What six years of Barack Obama’s economic incompetence has wrought

Spread the love

Loading

Now that Barack Obama’s first six years are over it might be nice to see what he has wrought, and compare him to another iconic president, Ronald Reagan.

When Barack Obama took office in 2009 65.7% of Americans were participating in the laborforce. (This is called the Labor Force Participation Rate – LFPR – which includes those working and those looking for work.) Six years later that number was down to 62.8. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 63.9% of Americans were participating in the workforce and six years later that number had grown to 65.6%.

Unemployment is the measure of those in the laborforce looking for work but can’t find it. At first blush Obama seems to be doing well using that measure. In February 2009 unemployment sat at 8.3% and by November 2014 it had dropped to 5.8%. In February 1981 Ronald Reagan took office with an unemployment rate of 7.4%, which by November 1986 had only dropped to 6.9%. Using the unemployment measure seems to suggest Obama’s policies trump those of Reagan.

Upon closer inspection however… not so much. The LFPR tells the story – or really its inverse does. That is the number of those not working who must be supported by workers, unless they were independently wealthy. A 65% LFPR indicates that 35% of the population would be supported by workers. In the case of both Obama and Reagan the US population grew by approximately 11 million people over their first six years in office. Under Reagan, because job growth was so strong – 11 million new jobs – the total number of people who needed to be supported by those working (unemployed + those not in the workforce) remained steady at 93 million throughout those six years. Under Obama however, because job growth was so anemic – 3 million total new jobs – the number of people who needed to be supported by those working actually jumped 8 million from 121 million to 129 million. That means that under Reagan the number of workers in the US grew by 11 million while the number of non workers remained steady. Under Obama the number of workers grew by 3 million while the number not working grew by 8 million.

But some might argue that Obama faced a tougher economic situation than did Reagan. Not really.

When Ronald Reagan took office inflation was 10.1% and six years later it was 1.9% while under Barack Obama inflation started out near zero and has remained there throughout his terms. What’s ironic about this tame inflation is that it has much to do with dropping prices for things like big screen TV’s, mobile phones and oil, – the latter despite Obama’s best efforts – while core items that the poor spend most heavily on such as meats, poultry, fish, eggs and electricity, are hitting all time record highs.

When Reagan took office interest rates were 19.5% and by his sixth year they were down to 7.5%. When Barack Obama took office interest rates were at 3.25% and have essentially stayed in that area since. That extraordinarily low rate is in large part due to the Fed’s pumping of $4.5 trillion into the American economy since 2008, allowing the federal government to borrow like a drunken sailor.

Of course that pumping also has the impact of juicing the GDP numbers as there is more borrowing and investment going on than the fundamentals would otherwise support. And it’s in this easy money environment that Barack Obama’s biggest failure can be seen. In the six years he’s been president GDP grew by a total of 22%. Compare that to the same period under Reagan, where GDP grew by a whopping 42%. Of course Reagan did add substantially to the national debt, growing it by 6% of GDP during each of his first six years. But Obama borrowed even more, growing the national debt by 8% of GDP each of his first six years. Add to that the 5% the Fed kicked in each year with its Quantative Easing and it’s almost impossible understand how GDP could grow as slowly as it has under Obama.

The key however is hiding right in plain sight. Q4 GDP numbers give it away. The administration crows that the economy grew at a 5% clip in the last quarter of 2014. Not bad. What they don’t tell you is that fully half that uptick came specifically as a result of coerced Obamacare spending. Obamacare is a microcosm of what’s wrong with Obama and his administration. On the one hand it kills jobs, increases prices, eliminates choices and puts private practice doctors out of business. On the other hand, those very same regulations force Americans and companies to spend more on its mandates, which has the result of juicing GDP. So by regulatory fiat the government can remake the economy and claim Americans are better off in the process by juicing GDP numbers. Now imagine the same thing with hundreds of thousands of regulations over the last six years and you understand just how it’s the case that GDP seems to keep growing but Americans seem poorer.

To put the cherry on top of this indictment of Barack Obama’s economic incompetence is a quote from Ronald Reagan: “Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence”. Barack Obama likely disagrees. When he took office there were 32 million Americans on food stamps. Today that number stands at 46 million. In six years Barack Obama’s economic policies have so damaged the country that 5% of Americans have been added to the food stamp rolls while fully one third of the country receives some form of welfare. All of this while the rich are paying more in taxes than ever and half the country pays no income taxes at all and the middle class try to keep their heads above water. That’s what happens when your policies bring about the slowest economic recovery in the last half century.

