US Debt. Once again we ask, why not argue the facts?

Remember 06? Remember Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama promised to change things if the people gave them control of Congress.

They did, and they did.

In the last fiscal year before the Dems took control of the budget process the Republicans added $459,269,261,648.20 to the United States public debt. Yes, that's about four hundred fifty nine billion dollars, give or take a few. Such profligate spending was unsustainable, five fiscal years ago. The United States could not have continued deficit spend at the rate of $1,258,271,949.72 per day.

Nancy Pelosi promised no new deficit spending in her first year. Harry Reid promised to hold the debt ceiling to 2007 levels. No less a geohistoric personage as Barack Obama labelled such borrowing as unpatriotic, actually employing the "U" word to describe the then President, Republican W.

The Democrats kept their promise: they changed the unsustainable rate of federal spending. In their first fiscal year, the Democrat Congress, lead by Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid and Barack Obama in the Senate, Democats increased the public debt of the United States increased by $1,061,672,666,771.06. That's one trillion sixty nine billion dollars.

The rate of debt began to accumulate more than twice as fast we did the previous year. That's a daily debt rate of $2,908,692,237.72, almost three times as fast as the Bush/GOP debt rate that Barack Obama labelled unpatriotic. Three freakin' times as fast.

The Democrats have increased the deficit by more than one trillion dollars per year in every one of the five fiscal years since, and FY 2012 is only three quarters complete! The total new debt Democrats have incurred is a whopping $6,793,814,813,967.81.

These are big numbers but easy facts to convey. The average person hears about debt, but they never hear anything close to the real numbers. Maybe we ask the average politically apathetic, undecided voter, the proverbial "everyman" if they feel the benefit of an extra $21,720.67 from the United States government? If the answer is no, as we suspect it will be, let 'em, know that is the extra tax burden they will pay for just new debt, not everything from Uncle Sam mind you, just debt, since the Democrats took control of the US Senate and said goodbye to reality.

So, GOP, its up to us to educate them. Let's do it.

Obama Era: Expert Consensus Shows Transition from Work to Welfare Equals Poverty.

Another family staying at an Obama Inn

Just caught a "minor" headline this morning.  The percentage of Americans living in poverty has reached a near fifty year high.  The raw number of Americans living in poverty has already reached historic worsts in each of the three Obama years.
  

We've long known that the Obama years have seen labor force participation (the percentage of Americans already employed or seeking employment) drop to Carter Depression era lows.
 

The conclusion inescapably indicts the Obama socialist approach. 

In 2012 the United States faces record public debt and has experienced its first credit downgrade (even the Revolutionary Government of 1778 had better credit).  At the same time, after six years of Democrat budget control and a nearly four year experiment with European socialism/crony capitalism the United States has record levels of government spending in whatever way the liberals have chosen to spend it (e.g. the 09 budget, the Stimulus, nationalized health care and record Social Security and Medicare spending).   The liberal states like New York, Illinois, and especially California spend pour even more water into that ocean of spending.  Yet the independence and affluence that comes with employment is collapsing and the dependence that arises from poverty and welfare is at a historic worst.  All but the committed ideologue can recognize that President  Obama's socialism destroys employment and increases poverty and dependence if they know the clearest of facts.

Where then are the Republican ads telling the public these alarming facts?   The idea that we have lost a generation of labor and nearly two generations of national wealth in only three years are the kind of shocking numbers that even the simplest of viewers could grasp, so why don't we tell them? 

Deficit Spend: For F&*#S SAKE GOP-CITE THE NUMBERS

Much of political rhetoric is vague, smokey, well, smoke.  And mirrors.   However, every now and then the topic turns to something tangible, like numbers.

Some, indeed many, economic statistics are as clear as Snoop Dog's eye's at 11:00 AM.  But a few statistical categories reflect the precise clarity of Sarah drawing a bead on big ol' shaggy Alces alces (or an endangered Democrat Congressional incumbent). 

Actual spending, actual income, the difference between them and the percentage of difference are the later category.  Everyone with a checking account knows the same to be true.   Just add up your deposits, add up your debits and come up with the difference.  Public school grads, don't use long math-we've stopped teaching that painful topic.  Use your online calculator.

Well, the United States government works the same way.  It (we) takes in money (receipts).  It (we) spends money (outlays).  There is a difference, either plus or minus. That difference is a percentage of the total.

So here are the numbers, expressed in constant 2005 dollars (so our liberal friends cannot claim we are comparing old apples to inflated oranges).  Using actual dollars makes the spending far worse, because there's more of it and the inflated dollar pays for less but let's be charitable and give 'em the benefit of an identical statistical baseline.

YEAR	RECEIPTS	OUTLAY	DIFFERENCE	%
2006	$ 2324.1 Trillion	$ 2563.8 Trillion	$ -239.6 Billion	-1.9
2008	$ 2288.1 Trillion	$ 2703.8 Trillion	$ -415.7 Billion	-3.2
2009	$ 1899 Trillion	$ 3173.4 Trillion	$ -1274.4 Billion	-10.1
2010	$ 1927.9 Trillion	$ 3081 Trillion	$-1153.0 Billion	-9.0
2011	$ 1998.7 Trillion	$ 3126.3 Trillion	$ -1127.6 Billion	-8.7

 

A simple review of the number shows some interesting mileposts.  The federal operating deficit has increased approximatley 500% since control of the Federal government was last vested in unified Republican control (2006).

