Obamify Democrats Pathetic Meme

Obamify DemocratsOf course, it’ll work if nobody counters it.

Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to counter.

When you take office at the low point of a the kind of recession caused by the housing bubble popping and things rebound naturally, you would expect this. After the stock market fell by 2/3, it WILL rebound back to where it was … usually in 18 months or so. Why did it take 6 years under Obama?

Same thing with unemployment, with the added benefit of so many people just plain giving up and leaving the job market altogether skewing the numbers downward to help you out.

Presidents rarely have jack to do with gas prices – and this is particularly rich from a guy who WANTS energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket”.  Because ManBearPig.

Bush_Obama_Deficit_2014At best, the Obama deficits are now about the same as Bush deficits were before the big TARP bailout — which Obama voted for — which drove the deficit tremendously high just before Obama took office – and also drove the *average* Bush Deficit up as a result. Pretty rich to blame your predecessor for something you voted for, then take the credit for NOT borrowing as much in subsequent years — because you have the benefit of the graft you blamed on your predecessor to fall from. The graph tells the story.

insuranceInsurance … insurance … Obamacare… 57% of those ENROLLED in Obamacare plans were previously uninsured according to this study.  I can see where the mathematically challenged might take that as half of the uninsured are now insured.  But really, it’s only half of the enrollees were previously uninsured.  That’s different.  In reality, it’s only dropped the “uninsured” rate by 2-3%.  Not half.  And at what cost?  We haven’t even begun to see what this is going to cost, especially after the unintended market consequences kick in.

You “got” Bin Laden largely because of efforts you opposed. Word has it you could have gotten him much sooner, but you were hesitant to pull the trigger and others basically pressed the issue until you said “yes”.  Either way, it’s not like it was some sort of bold decision.  Well for YOU maybe.  But I’m pretty sure any normal president at war in this kind of war would have taken out the enemy once found.

IRAQ-SYRIA-UNRESTYou also managed to lose everything that was gained in at least one of those wars, leaving a power vaccuum into which ISIS has stepped. In addition you’ve agreed to drop sanctions against Iran if they’ll promise (*snicker*) that they’ll stop working on their nukes for a while – while retaining their capacity to do it. And not allow anyone to check to see if they’re even holding up their own tiny end of the bargain.  I think we’ve seen this movie before.

The housing market crash was a market correction, so of course it stablized. It crashed to back to a relatively stable position. And there are signs of a new housing bubble building. This is what happens when you fail to address the underlying issues that led to the previous one.

As for the redefinition of marriage — of course you wanted it and your allies campaigned hard for it, calling it “marriage equality”. What it really is is the re-definition of a social institution, and it was done in response to a majority of people in several staLyingtes voting to keep their social institution defined the way they wanted it rather than to have courts impose a different one on them. So it went to the Supreme Court where the intense activist political pressure caused 5 judges to invent a new “right” out of thin air — which will ultimately lead to the de-definition of family. But that’s what Big Brother wants ultimately, anyway. Surprise!

FAIL. All around. But this is the kind of naked spin community organizers do every day.

Loading Likes...

11 thoughts on “Obamify Democrats Pathetic Meme

  1. AvatarWhitehawk

    And I have yet to hear anyone figure in the insane rate of money printing. When you dump 480 billion a month into the market for 3 years you pretty well ought to have record markets.
    Do you have a resource on what’s going to happen when the economy really does start to improve? Am I worried about nothing ? Expanding the money supply to such insane levels can’t be without consequences.

  2. Avatarphilmon Post author

    I’m nervous about it, yeah. On the other hand, money supply does need to expand even in a natural market. By how much is the big question.

    I mean, if we had 100 people in the country and $100 in money supply, everyone would have a buck. If eggs were 2 cents a dozen … what happens if someone starts producing more eggs or if people reproduce, as they normally do?

    A few generations down the line you have 3,000 people. You can’t still just have $100 in your economy to chase all the goods and services in it. If you believe wealth is created (I do – all one needs to do is imagine the LA Basin in the year 1500, and then again in 2000. Where did THAT come from?) then it stands to reason that a money supply needs to expand.

    Still, I would think that the trillions poured in artificially during that period sounds quite excessive and it’s probably going to have to come back to bite us eventually.

  3. AvatarGary

    If you’ve ever wondered about the phrase “accomplished liar,” just look at that “Occupy Democrats” thing, because ordinary liars cannot pack nearly as much mendacious BS into such a small space. A few examples:

    1) ended two wars: That’s not hard. It’s called surrender. And when you do that you get f***ing nightmares like ISIS. Good job there, Barack. Maybe the Taliban can do for Afghanistan what ISIS is doing for Iraq and Syria. I know they’re trying.

