Dereliction of duty: How Black America has been hijacked by "race hustling pimps".

Here is a disclaimer. I am not black, I am a white male. Some of you may find this contrived or think I have no place speaking about issues pertaining to a race that I don’t belong to. I can accept that. Some may even go as far as a call me a racist (it’s been done before) and that is your right to feel that way as well. However, facts are not racist. They are facts. I also think it’s very important that black folks receive a different message that they are accustomed to hearing from “the left’. That’s why I spend many posts on this subject and with that said, let’s begin.


This is a tale of two stories, literally. I read in the last two days, two separate articles written by black men regarding race and politics. Now, these stories are not on the same subject matter but I think you will see that they are connected nonetheless and its not a connection based solely on race but instead freedom and prosperity and how you go about achieving both.

This started by me reading a great piece at Investor.com last night regarding how being a black conservative author in today’s world gets you ignored. Or at least that is the claim made towards Ebony Magazine in this article. Now, I purposely led with that first statement because there are simply not enough conservative black voices in media & the political arena as well and it’s about time this becomes a discussion.

That is to not say there is a shortage of black conservatives, on the contrary, they do not exist. In fact conservative values were at the core of the civil rights movement; regardless how progressives try to spin otherwise.

Sure it was progressive in moving blacks forward to having equal rights, but that shouldn’t have been a fight in the first place. Equal rights for all are a tantamount to freedom and liberty. A true conservative/libertarian mindset does not allow for racism and collectivism. This lack of rights for all was a failure as a country from the very beginning. Now as these voices remain isolated, I find myself asking, why is this so?

From a writing point of view it’s probably a lack of readership. I don’t think its bad judgment on black media’s part as much is it is just bad business. Most blacks identify with progressive values or vote overwhelmingly democratically, thus reading about a conservative mindset would simply go unread. Politically, it’s no different but with a slight twist.

At the center of this twist is the Congressional Black Caucus. Nobody politically defines a race in US politics more so than the CBC. With now 42 members of congress, the CBC is not only the largest caucus racially it’s also incredibly strong because they are practically untouchable. Nobody in media wants to even poke, let alone tear a hole inside that bee hive’s nest for fear of being stung by the politically correct swarm that seem to have infiltrated every level of our lives.

But hey, I’m a blogger with such a low (but dedicated) readership; I am perfectly happy to do so. After all, it’s not like this is my first rodeo concerning the CBC anyway.

Now, getting back to the article written by Mr. Larry Elder, a quote by Congressman Cleaver, D-Mo., caught my eye.

"As the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the President. With 14% (black) unemployment, if we had a white president, we'd be marching around the White House. ... The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."

This also isn’t the first time I have written about Mr Cleaver and his obvious double sided coin regarding race. This is just one in a long line of quotes that are obviously inflammatory yet it goes completely unnoticed or at least unchallenged by the masses. Double standard you say? You bet. But this notion that it’s acceptable for a black president to show high unemployment in the black community further drives home my point I have been making about the CBC. They are not concerned with the problems just the appearance that they are concerned.

As we usher in the 113th Congress and with it the CBC gaining more and with it more power and yet here Black America sits with unemployment almost double the national average. Prisons are filling up at all time highs. And what are the solutions that the Congressional Black Caucus has for these dire times in the black community? The same tired excuses & handouts they have been fighting for, for over 30 years and what has changed since in terms of results? Nothing. We have a black President but has Black America taken that next step with his re-election? No.

So what are the solutions? I don’t have the answers nor do I pretend to but I know two things regarding this subject for certain:

1. Freedom and liberty is a cure all because it encourages individual responsibility
2. Self proclaimed black leadership is not leading.

In separate piece written by Dr Wilmer Leon for Politic365.com, there is a slightly different take on this viewpoint. Dr Leon argues that with a new rising class of young educated workers who are settling for lower wages and multiple lower paying jobs, called the “Precariat Class”, this class will be so large that the future for Black America and its relation to employment will be “catastrophic”. This isn’t hyperbole; Dr Leon brings up accurate information that troubles the black community.

What I disagree with the Dr. is the assertion that the government should do more. Because when the government does more as we all know, it means taking from someone else. This happens through a seizure of either a right, freedom and/or their wealth. Dr Leons argument is that austerity measures should not be taken in this economy with many people struggling:

 “In challenging times such as these the government should be investing in the economy not cutting back.”

