National Debt

If I were to ask any sensible person what the number one issue facing America is, I’d bet the answer would be spending and debt.

We know what’s wrong. We know what needs to be done. However, half of Americans who bothered voting rewarded America with another 4 years of this idiot we call President.

In his first 4 years, Obama ran the biggest deficits in US history, driving the biggest debt growth in US history. His spending and deficits as a percentage of GDP were staggering, truly Greece-like. He presided over the worst employment record since the Great Depression, and poverty surged to record levels under him.

In spite of all this, the dolts of America decided we need more of it. So then the question pulled from this is “Why?” Simple; voters have discovered that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

Game over.



Protests against corporate greed and economic inequality spread across America.

Spreading unrest: Protesters gather on the front steps of the Idaho Capitol in Boise, Idaho.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, that began in New York last month with a few people, has now swelled to protests in more than a dozen cities.

They included Tampa, Florida; Trenton and Jersey City, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Norfolk, Virginia in the East; to Chicago and St. Louis in the Midwest; Houston, San Antonio and Austin in Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Portland, Oregon, Seattle and Los Angeles in the West.

To understand how we got to this, we need to take a short look at history.

The Time Line of Events

This televised report aired in September 2004 and can be viewed here. In the space of four minutes, it attempts to time line the events leading to the greatest economic failure since the Great Depression.

A significant portion of the events leading up to the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac debacle begins in – believe it or not – 1977


The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions.

And who signed this beautiful piece of legislation into law? The original Act was passed by the 95th United States Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977.


In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation.

Clinton admitted that his Administration could have done more to “set in motion some more formal regulation of the derivatives market,” but he vehemently denied that the repeal of Glass-Steagall or his Administration’s housing policies helped spur the financial crisis.


September In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

November: Clinton signs banking overhaul measure. Congress passed the bipartisan measure November 5, opening the way for a blossoming of financial “supermarkets” selling loans, investments and insurance. Proponents had pushed the legislation in Congress for two decades, and Wall Street and the banking and insurance industries had poured millions of dollars into lobbying for it in the past few years. “It was sweaty, it was tense, but it had momentum,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) said of the final bargaining session. He and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut) whose states are home to Wall Street and the banking industry (New York) and the insurance industry (Connecticut), helped broker the agreement.

Scandal at Fannie Mae

Corrupted political leaders contributed to the debacle we now wake up to every morning. In a Wall Street Journal analysis, the failure of the GSE’s began shortly after their 2003 and 2004 accounting scandals. Senior executives at Fannie Mae manipulated accounting to collect millions of dollars in undeserved bonuses and to deceive investors. The government-sponsored mortgage company was fined $400 million.

Franklin Delano Raines once a prominent Democrat and CEO of Fannie Mae, and Leland Brendsel, the CEO of Freddie Mac were removed from their assigned office in the wake of the multibillion-dollar accounting scandal. Source:The Fall of Fannie Mae

Many Warnings Ignored

Spanning a period of 6 years, President Bush and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.

Beginning as early as 2001, the President made repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities but was thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

The mounting and overwhelming evidence points to the fact many Democrats chose to drive while their eyes were closed, ignoring call after call to fix the problem and in some cases, belligerently and arrogantly denying any problem existed with their policies.

Fast Forward — October, 2011

Now, three years after the meltdown of 2008, we watch in amazement as the disillusioned take to the streets to protest against Wall Street and the banks.

It’s a bit ironic once you realize that the failed policies designed to give them what they want – easier access to housing being among them – turns out to be the catalyst to send them out into the streets in protest. Too self-centered to see it, or too stupid to understand, they are actually protesting against their own principles and philosophies, the outcome of which they apparently don’t like.

Cry Baby, cry.

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents

The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama’s first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.

For a first-year president, Obama is in a class all by himself. By any measure, Obama’s spending is nothing short of extraordinary.