Too bad no one saw this coming…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
28 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Country is way better off than it was six years ago. I was wondering how republicans were going to spin this in 2016 and if the best you can come with is comparing him to Regan then the Dems are going to easily win again in 2016. I mean cry all you want but Obama was elected to stop the economic bleeding of 2008 and thats what he did.

@Shane: obviously you live in a shoe box, are a liberal Progressive or on the public dole.

As a direct result of pushing us in the direction of solar energy, the USA now employs as many solar workers as coal workers.
Trouble is, for about the same paycheck those solar workers supply a whopping 1% of all the energy we use in the USA.
The coal workers supply 34% of it!
Obama, had be any competence in economics whatsoever, would never have let this get this far.

H&R Block will NOT be guaranteeing their tax returns will pass muster this year.
No, they cannot stand behind their work.
Why?
What does this have to do with Obama and economics?
Simple, the company says the latest tax situations involving self-employed workers, employees, employers and non-working people are so complex that no one can understand it.
Usually uncertainty causes businesses to be more circumspect.
I guess this qualifies.

Markets at record highs, US Dollar up 15% since 2008, inflation dead, record low interest rates, exports doubled since 2009, low energy prices, 53 straight months of private sector job growth, 6% UE, deficit cut in half – what is not to like today?

@Buck Longshot, #4:

Surely you realize that all of those things are totally irrelevant unless there’s a republican in the White House to take credit for them. If there isn’t, they’re evidence of deception.

@Buck Longshot: exports doubled since 2009

But what was the promise?
Obama promised to DOUBLE exports in 5 years…..a promise that ends in Jan 2015 so we can see how it went.

And do you remember Obama’s promise to add 1 million manufacturing jobs by September 2016?
How is that working out?
Like this.

53 straight months of private sector job growth

Put that weird ”fact” in context:
It looks like this.
Pathetic!
At that rate how long before we are where we were in 2008?
25 YEARS!

Nanny any more news from your LDS friends about Romney not running because of his wife’s health
Maybe people had forgotten how bad the USA economy was when Obama became POTUS
Withi. His first 60 days the DOW had fallen to 6500 and unemployment was over 9% GM was about to go bust
Also poor people spend about 15% of their income on food
The radical right just can not accept that the country is doing well under Obama and that his polls show it
Part of the reasin unemployment went down under Reagan was because of his massive increase in the size of governments
Under Obama governments gave reduced the number they employ

@John:
Thanks for asking about the LDS grapevine around here.
So far the only reaction to the idea he might run is astonishment.
People here say they will have a tough time voting for him out of concern for what she would have to go through.
We’ll see.

The unemployment rate dropped from 10.2% in late 2009 to 5.6% now. That’s a drop of roughly 46%. If everything was all rosy like the left is trying to spin this, we should have seen a corresponding decrease in the number of those on food stamps. Instead we have seen an increase of over 40%. To the left, economic success is measured by larger deficits and more dependence on government.

As for the continuing myth of decreasing deficits, notice that the increase in total debt (the true deficit) for FY2014 (appx. $1.086 trillion) was HIGHER than what it was for FY2013 (appx. $672 billion) the only year under Obama where it’s been less than $1 trillion. That can’t happen if deficits are decreasing. Fuzzy math just like the Obamacare enrollment numbers.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Hat tip Vince for at least writing (I think) rather than the usual copy and paste laziness of your fellow Obama bashers.

Regardless, your argument is simply another example of cherry picking reality and disregard of relevant facts that’s so consistent of what your fellow writers search the archives of lunatic and irrational sites that they copy and paste from.

Now I understand that your sockpuppet patrol will come to your rescue (and fail miserably) with their parade of off topic questions and distractions and I also understand that as a writer here, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll respond with any form of coherency but if the sunlight doesn’t burn your eyes, I’d like to open up a window of reality to your diatribe.

