No Sh*t! Bokonon Obama's Budget, Pentagon Spending Is a "Fuzzy Math" Gimmick!

"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies."

--from the "Books of Bokonon", "Bokononism" is the fictional religion practiced by many of the characters in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle. It is based on living by the untruths that make one happy.

Well, duh...! So it goes...

I've been saying all week that this budget is full of crap! It's a complete joke! This entire Presidency is based on lies, myths and spin!

President Bokonon Obama lies to make his cronies happy!

Fox News reports:

President Obama has presented Congress with some questionable accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, analysts and Republican lawmakers say, as they begin to pore over his $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year.

Critics say the administration at once has both grossly over-estimated the amount of money it will save by winding down the war in Iraq and under-estimated the actual price of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the years ahead.

"This budget is a lesson in fuzzy math," House Republican Leader John Boehner said in a statement to FOXNews.com Monday.

The budget includes a "placeholder" estimate of just $50 billion per year for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan starting in 2011. By comparison, the total war cost for fiscal 2009 is expected to hit $142 billion.

At the same time, Obama's budget team projects saving $1.5 trillion over 10 years by scaling back the wars. But this estimate assumes the price tag for the wars would exceed $100 billion almost every year through 2019, despite pre-existing commitments to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Boehner said the move creates "phantom savings for money they never intended to spend in the first place."

The estimate basically assumes the Department of Defense would shell out military spending at current rates. War costs hit a high in fiscal 2008, at $188 billion. But Obama's budget assumes the government would still be dishing out $183.5 billion in 2019 if his administration didn't step in to rein in spending.

"It's like a family trying to claim savings of $10,000 by assuming a family vacation and not taking it," said Brian Riedl, a senior federal budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Riedl said the estimate is unrealistic and allows Obama to claim massive cuts to spending that was never going to take place anyway.

"There was never any plan for us to have Iraq fully staffed with the same number of troops ... in 2019 as there was today," Riedl said.

Using these and others estimates, the White House claimed last week it was acting to head off a whopping $9 trillion deficit 10 years from now.

Asked about the questionable math on "FOX News Sunday," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said he did not have that projection of spending $183 billion through 2019.

"I haven't looked out that far in terms of the specific projections. Certainly, we review routinely the costs as best we are able to project it in the budgets over the next several years, and we've done that," he said. He denied that the high figure was an administration "gimmick," saying that "there are certainly uncertainties associated with" projections a decade from now.

Meanwhile, Mullen said the $50 billion "placeholder" for the wars for 2011 and beyond was based "on our best estimates thus far," and said conditions could certainly change.

"Over time we'll certainly adjust those estimates," he said. "They're certainly not an exact science, certainly, the further you get out to the right in terms of our budget. So I think they're an approximation, and I'm confident that over time they'll become as accurate as needed to carry out the mission."

A White House overview also states the estimate does "not reflect any policy decisions about specific military or intelligence operations." But the figure, while a placeholder, was swiftly panned as an obvious low ball, considering Obama's plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

"It is questionable whether allotting a flat $50 billion per year beginning in 2011 is operationally realistic," said an analysis from Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee -- led by ranking member Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who was Obama's commerce secretary pick before he withdrew his name over fiscal disagreements with the administration.

I hereby dub thee President Bokonon Obama!

So it goes...

US Trade Representative Nominee Ron Kirk Has Tax Problems! White House: He has "a few minor issues"!

Hey, it's okay! It's just another hiccup! Obama's team is pull of unpatriotic tax cheats! No big deal!

Isn't it amazing that these tax cheats only agree to pay these taxes during the vetting process?

How much "stimulus" money would we find if we vetted every politician (and yes, I'm sure many Republicans are equally guilty of "hiccups")?



Remember: A tax cheat was confirmed, the tax cheat hired a lobbyist and violated the ethics rule, another lobbyist was hired that violated the ethics rule, a tax cheat withdrew her nomination, another tax cheat withdrew his nomination. Then a nominee violated House ethics rules and is married to a tax cheat.



Here comes another one!



The Associated Press reports:

Ron Kirk, nominated as U.S. Trade Representative in the Obama administration, owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to make his payments, the Senate Finance Committee said Monday.



The committee said the taxes arise from Kirk's handling of speaking fees that he donated to his alma mater, and for his deduction of the full cost of season tickets to the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team.


