You've been had: The 2009 stimulus has been repeated every year, accounting for all GDP increases under Obama and then some

The February 2009 Obama stimulus got added to Bush's 2009 fiscal year spending because Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate at the time. It was scandalous, but there was nothing Republicans could do about it.

But the same thing happened every year thereafter because the Democrat Congress and then the Republican Congress deliberately passed this prior spending in the form of continuing resolutions instead of through regular order, which meant nothing got debated and the status quo was maintained. That's the evil of CRs.

Both parties did this on purpose instead of debating individual spending bills because . . . THEY ALL LOVE HAVING THE MONEY TO SPEND.

The fiscal 2008 baseline outlays were $2.9825 trillion, to which the stimulus got added for fiscal 2009, and just kept getting added and re-added and re-added right through to the present (and then some) through the continuing resolution process:

2009: $535.2 billion ($3.5 trillion)

2010: $474.6 billion ($3.5 trillion)

2011: $620.6 billion ($3.6 trillion)

2012: $554.5 billion ($3.5 trillion)

2013: $472.1 billion ($3.5 trillion)

2014: $523.6 billion ($3.5 trillion)

2015: $776.1 billion ($3.8 trillion)

2016: $1.017 trillion ($4.0 trillion).

The giant joke on the American people here is that Republicans went right along with this charade the whole time Obama was president, even after they got control of both the House and the Senate in 2014. Almost $5 trillion in "stimulus" has already been spent.

And Trump wants to add another $1 trillion?

Meanwhile under Obama current dollar GDP increased . . . $4.1 trillion. All government spending. All totally phony. And overpriced at that: $1.21 spent for every dollar of that fake GDP.

This morning's Electoral College prediction with 4 days to Election 2016: Clinton 298 to Trump 240

Clinton begins with 226 Electoral College votes on the Real Clear Politics map.

The average of the last poll and the polling average this morning indicates she wins FL (29) by less than 3 points, VA (13) by more than 4 points, PA (20) by 2.5 points, ME-2 (1) by more than 1 point, and CO (9) by more than 1 point.

Trump begins with 180 Electoral College votes and wins NC (15) by 3.9 points, NH (4) by less than 1 point, OH (18) by more than 4 points, IA (6) by less than 1 point, AZ (11) by 4.5 points, and NV (6) by 1 point.

The most recent polls are all tied up in NH, IA, CO and NV.

Clinton is ahead by only 2 points in the latest polls in PA and ME-2. Her margins in the averages are razor thin in FL (1.2) and ME-2 (0.7) and thin in PA (3.0) and CO (2.6).

Trump is ahead by only 1 point in the latest poll in GA (a phony to make him spend money there?). His margins in the averages are razor thin in NC (0.8), NH (1.5), and IA (1.4) and thin in OH (3.3) and NV (2.0).

Clinton's objective is clear: Take away NH, IA and NV from Trump and make him spend money in NC and OH.

Trump's objective is more daunting, to keep NC, NH, IA, OH and NV while pressing hard in PA, ME-2, FL and CO. Trump needs 30 more Electoral College votes to win, which he can get in a few ways, say by winning FL and ME-2, or he can win even if he loses FL by winning PA, CO and ME-2.

Clinton's vulnerability in PA, ME-2, FL and CO adds up to 59 Electoral College votes.

Trump's vulnerability in NC, NH, IA, OH and NV adds up to 49 Electoral College votes.

Purple Strategies online poll is pure propaganda, calls people making between $30,000 and $75,000 "working class", says they'll vote for Hillary

Aside from online polls being a joke, this one from Purple Strategies for Bloomberg saying people making between $30,000 and $75,000 are "working class" is as phony as they get:

“If he [Trump] can’t improve his performance among these working-class voters, he may need to build a more conventional Republican coalition to win,” said pollster Doug Usher. 

Those are middle class people, not working class, and numbered about 54 million in 2014.

Working class people with whom Trump is wildly popular make up to $30,000 and numbered about 81 million in 2014.

This "poll" is trying to shape perceptions, not measure them.

Hey Vinnie from Long Island! Cruz supports TPP and massive expansion of H-1B visas and green cards!

Don't tell me he's not establishment!