When W could still exercise some restraint on the spending human-monster soft core spending porn, Barack, Nancy, Harry were only able to increase total outlays by 5.4%.  Now that is not a great, but that makes

The election of BHO as POTUS put Caligula in charge of the spending party.  In the first year of the Obama Presidency, with complete Democrat control-absent even the threat of a Republican filibuster-of spending outlays increased by 17.3%-at a time when federal revenues were collapsing following the THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF RECORD REVENUE (2006-2008) Dubya's Administration produced.  That's 17.3% in one year.  That's also the last year the still Democrat Senate even produced a budget, so the next two years of spending reflect a deficit chef on autopilot.

While we cannot always go into the nerd tree of numbers in every public interview on the deficit spending, here's a fact based sound bite that works every time a libs say W caused the deficit-"liar!"  

Barack Obama: WMD in the War on Women.

The Labor/Socialist/Democrat leadership, media and academia are in full throat decrying the War on Women being waged by that heartless Mitt Romney. Since seizing control of Congress in January 2007, the LSD has done massive damage to American women.  Much like the Saudi elite encourage hatred of the West to divert attention from their own failures, the American liberal elite is working at least double overtime to distract independent women from the bleakness of their own pocket books.

The close of the era of Republican control of the White House and Congress (2001-2006) saw unemployment among women never higher than 6.3%; as low as 4.6% and averaging a healthy 5.4%.  Remember, this period included the worst exogenous shock the US economy ever experienced, with millions of jobs disappearing overnight courtesy of the bin Laden boys on 9.11 and the worse natural disaster in American history, Hurricane Katrina.  Both disasters particularly hit the travel and hospitality industries wherein women are disproportionately represented.

Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to occupy the Speaker's chair, promised to change the direction of the economy.  Promise delivered.  At the end of her first term as Speaker, the Reid Pelosi Congress ended the Bush boom and had scratched at the eyes of every working woman the LSD claims to protect.   Female unemployment had grown to recession levels in less than two years. The year 2008 produced 5.4%  unemployment among all woman; 5.9% among single/previously married and 8.5% of single/never married.  And that was with W and his veto pen providing superhero service to merely keeps the wolves away from the American Woman.

The era of Obama has seen unemployment among women reach thirty year highs.   Out of the bat, 2009 saw u3 unemployment of all women increase by millions-averaging 8.1%.  Unrestrained by the threat of filibuster or veto the LSD could fully implement its war on single women.  Single/previously married women saw u3 unemployment sky rocket to  9.1% and single/never married to 12%-also a near thirty year high.

At the mid term mark, with complete control of the government, the LSD agenda had not only failed to solve the crushing financial losses experienced by American women, it had drug women even further into poverty and despair.  At the close of 2010 the average female u3 was 8.6% for all women, and 9.6% and 12.8% for the two categories of single women.  This first group to feel the parallel reality of LSD ideology were the women of America.  LSD economic victims represented millions of women looking for jobs who cannot find them.

The year 2011 did not see the Democrat US Senate pass a budget (filibuster proof-remember Obamacare) or the President's budget generate a single vote in either house of Congress.  It did see unemployment among single women 16-24 average 21%.  That means one out of every five women at the start of what should be a career is out of work.

It doesn't look like these jobs for women are coming back.  Long term unemployment remains at thirty year highs. 

U.S. Labor Force Participation: A Picture Speaks A Thousand Words

Its a cliche for a reason.  The chart above is from the United States Department of Labor, dated today.  The data represented in the chart is labor force participation in the United States as reflected in today's report. 

Its a pretty simple concept.  At any given time there are a relatively measurable number of millions of adults of working age in the United States.  "Labor force participation" or LPF, generally defined is the number of people between 16 and 64 that are working or looking for work less military and institutionalized persons in the same age group.  Even Keynesians concede labor force participation is one of the two most significant determinants of economic health.

The number of adults in the labor market has declined every month since the Labor/Socialist/Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007.   This represents literally millions of people who are considered to have permanently transitioned from work to welfare to worse.

Labor force participation has collapsed under Barack Obama.   A more damning, if less aesthetically dramatic, indictment of LSD ideology is provided by a look at the long cycle from President Carter to President Obama.  The current labor force participation rate is ironically exactly where it was in April of 1980-the depths of the seemingly endless ennui` of the Carter Depression-63.8%.    In only sixty-two months, LSD control of the economy has extinguished an entire generation-30 years-of American employment growth.

At the same time the operating budget deficit has increased by one thousand percent.  President Obama presides over the largest number of Americans in poverty, subsisting on food stamps and state welfare in our national history.  The average American who has remained employed has seen the cost of their three biggest household expenditures, food, fuel and health care reach similar historical heights.  While half of Americans pay no federal income tax the other half face generational heights in federal, state and local taxes.

Not surprisingly, the experiment in European social welfare planned economics has required this President to borrow more money in 38 months than was borrowed by not only all of his forty three predecessors but the old Continental Congress thrown in for historical completion.

Change? You betcha.