Nice Try, My Facebook Friend, But You’re All Wet Again

Recently a frequent poster on my Facebook wall, ostensibly responding to this piece about Barack Obama’s risible speech at the Holocaust Museum yesterday, sent me a private message, in which he made the following declaration about me:

If George Bush had prevented a depression…brought us out of a recession…doubled the stock market…provided better benefits for veterans…created 3 million jobs in 22 months…created tax breaks for 95% of the country and killed a ton of terrorists INCLUDING Bin Laden… you would be campaigning to have his face on Mt. Rushmore. Again…how does Bush “keep us safe since 9–11…but Obama doesn’t keep us safe or get credit for killing Bin Laden. Again….it’s selective outrage and inconsistent measurement.

The thread is here. I consider it EXTREMELY presumptuous to say to someone you don’t even know “if X had happened, you would do Y.” Really? How can someone who doesn’t know me say that? It’s ridiculous. I don’t even know what I’m going to do a lot of the time until right before I do it.

The groundless assumption made in his message is beside the point. He attributes achievements to B. Hussein Obama that many liberals see, but unfortunately, this emperor has no clothes. Let’s consider them one by one.

Barack Obama prevented a depression. So he and his mouthpieces say, but, like the statement about my campaigning to put Pres. George W. Bush on Mt. Rushmore, it’s pure conjecture. I am bit surprised that this guy, who claims to be all about “facts” and “truth” would send me a message trumpeting supposed achievements that are imaginary, but there you have it. Here’s what we do know. In February 2009, the One insisted that Congress IMMEDIATELY pass his “stimulus” bill to prevent unemployment from going above 8%. Despite an urgency that was so great that there wasn’t even time for members of Congress to read the bill they were passing, once it was passed on Friday, February 13, 2009, Barack and Michelle jetted off to Chicago for one in a continuing series of expensive date nights. (Remember, reparations have to start somewhere, and they figure why not with them?) He signed the bill the following Tuesday. The unemployment eventually went to 10% in October of 2009, despite nearly a trillion bucks thrown down Obama’s rathole/slush fund. Cue the sad trombone.

Brought us out of a recession? Other than Austan “Recovery Summer” Goolsbee, Tim “Turbo Tax” Geithner and their friends, who believes that? Let me guess. A boatload of economists at universities and think tanks? Here in Real America we’re not buying it. The day Barack Obama took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. Today it is over 8%, even though many people have left the workforce (see below). In February, the CBO said the actual unemployment rate is actually closer to 15%.

Benefits for veterans? I’m not sure to what he refers. I do know about his plan to dramatically increase the cost of their health insurance:

President Obama’s 2013 budget will seek sharp increases in premiums military personnel pay for health insurance, a move some analysts believe will ultimately harm recruiting and retention, a report said Tuesday.

Officials said the budget calls for military personnel to pay more for Tricare, the healthcare provider for the armed services, but will not seek increases to fees paid by unionized civilian defense workers for their health benefits, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The proposed increases to military healthcare benefits must still be approved by Congress, but they are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion in budget cuts. The Pentagon wants to trim Tricare expenses by $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2013, and as much as $12.9 billion by 2017.

I’m sure that the First Klingon doesn’t mention that when she’s doing her photo ops using military families as props.

The most ridiculous, and Obama-like statement is the phony claim about tax breaks for 95% of the country. So clever, and so inaccurate. Most people understand “tax cuts” to mean letting people keep more of what they earn. In Obama-speak, “tax cuts” mean income redistribution, as in more people receiving government checks by creating a lot of new tax credits. The earned-income tax credit, championed by Ronald Reagan as a way to offset the payroll taxes paid by many low income people, did that. These additional enactments are pure Obama, “spread it around.”  And as anyone with half a brain  knows, the government can’t give something to one person who didn’t earn it without taking it from another one who did.

