Author: Papa Giorgio
Even a Left Leaning Contributor to the Leftist Magazine, The Nation, says MSNBC In Bed with Obama
Via The Blaze:
Marriage, The Poverty Destroyer
The WASHINGTON EXAMINER notes this economic factor:
- ….“Over a third of single-parent families with children are poor, compared to only 7 percent of married families. Overall, children in married families are 82 percent less likely to be poor than are children of single parents.”
Robert Rector’s study, “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,” detailed the problem in each state and he concluded that the Feds need to focus on marriage more.
“Policymakers on the state and national levels recognize that education reduces poverty, but they’re largely unaware that marriage is an equally strong anti-poverty weapon,” said Rector, a nationally recognized authority on the U.S. welfare system.
Heritage said that “while more Americans grow dependent on welfare, government fails to communicate the benefits of marriage even as it warns young people not to smoke, do drugs, have “unsafe” sex, or drop out of school.” Rector calls this “tragic.”
Obama, the Small Spender? That`s the Newest Claim
I frequent some liberal blogs, and this recent Think Progress graphic/story is popping up, like at Little Green Footballs. So I figured I would wade into this muddy water by posting a response I found over at National Review Online and The College Conservative (CC). Here is the CC’s input:
…The chart appears to be telling us that spending, taxes, and deficits are all lower today than when Obama took office. I applaud the chart’s makers – the goons over at Think Progress with the help of the Center for American Progress – for their crafty figuring.
The chart uses the percentage of GDP from the day Obama took office and the current estimates to fudge the truth and make it look like Obama isn’t everything we evil conservatives say he is, namely fiscally irresponsible. Even an amateur economist – like public school amateur – should see right through this.
Of what use is comparing spending using a percentage of GDP, unless you’re goal is to provide bad analysis? Spending as a percentage of GDP increased from 20.8 to 25.2 between 2008 and 2009 (from government stimulus). Assuming the calculations in the chart are true (in reality, they’re only based on estimations), all it shows is that spending went from one slice of a big pie to a smaller slice of an even bigger pie.
It’s the same dishonest game for their claim on taxes. The percentage of GDP does not at all associate with the increasing tax rates that Obama and the Democrats gave us with ObamaCare. Also, coming from left-wingers, why is low federal revenue a good thing?
Lastly – I assume this is their big hurrah – deficit spending has decreased from 8.3 to 7.6% of GDP. Even if this were true, so what? This is like patting yourself on the back for sticking to your diet by only eating the whole kitchen. Political Math fixed the numbers on the chart using actual data instead of flimsy estimates and found that spending and deficits are higher under Obama (every sane person says “Duh!”). Obama did, however, seem to lower federal revenue without raising taxes. Again, with a barrage of new spending, how is this a good thing?…
(Chart above) It is easy to dispense with the argument that the president has been tight with money. Assume that during the year 2009 your already-overweight friend gained forty extra pounds, and since then your friend has continued to overeat such that his body weight has remained roughly constant. Since he hasn’t gained much weight in the past four years, can I conclude that he doesn’t have a weight problem? Of course not. Same goes with the president and his spending; a low rate of spending growth does not imply the absence of an extremely high amount of spending. (FORBES).
An email response to a Rich Lowry question responds to the chart as well. Investors Business Daily’s take is worth posting however:
…But since taking office, Obama’s policies have made everything far worse.
And that’s abundantly clear if you compare the rest of the CBO’s 2009 forecast to Obama’s actual results.
In each and every year, Obama spent far more than the CBO had projected, took in far less in revenues — not because he cut taxes, but because of the lousy recovery — and produced much larger deficits.
Whereas the CBO projected spending in 2012 would be 21% of gross domestic product, for example, Obama now pegs it at 24%. That, mind you, would have been far worse had Republicans not put the brakes on further “stimulus” spending.
Deficits as a share of GDP, meanwhile, have come in almost twice as high as the CBO projected just before Obama took office. And the government has piled on more than $5 trillion in additional debt.
Obama can’t blame the deeper-than-expected recession on these dismal results. The real problem has been the extremely poor recovery he engineered. Whereas the CBO’s January 2009 forecast put GDP growth in 2011 at 4.4%, it came in at a mere 1.7%. This year, GDP growth is running at half the rate the CBO predicted…
One last point that is worth mentioning. Since we are dealing with projections, let’s throw this one out into the ether:
…This year, he [Obama] introduced a fiscal 2013 budget that would have reversed the debt deal’s caps on increased spending.
“Over the 2013-2022 period,” CBO concluded in its analysis of Obama’s proposal, “the cumulative deficit that would result from enacting the president’s budget — $6.4 trillion (or 3.2 percent of GDP) — would be $3.5 trillion larger than the cumulative deficit projected under current law.”
When Obama told the people in Waterloo, Iowa, this month that he would make sure government did its part to reduce the debt, it was not a $1 trillion lie. It was a $3.5 trillion lie…
`Bounce Obama is Getting Is 80 Percent Bill Clinton` ~ Newt Gingrich
Plug and Play Scam ~ When Government Chooses Winners, We ALL Lose!
(Reuters) – General Motors Co sold a record number of Chevrolet Volt sedans in August — but that probably isn’t a good thing for the automaker’s bottom line.
Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.
Cheap Volt lease offers meant to drive more customers to Chevy showrooms this summer may have pushed that loss even higher. There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce….
Breitbart has this update on Obama’s ambitious, tax payer funded, plan to put electric cars on the road:
In 2011, President Barack Obama set a goal of putting one million electric cars on American roads by 2015. Currently, there are just 30,000 electric cars on U.S. roads.