Ted Cruz is a phony conservative, which is why Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney and Lindsey Grahamnesty are now lining up behind the guy.

Only Michael Savage talked on the radio today about the Ted Cruz religion story

And even though he's a Jew, Michael Savage grasped the meaning:

Ted Cruz is a phony because he claims to be a mainstream evangelical when he's really part of the Christian lunatic fringe.

Do we really want such a person in the Oval Office?

That's all.

Conservatives don't realize how much Ted Cruz owes to George W. Bush because talk radio never mentions it

How is it that Rush Limbaugh's closest thing to Reagan is a Bushie, hm?

Reported here:

The Bush-Cruz connection is clear. Ted was George W.’s brain when he ran for president. A top policy adviser, Ted maneuvered for Solicitor General in Bush World but settled for a plum at the Federal Trade Commission. Ted’s a Bush man with deep ties to the political and financial establishment.  Ted and wife Heidi brag about being the first “Bush marriage” – they met as Bush staffers. Cruz was an adviser on legal affairs while Heidi was an adviser on economic policy and eventually director for the Western Hemisphere on the National Security Council under Condoleezza Rice. Condi helped give us the phony war in Iraq. Heidi then went to the Bush U.S. Trade Representative as a top deputy to U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick, who wired Heidi’s membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and job at Goldman Sachs. The bailed-out bank then loaned Cruz $1 million secretly to finance his Senate race. Cruz would also borrow an undisclosed $1 million loan from Citicorp.

John Kasich's Ohio miracle is totally phony and depended entirely on federal money through Medicaid expansion under Obamacare

No wonder John Kasich took the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

John Kasich has been bad for Ohioans, is already poison for the presidential race, and will be terrible for the country if allowed anywhere near the Oval.

From the story here:

Wal-Mart is a perennial leader, and at the time had nearly 18,000 Ohio employees covered by Medicaid, followed by McDonald’s with over 14,000 jobs. Next in line, respectively, came Kroger, Wendy’s and Bob Evans with a combined 17,000 plus workers using Medicaid.

So when Gov. Kasich went around his very right-wing legislature, which didn’t want to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, he was thinking about more than the normal people “living in the shadows.” He saw $2.5 billion a year in federal money and knew he could both shed state expenses and give aid and support to a few of Ohio’s biggest corporations, which are too cheap to pay their workers a living wage, defined by enough income to pay their expenses without being “dependent” on government safety net programs like Medicaid. John Kasich loves to talk about personal responsibility for individuals, but has nothing to say about the same responsibility to the biggest, richest corporations.

This observation on what Gov. Kasich was doing came from a progressive economic think tank that gets little attention at the legislature. Zach Schiller, a spokesman for Policy Matters Ohio, said Ohio’s safety-net services, including Medicaid, food stamps and cash assistance, “shouldn’t have to be used in significant ways by multimillion-dollar companies getting tax breaks. They should be able to adequately pay their employees.”

P.O.S. Mitt Romney tells 3.4 million Americans who've already voted for Trump in 15 states to go to hell

For a two-faced lying phony, you can't beat badly aging Michael Medved and his smear job of Trump

From the story here:

In 2012, Medved called Sen. Harry Reid a scumbag the worst man in politics for using Romney's tax returns as an attack on the candidate. Medved said Reid was using the tax return attack as a "distraction" from President Obama's failed administration. 

"This attempt to smear and distract, and what is this all about?" Medved rhetorically asked.

Ralph Peters (ahem) rips Tim Cook a new one (ahem) for being such a queen (double ahem)

There's gotta be at least four in-you-endos in there.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Here:

"Tim Cook is acting like Hillary Clinton - above the law, better than the rest of us."

In 2012 Obama called gasoline at $2.50 a phony promise, three years later it's $1.77

The promise of $2.50 a gallon gasoline was made by presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in 2012, which just shows you how a truly smart politician who knew what was coming, unlike Obama by the way, hoped to get elected and get the credit for predicting and delivering something which would have happened anyway.

But does it need to be repeated that oil and gasoline price reductions happened INSPITE of Obama's war on so-called fossil fuels?

Yes, it does.

