Monday, 17 September 2012

Where will the GOP stop when it comes to lieing? Will they ever stop?

The GOP has been jumping on the Obama administration's foriegn policy.  Claiming them as a failure despite the fact.  They make completely baseless claims like
Liz Cheney "he’s abandoned some of our key allies, like Israel, Poland, Czechoslovakia"

First lets look at Israel.  This is what Defence Minister Ehud Barak said just over a month ago.

Ehud Barak "But I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing, in regard to our security, more than anything that I can remember in the past"

Kind of shows how much the GOP is prepared to lie and distort the truth.  Just because Obama and the Israel government admit there are differences of opinions on some matters doesn't mean that Obama has abandoned them.  Quite the opposite.  There is honesty there.

As far as abandoning Poland 48% of poles like the policy and only 31 don't with 21 undecided in one pole and another had a 56% approval rating with only 29% against the change.  But Slawomir Nowak, a senior advisor to the Polish Prime minister abck in 2009 said this "If this system becomes reality in the shape Washington is now suggesting, it would actually be better for us than the original missile shield programme...We were never really threatened by a long-range missile attack from Iran,"  The only ones that loose out here is the defence contractors that where slated to make tons of money for putting in a system that wasn't suited to the task.

The fact is the new plan cost less and is a better fit for the situation and risk.  Spending billions of dollars in a paranoid cold war mentality where we are worried about Russia starting a nuclear war is obsurd.

Finally lets get to the final country that Obama has "abandoned", Czechoslovakia.  First off Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country for almost 2 decades.   So do they mean the Czech Republic?  If so that is covered by the same system as Poland.

Note also that this "Missle sheild" isn't to defend these countries.  It is to "defend" the USA from Russia firing nuclear weapons at us.

The GOP constantly complains about Democrats spending to much but when you look at the facts it is very much the other way around.  The difference is that the Democrats spend more on the common person.  The republicans spend more on making the rich richer.

Lets look at the numbers

Reagan 1st term8.7%
Reagan 2nd term4.9%
Bush Snr 5.4%
Clinton 1st term3.2%
Clinton 2nd term3.9%
Bush Jr 1st term7.3%
Bush Jr 2nd term8.1%
Obama 1.4%

Democrats clearly raise spending more then republicans.

How about creating private sector jobs? Democrats average 150,000 jobs a month over the last 50 years.  Republicans only 71,000.  That means under democratic administrations PRIVATE sector jobs increase twice as fast.  Yes unemployment is still above 8%, 8.1 to be exact. But when Bush Jr left office the unemployment rate was rising into double digits.

The raw numbers

Reagan   ~168,000 new jobs per month
Bush Snr  ~54,000 new jobs per month
Clinton  ~270,000 new jobs per month
Bush Jr   ~11,000 new jobs per month
it took a year to halt the collapse Bush Jr caused.  Since then
Obama    ~107,000 new jobs per month

Sure Reagan did better but he didn't have to deal with a shit economy handed to him by the previous president.

Like Clinton said at the DNC.  Its simple maths.  And the GOPs math doesn't add up.

Just once I'd like to see the GOP attack Obama using truth rather then the lies they come up with.

That sharp increase while in 2009 is a result of a number of things like 
700 billion dollar bank bail out signed by bush 
5.8 percent cost of living increase before Obama got into raised social security payments and another 39 billion for medicare.
Obama did push through the stimulus bill to stop the rising unemployment rate and Bush's 2009 budget only covered defence spending for the full year.  Other government agencies where only funded through to March  meaning Obama's administration had to hustle to get funding for them. 

Here is an analysis by

1 comment:

  1. Not sure where your getting the numbers for that chart of spending but here are the numbers since 2005 from the White House website

    Fiscal Year Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (-)
    2005 2,153.6 2,472.0 -318.3
    2006 2,406.9 2,655.1 -248.2
    2007 2,568.0 2,728.7 -160.7
    2008 2,524.0 2,982.5 -458.6
    2009 2,105.0 3,517.7 -1,412.7
    2010 2,162.7 3,456.2 -1,293.5
    2011 2,303.5 3,603.1 -1,299.6
    No matter how I slice these numbers I cant come up with the pie chart you present. What/where did the numbers for the chart come from?