The three million jobs created (or is that “created and/or saved?”) still leaves us with a net loss after 3 years of Obama’s brilliant leadership and $5 trillion more added to the debt. In addition, the labor participation rate, which was 65.7 million in January 2009 and is now 63.8 million. That means that nearly two million fewer people are working now than were working when B. Hussein took office.

Other interesting statistics: When George W. Bush left office there were 28.2 million people on food stamps. After three years of Obama, we have 44.7 million on food stamps.

Finally, when the messenger speaks of “selective outrage,” keep in mind that he is reacting to this post about Obama’s inane and insulting speech at the Holocaust Museum. No outrage was expressed in that post over Obama’s alleged failures to keep us safe. Having said that, let me repeat that, to the extent Obama has kept terrorists at bay, it is because he acted contrary to his ideology and continued the policies that he demonized during the 2008 campaign. If you dispute what I say about his ideology, my response is two words: “Eric Holder.” Can you say “trying KSM in federal court in New York?” How about “Gitmo?”

One last thing: while my posting pal was presumptuous in suggesting he knows what I would have done in any given situation, I’m not offended. Getting offended constantly is for liberals.


Thanks to all of you who voted for the Teri O’Brien Show as Talk Show of the Year on Red State Talk Radio. We won! We really appreciate your encouragement and support!

Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 4-6 pm Central time  at Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand. 

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.


  1. First you’re right. It’s presumptuous. But it’s a presumption based on what you say on your show and post here. It’s not based on some imaginary knowledge. You trumpet Bush and republicans and conservatives and virtually never give credit to Obama or dems for ANYTHING. Geez..I used to fight with liberals on my wall when I would say Bush was doing some good stuff…and at least when I linked them to it they said…”oh..good..thanks for showing me.”

    When I show people links on your wall…all they do is ignore them…and insult me. LOL..but like you…I don’t get offended easily. I just get aggravated by people who ignore the facts for their own opinions.

    My personal FB wall is filled with support for various republicans and conservatives WHEN they do something worth supporting. It’s also filled with me making fun of them when they do and say stupid things. And my wall has plenty of Factcheck articles pointing out when Obama, the dems or liberals make things up out of thin air. Funny that I virtually NEVER see that or hear about that on your show or on your wall.

    So my presumption is based on experience.

    And the achievements I attribute to Obama HAPPENED. Just because you ignore them doesn’t meant they didn’t

    Let’s address them one at a time.

    Barack Obama prevented a depression. When Obama took office even conservative economists said we were in a severe recession and headed for a possible depression. Statistically you can’t argue with that unless you simply want to make up numbers.
    So two things happened…

    1. We didn’t go into a depression
    2. We came OUT of a recession.

    Nowhere in that assessment is me saying “OMG we’re doing wonderfully right now.”
    We are not. But those two facts above happened…and like it or not…Obama was in office and creating policy when they did. And I know this is a presumption, but I’m betting if the economy would have tanked into a depression the right would have piled on top of Obama like a running back who fell in the end zone saying he was a do nothing President who drove us into a depression. Yes? No?

    The stock market doubled. Someone on your wall denied this a few weeks ago. And I honestly didn’t even know how to respond.

    On the day Obama took office the stock market was at about 6300. And it has been flirting with the 13,000 level now for a month. So yes…it doubled.

    The stock market doesn’t matter you say? Then why during the entire time the stock market was doing well during the Bush Administration did Fox News continually report that the stock market was a “leading indicator” of the economy? Or is it ONLY a leading indicator when a republican is in office?

    Any imaginary stuff here so far? Nope.

    Did Obama say unemployment wouldn’t go over 8%? Yep..he sure did. And he was wrong. But it’s now back down to 8.6% and has been dropping. Will it continue to drop? Who knows?

    The “expensive date night thing” is irrelevant to this conversation and nothing I ever mentioned. Nor did I mention reparations. But nice Strawman argument. (You really have to look that up)

    And to the unemployment rate was climbing steadily….this is called “A TREND” since well before Obama took office. It’s not like he takes office and voila….the unemployment rate starts to rise. Or who knows…maybe you believe that.