Obama's done everything he can to stop the country from discovering and using fossil fuels, but private industry and initiative have done an end run around the president, a sort of payback for the president's end runs around the constitution.

This ain't over by a longshot.

So how does Charlie Sheen withdraw up to $10 million to pay blackmail and not get prosecuted and Speaker Hastert does?

I'm callin' phony on this story:

"Sheen said he's trusted the diagnosis with people he thought he could confide in, but has paid out upwards of $10 million to keep the illness a secret."

Ann Coulter was right: Fiorina criticized Trump for claiming to get to know Putin in a green room but did the same thing herself

Here.

Ann.Coulter.Dangerous.

Carly.Fiorina.Phony.

Megyn Kelly, indignant at sexist Trump today, enjoyed being Howard Stern's sex object in 2010

Story here.

Gas for $2.50: What Obama called a phony promise in 2012 is now the reality, without him, without Gingrich, without government

Flashback to Feb. 2012: Newt Gingrich was mocked and worse by Obama and company for saying $2.50 gas was possible, but it's happening right now

Newt, deservedly doin' The Mussolini

Obama called Gingrich's promise of $2.50/gallon gas a "phony election-year promise" in 2012 here. The White House spokesman lying shill Jay Carney chimed in calling it a lie, here. Pure projection syndrome.

Two and a half years later and everywhere across this country the price of gasoline is plummeting toward an average of $2.50 and lower because of the success of drill-baby-drill-fracking on private lands, and the Feds haven't had one damn thing to do with it.

The average price in Grand Rapids, Michigan, tonight is $2.539 with prices falling. Smart shoppers at Sam's Club here tonight can get gas for $2.469. Prices in many southern tier states of this great country are already paying well below $2.50, for example $2.20 in Texas City, TX, $2.25 in Memphis, TN, and $2.30 in West Monroe, LA. Go duck men, go.

Newt Gingrich was right. Obama and company are idiots.

US oil refining capacity is mismatched for our boom in light, sweet crude

So we either expand that capacity, or lift the 1975 ban on oil exports. Obama's decision to do nothing except take credit for production from private lands suggests he wants the oil boom to end.

Robert Samuelson, who has basically concluded elsewhere that Obama is lazy, in addition to being phony, tiny and small, here:

"The new oil consists mostly of "sweet, light" crudes, meaning they have a low sulfur content and are less dense than "sour, heavy" crudes. The trouble is that many U.S. refineries have been designed to process heavy, sour crudes and, therefore, aren't suitable for the new oil. At the end of 2013, the United States had 115 oil refineries capable of processing about 18 mbd, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. About half were fitted for sour and heavy crudes. That's especially true along the Gulf of Mexico coast where more than half of U.S. refining capacity is located.

"The result is that more and more new oil is chasing less and less usable refining capacity. Refineries' bargaining power rises. Producers have to accept price discounts to sell their oil. A second problem is that much of the new production is located in North Dakota with an inadequate pipeline network to transport the crude to refineries. To offset more costly barge and rail transportation, producers (again) have to discount prices.

"Some strains will be eased by refinery expansions and new pipelines. How much is unclear. But as a report from the Brookings Institution argues, producers will be discouraged by an oil market that seems rigged against them. They will react by slowing -- or possibly stopping -- new exploration. The oil boom will ebb or end. Global oil supplies will then be lower than they would otherwise be; prices will be higher. It's a bad outcome for the United States but a good one for Russia, Iran and other producers hostile to us."

MSNBC dingbat tries to tell the world Animal Farm wasn't aimed at the Soviet Union

Her name? Krystal Ball.

(With a name like that shouldn't she be doing the weather somewhere, or maybe the traffic? No, I know! Market futures!)

Here she is in all her dimness, trying to frame George Orwell's fairy story as a screed against capitalism:

Animal Farm, hmm. Isn't that Orwell's political parable of farm animals where a bunch of pigs hog up all the economic resources, tell the animals they need the food because they're the makers and then scare up a prospect of a phony boogie man every time their greed is challenged?

