ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

An Economic Dunderhead

Updated on September 20, 2013

Hypocrisy In Action

That's the only way I can describe Barack Hussein Obama in relation to his knowledge of economics. He self- admittedly doesn't know enough about it to fill a thimble so why does he show his complete ignorance trying to talk about something he is clueless about. He's a dunderhead in many areas but this is one of the most important crisis areas we face as a nation and he has failed in even addressing it head on since he took office and will continue to fail, You see Obama thinks he needs to spend more of our tax dollars that we don't have. Will the light ever come on in his pea brain? That's doubtful. His destruction of the US economy has to be intentional- because no one is that damned stupid about balancing a check book. Obama said in 2006, "Raising the debt ceiling is a sign of leadership failure." Being the failure he has proved himself to be the signs must be suffocating him. I listened to some complete moron last night on TV trying to compare Obama to Bush once again. I don't care about Bush at this time. He is long gone and we have this phony fish to fry now.

The link below takes you to a video where Obama tells the Business Roundtable, of all people, that raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean that the national debt is going up. Really? Raising it for Obama means exactly that because he is a spend-a-holic with other people's money. It's akin to some with maxed out credit cards wanting their credit limit raised so they can pay the payments on the money already squandered.

So I'm listening to a commentator, a conservative and a liberal debate that statement last night. All the liberal could fall back on was that conservatives just want to call people names, blah, blah, blah,,, but avoiding the very issue she was there to debate - what Obama said to the business Roundtable. I had to chuckle after a while because the liberal appeared to be even stupider than Obama about simple math and balancing a budget. Both probably think that as long as you have checks in the checkbook there is money in the account. In the governments case the account is the printing press.

Obama's lead in, ""Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven't been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt.”

Here's what the liberal refused to wrap her head around. It was simple math so I use the word "refused." Now this woman is an educated attorney so it isn't like she lacked a few marbles upstairs. The national debt when Obama took office was around $10.6 trillion when Obama took office. It is now approaching $17 trillion and would have surpassed that by now except that the US Treasury froze the debt clock close to 4 months ago. It hasn't moved! That means that the federal government is balancing the budget right down to the penny. Now if you believe that... I think Obama might.

Obama Doing What He Does Best?

100 times? Okay lets suppose that to be a fact. While we're supposing lets throw in an actual fact he conveniently omitted. Hey Obama! It has increased our debt every time it has been raised! Otherwise there would be no need to raise it one skinny penny. The debt clock also represents "funded" liabilities and doesn't account for the unfunded liabilities. For those reading this with the Obama mind set those liabilities aren't $17 but $90 trillion. Get the picture? See why we need to rein in federal spending and make them run balanced budgets?

Let me see if I have this right for the upcoming mid-term elections. If the debt ceiling is raised once again are you telling the citizens who pay taxes that the federal government will NOT issue any new debt and deal with the existing overspending problems you have created? Lets be clear about the real issues here. If that is the case then don't raise it and instead deal with the necessary spending cuts to begin to solve the problems that you have created for this nation.

It has conveniently slipped Obama's mind that by the time he leaves office, the way things are going, he will have doubled the national debt. Yes, doubled it. All those Democrats, every one of them, voted against raising the national debt in 2006. So it's different now? Someone explain to me why in a rational manner. Obama voted "no" himself.

On the trail in 2008. He seems to have forgotten again what he said to get elected.

At that very same Roundtable Obama launched into his usual demagoguery stating that the Republicans are the problem rather than himself. What did he say? Here you go, “What we now have is an ideological fight that's been mounted in the House of Representatives that says, we're not going to pass a budget and we will threaten a government shutdown unless we repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Again a misstatement from the Lair-in-Chief. Defunding is not repeal. It is just not supplying OUR tax dollars to float a boat that was never meant to float in the first place. A law that was passed without being read. We're 11 days out right now and the panic is setting in deeper and deeper. Some roll out huh? Massive waivers and carve outs already granted before game time and parts of the law illegally delayed because of political convenience. I did mention those coming mid-term elections didn't I?

Look on the bright side Barack. At least now the Republicans are giving the Democrats a reason NOT to pass a budget this time around. So while you're explaining please explain why Harry Reid and his Democratic thugs in the US Senate spent over 4 years and $6 trillion of OUR money by not passing a budget as required by federal law. According to Harry we don't need a budget. Obviously Harry has to go so the Senate can get their business done.