The problem is we have invested into this economy. We have overspent long before President Obama got into office and we have done so with no results, not only in the black community but the country as a whole. The standard of living for most Americans has remained stagnant for years and yet we continue to pump more liquidity in the market creating inflation that ultimately acts as a tax on those that rely most on cash. Nobody relies more on cash than the poor and destitute, black or white, red, blue or yellow; the poor all spend the green the same.

The question begs; why not try a different path to prosperity if the path that has been tried simply does not work? Why not reach out to the black population and drive home the point that over 70% of black children growing up in a single parent family home is the single biggest reason the black community faces so many challenges? This could also explain why "the wealth accumulation of the average European American family is 20 times that of the average African American family".

Why not try what China has done and encourage its population to buy gold & silver?

Why not encourage the 2nd amendment as a viable option to black on black crime statistics and show that legal gun ownership would be the biggest deterrent to black on black crime?

Why not come out and support an end to the racist drug war that puts so many black men in prison?

Are these guaranteed solutions? Of course not and I don’t know if they will solve all the problems but lets put an end to the patronization of the black community by the black leadership. Engage them like adults. Don’t just hand out a fish, show them how to fish. There is only one way to achieve prosperity and freedom and that cannot be given to you by a government; it comes from within.

Superficial logic say’s: Obama one of the best we’ve had

It’s been well documented, Obama owns this economy. The DNC Chair Wasserman-Shultz has said as much, VP Joe Biden has also said it and a vast majority of Republicans all say Obama owns the economy as well. With piling, Trillion dollar deficits and unemployment having maintained historic levels for extended periods of time; the economic malaise Obama reigns over, is one that no President can tout.

Remember, Clinton's sign on his desk when he was in the oval office? Contrary to popular belief, it was not: “The filing cabinet is under the desk, Interns” it was actually: “It’s about the economy, stupid”. If it is truly about the economic outlook of this nation; then President Obama is in trouble come November.

Now personally, I believe the sheer size of the US economy is so vast and lumbering, that the President gets too much credit when “his” economy is running on all cylinders just as much he is unfairly ridiculed, when it’s in the toilet. That however, is not the majority of how Americans feel or think thou. If they can’t find work, it must be the Presidents fault. The truth of the matter is that the average American does not have time to research what really are the driving economic factors behind our economy good or bad; so the person sitting in the oval office is seen as a personification of the whole economy.

Now, since we are going to use this embodiment to signal a "nay or ya" regarding the economy, I would like to use this simplistic strategy to point out something that doesn’t get talked about enough.

President Obama is the first President in 20+ years to see our nation’s top export be Fuel. He is also the first President since Harry Truman (1949) to oversee the US being a net exporter of oil-based fuels. The US has imported 11% less crude then it did in 2005. Ten years ago, fuel wasn’t or barley made it in the Top 25 for US exports, but now it stands at #1?

Regardless of how or why, it doesn’t matter. He was the guy in office when this happened, thus he owns this fast break to energy independence. Never mind the new developments and discoveries in shale oil/gas or the fact that Obama inherited the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. Let’s, not let things like mitigating facts get in the way of our thinking. Mr Obama is set to become one of the greatest achievers in modern presidential history in our quest for energy independence and for that he will be looked back on as a rousing success. Its all about perception isn’t it, or is it context? 

Romney has a bazooka in his front pocket... but an empty wallet in has back pocket

Its been a rather hot item this week. People have been picking apart Mitt Romney's latest budget proposal and it isnt pretty. The lates offering (or borrowing might fit better) of a Romney proposed budget would actually result in equal or larger deficits then we already have under the current administration. I find that odd, considering Romney has said recently that it is: "immoral to pass burdens on the next generation like that" meaning deficits and in turn the national debt.

This is the same Mittens who also said how he "can’t wait to get my hands on Washington". I had to ask myself; get your hands on it for what? Clearly, by his own admission in his proposed budget, he would actually increase the deficit not shrink it, let alone not balance the budget. 

Romney's proposed budget got me thinking... is he seriously supposed to be the candidate with business experience? You can't argue with the wealth he built up. Hell, paying only 13% of your income in taxes can have that effect on a multimillionaire, no? You can't argue with his education background or the fact that he saved the Olympics, so why is it he has a problem balancing a budget?

