What Inconvenient Truths and Demonstrable Lies Tell Us About Their Authors

Over the last week we’ve been treated to what Obama believes to be true which is not, and what he surely knows to be a lie.

The “Inconvenient Truth” was of course his adoption of Elizabeth “Fauxcahontis” Warren’s stated belief that no one can create a product or service without the benign assistance of Government.  In both Obama’s case and Warren’s case, they clearly have cause to believe this as their life histories are replete with unearned accolades and advancement via entitlement.  Both are the antithesis of advancement via merit, and demonstrate just how little value there is to advancement via quota.

Government creates nothing of value.  It takes resources from those who do produce, and reallocates those resources elsewhere after lining its members pockets.

Government regulation weighs more heavily on small and medium business than on large business.  Many large businesses survive long past their innovative prime because government regulation acts as a bar or impediment to smaller challengers in the market.  When government tries to pick winners in emerging markets, they fail far more often than they succeed, and skew the markets against other competitors in the process.

Both are blind to this reality, a reality well known to anyone who has worked in a small or medium business, or who has started their own.

Obama has built nothing, and projects that personal reality on the world around him.

The Lie,  which he surely knows to be a lie. is his accusation that tax cuts and de-regulation have been tried and didn’t work.


Obama Tells Tall Tales About The Bush Years

By John Merline | Investors Business Daily

A key attack line in President Obama’s campaign stump speech these days is to claim that the country has tried Mitt Romney’s economic policies already, and they were a dismal failure.

Romney, he says, wants to do two things: Cut taxes for the rich and massively deregulate the economy.

“The truth is,” Obama says, “we tried (that) for almost a decade, and it didn’t work.”

Bush-era tax cuts and deregulation, he argues “resulted in the most sluggish job growth in decades” along with “rising inequality, surpluses turned into deficits, culminating in the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes.”

There’s just one problem. Obama’s got his history wrong.


Not a little wrong, dead wrong.  Wrong on the effects of reduced tax burden.  Wrong in labeling Bush a “de-regulator” and describing the actual impacts of regulation and de-regulation.

Financial and Banking de-regulation were products of the Clinton Administration.  SOX a product of the Bush Administration.

You can tell a lot about a man by what he lets slip, and what he goes to lengths to prevaricate about.

Oh, read the whole IBD article, it’s enlightening.

ABC's "Yes, You've Got The Right Person" Quote Disputed
Second Amendment Supporters Guilty of Murder in Colorado?
  • 914

    “The truth is,” Obama says, “we tried (that) for almost a decade, and it didn’t work.”

    Yep, three and a half years of Obamanomics has proved that! Every time his lips move, another fib is hatched..

  • GarandFan

    I’m still waiting for Warren to admit that her advancement was due to the Cherokee Nation, not anything that she did personally. And as for “paying it forward”, when is Warren going to cut them a check?

  • “Government creates nothing of value. It takes resources from those who do produce, and reallocates those resources elsewhere after lining its members pockets.”

    Okay, I’m going to take issue with that. I believe government creates something of inestimable value – namely a framework of laws and protected rights that we can use to build a stable culture. Without such a thing, you’re going to be stuck with a pile of bureaucrats looking out for themselves, accepting graft and dispensing favoritism, ruling at whim instead of by law, and a balkanization of the various states that’d make up the Union.

    Hell, you’d be back at the squabbling tribes stage. You get a lot of people together, and you’re going to need organization. There’s no getting around it.

    The problem arises when you get civil servants that’d prefer to be public masters. And they start thinking that instead of being controlled by the people and being replaceable, they’re instead irreplaceable and not subject to any restraint.

    That can happen at any level – from school board members on up.

    We need to make sure that folks elected into office understand that they’re there on our sufferance – that they CAN be replaced if they don’t do what the people want, and that their departure from the scene would be like pulling a stick out of a river – they won’t leave a hole when they go.

    So a balance is badly needed – there’s a problem with too little government, and a problem with too much. Of the two – too much might well be worse than not enough.

    • Commander_Chico

      You don’t understand, J: the Cult of Ayn Rand says that law and order is of no value because it prevents superior people from doing whatever they want, like shitting in the Common Pond.