    And economists and universities aren’t smart people?
    By the way…some of the biggest and most well supported “think tanks” are conservative ones.

    What is it with the attack on education anyway?. How did being uninformed and uneducated become so popular? Even Romney makes fun of it……he of two degrees from Harvard.

    And I fully accept the unemployment numbers are actually higher…..just as they were higher during previous administrations….or do you only use THOSE numbers now? See? That’s my point…nobody remembers that little fact. You can’t use one set of numbers now…and and a different methodology because it comes out differently with that methodology. But one more to your liking.

    Benefits for veterans?

    First, I spent two years working with “Operation Tribute to Freedom” which was a military media program to help veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan talk to people in their hometown via radio and TV. During those two years I worked with the DOD as well as hundreds of these veterans. I have a pretty good feel for what they were saying.

    Here’s what I refer to: (and yes I can provide links and sources for all of these):

    He Increased the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals.

    He expanded veterans centers in rural areas

    He established medical standards for brain injury treatments for vets

    He made sure the veterans administration was fully funded for the first time in years.

    He made sure the Vet. Administration budget was set as must pass legislation

    He expanded the Vet. Administrations Centers for Excellence in Specialty Care.

    He expanded housing vouchers for homeless vets.

    He also launched a veterans services housing program to prevent homelessness for vets.

    There are a few more vet porgrams that are still being worked on or are stalled by financing problems as well as opponents blocking the funding. (Don’t you often wonder WHO THE HECK would block programs for military veterans?)

    Again, I can provide links to all of these. Can you send me links for what your claims are?

    And no….95% of working families did INDEED get a tax cut this year. It’s not phony…it’s provable and factual.

    It’s not income redistribution…it’s an honest to goodness tax cut for 95% of working families.

    For most people taxes have gone down…not up. Even conservative economic analysts acknowledge that there really is no basis for middle- and working-class Americans to believe that they’re suddenly paying more….because they are not.

    “The only tax I think that has been put in place so far is an increase in the federal cigarette tax. I can’t think of another Obama tax that has gone in place so far,” said Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the conservative Cato Institute. “I would say that people are angry because big taxes are coming down the road because of the gigantic deficit built up under Bush and continued under Obama.”

    The folks at Cato are hardly liberal.

    Again…happy to provide links and sources…but they are readily available from official tax sites and economists sites and even your fair share of conservative economists sites.

    And the loss you mention comes if you want to include the months BEFORE Obama set foot in the oval office. And I have shown many times….and again is available just about anywhere on line…you can easily find a trend chart that shows unemployment going up up up during the last few Bush years (not it’s not entirely Bush’s fault…there’s PLENTY of blame to go around) and while not growing hugely…when Obama took office we were losing jobs….we are now GAINING them. Again..this is easily verifiable by looking online..but again…happy to provide links and sources.

    And yep…the amount we are adding to the debt is horrible. You are preaching to the choir on that one. I think we ARE truly mortgaging our future. My question is again….without the stimulus…do we go into a depression? And then what would your assessment be?

    And blaming Obama for a number on the day he took office is rather silly. He didn’t create the scenario the DAY he took office… was THERE already.

    Regardless…over the last 22 months…3 million jobs have been ADDED to the private sector payrolls….not lost…added.

    Food Stamps (SNAP) (which by the way I never mentioned either) By the way…how exactly can I be presumptuous about things I never mentioned? Oh well.

    The rise in food stamps is a direct consequence of the most recent recession, which began more than a YEAR before Obama took office. It’s impossible to know how high SNAP usage would have gone had the Republicans, rather than Obama, shaped policy in 2009 and 2010. Again…it’s a presumption either way…is it not?