Comparing the Reagan era to Obama’s era is rather specious on several fronts. Insinuating that Obama picked up where Reagan left off is just mind boggling silly. For starters, it omits that “vast sucking sound” (or whatever it was as I’m not bothering to Google) that Perot predicted as a result of NAFTA (which I blame Bill Clinton and Dems) and CAFTA (which I blame GWB and Reps). It also omits the the GOP’s role (mainly Mitch McConnell) in avidly maintaining loopholes for tax breaks for corporations shipping jobs overseas while actually refusing tax breaks for those wanting to bring them back.

Another area you disregard is the infamous “Bush tax cuts” at a time of 2 costly wars. This was both unprecedented and ill-advised. Disagree all you like but let’s stroll through history a bit. Every war through history required tax hikes to offset the cost. Abe Lincoln raised taxes to pay for the Civil War as did McKinley to pay for the Spanish-American War just as Wilson raised taxes to pay for WWI. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War all saw tax hikes. This was something that was simply understood, an unfortunate reality. But Bush and his allies chose to defy history. They refused, regardless of the dire state of the Union to even consider an economy spiraling out of control (which if you’ll be honest, left the economy in free-fall at the end of his term). Now, keep this in mind a bit as we look back at those Reagan years.

Another inconvenient reality you chose to omit is that when Reagan entered office, like Bush he pushed and got huge tax cuts. These tax breaks failed miserably and forced him to raise taxes multiple times to offset the very mess he had gotten us into. Reagan didn’t have the wars to contend with. Bush and friends refused to acknowledge their very own failed policies (remember “economy on solid ground” all the way up to it’s collapse?) and this doesn’t even take into account the looming cost of the wars. And as a reminder, the 109th GOP Congress has openly admitted to a “drunken sailor” spending spree and that they “lost their way”. These are contributors that Reagan certainly did not have to deal with. Now even if you deny this argument for whatever reason, history is repeating itself today in Kansas as the GOP governor of “the experiment” is now forced to raise taxes to offset his tax break mess.

You also ignore the role of Congress as well the Federal Reserve Board as if a sitting President sets interest rates or that he can simply pass job legislation on his own. This is what really points your writing more towards a sophomoric grasp to bash rather than presenting a credible argument. I suppose it’s maybe a concept of just throwing whatever red meat out and if it sticks to the wall, so be it? But not only do you ignore Congress but you ignore the fact that Obama dealt with the most obstructive GOP Congress in history that even filibustered legislation catered to their very request. They actually killed bills that they wanted. They didn’t even hide this as admissions came from top Senators such as Jim DeMint and Mitch McConnell that their very objective was to insure failure. I’m not making this up. The GOP not only failed to introduce any job creating legislation but they unitedly did everything they could to prevent any from happening, most notably The American Jobs Act which was expected to create an easy 2 million jobs. Reagan didn’t have to contend with an opposing Congress hellbent on intentionally sabotaging the economy for political gain. It’s also on record how they held up important nominations to economic seats at a desperately needed time only to turn around months or years later to confirm them by near unanimous votes.

Your argument also dummy downs the seriousness of the GWB economic disaster, typical of Obama bashers. Regardless of who you blame (which is also typical to ignore the above arguments, more so when you’re already in full throttle denial mode anyway). You seem to imply it was a mere hiccup and was eagerly waiting to correct itself. That’s just painfully unrealistic. What Obama inherited (again, blame at this point is an aside) was a godawful train wreck in every aspect.

I could dissect your forum to pieces but you seem to follow suit of your fellow bashers of wanting both sides of the argument. On one hand, you seem supportive of GOP policies while on the other, chastise Obama for not, well, changing GOP policy. The Bush tax cuts, which the right seems to support and the left seems to hate, are still pretty much the same. A MW increase that Rs say would hurt the economy while Ds argue otherwise, never happened. Most all Obama initiatives have been filibustered. Granted, Obama and Democratic policies differ than those of Bush and the admitted drunken sailor spending spree of the 109th but his ability to change them has been minimal.

What they don’t tell you is that fully half that uptick came specifically as a result of coerced Obamacare spending. Obamacare is a microcosm of what’s wrong with Obama

Vince, Obamacare is about all that’s going-on to bring fuel to the GDP numbers – but the Admin doesn’t want that known. Britain and Canada, which have had socialized healthcare for years are now unable to finance it. The system is breaking and their healthcare problems are serious. The socialist government in Ontario, Canada, for example, has decided to freeze Doctor wages for 2 years, and B.C. will probably have to do the same. Doctors are very subtly and quietly adjusting their practices and the way they conduct themselves accordingly.