Obama’s first year spending spree is nearly double that of his predecessor and far exceeds the spending of any first year president in the country’s history.

Dwight Eisenhower brought government spending down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.

Gerald Ford’s budget for 1975 was $982 billion.

Clinton’s spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms.

After adjusting for inflation, based on 2000 dollars, Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001.
Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008.

Obama’s 2009 budget is near 21 percent of that for Clinton’s eight years in office.
His spending for fiscal 2009 hits $3.52 trillion ($2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars). That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush’s term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama’s.

Obama’s spending pushed the federal deficit to $1.42 trillion, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush’s for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.

What the Interest on US debt could buy

For fiscal year 2009 federal government paid $202 billion in interest. Total interest on the debt includes intragovernmental holdings of $383.3 billion. This number is equal to the gross domestic product of Malaysia or Belgium.

Breakdown of the national debt:

Debt held by the public        : $7.6 trillion
Intragovernmental holdings     : $4.4 trillion
Total public debt outstanding  : $12 trillion

A subject near and dear to liberals is the amount spent on national defense. They rant and rave over military budgets, but have no problem with Obama’s record-breaking spending. They will no doubt choke on the following.

The total $383 billion in interest on the federal debt would pay for slightly more than half of the Defense department’s budget ($674.7 billion in FY2008). It would pay for just shy of half the annual budgets of Treasury ($751.2 billion) and Health and Human Services ($721.7 billion).

The $383 billion would cover the budget for the Dept. of Energy about 15 times over.

And how many government agency budgets could you pay for with $383 billion?

The $383 billion would pay for all on-budget costs of the following agencies (FY 2008), with about $12 billion in change left over.

AgencyFY 2008 on-budget
Executive Office of the President$289 M
General Services Administration$340 M
Small Business Administration$1.3 B
Legislative Branch$4.5 B
National Science Foundation$6.3 B
The Judiciary$6.5 B
Environmental Protection Agency$7.4 B
Corps of Engineers $9.1 B
Commerce$9.6 B
Interior$10.6 B
National Aeronautics and Space Administration$17.2 B
Energy$22.7 B
State$23.1 B
Justice$26.4 B
Homeland Security$50.6 B
Housing and Urban Development$50.9 B
Labor$57.9 B
Education$65.4 B
TOTAL:$370.2 B

And $383 billion would cover all federal government expenditures on the following areas (with about $13 billion left over):

CategoryFY 2008 expenditures
Natural resources & the environment$37.2 B
Agriculture$17.5 B
Transportation$81.5 B
Education$91.5 B
Veteran benefits & services$88.3 B
Administration of justice (law enforce. & courts)$49.1 B
TOTAL: $369.9 B

What could be more nuttier and dumber than liberals voting for Obama? For the left, that would be the right voting Palin for President of the United States. Yet, the left cannot begin to quantify the reasons why. All they know is something is wrong with it, while Obama and his definitive and destructive policies get a pass.


How the Ding-bats on the left view Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin’s Accomplishments
Since 1992, Sarah Palin has served on Wasilla’s city council, was elected as Mayor of Wasilla and served 2 terms. In 2006 she was elected Governor of Alaska.

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July. Palin gave a speech offering reasons for her departure. She argued that both she and the state have been expending an “insane” amount of time and money to address “frivolous” ethics complaints filed against her. She also said that her decision not to seek reelection would make her a lame duck governor. Palin did not take questions at the press conference. A Palin aide was quoted as saying Palin was “no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself.”


A quick review of Obama’s Background and First Year in Office.

Obama was hired as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland and worked there as a community organizer from June 1985 to May 1988.

Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago.

From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois’s Project Vote, a voter registration drive with a staff of ten and 700 volunteers; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state.

For 12 years, Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. In 1993 he joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a law firm of 12 attorneys that specialized in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002.

Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies in 1992. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999. He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996 and reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and was reelected again in 2002. In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee.

Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005. The National Journal ranked him as the “most liberal” senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007; in 2005 he was ranked sixteenth most liberal, and in 2006 he was ranked tenth.

Raised as a Muslim and with over 20 years of attendance at a Chicago church with a pastor’s anti-Semite and anti-American preachings, Obama today nurtures embedded socialist values and has carefully surrounded himself with radical leftist thinkers, many of them now appointed as “Czars” in his administration.

Obama’s thinking and vision for America embodies just about every value America has fought against for over 230 years. Many Americans have sacrificed their lives to preserve the way of life which Obama seems bent upon changing.

Thanks to Obama’s keen and well honed community organizing skills, Amercia faces generations of overwhelming and alarming debt. With the bailouts and handouts of his socialist policies and with the specter of HR3962 and Crap and Trade, it appears there is no end in sight.


A typical left-wing voter?

Where’s the Concern?

With all of the adverse and self-inflicted effects of Obama’s policies you would think liberals would share in the rest of America’s concern for her future. But alas, it appears liberals only have the vacant head to worry about and focus upon Sarah Palin. That’s it. Palin. We have unemployment rates which the country has not seen in over 25 years and an economy falling down around us brought upon us through decades of Democrat’s inept and arrogant mismanagement of flawed socialist programs and Palin is their target of worry. It’s clear liberals aren’t mentally fit to operate a toothbrush without supervision, much less America’s economy.


In a November 17, 2009, article about Associated Press dedicating 11 reporters to “Fact Check” her new book, “Going Rogue”, Palin eloquently makes the point about misplaced concerns.

The AP claims Palin misstated her record with regard to travel expenses and taxpayer-funded bailouts, using statements widely reported elsewhere. But it also speculated into Palin’s motives for writing “Going Rogue: An American Life,” stating as fact that the book “has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto.”

Palin quickly hit back on a Facebook post titled “Really? Still Making Things Up?”

“Imagine that,” the post read. “11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to ‘fact check’ what’s going on with Sheik Mohammed’s trial, Pelosi’s health care takeover costs, Hasan’s associations, etc. Amazing.”

The attraction to Palin doesn’t appear to be partisan, since AP didn’t fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich.

Obama’s Spending

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.


For the challenged who declare we don't know what we're talking about, the short lines mean less, the long lines (in red) mean more. Which side of the graph would any thinking American prefer? (Studies show times required to answer that question may vary if a liberal.)

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Say it slowly, now … S-p-e-n-d-i-n-g.

  • President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion. (Psst. That makes it a new historic number which eclipses Bush’s. Yep. It would.)
  • President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
  • President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
  • President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
  • President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
  • President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
  • President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Those figures, in case you’re wondering, include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.

Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Source:Heritage Foundation

Conservatives Need to Wake Up To The Idiotic and Infantile Policies of The Left.

This country cannot afford one more day of the policies of Barack Obama and Democratic Party. They are literally destroying America’s way of life, her stature among the world community, the dollar and her future.
I have often said conservatives get what they deserve if they don’t get off their collective butts and vote. With the polls showing conservatives outnumbering liberals 2 to 1, it would appear many conservatives chose to stay home, setting the stage for that Obamanation we have sitting in the White House today.

Maybe the silent and apathetic will wake up. Maybe the liberal and radical left tide can be turned in 2010 and 2012. But it will take more than 4 years to fix the damage already done.

In a recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece, Lawrence Kadish presented a sobering assessment on the nation’s exploding debt and the dangers posed by the growing cost of servicing that debt:

It is the interest on the national debt that makes our future unstable. The exploding size of that burden suggests that, short of devaluing the dollar and taking a large bite out of the middle class through inflation and taxation, there is no way to ever pay down that bill.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the national debt was almost $12 trillion and interest on that debt was $383 billion for the year, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. The Congressional Budget Office on Oct. 7 estimated the 2009 budget deficit to be almost $1.4 trillion (about 10% of GDP). In August, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated total government revenues at about $2 trillion. The revenue estimate included $904 billion from individual income taxes. This means the cost of interest on the debt represented more than 40 cents of every dollar that came in from individual income taxes. …

During Jimmy Carter’s years in the White House, Treasury yields reached 15%. The 2009 average interest rate on the debt was only 3.2%. With our mounting national debt and budget deficits, it is reasonable to assume that in the near future interest rates on new and refinanced debt could double or triple.

