just an attempt to re-write history. It should also be pointed out the the economy did better under the Clinton deficit reduction years than any of the Clinton years prior to that.