Surely, he had to do so in his business dealings, haggle with budgets. We know he had to do so as governor, so why is trimming the existing deficit so hard to do, let alone balance our nations budget? The short answer? He wants to appeal to everyone. That why he is flip-flop Mitt. Period.

With that said, I want to focus on one particular part of Romney's budget and that is defense. Mittens recently said he would not only not cut defense, he would commission a bump from building "nine per year to fifteen" new ships for the Navy as well as new aircraft for the Air Force. Apparently, Mittens was feeling the love from the USS Yorktown and maybe a little patriotic and nostalgic in the World War sense, because he then dropped this bomb saying (as you can see below) he would "add at least 100,000 troops to the boots on the ground capability".

The problem with that is first of all, we are not entering a world war. So where could we use this 100k influx? Iraq? We just withdrew (but lest not mention the 15K people left behind to defend the city-like embassy) our combat troops. Afghanistan? It was said two years ago that Al-Qaeda is 75-100 strong in country. That was out of the mouth of then CIA director and now Department of Defense chairman Leon Panetta. I'm guessing Panetta has no advantage of actually underselling our enemy now does he.

 These are also the same terrorists who are "on our side" in the uprising that is taking place in Syria. Hmmm, we are going to be supplying and siding up with terrorists to defeat a nation that we do not like today, but will tomorrow in efforts to stop the terrorists that we now all of a sudden hate who once used to help us.... stop me if I am wrong, but have we not seen this movie before; in Afghanistan no less, circa 1979? Oh, never-mind, this movie is titled the "forever war" (thanks Clearwater) thus we never know how it ends and the perpetual boogy man? He just keeps a comin', he just gets a new face (and accent) every now and then, ala Herbert West.

So, why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? To invade Iran? To combat terrorism? Doesn't seem plausible. Seems like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. I would assume the troop levels we have now are more than enough to defend our nation but Mitt doesn't agree:

 “We all recognize that America needs to economize, but I don’t believe that we can economize on securing our nation and protecting our citizens and ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us and for our children,” 

 In fact, if you compare our spending on defense to the rest of the world as I pointed out in an earlier article this year; it's not even close in how much we outspend the rest of the top 17 nations who spend the most on defense combined.

National defense spending has increased 38% since 2001. This idea that we are going to spend more on defense and drastically increase its scope and sheer size, leads me to the answer to my original question. So why do we need 100,000 additional troops for? And the answer is quite obvious. Just look at Romney's quote when he says:

 "ensuring that the world remains safe and free for us"

There it is. And that is the shared mentality from most of Washington not just Romney. Kind of reminds me of the newest Navy slogan "A global force for good". The problem with that? The word "Good" is awfully ambiguous. How "good" are we, if you're an innocent bystander whose lost their life or a loved one(s) in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is that "good" worth a son who was put into a battle field without even a deceleration of war from Congress?

"Good", just like the words "safe" and "free" in Romney's quote are equally indistinct. I thought we already were pretty safe. Apparently, Romney does not agree and that is why he is touting a pretty substantial face lift for the DOD. The phrase "free for us"? How can the world be free for us? Chew on that one, I know i still am.

Which leads me to my final point. Romney is proposing not only an agenda that is completely out of whack compared to what the rest of the world is spending on defense, it is also an agenda that is mathematically infeasible in an environment where we should be embracing austerity measures to live within our means. Here is a recent quote from of all people, Valdimir Putin, on the past, current and future US foreign policy outlook:

"the United States, have developed a peculiar interpretation of security that is different from ours. The Americans have become obsessed with the idea of becoming absolutely invulnerable. This utopian concept is unfeasible both technologically and geopolitically, but it is the root of the problem. By definition, absolute invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability for all others" 

I know some of you out there are thinking "why do we care what the future President of Russia has to say about us" and I understand that sentiment; however, it's awfully sobering to have the Russians more in line with reality than a hopeful for the Presidency of the United States. To be fair, Romney is not alone on the campaign trail in this insanity, and it clear the Oval office shares this paranoia as well.

With that, I leave you with a quote, that in today's Republican Party would be considered a Liberal stance on foreign policy. From the same man who shed the initial light on the Congressional Military Industrial Complex (how apropos), former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower:

  

"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security"

Bling is bling: from hood ornaments to grills.