    On the one hand, SNAP usage has continued to climb almost every month of the Obama presidency until last October… despite some signs of an economic recovery. So that charge cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

    On the other hand, there is typically a lag time before an upturn in the broader economy begins to show up in decreased SNAP usage. The previous high from 1994, for instance, came following a recession that officially ended in mid 1991 — and that recession was much milder than the most recent one. This makes it harder to divvy up the blame.

    One last point: The number of food stamp beneficiaries had started to head upward under President George W. Bush, partly because of more aggressive efforts to get eligible Americans to apply for benefits, and partly because of changes in the rules that had the effect of broadening eligibility. SAME policy under Bush and Obama.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition has a year by year and month by month chart you can look at online with figures going back to January 2001 and then before that. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

    Under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

    Obama has obviously been in office a shorter time…but since October…SNAP usage has been dropping every month.

    And no…I was NOT reacting to Obama’s speech at the Holocaust museum when speaking of selective outrage. My point wasn’t about outrage…it was about inconsistency. Again…how is that Bush “kept us safe since 9-11” but Obama hasn’t “keep us safe” since he was elected…and doesn’t get “credit” for killing Bin Laden. (Yes..I know he didn’t kill him himself.)

    But again, remember the criticism of Obama before he took office?

    He was going to be a wussy who wants to JUST talk to his Muslim friends and our enemies.

    You don’t hear that anymore. Why? Because as a friend of mine says who has no love for Obama says…..”Barry has become a Muslim Terrorist Killing Machine” And he has.

    And so Teri…if someone acts contrary to their ideology…meaning that they are doing what’s RIGHT…and not something that is wrong…..that’s bad? So you’re saying if he acts ideological it’s wrong…and if he doesn’t act ideological…it’s still wrong? That doesn’t make any sense.

    And yes…I agree that he criticized things during the campaign that he has continued to do. As George Bush himself said…”reality takes over when you’re inside that oval office.” It’s the reason former Presidents RARELY criticize sitting Presidents.

    And you have selective memory about putting the terrorist on trial here. Immediately after 9-11 republicans in the House pushed for any 9-11 terrorists to be tried in NEW YORK CITY….to put them as they said “on display” so the families could see them.

    I’m guessing some of the national security folks changed their minds on that one.

    Regarding Holder though..he should have resigned a long time ago. The Fast and Furious scandal was a debacle and he should be gone. The only reason he’s not…and if I’m wrong…you’ll because I think Darryl Issa is holding it up to give it more impact during the general election. It will be a sideshow…but I think it will happen. You can write that down.

    And you are presumptuous as most are in assuming I’m a liberal. I’m not. Unless you know a lot of liberals that own glocks, support second amendment rights…wants a law passed to keep immigrants out of the country for 5 years til we get rid of the ones we have here already, is anti entitlement programs, supports capitol punishment and thinks we can do whatever the hell we want to terrorists not because we’ll learn anything…but because they are terrorists and deserve NOTHING from us.

    Know a lot of liberals like that do you?

    Anyway, again, sorry to have presumed whatever you think I presumed. But again….I can back up everything I have said here with facts, links and sources.

    That’s ALL I ask others to do. Not from right wing blogs or opinion sites….but from corroborated factual evidence.

    That’s not much to ask…………or presume. Is it?

  2. Here’s two more links to stories on veterans kinda true…one false. But both have been repeated as fact for 3 years. Even the stuff that isn’t true.

  3. Robb, first my bona fides: I have been in the investment biz for 30+ years and am not related to Teri.

    On a short-term basis, I have never found a direct connection between the party in power (either executive or legislative branch) and the direction of the stock market.

    You note there is a lag between the swings in the economy and SNAP usage. Equity markets work the same way, though stock price movements often (but not always) predate the economy, so crediting Pres. Obama (or any POTUS) with a doubling in the market, while mathematically correct, is dubious.