Published inflation numbers are lies and are fabrications hiding an ugly the truth. Just look at your cost of food, for starters.

What the uninformed don’t grasp is that without entrepreneurs, without new small and mid-sized businesses being formed and growing, the economy breaks. There are now more business closings than there are businesses being born. If this doesn’t change and if Congress doesn’t reduce what Obama and the Dems have done, there is only a broken future coming for America.

The role of government is NOT to create jobs, . . . it is to get out of the way of those seeking to create jobs, and to make sure laws are followed. Overburden of bureaucratic idiocies and costs on new businesses is no way to inspire entrepreneurs.

@Shane:
Just how did he stop the economic bleeding? The stimulus failed. They promised with it unemployment would not go above 8% it went past 10%. It has dropped largely due to people dropping out of the labor force and little else. His policies do more to thwart economic growth than help it. To him solar and wind are the way to prosperity instead of bankruptcy. He mocked those in 2009 who said “drill baby drill”. Telling everyone we could not drill out way to lower gas prices. Well once again he was wrong.
Obama was one of those on the no credit no problem, here’s a mortgage gang. Which was the root of the housing collapse. He gave no warning of the impending bubble because he was clueless.
50% of Dems who voted for Obamacare are out of office now. More Dems are coming forward saying they wished they had done it differently. Now they tell us.

And what does Obama want to do now? Tax more. Yeah that’s the ticket to economic prosperity give the government more money. Lets just send all our money to Washington and have a real economic boom. Suckers.
During one of the debates for his first run for president Obama spoke of raising the capital gains tax rate. When ABC’s Charlie Gibson pointed out lowering them actually brought in more revenue, Obama replied it wasn’t about that, it was about fairness. So HE gets to decide what is fair?
I suspect this will be the lowest watched SOTU address of his presidency. Most people have figured out he’s just a liar. Those who haven’t by now, never will.

The “unemployment rate” is fraudulent. The low numbers are the result of defining the unemployed very tightly, restricted to those currently receiving unemployment benefits and actually seeking work. The more important number is the count of those employed, and their average wages.
The stock market is high because of the Federal Reserve, and the action of pumping money into the market by fraudulently low interest rates.
The oil boom happened despite the Executive Branch, which opposed all exploration for oil. The new oil and gas has come from private lands, and not from Federal lands. The President still opposes the Keystone pipeline.
The economics of solar and wind power do not add up. Did you know that snow-covered solar panels produce no electricity? Did you know that wind turbines sop up enormous amounts of rare earth elements, and seem to auto-destruct whenever the wind blows hard or the temperature drops below zero? Have you done the math about water and land requirements for solar and wind? Did you know that wind turbines are exempt from the restrictions of the Endangered Species act, and can kill Bald Eagles without penalty?
And I will admit that more persons than ever get food stamps. Is that a plus?

What the uninformed don’t grasp is that without entrepreneurs, without new small and mid-sized businesses being formed and growing, the economy breaks.

How will consumers support a robust national economy if they’re barely earning enough to pay for their basic living expenses? Americans who work for a living serve an important function in addition to producing the goods and services that are sold by American businesses: They’re also the customers who buy them.

@Greg:
So how will those wages rise if we keep importing cheap “illegal” foreign labor to compete with Americans?

Last summer I ran into an old high school friend. I had not seen him in many years. I asked if he was still in the construction business. He built houses and did home improvements. He had done quite well
from what I had heard. He told me no he was now working at a local grocery store in the produce section. He said he could not compete with cheap foreign labor that had killed his business. His story is not unique. His income was a fraction of what it was. He was not an Obama fan.

