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!"