During the election, Candidate Obama said that his social and economic policies (the stimulus package, Obamacare, etc.)  would actually reduce the national debt and provide long-term economic stability. (Never mind the fact that he was doing the same tax and spend plan that most progressives think is the cure for all of society’s ills.) He said his budget plan, would actually reduce the deficit in half, approximately $500 billion, by the end of his first term.

When he became President-elect, it seems he started to change his tune. At one point, he even implied defaulting on the national debt to bring Social Security and Medicare costs under control. He also said that “trillion-dollar deficits will be a reality for years to come.”

So much for “hope and change”, huh?

Obamanomics has one thing in mind when it comes to money: SPEND!! Let’s rattle a few things off that Obama has spent over a trillion dollars on since becoming “The Anointed One”, um…I mean president.

• $350 Billion — Second part of the TARP funds which had to be approved by a Democratic Congress
• $862 Billion (Or is it more? I lost track.) – The legendary stimulus plan that was supposed to generate 3 million jobs, keep unemployment under 8%, and cure cancer (being facetious here)
• $85 Billion — Auto bailout and we still own GM
• $23 Billion — Teachers’ Union Bailout
• $26 Billion — For cash-strapped states
• $8-10 Billion (which could go as high as $165 Billion) — Potential bailout of unions (Can we say SEIU?)
• $145 Billion — Fannie and Freddie — with a worst case scenario of $1 trillion (Now only if Barney Frank had gotten out of Bush’s way when he tried to fix this 17 times)
• $3 billion — Housing bailout (That’s right — the second one)

Now, obviously, I could add other disasters like Cash for Clunkers, but I think everyone has gotten the point.

The Heritage Foundation posted back in 2009a side-by-side comparison of the CBO’s projected deficits with the White House’s projections for a ten-year period. They posted an updated graph showing the CBO’s revised projections just recently.

For the mathematically challenged liberals out there, let’s use the White House’s projections.

If you increase the deficit to $1.75 trillion; it makes it easier to “reduce the deficit” once the stimulus money is spent since it is not a recurring expenditure. However, look at the rest of the projections from the White House — they look like he’s fulfilling a campaign promise, but then, in 2014, the deficit goes back up. And that’s their numbers!!

Regardless of hard facts, progressives continue to believe the hype — even if they have to put a little spin on it.

The CBO has just released new long-term projections that “automatic budgetary responses” (i.e. Medicare, Social Security) and “the stimulus” caused the debt to go from 36% to 62% of GDP by 2010 — and that it will reach 70% of GDP by the end of this year.

So, Obamanomics is supposed to have saved us money — but even the Fed Chairman says it isn’t working. Obama’s own Chief of Staff has called Obamanomics “indefensible.”

Now, “The Anointed One” is getting serious about the debt. He has made a new proposal to reduce the debt — even though the first one was supposed to have saved us $2 trillion — by $4 trillion in “12 years or less”.

Now, he’s going to double the savings? Yeah, right.

After the victory in special election in the NY-26, the Democrats have unabashedly decided that they have found the ticket to reclaiming Washington in 2012. Here are a few links to liberal websites stating this fact:

• Democrat Kathy Hochul Wins Upset In NY-26, Medicare Vote Key To Victory 
• New York Special Election: Medicare Will Be Issue of 2012
• David Frum to GOP: In 2012 we’re going to get destroyed for this

Medicare – That’s what they are going with. Really? OK. Where do we begin?

Medicare is a social healthcare program started by Lyndon Johnson back in the 1960’s to provide assistance to the elderly, among others, in paying medical costs, prescription drug costs, etc. 

So, let’s see how that’s working. Medicare costs have skyrocketed since its inception as shown in the following graph entitled Medicare Costs 1967-1997. What started off at $2 billion continually rose till it was over $200 billion. Do realize that was 14 years ago.

The Obama Administration will tell you that they could reign in the costs of Medicare. His plan was to eliminate $500 billion in waste in the Medicare to pay for Obamacare reform. Well, according to Charles Smith, Medicare costs (as of 2008 when Obama first proposed Obamacare) was over $500 billion a year.

“Medicare now costs over $500 billion a year, larger than any expense except Social Security (which is supposedly self-funding via the FICA payroll taxes) and the defense budget (fighting two wars, global war on terror, etc.). The trends are inescapable: Medicare will soon surpass defense spending, and then keep right on going.”

So, according to Obama-math, we can make Medicare sustainable for the long term, pay for Obamacare, all the while saving taxpayers money by eliminating the waste ($500 billion) which is basically equal to the current costs of Medicare.

And he’s supposed to have an Ivy League education??

Only in the government do the numbers not have to add up. So, the same government that does a horrible job at projecting costs tells us it can save money. Let’s see how off they can be. According to the graph titled Actual Costs vs. Estimated Costs Various Medicare Programs, the actual costs of the entire Medicare program was 917% higher than the projected costs at the time it was enacted. 