In stark but simple terms, unless Americans are made aware of this financial crisis and demand accountability, the very fabric of our society will be destroyed. Interest rates and interest costs will soar and government revenues will be devoured by interest on the national debt. Eventually, most of what we spend on Social Security, Medicare, education, national defense and much more may have to come from new borrowing, if such funding can be obtained. Left unchecked, this destructive deficit-debt cycle will leave the White House and Congress with either having to default on the national debt or instruct the Treasury to run the printing presses into a policy of hyperinflation.

It is against this background that Washington is now debating whether to create social programs it can’t afford.

The Health Care Reform bill America cannot afford

With all five congressional health care bills finally out of committee and with a summer of tempestuous town hall meetings behind them, the White House and top Democrats must merge the different bills into versions that can win a majority in the House and get the 60 votes needed to pass in the Senate — even as the Congressional Budget Office admits it can’t confirm whether the legislation will save Americans a dime.

Senate leaders will meet Wednesday, October 15, 2009, to start merging the Finance Committee bill that was approved Tuesday with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill that was passed earlier this year. Others expected to attend Wednesday’s meeting are Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn, who shepherded the Health Committee bill, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who oversaw the Finance Committee bill.

Merging the two bills will not be easy

Both bills were written by Democrats, but that’s not going to make it easier for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has said he wants to complete the wedding quickly and get historic health care overhaul legislation onto the Senate floor by the week of Oct 26. The bills share a common goal of providing all Americans with access to affordable health insurance, but they differ on how to accomplish it.

The Senate Finance Committee approved its version of health care reform by a 14-9 vote Tuesday, clearing the way for it to be merged with the Health Committee’s bill. Once merged, the bill will be up for vote by the full Senate.

The Finance Committee bill has no government-sponsored insurance plan and no requirement on employers that they must offer coverage. It relies instead on a requirement that all Americans obtain insurance. The legislation won its first Republican support when Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine broke ranks with her party, saying she was answering the call of history. “My vote today is my vote today,” Snowe said. “It doesn’t forecast what my vote will be tomorrow.”

The Health Committee bill, passed earlier by a panel in which liberals predominate, calls for both a government plan to compete with private insurers and a mandate that employers help cover their workers. Those are only two of dozens of differences.

In general, the bills moving toward floor votes in both houses would require most Americans to purchase insurance, provide federal subsidies to help those of lower incomes afford coverage and give small businesses help in defraying the cost of coverage for their workers.

The measures would bar insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and for the first time limit their ability to charge higher premiums on the basis of age or family size. Expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from future Medicare payments to health care providers. Each chamber also envisions higher taxes — an income tax surcharge on million-dollar wage-earners in the case of the House, and a new excise levy on insurance companies selling high-cost policies in the Senate Finance Committee bill.

Apart from Snowe, Finance Committee Republicans cited higher taxes, a greater federal role in the insurance industry and other concerns as they lined up to oppose the bill.

From $829 Billion to $2 Trillion

Until recently, the legislation was projected to cost $829 billion during 10 years. That number has changed dramatically.

On October 16, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid talked about the calculated savings of Medical Malpractice (Tort) reform and in the process let the true cost of the health care bill slip out. He compares the $54 Billion in predicted savings against the 2 trillion dollar cost of National Health Care.

Reid said, “He (the President) talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesnt it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, we’re talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. we can all do the math. It’s a very small percent.”