      Too bad that in reality, without law and order, they end up getting ripped off and ruined by tougher thugs.

      I’ve been to places with no law and order, and places with excessive law and order. Both places suck. The USA, Canada and Europe are somewhere in the right balance.

      Beyond that, these nutballs think that all roads should be privatized, with tollbooths everywhere.

      The chart is also a bogus chart – it shows a very modest increase in payrolls – wow, eight million over three years!! – this chart, showing the ratio between payrolls and civilian employment over many years, is a better measure:


      • herddog505

        Commander_Chicothe Cult of Ayn Rand says that law and order is of no value because it prevents superior people from doing whatever they want, like shitting in the Common Pond.

        Rubbish. The “Cult of Ayn Rand” is interested in the government taking care of law and order… and that’s about all. Government telling us how to live our lives (“It’s for your own good!”) is where the Randians – including me – get irritated. Nanny Bloomberg is a damned sight less about “law and order” and a great deal more about Big Brother.

        Anyway, I thought us nasty ol’ reichwing Rethuglikkkans were a lot of facist busybodies who just LOVES them some police state to keep the gays and minorities and hippies in line, not anarchists who crave the Law of the Jungle.

        • Commander_Chico

          I was referring to Rodney’s contention that “government creates nothing of value.” Services are of value. Law and order is a service of government. You can add roads, the FAA, meat inspections and licensing of surgeons if you wish, maybe that’s too much for the Randian paradise.

          • herddog505

            I see your point. However, I will quibble and say that government creates nothing of value in the same way that a set of tools creates nothing of value; the people are to government as the craftsman is to his tools.

            The concern, I think, is that government has gotten so big and powerful that it IS starting to “create” things: various federal agencies (EPA leaps to mind) are writing regulations without any input from the people or their representatives, who themselves are not as answerable to the people as they ought to be thanks to the various “reform” laws they’ve passed to give them electoral advantages.

          • Commander_Chico

            All proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register and there is a very intense process where people can comment on them and change them – “people” mostly being lobbyists.

            When I look at US regulations through the lens of tools like the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business index or the OECD’s Regulatory Impact Analysis material, I don’t see a lot that is highly objectionable. The USA ranks pretty high in the ease of doing business.

            That’s why I ask, what regulations are so bad? If you say regulations are killing the economy, tell me which ones.

          • herddog505

            When the EPA can declare a couple’s property a wetland and tell them not only that they can’t use it, not only fine the sh*t out of them for having already built something there, but tell them that they can’t even go to court to try to change the ruling, then I’d say that things are out of control.

            There’s this:

            Just how much money are federal regulations costing our economy? The answer appears to be quite a lot. Every year economist Clyde Wade Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute releases a report, entitled “The Ten Thousand Commandments” analyzing federal regulations and their costs. Crews’ analysis found that in 2010 the federal government spent around $55.4 billion dollars funding federal agencies, and enforcing existing regulation. But these costs barely compare to the compliance costs that regulation imposes on the economy. Crews’ report cites the work of economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, whose study of the net cost of regulations determined that in 2009 federal regulation cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion, or nearly 12% of America’s 2009 GDP. As a comparison, in the same year, corporate pre-tax profits for all businesses totaled about $ 1.46 trillion. [emphasis mine – hd505]


            If this analysis is even half-right, then we’re spending 6% of GDP just complying with regulations. How many carrier battle groups, roads, or schools could we build with that? How many people could be put to work if the companies had the money to expand their businesses instead of pay to meet regulatory requirements?

          • Commander_Chico

            There is nothing you can’t challenge in an American court, including an agency’s contention that a decision is unchallengible, so I have been skeptical about that story about the wetlands.

            As far as the Freedom Works opinion goes, there are no details, analysis or mention of the cost of specific regulations, so it’s impossible to tell if it’s total bullshit, although the lack of all of the above has my BS meter pegging.

          • herddog505

            The SCOTUS did not share your sanguine opinion about how easy it is to challenge the EPA. Even that dumpy little mongoloid hack, Madame Justice Kagan, seems to have agreed:

            Justice Elena Kagan said it was a “strange position” for the government to insist the property owner had no right to a hearing.