I remember people used to steal hood ornaments back in the 90's and wear them as charms on chains. I grew up (pardon the pun) hood (in the suburbs), what can I say. In the last five to ten years I have seen the same hip-hop culture buying gold or silver "grills" for their mouth. Now it appears its has come full circle. The grill has replaced the hood ornament and for actually two reasons. First, car company's caught on and ended that trend by stopping the production of them. Secondly, gold is valuable. Not just more valuable then a hood ornament but more valuable then dollars... so they are shrewd investors, these kids nowadays.

In August of 1971, President Nixon ended Bretton Woods effectively floating our Dollar and subsequently making the dollar the reserve currency of the world, having no longer having to be exchanged for gold. When Bretton Woods ended, one ounce of gold was equal to $35 dollars. Today, gold (even taking a substantial hit) closed at $1,696 dollars. That $35 Dollars? Is worth still $35 nominally, but real purchasing power?

If I used the latest CPI from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistic, that same $35 dollars would buy you $6 dollars worth of goods today. That is an 82% loss of purchasing power. At the same time, gold has lapped its initial value (in 1971) 48 times. Is there any wonder why people are clamoring to invest in precious medals? Here is a chart of gold in the last 10 years:

So it should not come to a shock when you see stories like this:

Colorado undertaker accused of stealing dental gold from corpses

 

 

 

Iran, a nuclear threat? Or... Dollar threat?

(Graphic courtesy of Soahead.com)

Is Iran a threat? Are they a threat to the US? Are they are threat to her allies? Is Iran a threat to the region? The answer to these questions are all, yes, they are. However, they are a threat for different reasons to each entity. Israel has long had problems with Iran. It’s well documented and that will never cease; at least not in our lifetimes.

The Middle East region is very complicated and convoluted. With the Arab Spring now working its way into other totalitarian regimes, established dictators and theocracy’s, the region remains sensitive to any waves. Iran is the most powerful state left in the Middle East. They are predominately Shi’a Muslim’s (85%) while the rest of the region is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim (90%). If we remember the problems with the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, it was complications of various religious sects and the sectarian violence that ensued because of those divisions, was what caused the greatest problems.

Religion was also in part the basis for Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980 that lasted eight bloody years resulting in over 1 Million deaths. This was the same war that the US backed Saddam’s Sunni invasion supplying both weapons and intelligence to Iraq in proxy war against the Shi’a Iranians. It was during and after the Iraq invasion that Iran became more isolated the ever before and when you include they speak a different language (Persian) and have another belief system from their neighbors; it only compounded the isolation.

Recently, there was the wikileaks cable that quoted Saudi Ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir recalling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia urging the US to attack Iran’s nuclear program. To quote “cut the head off the snake (Iran)”. Last month, Saudi Oil Minister, Ali al-Naimi, said that the Kingdom will be able to make -up for any shortfall if Iran remains in a defensive posture; further indicating their approval for regime change. 

"It is because of our ongoing investment that Saudi Arabia is able to respond to shortages around the world - take issues with Libyan production last year for example. 'And it's because of our investment that any future shortages will be handled."

In fact, most Arab nations do not receive the Iranians well and do not want them to go nuclear. The Arab League has isolated Syria (Iran’s only ally) as it has halted both diplomatic and economic ties with the nation. If that wasnt enough of a statement they will lend political and material support to the Syrian opposition. It appears Syria will come to some type of regime change similar to what happened in Egypt and Libya. The Arab spring is said to be based on freedom of individuals and elections are a part of that; if and when the revolution takes power, it will not replace the leadership of Assad with a pro Iranian government.

What is happening is Iran is walking the proverbial plank. They have no allies. Everyone around them either wants their leadership removed or they simply don’t care either way. Both bordering nations of Iran have been vaporized by the United States. Its only logical that another member of the “Axis of evil” stuck smack dab in the middle of US occupations is next.

They know it and they also know they only have a few cards to play. First, they must go nuclear BEFORE an attack, being that a nuclear nation has yet to be attacked by the United States. Will this deter them from being attacked by the West? Nobody can say for sure, but it will at least give them pause and possibly buy the Iranians more time. Secondly, and the Ace of Spades, is that they will divorce themselves from the dollar.

With the drumbeat of war ratcheting up from the US to heights not seen since 2002, Iran, like its neighbor Iraq once did, is poised to play chicken with the US and its European allies engaging the US in economic war. The first strike was launched by the US in new sanctions signed by President Obama back in December and there was a response by Tehran with a threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. 