@Shane:

As Obama Prepares To Paint A Rosy Picture Of His Presidency, A Look At The Numbers He Won’t Mention

$18.1 Trillion:
Total Debt Under Obama As Of January 14, 2014. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)

$10.6 Trillion:
Total Debt When Obama Became President On January 20, 2009. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/9/15)

$7.5 Trillion:
Amount Added To The National Debt Despite Obama’s 2010 State Of The Union Declaration That He Would Not Leave “A Mountain Of Debt.” (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15; President Barack Obama, Remarks On The State Of The Union, Washington, D.C., 1/27/10)

$4 Trillion:
Amount Of Debt That Obama Once Called “Irresponsible” And “Unpatriotic.”(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Fargo, ND, 7/3/08)

$1.8 Trillion:
Cost Of ObamaCare’s Coverage Provisions Through 2024. (CBO, 4/14/14)

$1.3 Trillion:
Total Student Debt Held By Americans. (Federal Reserve Board Of Governors, Accessed 1/14/15)

$869.3 Billion:
Total Taxes In ObamaCare. (JCT, 6/15/12; CBO, 4/14/14)

$95 Billion:
Cost Of New Regulations Added Since Obama Became President. (American Action Forum, 1/6/15)

$60 Billion:
Cost Of Obama’s Community College Tuition Plan Over Ten Years. ( TheAssociated Press , 1/9/15)

$3.4 Billion:
Average Amount Of Debt Added Daily Since Obama Became President. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)

$3.4 Billion:
How Much The Construction Of The Keystone Pipeline Would Contribute To GDP According To A State Department Review. (United States Department Of State, 1/14)

46.5 Million:
Average Number Of Americans Receiving Food Stamps In FY 2014.(Department Of Agriculture, Accessed 1/14/15)

13 Million:
Average Number Of Americans Who Have Joined The Food Stamp Program Since FY 2009. (Department Of Agriculture, Accessed 1/14/15)

7 Million:
Number Of Americans Who Will No Longer Have Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Due To ObamaCare. (Congressional Budget Office, 4/14/14)

5.5 Million:
Americans Who Have Fallen Into Poverty Since Obama Became President.(U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 1/14/15)

2.3 Million:
Americans Who Are Only Marginally Attached To The Labor Force. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

401,000:
Construction Jobs Lost Since Obama Became President. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

321,000:
Manufacturing Jobs Lost Since Obama Became President. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

273,000:
Number Of People Who Left The Labor Force Between November AndDecember Of 2014. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

$56,492:
Current Debt Per Capita Under Obama. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 1/14/15;U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)

42,100:
Number Of Jobs The Construction Of The Keystone Pipeline Would Support Over Two Years According To A State Department Review. (United States Department Of State, 1/14)

$21,724:
Increase In Debt Per Capita For Americans Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 1/14/15; U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/14/15)

$4,154:
Increase In Family Health Care Premiums Under Obama. (The Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/10/14)

$2,484:
Decline In Median Household Income Since Obama Became President. (U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 1/14/15)

1978:
The Last Time The Labor Force Participation Rate Was At Its Current level.(BLS, 1/24/14)

677:
Individuals Who Have Been Through Obama’s Revolving Door. (Center For Responsive Politics, Accessed 1/12/15)

215:
Rounds Of Golf Obama Has Played Since He Has Taken Office. (Mark Knoller,Twitter Feed, 12/31/14; Mark Knoller, Twitter Feed, 1/4/15)

174:
Number Of Days Obama Has Spent All Or Part On Vacation. (CBS News, 12/22/14; Mark Knoller, Twitter Feed, 1/4/15)

100%:
Total Debt As A Percentage Of GDP Under Obama. (OMB, Accessed 1/14/15)

65.7%:
Labor Force Participation Rate When Obama Became President. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

62.7%:
Labor Force Participation Rate In December. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 1/14/15)

65:
Number Of Fundraisers Obama Attended In 2014. (Mark Knoller, Twitter Feed, 12/2/14)

32.8:
Average Number Of Weeks Someone Will Be Unemployed. (BLS, 1/14/15)

14.5%:
Poverty Rate In 2013. (U.S. Census, Accessed 1/23/14)

13.2%:
Poverty Rate Before Obama Became President. (U.S. Census, Accessed 1/23/14)

6:
Veto Threats Issued By Obama In The New Year. (The White House Website, Accessed 1/19/15; ABC News, 1/16/15)

0:
Attempts To Actually Work With Congress

@Thirteen: Damned facts. They just have a way of destroying the left’s argument every time.

@another+vet:

Most cheerleaders also seem happy even when the scoreboard shows their team is down by 45 points…with two minutes to go.