            As for the Freedom Works opinion, they claim that they are condensing work done by a pair of economists, Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain. The pair also did a study in 2010 concering the burden of regulatory costs borne by small businesses, which they claim is disproportionate relative to larger firms. That paper, replete with all the graphs and tables one could well wish, may be found here:


            As I wrote above, even assuming that they are off by 50%, that’s still a huge chunk of our GDP going just to satisfy regulatory burdens. Claiming that it’s worse somewhere else doesn’t do a thing to help businesses, especially small ones, struggling with those costs.

          • Commander_Chico

            OK, I will look at the Crain study.

            As for the wetlands issue, the property owners won 9-0 in the Supreme Court!!! Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 – 2012. So that case is not a good example of the routine operation of regulatory agencies in the USA.

            UPDATE: I looked at the Crain study. Mush and BS. Again, no specific example of regulations alleged to be overly costly or burdensome, just broad and general statements like this:

            The total direct cost to the nation of, say, a pollution control regulation consists of spending by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for monitoring and enforcement activities, plus spending by businesses to install abatement equipment, hire environmental engineers, attorneys, accountants, and so on to comply with the regulatory rules

            Well, right. If you’re doing all of that, you’re probably not operating a brewpub or making ice cream, but handling PCBs and Dioxin or something.

            So the Crain study cites the World Bank’s Regulatory Quality Index. Well, among the 20 largest countries by population or the 10 largest by GDP, only Germany and the UK rank higher than the USA in regulatory quality.


            Hey, I’ve dealt with German environmental regulations: they make the EPA look like the Somali regulatory environment. More strict and severe in every way. Same with its labor regulations. Yet Germany is one of the healthiest economies in the world!

            Sure, regulations cost money. No regulations cost money, too. If a business could dump its infectious/toxic shit in the Common Pond, to return to my initial example, the cost of cleanup would exceed the cost of regulations stopping the business from shitting in the Common Pond.

            The more I get into this, and the weaker your arguments are, the more I am convinced that all this is just propaganda by people who really do want to shit in the Common Pond.

          • That “story” is the case precis per the Supreme Court.

          • jim_m

            “people” mostly being lobbyists.

            Or maybe they are people who belong to professional organizations who collect comments from their members and respond to the government proposals in a constructive fashion.

            Seriously, Chica, you don’t know crap about what you are talking about.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Create and provide are two different things…

          • jim_m

            The government doesn’t build roads. Private contractors do you dope.

            Physicians are board certified to show their competence. Certification boards are run by professional organizations. Licensure is just paying off the government so you can practice.

            Care to cite some more examples of your ignorance?

      • Chico –

        Tell you what, let’s balance cults here. There’s Marx, there’s Rand. Taken to extremes, they’re both rabidly dysfunctional and destructive to their adherents. They balance each other out – so… why don’t we try to get beyond the crap-fest name calling?

        I’m pretty sure you’ve read “Atlas Shrugged”. Frankly, it’s a long, badly edited book. The actual damage done by government in the book is when the ‘officials’ turn the society into their little kleptocracy, insisting that THEY are the ones providing value to society, and shoving their ideas out for implementation regardless of whether they make sense or not. (I particularly remember the episode of the soybeans. Ignoring a bumper wheat harvest for a marginal one of soybeans, because soybeans were healthier… and then harvesting the soybeans too early, making them inedible.)

        Consider it a cautionary tale that government doesn’t have all the answers, and doesn’t need to be everything to everyone.

        And pretty much everyone here understands that. They’re not looking to create something like the anarcho-capitalist fantasies of L. Neil Smith, they’re looking for basic support and structure – that’s what we need.

        That’s the real value that government offers.

        • Commander_Chico

          The regulatory burden in the USA is not very heavy, so the constant bitching about government as government without specific examples seems to fall into the realm of cult-like behavior just as reflexive attacks on profit are cult-like.

          I believe in the golden mean and that no perfect solutions are possible. Considering all of that phrases like Government creates nothing of value. It takes resources from those who do produce, and reallocates those resources elsewhere after lining its members pockets. just read like bombastic bullshit to me.