    2) brought gas down to $2.75: You almost have to admire the sheer gall of this whopper. I agree the price of gas tends to go its own way. But to the extent Obama and his administration influenced this, it was to interfere, regulate and meddle with energy production*, thus lowering supply and increasing prices. Gas has come down in spite of, not because of anything this lying sack of BS has done.

    * Shutting down lots of coal-based energy, nixing the Keystone Pipeline, forbidding drilling on government lands, fighting the fracking revolution at every step, mandating stupid, expensive “alternative” energies. All these actions increase energy prices, thus putting upward pressure on the price of oil (used in some power plants) and therefore doing the same to gas prices.

    3) cut unemployment in half: This is a fine example of how to lie with statistics: the engineer making nearly $100K who was laid off and now is working part-time at Safeway is considered “employed” and thus doesn’t count in the unemployment rate–nor do people who have given up and dropped out of the labor force–or who have discovered they have a “disability” they can collect on. This site says that someone can be counted as employed by “working as little as an hour a week.”

    A more honest unemployment statistic is the “U6”, which also counts “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons” (this includes discouraged people who have stopped looking for work). From this graph and monthly table, we see that the U6 peaked during 10/09 – 4/10 (with 6 of 7 months at a huge rate of 17.0% or 17.1%), and eventually declined to the current (6/15) value of “just” 10.5%–still higher than the maximum of the range that normally brackets the U6 (about 6.8% to 10.4% for 1995 to 2007, inclusive). All this assumes these figures are in the ballpark, and the BLS has not been “coaxed” by King Barack’s regime into providing the most flattering numbers it can.

    So “in just six years” (actually, 6 years and 5 months) Obama’s amazingly effective economic policies managed to reduce real unemployment plus “underemployment” (U6) to just above its usual maximum level. For over 5 of those years (2/09 – 3/14), the U6 was at least 12.5% (1 out of 8 workers!)–despite ramming through congress a “stimulus bill” that wasted (or stole) about $830 billion.

    Another indication of how awful Obama’s policies were is that the U6 was at least 14.0% from his inauguration on 1/20/09 through 7/13, except for 3 months where it dipped slightly to 13.8% or 13.9%. That’s four and a half years of extremely bad employment prospects in the US, a miserable failure for 3/4 of King Barack’s execrable first 6 years. And these “Occupy” dolts think this is something to brag about. Or lie about.

    To sum up: unemployment decreases have been grossly exaggerated, and the economy has improved somewhat in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of his policies. The only things Obama can take credit for is the sluggish economic growth and the huge debt.

    4) I [Obama] tripled the stock market: To begin with, when the Fed is printing money and forcing interest rates almost down to 0%, a lot of money in savings accounts, CDs and other places (all paying less than the rate of inflation, so your money is shrinking, not growing) is going to flee into the stock market. And though the US economy is not doing well, most other places around the world are much worse! So lots of that money gets dumped into the US stock market.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that the extremely cheap money is somehow pumping up the Dow Jones, because any hint that the Fed will raise rates by a tiny amount causes it to dive by 200 points. I think somehow companies are borrowing money at very low rates and making profits off this without really being significantly more productive. Maybe someone can explain how this works.

    Even if you cherry-pick the Dow Jones numbers–a low of 6443.27 on 3/6/09 and Google finance’s 52-week high of 18,351.36 (currently about 17,576)–it still hasn’t “tripled” (it’s only 2.85 times as high). But taking credit for rebounding from the abyss of 3/6/09 is dishonest since the market will always rebound somewhat after a crash like that, even if you do nothing–which, in fact, would have been vastly superior to Obama’s dreadful policies. Given a conservative rebound value (eg 10,000) means that their boast should be less than “doubled the stock market”–and that’s using the highest 52-week level. Adjusting for 6 years, 5 months of 4% inflation, the boast reduces to “increased the stock market by about 43%.” This corresponds to an average annual increase of about 5.7%.

    Anyway, IMHO these inflated stock levels are just another bubble waiting to burst and create havoc, so they really shouldn’t be bragging about this situation. If that happens, they’ll just lie the other way and say Obama had nothing to do with it. That’s how you become an “accomplished liar.”

    1. severianseverian

      If that happens, they’ll just lie the other way and say Obama had nothing to do with it.

      Yup. And nobody will ever call them on it, because the media are all Occupy idiots themselves.