One thing I now know about Obama is that growing up he was always given his way. If he didn't get it he pitched a hissy fit. Obama knows very little about negotiating and compromise. He also seems to miss something designed into the US Constitution - representative government. Has Obama "been keeping up" or more interested in campaigning, playing golf and going on lavish vacations? Political life under the party system isn't intended to be a cake walk. The opposition party has a role. Remember the vote in 2006 which you participated in?

Share it with your followers here and on Face Book, Tweet It, Pin It and do anything else you can to let people read the truth.

As Always,

The Frog Prince

Nuff Said?

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Old Poolman profile image

      Mike 3 years ago from Rural Arizona

      Jim, once again you told it like it is. Sadly, the people who really need to read this will never see it. We are talking about very basic math and finances here, why do so many not understand what is happening?

      It would be interesting to see a report showing how many liberals are on food stamps compared to conservatives. I think I already know the answer to this one.

      Obama runs the government the same way many run their households these days. They live strictly on credit and don't understand they will not live long enough to pay off their debt.

      Keep spreading the word and perhaps some liberal will read it by accident and the light bulb in his head will start to glow.

    • Shawn McIntyre profile image

      Shawn McIntyre 3 years ago from Orlando, FL.

      I know it's a confusing issue, but technically, the President is correct: raising the debt ceiling doesn't "increase the debt". The debt ceiling doesn't let the Government spend more money, it authorizes it to pay back money it's already spent. Think of it like this:

      If you have a credit card with a $500 limit, and you buy a $600 television with it, you're currently $100 over your limit. So you call your bank and they agree to raise your credit limit to $601 so that you're covered; they just "raised your debt ceiling". The $600 was already spent (when you bought the television), so the didn't give you permission to spend more, they simply raised the limit to cover money you already spent. That's essentially all the debt ceiling does for the budget; it raises the Government's "credit limit".

      The problem is, politically, a "battle over the debt ceiling" is a much sexier headline than a fight over an appropriations bill (which is what actually spends the money, increasing the debt).

      Very interesting Hub. Voted up.

    • The Frog Prince profile image
      Author

      The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX

      Technically? No in economic terms Shawn.

    • JohnfrmCleveland profile image

      John 3 years ago from Cleveland, OH

      No, Shawn is correct. Plus, the govt. buys a lot of its own bonds, so I wouldn't count that as an increase in debt, either. Not that this sort of "debt" matters.

      Debt is an illusory thing in a fiat currency economy. Exchanging dollars for bonds is really only a book operation - the government creates both dollars and bonds out of thin air, and it costs the government no real resources (such as gold) to make these exchanges, or to simply create more dollars. Bond obligations are paid with paper, that's it.

    • Old Poolman profile image

      Mike 3 years ago from Rural Arizona

      So your saying our government creates worthless bonds, and buys them back with worthless money? If it is only Monopoly money why do we show this in our national debt? I'm more confused now that I have read your explanation.

    • The Frog Prince profile image
      Author

      The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX

      John - Here you go. Buying its own bonds huh? That's called monetizing our debt. Look it up and read about it. Neither one of you "technically" knowa thing about economics obviously.

      Mike - These liberals study undetrwater basket weaving and the other soft subjects in school. Economics is beyond their mental scope. Both of those two are so far off base that they even think like Obama. At least he has admitted he knows nothings about the subject.

      The Frog

    • Shawn McIntyre profile image

      Shawn McIntyre 3 years ago from Orlando, FL.

      You keep on drinking that Tea Party Kool-Aid friend, try the Grape, it's delicious.

    • Old Poolman profile image

      Mike 3 years ago from Rural Arizona

      Shawn, can you explain how buying fake bonds with fake money does anything for us? I honestly don't get it.

    • The Frog Prince profile image
      Author

      The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX

      And you keep swilling that Obama koolaid and hoping agsainst hope. In the meantime start actually studying economics instead of exercising your "technical" pie hole son.

      Mike - You and I know the practice leads to hyper-inflation. These two are as clueless about the subject as is their Messiah. They, like Obama, are in over the heads. Left wing know it alls who know very little.

      The Frog

    • Shawn McIntyre profile image

      Shawn McIntyre 3 years ago from Orlando, FL.

      @Old Poolman, They're not actually buying "fake bonds with fake money", although it can seem that way. What they're doing is printing money and then using that money to buy bonds. It's how they increase the money supply without directly increasing inflation; think of it as a futures market for money.

      It's only a stop-gap, because the Government cant do that forever. It's the whole "Boom and Bust" that Keynesians hate because it kills their whole ideology.

    • JohnfrmCleveland profile image

      John 3 years ago from Cleveland, OH

      Shawn - I have to disagree with you here - there is no reason why the government cannot do it forever. There is no operational reason why bonds need to be issued at all - there is nothing stopping a government, sovereign in its own currency, from issuing money and being done with it. The only real limit on this is inflation - it is possible to spend so much money that the economy cannot meet the increased demand. But we are not close to that point yet.

      Of course, all of this technical stuff is wasted on this thread. Frog thinks this leads to hyperinflation, even though we have been deficit spending like crazy since Reagan started doing it. He also thinks that it only leads to inflation when a Democrat is in the White House. He forgets that the economy worked the exact same way under Dubya, Clinton, Less-Awful-Bush, Reagan, and Carter. Everything is a partisan issue here.

    • The Frog Prince profile image
      Author

      The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX

      Shawn - Technically you're close but not entirely. Read up on monetizing a nation's debt. Government is not the answer and never will be. Keynesian economics has been discredited for decades. You do know that Obama has surrounded himself with Keynesian type economists?

      John - Try living on those terms yourself and tell us how long you last. ROTFLMAO. You have a really simple mind. I don't forget anything John so butt out with that crap you like to ramble on about. You don't know anyone here or their backgrounds. You are no more than a talking head spouting progressive talking points.

      The Frog

    • Shawn McIntyre profile image

      Shawn McIntyre 3 years ago from Orlando, FL.

      @JohnfrmCleveland You're talking classroom economics Vs. real world economics. In the real world, you know as well as I do that you can only get away with it for so long before the bubble bursts. Do you really want to be the one to have the press conference announcing that the Government is going to keep this practice up in perpetuity?

      @The Frog Prince, where did you ever get the idea that I'm a fan of the President's? Are you really so ridiculously partisan that my simply saying that: "technically, the President is correct" qualifies as some ringing endorsement of the man?

      The problem is, people who don't understand economics, or people who get their economic knowledge from politicians, think that everything has to be "either, or". I'm a firm believer in the Austrian School, and even I know that you have to have a little of everything to make the economy work; there is no "one right answer".

    • The Frog Prince profile image
      Author

      The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX

      No son. When you started your Tea Party crap you came out of the closet. It's your mouth not mine that gives you away. I believe in free market enterprise and capitalism with as little government interference as possible. I believe in a small, limited federal government that the US Constitution outlines. In short I am a constitutionalist. Any other questions? I have also studied economics extensively in a higher education environment.

    • FitnezzJim profile image

      FitnezzJim 3 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

      Money grows on sugar trees, and makes a great kool-aid.

    • mio cid profile image

      mio cid 3 years ago from Uruguay

      A lot will be said in the future about the president who got the country out of the great recession and prevented a depression,and very little of that will coincide with the right wing extremist viewpoint.

    • The Frog Prince profile image
      Author

      The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX

      mio cid - You believe that? ROTFLMAO

    • Old Poolman profile image

      Mike 3 years ago from Rural Arizona

      Again I'm confused Mio Cid. How can we borrow our way out of a depression? I guess things have changed since I studied economics. Perhaps this works in Uruguay, but it fails miserably here in the USA.

      Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain the thinking behind this economic philosophy? I may have missed something when I went to school. We are not talking left wing / right wing here, we are talking simple mathematics.

    • The Frog Prince profile image
      Author

      The Frog Prince 3 years ago from Arlington, TX

      Mike - The math part is what escapes a socialist like mio.

    • Old Poolman profile image

      Mike 3 years ago from Rural Arizona

      Jim - I suspect many of them follow this same financial philosophy in their own homes. All of their credit cards maxed out and they only make the minimum monthly payment. They most likely pay little or no attention to how much money they pay in interest by using this method.

      It is a simple fact of life and math that it is impossible to borrow our way out of debt.

    • teaches12345 profile image

      Dianna Mendez 3 years ago

      You reminded me of an old nursery song (Here we go Looby lu): first we go money in, then we go money out, then we go money in and we turn ourselves about. Love the photo reference to this above.

    Click to Rate This Article