B is for Barry - B is for Billion

Obama is now acclaimed as having over $1B in campaign lifetime contributions, as seen in The Daily Caller, May 21, 2012; Neil Munro.  Also noted is that the President seeks another $300M by election time.
What the hell? Let's cut the shit here.  The US economy is tanking.  GM alone is laying off more union employee jobs than ever by year's end.  Banks are recycling cash like who knows.  There cannot be that many remaining donors in this country, guessing within legal limits, from whom can be squeezed $300M more, can there?
At least with the doom and gloom scripts being sung by the Lib MSM everyday, there can't be any more legal private donations.  No one has any money any more, right, according to the MSM?
That lends to only one explanation in this public school educated boy's mind; the money sought is/will be foreign. Namely, Arab and Muslim bank rolls, which traced back, would be our, that's yours and my American earned, dollars for oil in these >$100/bbl oil price times.
So I guess the cliche' stands up, "What goes around Saudi Arabia oil fields, comes around back to America's president's war chest.  I mean, Arab/Muslim countries got what they wanted when Barry went over and apologized to all of them for US being mean and fighting and such sanctionistas.
Thank you Congressional campaign fund oversight laws.  After all, who's gonna guard the hen house when the foxes are already inside and have locked the door behind them?
Your Bloombergs, Cuomos, Krochs, and all other gay loving liberal eastern power boys have so legislated "campaign finance reform" and sharpened their pencils to the end of we make the rules for us, and you conservatives play by this set of rules over here.
Where are the boys with the balls to stand in the faces of these cheats, liars, and thieves with regards to campaign finance rules?  More poignantly, what the hell is Boehner and gang doing to reign in lawless money grubbing by liberals in the name of "reform"?  My guess: nothing more than in the last 12-15 years that no other Repube-lican lame wristed "reformer" was ever inclined.
Caller article goes on to say that GW Bush's total campaign spending was some more than $140M over his donations.  That due to the Bush campaign received matching federal funds for limiting his own private lemonade stand fundraising.
So what does Barry do? Broke his promise to do same in 2008 and raised nearly all of his $1B after said promise was broken.  Barry's rationale, "We face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."
Holy shit Sherlock! Really?  You FACED opponents who mastered the broken system?
Man the shit pool of lies just never ends…..it's all one shade of brown or another, different day.

Parting thought: Realize this - if there are about 120 million wage earning/tax paying households in these United States of America, that $300M sought could be sent to each above noted household in the form of a check for roughly $2.5 million dollars; one time this year.  Who needs Publisher's Clearing House if that were to happen………..

Government spending will stimulate somebody's something somewhere...

Our government wants us to think that an increase in government spending will stimulate the economy in a way that raises private spending.

 

Our government wants us to think that an increase in government spending will raise employment and lower unemployment? 

In 2009-2012 America run by Barack Obama, Obama lives, eats, breathes and……. well you get my meaning.  Where the result has to do with the GDP, the government spending multiplier is more likely below one rather than above one. 

In other words, anything the government touches with its spending multiplier ideas, the result comes out a negative.  Remember 4th grad math when we began to learn integers?  A positive times a positive equals a positive.  A negative times a positive equals a negative.  The product of a negative multiplier is always a negative.  Always.

And no amount of tax increases is going to finance government spending.  Only part of government spending is financed by tax increases.  This lends to the reality that government spending not financed by tax increases is plain old deficit spending.  

In second grade form: Washington spends more than they take in.  Day after day after month after year after decade.

Again in second grade form: what would our individual banks do to us if we the private citizenry, tax paying working folks, lived our lives and operated our bank accounts this way?

Once again in second grade form: the bank will bounce our unfunded checks, the debit/ATM cards will be cut off and credit card limits will max out and cards will be shut off pretty fast.

If government spending is intended to raise employment and lower unemployment, my view is that intent is to create more government jobs.  So with those "more jobs", comes government regulation.  Those jobs have to meet all kinds of bureaucratic rules, limitations, qualifications, and reviewed by bus loads of checkers, and reviewers, and handlers. 

So in that, I offer that government is as a snake that has coiled back on itself only to devour itself from its own hunger created by its own appetite after devouring all the "lower down the food chain" prey and food supply.