      Although one would think that a certain psychological phenomenon — highly debated around these parts — would begin to kick in when the same people who repeated this stupid “Obama tripled the stock market!” meme in 2015 just as fervently forward 2017’s “Obama had nothing to do with the stock market!” meme. One would think that would cause them some kind of pain… psychically.

      But it won’t, will it?


      1. AvatarGary

        Yup. And nobody will ever call them on it, because the media are all Occupy idiots themselves.

        Recently, I wrote in a comment “ALL ROADS LEAD TO THE MSM” because the MSM is the great enabler of 98.7% of the bullshit the lefties do. Everyone on the right knows that the media is terribly biased, but I don’t think they really know it. As awful as they think the MSM is, IMHO the MSM is at least 5 times as bad as they think.

        One would think that would cause them some kind of pain… psychically.

        But it won’t, will it?

        Hmmmmm, what could that be? Maybe it’s shame–because they really ought to feel a great deal of shame given the mountain of lying they do, and yet … they’re shameless.

        Or perhaps you refer to cognitive dissonance? Now, I worked hard for my Czarist position and I aim to keep it. I have a too-long comment in the works for the Fuhrerprinzip thread that explains how these people can blatantly contradict themselves and yet not be affected by CD. My intent is to convince you of my position, or else bludgeon you into agreement through sheer tonnage of blather. It’s amazing how much BS one can spew, even without doing any research. But at this point I consider myself the authority on CD, so we don’ need no stinkin’ research.

        This might be a good point to mention the following, which was to be a footnote in my overlong comment:

        Not long ago, I was reminded by a link to an older post that we basically agreed–or came to a short-lived truce–about cognitive dissonance: that it is a real psychic phenomenon, but it’s also a trendy bullshit buzzword because it’s spoken of as some mysterious all-powerful force when it’s just an ordinary psychological mechanism, one among many, that is often overwhelmed by wishful thinking, rationalization, brute-force denial and/or various other distortions of thought and perception.

        1. AvatarNate Winchester

          Hmmmmm, what could that be? . . . Or perhaps you refer to cognitive dissonance?

          It’s mental sloth. They don’t bother thinking, they just feel. For one to suffer from dissonance, one must first be cognitive, no? (nobody accuses animals or babies of suffering from cognitive dissonance do they?) “Feelz before realz” means you don’t have to worry about contradiction, because you can’t contradict yourself. You’re always who you are NOW, not yesterday, or the day before, and who you are tomorrow will have no relation to what you’re saying today.

          We’re all just animals. They’ve been saying it and acting like it for years, why would anyone be surprised they’re not thinking like it?

          1. AvatarGary

            It’s mental sloth. They don’t bother thinking, they just feel. For one to suffer from dissonance, one must first be cognitive, no?

            Absolutely. I had been thinking in terms of psychobabble concepts–such as rationalization, denial, projection and even compartmentalization–because such terminology is obligatory for the CD Czar . But, as you say, the whole CD thing is negated if the person is just feeling and not even thinking, which happens to be the most common mode of consciousness for lefties.

          2. Avatarnightfly

            I think Nate’s in the gold here. Inasmuch as they do have stray thoughts about it, it’s to congratulate themselves – the larger and more obvious the con, the greater the glory in making someone buy in.

            What they’re doing in all these things – and I mean, ALL – SJW preachifying in comics, historical revisionism, defending their side’s (or their own) corruption, excusing or even lauding the worst depravities – isn’t about the subject. They’re nothing more than turing tests for Leftism. The blatancy of the lie is the whole point, the reason why they often lie even when they have stronger true arguments at hand; why they gin up fake crimes, false narratives, and embellishments even while claiming the bare facts support their rock-solid position. How far will you go? The farther you go, the purer your Leftism.

        2. AvatarSeverian

          I was indeed referring to cognitive dissonance. But mostly just breaking your balls. 🙂

          we don’ need no stinkin’ research

          Damn right we don’t! I’m all for facts and reason — I’m a conservative, for pete’s sake — but too much of it leads to analysis paralysis.

          1. AvatarGary

            I was indeed referring to cognitive dissonance. But mostly just breaking your balls. 🙂

            I guess I actually do have something to say about CD (and may eventually say it), but I totally get it that this kidding is all in good fun.

            I only mention this because, as with my attempts at dry humor, something that doesn’t always come across in text is when someone is getting increasingly annoyed–which couldn’t be further from the case here. After all, what would a CD Czar have to do if the subject didn’t come up from time to time? :-{

Comments are closed.