Now, we have Belgium-based SWIFT - who is a lifeline to international trade, as they oversee an average of 18 million payment messages per day between banks in 210 countries prepared to cut off Iran, virtually forcing international trade with Iran to a standstill. This is a remarkable revelation and a clear indication of the clout the US still carries as the reserve currency of international trade. Never, has SWIFT removed a nation since its inception in 1973.

"Kicking Iran out of SWIFT is both unprecedented and another dangerous step toward turning a financial war into a military conflict," said Reza Marashi, National Iranian American Council's research director.

Not only does this hurt all Iranians, but more importantly it hurts Iran’s military as well. Without fuel you cannot mobilize your military and logistics become impossible. Logistical failure has been the downfall of some of them most important conflicts of the last 300 years and with Iran being economically cut off it would inevitable. While Iran maybe the 3^rd largest supplier of crude in the world, it’s also relying on 40% of its petroleum and diesel consumption to come way of imports due to both refinery dysfunction /inefficiencies and just flat out a shortage of new refineries. That however is being addressed and eventually Iran will not be so dependable on importing gasoline but yet still vulnerable if those refineries were knocked offline.  

At one point, Iran was planning on getting out of the dollar as early as 2002 (if not long before) and then Iraq (who tried getting out of the dollar in 2000 after a decade of sanctions) got blitzed and Tehran went eerily silent. Then a few years later and coincidentally enough with the US bogged down in two stagnate/unpopular wars... Tehran began chatting aloud about dumping the dollar again. It was The Iranian Oil Bourse, created in 2008, that set the stage for this showdown that will officially end the petrol-dollar relationship with Iranian crude oil beginning on March 20, 2012. That is just a little over a month to go.

Now that we are facing our own debt problems, drawing down from Iraq and Afghanistan and have a President who may be perceived as weak, the Iranians threw down the gauntlet. What are we to do? All this adds up to one thing and that is why we are seeing a strong military presence in the Middle East, coupled with tough talk from talking heads here in the states. I see a major push to invoke war with the Iranians.

I've always felt and said that nuclear weapons and terrorism have always been more of a perceived threat then an actual threat concerning the Middle East. 9-11 was the exception and it wasn't state sponsored either. Are nuclear weapons that much of a threat to warrant all this attention? I have my reservations. Iran has plenty of nations around them that don't particularly care for them and are nuked up as well, and those that don’t posses nuclear capability's, I assume would be more then happy to have nukes from the US/West planted on their soil as a deterrent.

Iran maybe a nutty regime but mutual destruction is a deterrent to even the crazies, no matter how much “cooze” Allah can (sic) promise. It’s simply a self contained regional situation in spite of what the saber wavers might otherwise say, even if they did get nukes. The idea of supporting terrorist and getting nukes however is easier for people to grasp then how the Petrodollar recycling machine works and its more inline with the average person’s moral views: good vs evil is easier to understand vs then say what it really is and that is the Machiavellian battle of high vs low mach, or some might say survival of the fittest.

Hell, the majority of the country does not even believe in natural selection!? Can you really blame our government for running with the: 'scary dudes in turbans, armed with rocket launchers and hiding in caves reading Korans under camp fires - alongside a gaggle of virgins, who also want to nuke you…because they hate you, because you are free' story?  

That's where this web gets tangled. See, as Americans we like our standard of living. Is it inflated? Is it driven purely by consumption and debt? Is it made possible by a rigged game that allows us to trade pieces of paper for all types of goods and commodities that the rest of the world has to break their backs for? The answer to those questions is also - yes.  

If it was just about nuclear weapons we would have eliminated North Korea's capability's long ago. If it was about terrorism, we would have went after our own allies like Saudi Arabia or never would have clandestinely funded so many right-wing gorilla operations in Latin and South America the last 50 years. 

Anyone that threatened to flip the monopoly board over and not participate (and publicly denounce the petrodollar) in the petrodollar scheme and trade with other currencies, has already been or will be (Hugo Chavez) neutralized. From Libya - Iraq - former IMF chair Dominique Strauss-Kahn and now Iran. 