Sorry, no. The original capitalist pigs were the communists, which is why the communists like "Krystal Ball" work so hard to make you think the opposite:

One publisher during the war, who had initially accepted Animal Farm, subsequently turned it down after an official at the British Ministry of Information warned him off. The publisher then wrote to Orwell, saying: "If the fable were addressed generally to dictators and dictatorships at large then publication would be all right, but the fable does follow, as I see now, so completely the progress of the Russian Soviets and their two dictators [Lenin and Stalin], that it can apply only to Russia, to the exclusion of the other dictatorships. "Another thing: it would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are."

In Orwell's London Letter for Partisan Review dated 17 April 1944 he stated how it was "next door to impossible to get anything overtly anti-Russian printed" because of the US, UK, Soviet alliance.

What's next from old Krystal? The OSS (formed in 1941) murdered Trotsky?

Robert Samuelson: Obama Is Timid, Lazy, Phony, Tiny and Small

"Timid, lazy, phony, tiny and small" doesn't quite have the same ring as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", but you never know, it might catch on.

Here:

There is something profoundly timid about President Obama's proposed $3.778 trillion budget for 2014. ... [T]he budget is a status-quo document. It lets existing trends and policies run their course, meaning that Obama would allow higher spending on the elderly to overwhelm most other government programs. This is not "liberal" or "conservative" so much as politically expedient and lazy. ...

Obama remains unwilling to grapple with basic questions posed by an aging population, high health costs and persistent deficits. Why shouldn't programs for the elderly be overhauled to reflect longer life expectancy and growing wealth among retirees? Shouldn't we have a debate on the size and role of government, eliminating low-value programs and raising taxes to cover the rest? The "spin" given by the White House -- and accepted by much of the media -- is that the president is doing precisely this by putting coveted "entitlement" spending on the bargaining table.

It's phony. Compared with the size of the problem, Obama's proposals are tiny. The much-discussed shift in the inflation adjustment for Social Security benefits to the "chained" consumer price index would save $130 billion over a decade; that's about 1 percent of projected Social Security spending of $11.23 trillion over the same period. ...

The work of politics is persuasion. It is orchestrating desirable, though unpopular, changes. (Popular changes don't require much work.) . . . Already, his small proposed cuts in Social Security benefits have outraged much of the liberal base.

So Obama has taken a pass. He has chosen the lazy way out. He's evading basic choices while claiming he's bold and brave. ...

David Stockman Misses An Opportunity: The Warfare State IS The Welfare State

The New York Times is only happy enough to run an op-ed from David Stockman, here, attacking the phony conservatism of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan, in which he rather relishes pointing out, among other things, that when push came to shove Rep. Paul Ryan "folded like a lawn chair" and voted for TARP:

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.

Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neoconconservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $775 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately) as the global policeman.

Mr. Stockman never once calls this Republicanism what it is. I suppose if he had the Times wouldn't have printed it. And I don't know how he really could since his family is allied with liberal social positions anyway. Paul Ryan isn't the only phony conservative liberal around.

But the truth is (someone's got to say it) the warfare state since Reagan is another consequence of liberalism, expressed as a failure of nerve with respect to conscription. Good wars are wars for which Americans more or less readily submit to the draft, fight successfully and end relatively quickly. They have the consent of the governed and are representative wars, conducted as they are by a cross-section of the population. Bad wars don't have the consent of the governed. And so these must emphasize among other things protecting warriors and civilians, not destroying the enemy's ability to make war, and are all too often fought to draws after protracted efforts. These cannot be conducted except with compliant volunteers, who come from more or less distinct sectors of American society: the South, and poor minorities. And these volunteers require enducements in addition to a commitment from government to their safety, such as citizenship, a college education, or a pension. As in the private sector, the military's single biggest cost is personnel, which explains perhaps more than anything the drive to mechanized war in a new form, the vanguard of which is drone technology. Can The Terminator be far behind?

The war in Afghanistan would be long over if we had destroyed its infrastructure, annihilated its people, and salted its poppy fields. But we couldn't do that. That would have been a war crime. And besides, where we would get our drugs then?

Liberalism, you see.


"Yet Reason frowns on war's unequal game,
Where wasted nations raise a single name,
And mortgaged states their grandsires' wreaths regret,
From age to age in everlasting debt;
Wreaths which at last the dear-bought right convey
To rust on medals, or on stones decay."

-- Samuel Johnson