The abysmal numbers are even more surprising considering the government’s efforts to prop up “green car” manufacturing. Electric luxury car manufacturer Fisker, for example, was approved for a $529 million taxpayer-funded government loan; the federal government cut off the funds at $193 million after sales fell woefully short of required targets. The struggling electric car maker recently recalled 2,400 of its Karma vehicles when one caught fire due to problems with its cooling fan.
In June, a CBS News report calculated projected electric car sales by Mr. Obama’s 2015 date at 310,663. That figure, while still less than a third of Mr. Obama’s goal, may still be overly optimistic. Reuters says industry experts predict that less than 200,000 electric vehicles will be on U.S. roads by 2015.
Further exacerbating the challenge of meeting Mr. Obama’s goal is the fact that taxpayer-funded electric car battery companies continue to flounder. Last month, for example, struggling U.S. electric battery maker A123 Systems, which received a $249 million taxpayer-funded government loan, announced its plans to sell a controlling stake to Wanxiang, a Chinese company, for $450 million.
Similarly, lithium-ion battery manufacturer Ener1, Inc., which received a $118.5 million taxpayer-funded grant, filed for bankruptcy. And Aptera Motors has already folded.
Our Energy Policy ~ Bankrupt
“Here at this site, Solyndra expects to make enough solar panels each year to generate 500 megawatts of electricity. And over the lifetime of this expanded facility, that could be like replacing as many as eight coal-fired power plants.” ~ Barack Obama
From video description:
This is pretty lame. I wonder how many people think this power just comes out of the ground? Perhaps these greentards think this is magic solar power that is leached from the sun and stored in invisible floating Tesla flywheels. Bet that went right over most heads. Anyway this is a real problem for shoppers at WalGREENS. Weather they are asked or not they are subsidizing this climate hoax and paying for the fuel that is getting these FARCE-CARS from point “a” to point “b.”
Larry Elder Explains the Differences Between the Parties (Democrat & Republican) ~ Larry Elder/Milton Friedman/Ronald Reagan
From video description:
Larry Elder has the unique ability to put side-by-side thesis and antithesis in order to explain [well] two competing ideas. In this example, he answers the question of of what, if any, differences there are in the two competing parties. (Posted by: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/) There are quotes from Milton Friedman as well as the ineffable Ronald Reagan to drive home these differences. Enjoy, it is Larry Elder at his best.
See also: Two Models: Prosperity or Egalitarianism
For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/
PS, this video took a LONG time to do! Larry Elder’s Producer would mix two differing Reagan speeches, and insert Obama clips, as well as cutting out long pauses in Milton Friedman’s and Ronald Reagan’s clips. So trying to sync up the videos were very time consuming as I literally had to “trim” almost every sentence of Gippers debate close.
You Do Not Have To Be Religious To Be PRO-LIFE ~ Just Reasonable
VIDEO AUDIO DESCRIPTIONS
In one of my favorite presentations by Scott (his ministry is outstanding: http://www.prolifetraining.com/), arguments touching on scientific laws, philosophy, and common sense allow the pro-life advocate to deal with opponents in clear and concise ways. This isn’t a Bible bashing fest, but a tactic in bringing the whole of the argument for the preciousness of life to the forefront.
Here is the VIDEO Scott Klusendorf references near the end of this presentation. THERE IS A WARNING WITH THIS VIDEO, it is GRAPHIC!
A good presentation as well is the 180 movie. Well worth your time.
HERE ARE PARTS 2 AND 3:
Coalition of African American Pastors Condemn Obama’s Same-Sex Marriage Switch (www.caapusa.org)
Does God Exist ~ William Lane Craig Debates Lawrence Krauss
Description:
North Carolina State University, March 20, 2011 – William Lane Craig (author of Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology) and Lawrence Krauss (author of A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing) debate the existence of God. This is the debate where Krauss famously unbuttoned his shirt and boldly told his audience that 2+2=5! Is this what it takes to be an atheist? In fact, Krauss did so embarrassingly bad he was voted as the loser* of the debate. Craig does a masterful job of exposing Krauss’ unscientific and wacky view of physics and science. Unfortunately, many atheists are parroting his arguments and thoughts. Transcript: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-stat…
- After he got utterly pwned by Craig, Krauss wrote a vitriolic and damage-control article:
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig - Craig responds here:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/lawrence-krauss-response-and-perspective - Podcast:
http://reasonablefaith.org/debate-with-krauss1
* – The voting results at NCSU on who won the debate:
-516 cards turned in
-286 Dr. Craig made the clearer/better presentation
-130 Dr. Krauss made the clearer/better presentation
-100 stated it was a draw
The Machine
(Video Description) America’s public education system is failing. We’re spending more money on education but not getting better results for our children.
That’s because the machine that runs the K-12 education system isn’t designed to produce better schools. It’s designed to produce more money for unions and more donations for politicians.
For decades, teachers’ unions have been among our nation’s largest political donors. As Reason Foundation’s Lisa Snell has noted, the National Education Association (NEA) alone spent $40 million on the 2010 election cycle (SOURCE). As the country’s largest teachers union, the NEA is only one cog in the infernal machine that robs parents of their tax dollars and students of their futures.
Students, teachers, parents, and hardworking Americans are all victims of this political machine–a system that takes money out of taxpayers’ wallets and gives it to union bosses, who put it in the pockets of politicians.
Our kids deserve better.