    On the subject of the LEI (Leading Economic Indicators) index, the S&P 500 is in fact one of the components of the index. It’s not unusual for news reports to quote something like “the rise in the LEI has led the market higher” when the reverse is actually the case, but the S&P has been a LEI component for as long as I can remember.

    I trust you won’t find any of the above insulting.

    • Not of it is insulting..but it’s not addressing my point. My point being that if Bush gets credit for the stock market “maintaining” from ANY point of view how can you not use the same logic for Obama? Whether it’s right or wrong from a true economic viewpoint…if you’re going to be someone to give credit to….or take credit from someone…you have to do it using the same methodology..or NOT do it at all. Right?

    • I thought I did address your pointb ,ut apparently not.

      My question for you: What precisely did Obama do to “[prevent} a depression?”

      • What an excellent question, Jim. I am sure it hasn’t escaped your attention that nearly the entire Obama campaign is based on “what might have happened,” or “what if.” Apparently, they would prefer to run on conjecture and juvenile sloganeering based on half-truths rather their own pathetic record. Did you ever get an answer to this question?

  4. Interesting. I’d like to direct your attention to the definition of depression, specifically:

    “There is no agreed definition of the term depression, though some have been proposed. In the United States the National Bureau of Economic Research determines contractions and expansions in the business cycle, but does not declare depressions.”

    • Same thing as above…you simply can’t use one set of terminology for defining something because one person is in office…then ignore that same terminology because someone else is in office. Right?

      And that’s what is being done in both cases.

  5. And Jim..I agree with you…and actually accept your knowledge in that area because it is far superior to mine since you have worked in that area for 30 years. My argument is simply you have to be consistent when addressing it from a “political” and “ideological” viewpoint.

    • Robb, agreed. Any president (or his/her supporters) who claims credit for a rising stock market must then accept debit for a declining market. Old Wall Street saying: “Down is faster than up.”

  6. Methinks that Robb doth protest too much. I find it quite amusing to see the level of intolerance displayed by Obamabots like Robb that protest any criticism of the dear reader so vehemently. I find it equally amusing to see their willingness to attribute anything that they perceive as positive to the beneficence of their messiah while blaming everything that they perceive as negative on the incompetence of former President Bush.

    • First…I’ve never been a big Obama supporter or as you call it an “Obamalot”

      But I also don’t simply ignore facts because i have a NEED to believe things that are not true. You can deny facts…but it doesn’t mean the facts don’t exist.

      I find it amusing that if you disagree with people you are IMMEDIATELY an “Obamalot” an Obama lover….etc. Seems rather narrow minded that you can’t think beyond that.

      The only people I ever hear referring to Obama as a “Messiah” seems to be people who don’t like him. I never hear any libs refer to him in that way.

      And I have criticized Obama repeatedly over the last 3 years. But I have criticized him for his policies I disagree with and other things he actually DID that I didn’t like. Not imaginary things he did not do that I read in an email someone sent me.

      And as I have said MANY times…I defended George Bush from many of the same kinds of “attacks” from the left…but NOTHING compared to the nonsense and made up stuff I see about Obama. Not even remotely comparable.

      A different measuring stick is being used to judge Obama. As I said….If Bush kept us “safe”….why hasn’t Obama kept us “safe?” If Bush kept the stock market steady….why isn’t Obama given credit for doubling the stock market?

      If Obama was just going to “talk” to our enemies…why is he not given “credit” for killing a shitload of Muslim terrorists?

      Of course HE didn’t kill them. But just imagine if Navy Seals had died and Bin Laden was NOT there. A lot of conservatives and republicans would have blamed Obama directly. To deny that is to have completely ignored their criticisms of him in the last 3 years.

      Presidents usually get too much credit and too much blame.

      But again…you can’t use two different yardsticks for measuring the Presidency. Either you are consistent or you are hypocritical.

  7. The term is “obamabot”, not obamalot. Do b’s look like l’s to you. I still think that you protest too much. It comes across as defensive.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

%d bloggers like this: