Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

The New Great Depression brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Democrats!




So the Democrats got control of Congress in 2006 and would not deal with the ACORN-led destruction of Fannie and Freddie and other mortgage companies by repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley or in some other way fixing the Glass-Steagall revision that was allowing ACORN and other groups to steal the country blind. George Bush did not fight off the spending and even McCain (who warned that GLB was destructive long before) was of little use. Then Obama comes into power and spending quadruples? Click on the link below to see the results (hint - unemployment doubles)!

The Obama-Democrat Depression

It ain't pretty. Obama is elected, country goes to pot...If we do not kick out all the Obama-friendly politicians on both sides of the aisles in 2010 then we'll be growing turnips in the back yards and fighting off our neighbors for any loose rabbits that can be shot or trapped.

PS - Faith & Family

"Pop quiz: What billion-dollar multinational receives hundreds of millions in tax dollars even though it is enormously profitable? If your thoughts turned to defense contractors, you would be right about the purpose -- killing -- but wrong about the recipient. The answer, in fact, is Planned Parenthood.

According to its most recent annual report, in fiscal 2008, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest abortion provider, had annual revenue of more than $1 billion. Of this, about 34 percent was made up of government grants. In other words, almost $350 million of American taxpayer dollars supported the work of Planned Parenthood from October 2007 to September 2008.

And, according to tax records from the same time period, this 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization had a net income $85 million greater than its expenses. That looks suspiciously like a profit.... The enterprise of abortion in America is big business. It turns a profit, and for the American taxpayer, the bailout of a financial behemoth -- one engaged in an activity most Americans find troubling -- is obviously unnecessary. Even without pondering such moral questions as 'When does life begin?' and 'What is happening in a woman's body that abortion stops?' the fact that this billion-dollar industry needs no tax support should be enough to stop taxpayer handouts." --Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council

34 comments:

Matt said...

Truly frightening when you watch the nation turn black.

Its sad that this map actually needs some higher categories, like 12.5%, 15%, 17.5%, etc.

Anonymous said...

"Then Obama comes into power and spending quadruples? Click on the link below to see the results (hint - unemployment doubles)!"

1. When Obama came into power, unemployment stood at approx. 8 percent. I think it's fair to say it hasn't doubled since then. Nor could he have turned it around on a dime, though he seems to have at least stemmed the hemorrhage that happened under Bush. But that did require some stimulus - you want to complain about that?

2. Spending quadrupled? The 2009 budget (Bush's last budget) was 3.1 trillion. The 2010 budget (Obama's first budget) was 3.55 trillion. Not exactly quadruple, is it?

C'mon Radar, can't you get anything right?

"a net income $85 million greater than its expenses. That looks suspiciously like a profit"

... depends on what they do with it of course.

Oh and I saw your hilarious boast that you got A's in political science. That doesn't exactly jibe with your stunning ignorance of the meaning of socialism, communism etc. that you keep displaying on your blog. You might want to peek in those old textbooks again, 'cos heaven knows you wouldn't pass a Poli Sci exam today.

radar said...

Anonymous, you are so wrong about so many things I do not know where to start. Unemployment has actually more than doubled and true unemployment that includes those who have given up is over 16 per cent. As you seem to be a fan of planned parenthood I cannot expect you to be sensible so hey, enjoy being wrong.

radar said...

I did make one mistake, I meant to say deficit spending quadruples. Oops.

radar said...

Why is it the anonymous commenters seem to know Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" better than they know the Constitution?

I am beginning to wonder if allowing anonymous comments is wise when the anonymous comments are so consistently negative, personal and off-topic. Any friends care to comment on the subject?

Anonymous said...

"Unemployment has actually more than doubled and true unemployment that includes those who have given up is over 16 per cent."

Link? If you want to include those who have given up, then what was that number in Jan/Feb 2009? Just so we don't go comparing apples and oranges.

"As you seem to be a fan of planned parenthood I cannot expect you to be sensible so hey, enjoy being wrong"

?? Your mind-reading skills are highly defective.

And how are the comments off-topic if they're direct responses to your post?

Anonymous said...

And how are the comments off-topic if they're direct responses to your post?

And you are a troll, too. Disagreement = off topic, trollness on this blog.

radar said...

How to identify trolls?

I post comments from a reporter who has a blog out of Dallas and trolls claim they cannot find this source or the comments. Anyone with a minute of time and a google search engine could have found them. If someone claims they could not? A troll. Total BS that they could not find the comment! Trolls like to get off the subject, which is that Joe Biden does not know his history and does not like traditional and Constitutional ways of passing bills.

When someone tells me I do not understand socialism or communism and makes an ad hominem attack without substance, that is troll behavior.

If someone disagrees intelligently without being completely stupid about it, we call that a commenter. You disagree with me? Fine, bring some substance instead of playing games and lying.

Anonymous said...

To this day you haven't been able to find Biden's actual quote, and so you haven't been able to back up your claim. Why that is so hard for you to understand is a mystery. YES, we have a direct quote of him saying "dangerous new roadblock" while he was talking about GOP obstructionism. NO, we don't have a direct quote of him saying "the Constitution is a dangerous new roadblock" - and that is your claim. Not a single one of those google results back up your claim. Not one. And that's the truth.

You claimed that Biden said: "X is Y."

To back this up, you have an article that says that Biden said that X is "Y".

Can you tell the difference? Given that there is something about the "Y" in this case ("dangerous new roadblock") that makes it highly unlikely that Biden actually said "X is Y", your claim is very dubious, and, logically speaking, the only way you can back up your claim is that you actually produce a source for the complete quote "X is Y", not some reporter's misquote.

Now that you can't find that quote, instead of doing the honorable thing and retracting your mistaken claim, you lash out and call people who quite reasonably question your dubious claim "trolls". You seem to have re-defined "troll" as "someone who disagrees with Radar", and any disagreement is labeled an "ad hominem" in your book.

About those "ad hominems", the thing is, pointing out, for example, that you don't seem to grasp the meaning of socialism or communism when you call Obama a socialist or communist is what is known as a logical deduction. It's not an ad hominem at all.

An ad hominem would be if somebody - hypothetically - said "Radar is a moron, therefore the arguments he makes are false". That would be a logical fallacy, since the first part doesn't necessarily dictate the second part, logically speaking.

A logical deduction would be if somebody - hypothetically - said "Radar makes some incredibly uninformed comments about subject X, therefore Radar appears to know very little about subject X". That is a logical argument, in that the first part allows us to deduce the second part.

I'm guessing this distinction still won't sink in and that you'll cheerfully continue misusing "ad hominem"... which will then of course allow us to deduce that you know very little about logic and logical fallacies.

:-)

Chaos Engineer said...

The Hyde Amendment prevents government funds from being used to pay for abortions. This was all over the news, just a couple of months ago.

I don't know off the top of my head whether Planned Parenthood is really collecting government funds or what they use them for. I vaguely remember hearing that they do stuff like STD treatments and breast cancer screening for low-income people, so maybe they have government contract for stuff like that?

I supposed I could research it, but it hardly seems worth the trouble. The claims that the Hyde Amendment are being violated are coming from someplace called the "Family Research Council". In 21st Century American Politics, "Family" is a code word for "hateful little liars".


The banking thing is more interesting. The root cause of the problem is that the banks were making high-risk, high-reward investments. If they had good luck, they kept the profits, and if they had bad luck, they could count on the government to cover their losses.

The obvious solution is to re-regulate the banks to keep them from making those sorts of risky investments. But there are too many people who would screech "Socialism!" if we tried to do that. (We could try to educate them and explain that it's not socialism, or at least not the bad kind of socialism. But most of those people are, shall we say, "beyond education".)

So we have to attack the problem at the other end, by preventing the government from insuring the banks. Basically we'll wind up in a 19th Century situation where banks routinely go out of business after losing people's life's savings, and only the ultra-rich can afford to plan for the future.

Or maybe there's a third path? I'm not sure what it would be.

radar said...

"To this day you haven't been able to find Biden's actual quote, and so you haven't been able to back up your claim. Why that is so hard for you to understand is a mystery. YES, we have a direct quote of him saying "dangerous new roadblock" while he was talking about GOP obstructionism. NO, we don't have a direct quote of him saying "the Constitution is a dangerous new roadblock" - and that is your claim. Not a single one of those google results back up your claim. Not one. And that's the truth.

You claimed that Biden said: "X is Y."

To back this up, you have an article that says that Biden said that X is "Y"."


I guess you cannot read. I posted the article. Were you there? Do you have a transcript? Then you have no idea what his exact words were, do you? I copied the headline and the article and quoted it and Google found it right away.

About those "ad hominems", the thing is, pointing out, for example, that you don't seem to grasp the meaning of socialism or communism when you call Obama a socialist or communist is what is known as a logical deduction. It's not an ad hominem at all.

Barack Obama was first elected into office as a member of the socialist New Party. His childhood mentor was communist Frank Marshall Davis. He is a student of Saul Alinsky and cohort of William Ayers. He went to the Trinity UCC that teaches a hybrid communist/racist propaganda rather than from the Bible. His primary function during his early adult years was as a "community organizer." He is a textbook socialist with communist seasoning.

radar said...

Oh, and since I directly copied that exact wording down in a post I have received no apologies from you for your false charges. If you believe the quote itself is inaccurate why not email the source and ask him?

Tmcgregordallas@yahoo.com

He was there, he reported, I copied what he said and then you trolls lied about it. Unless you are not a troll, in which case you will admit your mistake and apologize for your error.

Anonymous said...

"I guess you cannot read. I posted the article. Were you there? Do you have a transcript? Then you have no idea what his exact words were, do you? I copied the headline and the article and quoted it and Google found it right away."

Sigh...

Radar, I can't tell if you're being obtuse out of some misplaced sense of pride or if you really don't get the difference between a quote and a paraphrase.

"Oh, and since I directly copied that exact wording down in a post I have received no apologies from you for your false charges"

What was needed was Biden's exact wording. What you copied was the "exact wording" of a reporter's paraphrase, which proves exactly diddly-squat. You can't back up your claim, so of course there's no reason for anyone else to apologize to you for supposed "false charges".

Anonymous said...

"Barack Obama was first elected into office as a member of the socialist New Party. His childhood mentor was communist Frank Marshall Davis. He is a student of Saul Alinsky and cohort of William Ayers. He went to the Trinity UCC that teaches a hybrid communist/racist propaganda rather than from the Bible. His primary function during his early adult years was as a "community organizer." He is a textbook socialist with communist seasoning."

Dude, the guy's been president for over a year. You can copy some "dirt" about his distant past that you found on other blogs, but he's been sitting in that White House doing stuff for a while now - and it's pretty friggin far from socialist or communist. Maybe you didn't notice, but part of his base isn't all that happy with his pretty centrist approach.

And "Obamacare" has nothing to do with socialism - neither does the public option (which Obama's only supported tepidly).

It's a good sign, I guess, that you can't find anything about Obama as president and you have to make hay out of "community organizer" and the like.

Anonymous said...

"I did make one mistake, I meant to say deficit spending quadruples. Oops."

You were also wrong about unemployment. Oops.

radar said...

If you do not believe unemployment has exceeded 10 per cent and that Obama is a socialist then enjoy your day. Hide your eyes, stamp your feet, yell really loud.

Meanwhile normal Americans are looking for new Senators and Representatives who will NOT go along with the Obama-Reid-Pelosi programs. When the 2010 elections roll around we the people will be speaking. Any of these guys who vote for Obamacare or cap and trade are likely to lose their constituency and the vote.

Obama ran on transparency and a new way to do politics and hope and change. But his administration is about tax and spend and secret meetings and hidden documents. Hard to believe there are many true believers out there who are still fooled...

Anonymous said...

Radar says "Barack Obama was first elected into office as a member of the socialist New Party. His childhood mentor was communist Frank Marshall Davis. He is a student of Saul Alinsky and cohort of William Ayers. He went to the Trinity UCC that teaches a hybrid communist/racist propaganda rather than from the Bible. His primary function during his early adult years was as a "community organizer." He is a textbook socialist with communist seasoning."

I love how you use stuff like Obabma's supposed childhood mentor against him. Even if one percent of the garbage above was true, you have to keep in mind, Radar, that you have shared some of your own past on this blog. How come everything you say isn't invalidated because you were at one point a criminal? You used and even dealt drugs at one point didn't you? And I'm thinking that while you were an atheist and a liberal (I still think this is BS by-the-way), wouldn't you have hung out with other Atheists/Liberals, and shouldn't others be able to hold this against you?

- Canucklehead.

P.S. I think your "illness" has spread to your brain because if at one point you were and 'A" student of any type, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. I mean, you don't get communism, socialism, evolution, homosexuality, climate science, ad homenim attacks, what it means to be religious, and "troll" behavior. No wonder you have so few friends, as Hawkeye pointed out.

Oh and nice call threatening to ban anonymous comments. Then no one would come here. Which is exactly what you want, right?

Anonymous said...

"If you do not believe unemployment has exceeded 10 per cent and that Obama is a socialist then enjoy your day. Hide your eyes, stamp your feet, yell really loud."

Shifting goal posts as usual. Since when was this about "unemployment not exceeding 10 percent"?

You said unemployment had doubled since Obama came into power. When he came into power, unemployment was 8 percent. It hasn't doubled since then. You lied.

You then claimed some other metric, involving people who have stopped looking for work. Fine. Has that number doubled? Instead of answering that question, you now try to change the subject.

So was that a lie as well?

radar said...

The last poster cannot do simple arithmetic apparently. But that is okay, the CRU and the IPCC are looking for bad math guys to do their next set of graphs and charts! They still need people to help prove that global warming is causing all the cold snaps and blizzards and the increasing arctic ice flows and the calving glaciers. Why not go apply?

radar said...

So reminding everyone that unemployment has doubled since Obama was voted into power and we are in a recession going into depression and the government is taking over banks and businesses and borrowing money from Red China we cannot repay. Is there any chance you can stay on point and suggest anything to do about it? I say we have to vote all the incumbents of either party who have been going along with this stuff out (and that includes a few Republicans).

creeper said...

"The last poster cannot do simple arithmetic apparently."

You mean like that patented Radarithmetic?

Two times eight = ten

Nice one Radar, well done. Is that what your "simple arithmetic" looks like?

"So reminding everyone that unemployment has doubled since Obama was voted into power and we are in a recession going into depression and the government is taking over banks and businesses and borrowing money from Red China we cannot repay."

What does that even mean? And if you want to blame all that on Obama, he must have a pretty nifty time machine and some truly amazing powers.

"I did make one mistake, I meant to say deficit spending quadruples. "

You saw in one of the earlier comments that federal spending didn't increase by that much. The deficit did increase - but also not by as much as you claim (another lie). Again, you can't just pretend that everything was just dandy, and when Obama came into power and put Evil Communist Policies in place, everything instantly turned to crap.

For your edification, here's a nice little overview of how the deficit we currently have came to be. Discuss. Compare and contrast.

-- creeper

creeper said...

So... Radar spreads a bunch of lies, and when he can't back them up, he runs off instead of facing up to them. Nothing new there really.

So here's a quick summary of the lies Radar peddled in this post:

Unemployment did not double since Obama took office, by any metric. Not even close.

In reality, during that time the unemployment rate went up 2 to 3% and the underemployment rate (which is what Radar was referring to when he talked about "true unemployment that includes those who have given up") went from approx. 14 to 17%. That's not double by any stretch of the imagination.

Not just that, but there was an undeniable trend underway well before Obama was in power. It should be evident that that's not something you can just turn around in an instant. Remember how the recession under Bush that took place about 9 months after he came into power was still being blamed on Clinton?

Federal spending did not quadruple either (as Radar already acknowledged), and neither did deficit spending.

Radar, how can you pretend to argue "issues" or "concepts" if you don't even have a grasp of the most basic facts?

-- creeper

radar said...

Again, for those who do not understand plain English I said "Obama is elected and..." "Obama was voted in and..."

Even though the Congress was Democratically controlled after 2006, the economy did not really tank until November of 2008 when Barack was elected. This was an okay to Democrats to conduct business as usual and square it. Even John McCain and George Bush got sucked into the whole "stimulus package" garbage but Obama took it and ran with it and our economy continues to go down down down.

Next up, why would it start with his election if he was not yet sworn into office?

radar said...

Why would it start with his election if he was not yet sworn into office?

As someone in business I can tell you both generally and personally. A big client with headquarters in Japan okayed what would have been either my biggest or second biggest single sale of 2008. It was a huge project that all sides spent many hours working on and the purchase order had been issued but, when the HQ in Japan realized that Obama might be elected they made an emergency call to the US office and put the PO on hold until the results of the election.

Obama was elected and the company cancelled the order. Businessmen understood Obama being elected would be bad for the US economy and for business. Wealth redistribution and nationalization of industries has begun, the economy is dying and it began when business knew Obama was coming to the White House. Period.

radar said...

"So reminding everyone that unemployment has doubled since Obama was voted into power and we are in a recession going into depression and the government is taking over banks and businesses and borrowing money from Red China we cannot repay."

This is a fact and it is undeniable. That Obama was first elected as a socialist and his policies are classic socialist in nature is obvious. Obama is growing the government and growing the deficit spending.

We need to greatly shrink the Federal government and greatly reduce spending, which is opposite of Obama policy. The first step will be tossing most politicians up for election in 2010 out on their cans. Not just Democrats, but also Republicans who have been part of the problem.

Laugh at the tea party movement. King George laughed back in the late 18th century and hired a few German mercenaries to help a portion of the British military quell the little fuss over the seas. A few years later? We had a George, but his title was President and his last name was Washgington. We the people is waking up, having been slapped in the face and the wallet.

radar said...

"Radar, I can't tell if you're being obtuse out of some misplaced sense of pride or if you really don't get the difference between a quote and a paraphrase.

"Oh, and since I directly copied that exact wording down in a post I have received no apologies from you for your false charges"

What was needed was Biden's exact wording. What you copied was the "exact wording" of a reporter's paraphrase, which proves exactly diddly-squat. You can't back up your claim, so of course there's no reason for anyone else to apologize to you for supposed "false charges"."


Duh. I posted exactly what was reported. So I had a source and you do not. I quoted the source and you did not. I have worked as a journalist for a living and it is highly unlikely that you have. So again I say, unless you produce a transcript, what I posted was attributed and you have nothing to refute it. IF YOU DO HAVE SOMETHING then email the reporter and have him retract HIS words, my report was exactly correct.

You see, I presented word for word what was reported, which makes my content correct. You naysayers have been making charges that you cannot substantiate. That might make you perfect as a candidate to work for the AP but my old journalism teacher would have kicked your butt in class. I reported and attributed my source. You have nothing.

creeper said...

Re. that dumb Biden paraphrase: it appears nobody has an exact quote. You didn't report a primary source, and you don't have one to back up your claim. We can't confirm the opposite, given the lack of a primary source.

Your claim that you cited what was reported and we don't have anything to the contrary is nonsense, of course.

Yep, google the thing, and it won't take too long to find reporters reporting Biden saying something that makes sense in context:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0110/biden_slams_filibuster_fe40df44-9045-4c26-a715-51c427035eae.html

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/19/joe-bidens-filibuster-hypocrisy.html

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/biden-bashes-senate-filibuster/

So for starters there are three reports of what was said - according to your own criteria - that we can count as "sources" that contradict your own.

Do you understand now - having worked as a journalist and all, as you so cheerfully boast - that your having presented "word for word what was reported" isn't exactly accurate, that - especially when you claim to have journalistic experience - hiding behind the wording of a secondary source is just plain useless? You'd want to find out what was actually said, investigate multiple sources, try to find primary sources etc.?

You know, that kind of thing?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Laugh at the tea party movement."

Gladly. They're clueless. You even think they get suckered in by Palin writing words on the palm of her hand. Don't have such a high opinion of them, do you?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Why would it start with his election if he was not yet sworn into office?"

Why not start with when Obama declared his candidacy?

After all, that's around the time when the recession started, and nobody back then even had a clue that Obama as much as had a chance at the primary. Back then, people thought it would be Hilary vs. Rudy.

You're so desperate to blame Obama for anything and everything under the sun, it's all just about curve fitting after the fact.

Housing boom collapsing etc. etc. - sure, it's all Obama's fault.

Makes a lot of sense, sure.

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper you are not in business and you have not paid attention to the economy or what happened to the housing industry so your lack of understanding is accepted. We move on from here.

creeper said...

"Creeper you are not in business and you have not paid attention to the economy or what happened to the housing industry so your lack of understanding is accepted."

You presume a lot.

The recession was well under way by the time Obama even took the lead for the Democratic nomination, complete with unemployment rising.

Given your Obama hatred and your, shall we say, tendency to be economical with the truth on your blog, I'll take your anecdote with a hefty grain of salt. Keep in mind that that unemployment trendline also coincided with the credit crunch, the banking crisis, the end of the real estate bubble etc., which would have impacted employment severely.

Do you really think that if McCain/Palin had been elected, those rising trendlines would have instantly reversed? What solutions did McCain offer? Keep in mind that it was when the economy hit the skids in September/October that McCain's chances really dwindled (selecting Palin didn't help, but that's another issue).

Oh, and of course your claim that underemployment doubled - even if you so self-servingly insist on taking it from the time Obama was elected - is still a big fat lie. You're just making this stuff up as you go along, or at the very least you fall for some pretty unreliable sources.

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper, your math skills are flawed. Unemployment has doubled. Live with it. I stand by the numbers presented and I advise any and all readers to research for themselves.

creeper said...

"Creeper, your math skills are flawed. Unemployment has doubled. Live with it. I stand by the numbers presented and I advise any and all readers to research for themselves."

1. So now we're back to unemployment, not underemployment? Doesn't matter, neither one doubled in either of the time frames we talked about. You lied. Live with it.

2. You stand by the numbers presented?! You didn't present any numbers! So you stand by my numbers? Well they're the ones that contradict your claims, so make up your mind already. Do you stand by the numbers or your claims?

3. Yes, readers, please research for yourself. I presented some links above to back up the points I was making. Radar has presented nada. Don't take my word for it, you can see it for yourself in the comment thread above.

Sucks to be caught in yet another lie, eh Radar? You know, there is such a thing as a retraction. Why not just admit that you, you know, exaggerated or something.

-- creeper

creeper said...

Just realized you meant the numbers in that flash animation you linked to, so yes, you did provide some numbers, and so I take it back that you didn't provide any numbers - but even those still show the trend starting well before Obama was in power, and they are in contradiction with data at the BLS website, which has unemployment at about 7% when Obama is elected, around 8% when he is inaugurated, and 9.7% last month.

-- creeper