@Thirteen, #16:

I’m sure republicans can reverse that with more high end and corporate tax cuts, and by throwing in another new war or two paid for with a credit card for good measure.

@John:

Maybe people had forgotten how bad the USA economy was when Obama became POTUS

No, what is forgotten… or, rather, denied… is what CAUSED the bad economy when Obama became POTUS; the economic policies of liberals like Obama.

With all of those wonderful (if superficial) statistics, why is it that the middle class has become poorer, the poor have become more numerous and the “income inequality” has expanded. Yeah, what’s not to like?

@Greg: I think you know, Greg, that corporations don’t pay taxes; the consumers do. Higher corporate taxes and regulations makes the CODB higher and, thus, the products cost more, which makes US companies less competitive, which pushes businesses and jobs overseas. Liberals and liberals alone believe they can raise taxes endlessly and everyone will just pay them into oblivion. No, competent business people will evade them to stay profitable and, thus, liberal strategies based on taxing people into bankruptcy are counter-productive. Destructive, actually.

@Thirteen: Lower the standard and then claim success. The left is quite good at it. Just look at their arguments for the alleged lowering of the deficit. Jack it up over a trillion and then the one year it drops below a trillion, claim success even though it was still higher than any previous deficits.

A friend of mine has a son who pitches quite well for a high school senior. During one game last summer he was pitching so well, the fans applauded when a batter he faced hit a foul ball. That is similar to applauding the economic plan of this administration.

More of Obama’s Economic Incompetence:
Obamacare calorie regulation carries criminal penalties
http://freebeacon.com/issues/dominos-to-obama-admin-calorie-rule-is-unworkable/

[T]he final rule broadly expanded the definition of what qualifies as a “menu.” Under the rule “menu” can refer to any writing that “used by a customer to make an order selection at the time the customer is viewing the writing,” which could apply to advertisements.

“We no longer know what a menu is,” Liddle said. “It’s really hard to interpret. Essentially they’re saying anything that a consumer can look at and make a potential ordering decision from is a menu.” She said this could apply to flyers, ads in the newspapers, or signs in the window.

“If you take it to the broadest thing it could be an ad on the television,” she said. “That makes it literally impossible to comply.”
……
[T]he rule runs to 391 pages and addresses details such as whether a limited-time “pumpkin spice muffin” should be covered, it still does not give clear guidance about how restaurants are supposed to comply, according to critics. The rule, finalized in November, will affect chains with 20 or more stores.
……
Violations of the law carry a maximum $1,000 fine, one year in prison, or both. If a person is convicted of a violation, a second violation can carry a $10,000 fine and up to three years in prison.

According to the law, the U.S. government can also seize misbranded food.
……
Enforcement will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific facts and circumstances

Gee.
Let me guess which ”case” will be prosecuted and which case will not.
Gibson Guitar…..Republican donor….prosecute.
C.F. Martin & Company Guitar…..Democrat donor…..non-prosecution.

Pizza Hut with 2 billion menu options, Democrat donor.
Dominos with 32 million menu options, Republican donor.
Just sayin.

@Nanny:

Obamacare calorie regulation carries criminal penalties

It will affect more than just them. Everyone who doesn’t have health insurance is technically a criminal because they are violating federal law. That will amount to millions of new criminals in this country.

@Greg:

Rule #1 Corporations don’t pay taxes, they just collect them from the consumer. There is no magic pot of money in the corporate closet stuffed with money waiting for liberals to get payed from it.

That war you talk about should be reviewed for it’s democrat promotion.

Alas, if those cartoon dreams about Bush were true, but it was the dems who drew the map for WMD starting in 98.

“The only mistake Bush made, was listening to the Democrats about WMD.”

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
19 famous statements starting with Bill Clinton on Feb. 4, 1998

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

Had Clinton/Gorelick arrested the 20 hijackers discovered during “Able Danger”, the 911 attacks would never had happened, meaning, there would have been no reason to go to war in the first place.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=ableDanger

@another+vet:

Yes indeed…Obama called for reducing the deficit by half. The Bush average deficit was $500 billion yearly, which should have been taken to $250 billion. Instead, O raises it 400% and then pats himself on the back for getting down to the $675 range…still higher than all the Bush yearly deficits.

@Shane: regan from the exorcist?you are right obama is kind of like that,thanks for the comparison,makes sense