“The dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the US to use threats to protect the 'reserve currency’ status of the dollar” from the Tehran Times - which calls itself the voice of the Islamic Revolution

With the Petrodollar recycling process being the single - most vital element to the United States hegemony, it is imperative and absolutely essential that nations (see OPEC) continue to exchange their oil for US dollars. Or, the world as we know it here in the States will be much different... and not for the better. You can rest assured, that we will be putting a boot up the Ayatollahs ass and carpet bombing the Caucasus before our leaders (see corporations) allow us to fall into that state.

In defense of Obama (allow me to explain)

Let me start out by saying, that feels weird uttering out that title to myself. For those that don’t know me... I’m not a liberal, far from it. For those that do, know I would consider myself a Libertarian and Libertarianism is rooted in logic. Freedom across the board seems to be the "fairest" premise one can have in such an unfair game that is politics. With that said, I see a lot of venom spit at the President in terms of his economic approach that I don’t think is quite fair. Again, before you bitch slap your monitor - allow me to explain.

Much has been made recently about the Presidents accumulation debt. We have seen 5 Trillion added onto the 10 Trillion of national debt since he came into office in January 2009, that's no cheap date. So let there be no doubt that the spending is spiraling out of control going forward.  However, the attempt to put this on one man and his quest to outspend any president in history doesn't make him a Marxist as some would like to believe he is; it makes him a loyal solider. First a very crude and broad history.

A curious thing happened during the early 80's... GDP started to escalate as the country found itself in the midst of an economic growth period unlike anything it has seen in decades. One could point to Nixon ending Bretton Woods in the early 70's as a precursor to this expansion but that is another topic for another day. The reality was the country was booming. However, with that came enormous amounts of debt. So much so that the National debt ballooned from 1 Trillion in 1980 to 4 Trillion by 1988; so this explosion of growth came with a price tag (on a credit card).

Even though the debt was piling up as long as the economy kept building and building like it always has, there would be nothing to worry about. So the federal outlays began to climb and so did the deficits. Bill Clinton had his time to shine as being the only president in four decades to pass a balanced budget, although that was much to do because of the tech boom and the validation and explosion of a new business and platform: the Internet. Then the subsequent NASDAQ crash came in 2000, right when the economy was heading into recession.Ouch.

Then something changed. George Bush Jr was elected and began to rapidly increase spending on new entries to the budget like the Prescription drug plan (entitlements or votes) and Homeland Security (not sure what that still does to this day) while cutting taxes in the midst of a recession. Then we added two wars on two separate fronts and before you knew it we had doubled the debt from roughly 5 to 10 trillion in his eight years and oh yhea, the housing bubble bursts bringing on one of the worst financial calamities since the 30's.  And if that wasn't enough, right before his leaving of office the great recession came and wreaked havoc on our economy on all fronts (except for those at the very top) causing us to pass TARP while most taxpayers getting what amounts to a welfare check of 300-1200 Dollars from the Economic Stimulus Act.

Enter the "O" man. Right out of the gate, Mr Obama pushed through a 780+ Billion dollar stimulus bill which had much of the nation in an uproar based on the preconceived notions upon his entering of office. That stimulus act, like George Bush's before him, had large lump of tax credits worth 250 Billion, so it wasn't all spending parse. President Obama's budgets, although record setting high nominally; were in-line with the last budget of President Bush. The subsequent Obama budgets after his first were (and estimated) to be in the 3.5 to 3.7 Trillion dollar range. President Obama therefore is no bigger of a spender than President Bush if you account for the history seen below.

A large part of the deficit spending has to do with the walloping the middle class took as it affected the receipts. The last three years (2009-2011) receipts were roughly 400 billion lower then they were in all three years before (2006-2008). At the same time the outlays keep increasing. This creates tremendous deficits. But, it wasn’t like Obama came in with a blank check. In fact, Obama's first budget had actually less spending than Bush's last year in office. Obama's final budget is actually only 200 billion more than Bush's final budget (and Bush's biggest to be fair). 

So, if President Obama doubles the national debt, he will just be doing his part to continue the legacy that was put in place before him started in the early 80's by Ronald Regan. This is no disrespect to George Bush nor is this some type of vindication for Mr Obama; its simply setting the record straight. If anything, this points to a bigger problem, regardless of who sits in the oval office and its pretty straight forward. We have too many bills and not enough income. How we bridge this gap, will be the most vital national issue of the next decade. Keynesian economics appears to have reached its saturation point. We either slash spending or we dramatically raise taxes... or invent the internet again.