          • As far as regulatory burden goes – are all the regulations necessary? If not, then there are too many.

            Of course, asking any regulatory agency whether their regulations are necessary or not will get you the answer that they’re absolutely vital. You’ll never see a bureaucrat admitting they aren’t necessary.

            As far as perfect solutions go – I figure we’re far from perfect, so we need to keep trying. You won’t improve efficiency of a car by loading on lots of dead weight – neither will you make it usable by stripping it down to the point it’s too weak to withstand normal use.

          • Commander_Chico

            Look, I can start a company in the USA in a day. I can import and export without special permits. I can buy equipment, employ people and make things or provide services with little government involvement relative to 95% or more of the other places on earth.

            Will the government prevent me from poisoning the land and my workers? Yes. Will they inspect my premises on occasion if I’m preparing food? Right.

            Again, where are the burdensome regulations? So far, the only example mentioned was overturned by the Supreme Court 9-0!!

          • As I said – make the structure as large as it needs to be, and no more.

      • jim_m

        That’s great Chica. Too bad no one can tell WTF your graph is actually purporting to demonstrate.

        We could add 100k jobs every month and still be falling behind. You can be “growing jobs” and still have unemployment increasing. The labor force grows by about 125,000 per month when you include the number of people of working age entering the labor market.

        The right graph is the labor participation rate. It shows how many people are actually working. unemployment rate is now so politically tweaked that it is meaningless. Your graph is similar. numbers of people on payrolls is meaningless. You can grow that and still have increasing numbers of people unemployed.

        But you are just excusing your idol, 0bama. You pretend that you don’t want him reelected but you excuse his BS economics and you won’t ever vote to remove him.

    • herddog505

      JLawsonSo a balance is badly needed – there’s a problem with too little government, and a problem with too much. Of the two – too much might well be worse than not enough.

      I agree. Too little government signals to people that they need to take some responsibility: “Hey, guys: the neighborhood’s getting pretty nasty because there’s nobody to haul off the trash. What if we all chip in to hire a contractor to come out every week? And maybe we could even make some rules about keeping one’s yard tidy. What do you think?”

      Too much government signals to people not only that they don’t have to worry about taking responsibility, they’d better not: “Yeah, the neighborhood’s a pigstye. But what can I do? The city’s got a trash collection service; it’s not my problem. Anyway, Jones tried hiring a guy to clean up his yard; the city fined him for violating some ordinance about using non-licenced labor, or something like that.”

  • hkc94501

    Only one problem with this post, the chart doesn’t support the argument made in the text. The chart shows payroll increasing in dollar terms but the claim is not that payrolls didn’t increase but that employment didn’t increase. There’s a big difference. Consider a company that gives the boss a $3 Million pay package and then lays off 40 people for a reduction in payroll of say $2.5 Million. Payroll has increased but employment has decreased. Where’s the lie?
    In this case a desire to promote an ideology has obviously clouded Mr. Grave’s reasoning.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Wrong. The chart illustrates the number of people working, not the number of dollars in payrolls. In your example, the line on the chart would have gone down by 40. Thus, “payroll” would have decreased, not increased as you state.

      In your case, a desire to promote an ideology has obviously clouded your reading comprehension.

    • Plinytherecent

      If you look at the vertical axis, it is “non-farm payrolls in millions”. The values on that axis are therefore in the 130 million range. If you think that total dollar value of non-farm wages and salaries in this country are in that range, then your severe lack of math skills leave you wide open to leftist demagoguery. Don’t thank your teacher.

  • Hank_M

    Sure is funny to hear Obama, the man who couldn’t get a single Senate vote for his budget proposals, complain about someone else’s economics.

    But this is the same crap he’s been peddling since he got the job.

    And no one is buying it. Most people would gladly go back to the “sluggish” jobs growth of the W years, go back to the deficits of the W years when they used to be in the billions, not trillions.

    And when Obama starts with: “The truth is”…as 914 mentions, you absolutely know he’s about to lie.

  • Pingback: Why Obama Believes ” you didn’t build that” « YouViewed/editorial()