Why Liberals Have to Lie Part 8 (President Obama's Relection Campaign)

In recent Obama political commercials, we are starting to see the direction Obama campaign  will be headed his re-election bid. The over riding direction will again to blame Bush (43), but he also be typically deceitful claims about Gov Romney.

One Obama commercial makes a point that Gov Romney left the state of Massachusetts with an $18 billion deficit (pretty funny as the President is increasing the federal deficit by $1 trillion a year). However when one just takes a cursory look at the facts, you see once again it's the lies of the left. One fact is the $18 billion debt was $18 billion worth of voter approved bonds, the likes of which are capital improvements to pay for such things as road or bridge repair, to erect new buildings at the University of Massachusetts or to expand courthouses; further he inherited the same amount ( $18 billion debt) from the previous governor. There is also the statement that after Romney left Massachusetts as governor (2007) that Massachusetts had the highest debt per capita in the nation, however again it's worth noting that, "Massachusetts didn’t have far to go to reach the No. 1 spot. Massachusetts ranked second in 2003, the year Romney took office, according to Moody’s. And it was first in 2002". FactCheck.org

My second response is the below letter I wrote to the Santa Cruz Sentential 4/26/2012

It has recently been released that Obama was faced with two mutually exclusive agendas for his Presidency; end the recession or past ObamaCare; Obama choose that later, believing it would leave a more profound legacy. In doing so, the Democrats have not passed a budget in over 3 years. Bush managed to raise the deficit by $5 billion over eight years, including the 2009 budget that was shared with Obama; Obama has managed to increase the deficit another $5 trillion dollars in just 4 years. The end result is an economy (despite what you hear from the media) that is worse off than it was when Obama took over, with $5 trillion in additional debt. One may want to blame Bush for the recession, but if you accept the argument that a president has that much affect on the economy, you also have to accept the argument that Obama had the ability to use his political will in the first two years to bring the recession under control, when the Republicans did not have the ability to block passage of any Democrat bill. Perhaps he should have paid more attention to Ronald Reason whose enduring legacy was saving the US economy are the damage that was done by Jimmy Carter.

Third, it is time again to ask what exactly it was the Bush did to get us in this mess (this greatly simplified but still accurate). It certainly wasn't the increases in the national debt over the 8 years he was in office. Our national debt has been increasing every year since before Reagan and the country economy showed sustained growth. While I don't agree with the Keynesian economic theories, it is eactly what President Obama is doing hoping it will "kick start" the economy (this also rules out the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as causing the Great Recession as the end result was simply greater debt). As a matter of fact, most will agree that Bush had 7 1/2 good years and 6 really bad months. The Great Recession is the result of the collapse of the world banking systems as a result the Repeal of Glass Stegal (A bi partisan vote at the end of the Clinton Presidency), Franklin Reigns and America Dream Act and Alan Greenspan Chairman of the Federal Reserve reducing  Federal Interest rate to 1%  Nomenclature of a Sub-prime Meltdown  Because of these low interest rates large portfolio investors throughout the world were looking for a higher yield and like an unholy trinity, the three came together to destroy the world economy. Because these investment schemes were designed around an unending supply of homes to create new mortgages, the middle class was especially hard hit as they saw the value of their homes sky rocket and then plummet when the supply of buyers finally petered out and a glut of houses that could not be sold remained. So the middle class nest egg has now become an albatross around their necks. There is certainly enough blame to go around but since President Obama continues to complain that the problem is too big for his Keynesian plan to work, does it make any sense at all to reelect him?  Just saying.. 

Finally, I read a recent article that said President Obama’s “spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.” But when I read beyond the first paragraph, I found this is only possible if you accept a new normal for budget deficits.  As an example President Bush’s average budget deficit for his 8 years was about $500 billion until his last budget in 2009. The Bush 2009 budget had a $1.1 trillion deficit, plus $300 billion added by Obama. What Obama is now claiming is because his deficit spending is now less than the new normal of $1.4 trillion, then the rate of his spending is at an incredible slow pace. But if one accepts the 2009 budget is not the new normal and $500 billion remains the norm, then President Obama’s spending is higher than all other presidents combined.