So, in English, this means every person needs to realize that maintaining Medicare will personally cost them more with each passing year as shown in the following graph titled Medicare costs per person.

So, by 2015, each person will pay approximately $13,000 per year for Medicare. Multiply that by 300 million (for a nice easy number) and you get $3,900,000,000,000 per year. But that’s the government estimate which has been shown for the entire program could be off by as much as 917%.

So, let’s keep that as our baseline, and do the math again. $3.9 trillion dollars and increase the costs by 917% which means by 2015 Medicare could possibly cost the U.S. $3,576,300,000,000,000. Obviously, I would love to say that this an extreme result, but it has already happened once. The government can easily repeat this again.

Medicare is an entitlement program which means that it is automatically funded in the federal budget each and every year without debate. The facts are that the program costs have risen dramatically year after year. Government-run programs have been shown to be ineffective, inefficient, and expensive. And according to everyone, Medicare will be bankrupt in the not too distant future!

Once again, this is the issue Democrats want to hang their hat on in 2012?? A program that has failed to provide adequate medical assistance to even just one demographic in our society. Let me know how that works out for you!

Normally, I tend to focus on more political issues, but this article has clearly shown that political correctness has run amuck and right off the cliff into the land of insanity.

A family in Canada is raising their baby as genderless.

That’s right — genderless. So, now it seems that the world is supposed to be a better place if everyone doesn’t refer to themselves as male/female, man/woman, or even boy or girl.

I don’t think even Rod Serling would have thought a Twilight Zone episode would have come true. Let’s stay with this TV train of thought for a second.

Remember, Saturday Night Live used to have a skit about a genderless character named Pat. The jist was that everyone else in the skit kept trying to figure out what Pat is. And how did the audience respond?

They laughed. They laughed at the thought of a genderless person. That is what these people are doing. They are exposing these children to ridicule, being ostracized by society, and a childhood of pain.

“Jazz…was out of earshot…when a family friend overheard two little girls saying they did not want to play with a ‘girl-boy’.” 

“And once Mrs. Witterick was forced to rush him out of a store when a saleswoman refused to sell him/her a pink leather boa because ‘he(/she) was a boy’.”

The progressives would tell you that this young boy-girl was the victim. I would agree — he/she is the victim of his parents’ ideology.

All because being referred to as a boy or girl is suddenly the worst thing in the world. Being androgynous will make your life better?? 

When Storm was born, the couple sent an e-mail to the rest of their friends and family that stated: “We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now – a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become…”

OK. They have officially lost it. Not only is it wrong, it limits what you can do with your life?!

“The result is that most people believe the boys are girls. The parents don’t correct that assumption – they leave that up to the discretion of the five-year-old and the two-year-old.” 

When does a five-year-old and a two-year-old have the discretion to make decisions of this magnitude? Isn’t that what parents are for at such a young age? Isn’t that why most parents raise their children to be productive adults?

Meanwhile, the parents refer to themselves as husband and wife which are gender-based roles. They are referred to in the article as Mr. Stocker and Mrs. Witterick which are gender-based titles. They even have names that will identify their gender — Kathy and David.

Yet, they refuse to grant their children the right to be who they are — either a male or a female.

In another example of the Obama Administration’s ineptitude on addressing the issue of illegal immigration, ICE was forced — because of a Supreme Court ruling — to release a convicted killer simply because the deportation process took longer than six months to be completed.

From the article:

“But the federal government eventually let Heng go, saying it had no choice because of a Supreme Court ruling. With few exceptions, ICE can only detain illegal immigrants for six months while trying to deport them.”

Talk about the world being turned upside down!! Being a convicted murderer is not one of those exceptions!! What gives?!

First off, Heng is a CONVICTED criminal. In this article alone, he has been convicted of illegally entering the country and murder. He has already had his day in court and he LOST! Now, the ACLU of Southern California (anyone shocked?) says that the Constitution does not allow people to be detained indefinitely.

Can someone please tell me where it says this? Because we lock people up all the time for the rest of their lives – and amazingly, we do this to Americans who are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. But we aren’t supposed to do this to illegal immigrants?

However, the liberal and progressive contingents in this country seem bent on protecting the rights of everyone, but actual Americans, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Obama Administration has made it a point to say the system is broken. That it has to be fixed in order to address the problem. That is utter nonsense! When ICE has an individual in custody that should not be here, then they should be able to take whatever time is necessary to remove that individual. Just because it is taking longer than expected is no excuse to release a convicted criminal into our communities.

If the Obama Administration does not correct this, then we will have more stories like these:

Since 2008, ICE says it’s been forced to release 1,748 criminal aliens because of the Supreme Court ruling, including 80 in the Boston area. 

Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona

 (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/22/mexican-gangs-permanent-lookouts-parkland/)

Drug Cartel Activity Threatens Texas Water Supplies, Lawmaker Says (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/21/drug-cartel-activity-threatens-texas-water-supplies-lawmaker-says/#ixzz1NNEoHqNP)

Nogales police officers receive threat from Mexican cartel (http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/06/22/nogales-police-officers-receive-threat-mexican-cartel)

When Obama was elected, he made a speech in Cairo that was tantamount to the second coming of Christ if you were to listen to the progressives and liberals who fawn (see anything by MSNBC) over everything he does. By reaching out the Muslim world, Obama was supposed to have fixed everything that Bush got wrong when dealing with Muslims.

However, Obama being the great statesman of the 21^st Century; if not of all time – what else would you expect from “god” – has worked quite hard at failing miserably in fixing the U.S.’s relations with the Muslim world. At best, one can say he has implemented a policy of appeasement to the hard-line Muslims around the world.

Egypt – Hosni Mubarak is the ex-president of Egypt who Obama pressured into eventually resigning his post because the will of the Egyptian people must be respected. Egypt under Mubarak, while not our strongest ally, has been much more receptive to working with us than say…Iran. Now, Obama has allowed groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (I feel the need to mention that the site was blocked on my computer because it was labeled Muslim extremism) to throw out Mubarak, destabilize a country, which will eventually be replaced with hard-line Muslims (Remember the 1979 overthrow of the Shah in Iran – same story; different country.) 

Iran – Obama said nothing while thousands of people protested against last summer. It led to the famous confrontation with Major Garrett where he asked, “What took so long?” Now, it seems that Iran has continued its nuclear program despite Obama’s protestations to the contrary.

Libya – Protestors rose up against the rule of Qadaffi. Obama for some reason decided that the U.S. would not play an active role in stopping the brutal repression of the Libyan people (even though Mubarak had to step down). Then after being upstaged by France, Obama took the “calculated risk” of drone strikes to support the rebels who have been depicted as being associated with al Qaeda. (However, Qadaffi is still in power.)

So, for those keeping score, Obama has sided with either hard-line Muslims in Egypt and potential terrorists in Libya. So, is his appeasement of Muslims making things better for the U.S. or worse?

Then, in Iran, when faced with a self-avowed hard-line Muslim, Obama offers soft statements “condemning” Iran’s suppression of protest. It was a clear case of saber rattling and Ahmadinejad called him on it by referring to Obama as an “…inexperienced and amateur politician.”

Now, for the one sane country in the region, Obama stated that Israel must return to its 1967 borders. That would be the way to a lasting peace with the Muslims.

Once again, Obama is attempting to appease the Muslims.

Fortunately, Netanyahu realizes that appeasement will not work. He has declared that an indefensible peace will not last. That Israel will negotiate, but not with terrorists and not with hard-liners who want to see the destruction of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu realizes that Obama is a lot like Neville Chamberlain. Except that it would be Israel who would have to pay for Obama’s weakness.

During the presidential campaign, then candidate Obama made the downturn in the economy one of his cornerstone issues. Now, that he has been president for almost 2 ½ years, time for a “reality check” as Bill O’Reilly would say.

So, welcome to Obamanomics 101 – where the math doesn’t work because the numbers don’t mean a thing.

Obama’s main idea for re-invigorating the economy was “the stimulus package.”  This bill was placed on the fast-track because Obama hailed it as the cure-all for the economy that would avert an economic catastrophe. According to Obama, the stimulus would:

Keep unemployment under 8% — This is the one of the better known selling points. So, how did that work?

The unemployment rate when Obama took office was 7.6%. The stimulus was passed in February 2009. According to Obama, it was never supposed to go above 8% — well, it was already at 8.1% when the stimulus became a law. And it never got any better. According to the Bureau of Labor & Statistics, the unemployment rate remained high. There were some predictions that it would stay above 9% until 2012 (and this was from the White House no less). The CBO also predicts that the unemployment rate would be 8.2% come November 2012 which is higher than when he took office.    

If you look at the chart provided by the DOL, there was some decline from January 2010 to approximately September 2010. The Obama Administration hailed this as a success for the stimulus package. However, the census was being done at that time which allowed the numbers to remain artificially propped up during this time frame. Once these jobs were completed, these people returned once again to the unemployment line. 

Obama’s response shifted from “hope and change” to “it would have been worse” had we not passed the stimulus.

The reality is that the “stimulus package” never lived up to the hype. The reality is that the unemployment numbers which Obama used to gauge the success of the stimulus do not even come close to reflecting the reality of the jobs situation. At the time Obama took office, the U-6 rate, which is also known as the underemployment rate, was at 13.9%. Today, the current underemployment rate is at 19.9% for March 2011.

So, much for Obamanomics!! The promise never lived up to the hype!