The disclosure made the former Dallas mayor the latest in a string of top-level Obama administration appointees found to have underpaid their taxes, following Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle, who withdrew as candidate for Health and Human Services secretary. Nancy Killefer, Obama's pick for chief performance officer, also bowed out amid tax problems.


White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said Kirk was working to clear up "a few minor issues" uncovered by the committee and expressed confidence he would be confirmed.


Despite the error, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, issued a statement calling Kirk "the right person for this job," and said he would attempt to have the nomination moved through the panel quickly.

Does anything even matter anymore? Am I wasting my time continuing to worry about Obama single-handedly destroying America with his outright lies and hypocrisy and Socialist philosophy?



*sigh*

Obama Letter To Russia: 'ready to drop shield plans for Russian help on Iran'

Somewhere in California, Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave.

Is Obama really this soft? This much of a push over? Well, sure looks that way!

Russia will deploy short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe, President Dmitry Medvedev warned Wednesday, setting a combative tone that clashed with global goodwill over Barack Obama's election. (Nov. 6)

From Novosti, A Russion News Service;

MOSCOW, March 2 (RIA Novosti) - Washington has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran's nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources.

U.S. President Barack Obama made the proposal on Iran in a letter to his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, Kommersant said, referring to unidentified U.S. officials.

Iran's controversial nuclear program was cited by the U.S. as one of the reasons behind its plans to deploy a missile base in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic. The missile shield has been strongly opposed by Russia, which views it as a threat to its national security. The dispute has strained relations between the former Cold War rivals, already tense over a host of other differences.

The leaders have exchanged letters and had a telephone conversation since Obama was sworn into office in January, Kommersant said. The first high-level Russia-U.S. meeting will take place later this week, when Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meets with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Geneva.

Moscow has not yet responded to the proposal by Obama, the paper said, adding that a decision was unlikely to be made during Lavrov and Clinton's meeting.

The issue is likely to be discussed when Obama and Medvedev meet in London on April 2 on the sidelines of the G20 summit of world leaders to address the financial crisis. Earlier reports said Medvedev had also invited the U.S. leader to visit Russia and the date of Obama's first visit to the largest country in the world could be announced in the British capital.

In an interview on Sunday with Spanish media, Medvedev said he hoped to discuss the issue of missile defense with Obama in London. He also said he hoped the new U.S. administration would display a "more creative approach" to the issue than its predecessors.

"We have received signals from our American colleagues," Medvedev said. "I expect those signals will turn into specific proposals. I hope to discuss the issue, which is extremely important for Europe, with U.S. President Barack Obama."

The United States and other Western nations suspect Tehran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is purely aimed at generating electricity. However, unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, Obama has stated a preference for diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on the NBC television channel on Sunday that the Islamic Republic was not close to building a nuclear bomb.

"They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said.

Gates also said that the while more sanctions should be imposed against Iran, the door should not be closed to diplomacy.

Is this the change you voted for? Cut and run? Do you Left Wing-Nuts want America to be seen as a the world's coward?

The Obama Recession, Daily Update: Stocks Hit 12-Year Low; "We're Probably In A Depression Now", Says Top Economist

D...d...d....depression?!?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Depression doesn't have to be Great -- bread lines, rampant unemployment, a wipeout in the stock market. The economy can sink into a milder depression, the kind spelled with a lowercase "d."

And it may be happening now.

The trouble is, unlike recessions, which are easy to define, there are no firm rules for what makes a depression. Everyone at least seems to agree there hasn't been one since the epic hardship of the 1930s.

But with each new hard-times headline, most recently an alarming economic contraction of 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter, it seems more likely that the next depression is on its way.

"We're probably in a depression now. But it's not going to be acknowledged until years go by. Because you have to see it behind you," said Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland.

How Low Will It Go?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Investors' despair about financial companies and the recession have brought the Dow Jones industrial average to another unwanted milestone: its first drop below 7,000 in more than 11 years.

The market's slide Monday wasn't nowhere near the largest is has seen since last fall, but the tumble below 7,000 was nonetheless painful. The credit crisis and recession have slashed more than half of the average's value since it hit a record high over 14,000 in October 2007. And now many investors fear the market could take a long time to regain the lost 7,000.

Global Markets Tank

March 2 (Bloomberg) -- Stocks slid worldwide, sending the Dow Jones Industrial Average below 7,000 for the first time since 1997, and Treasuries rose after Warren Buffett said the economy is in “shambles” and American International Group Inc. posted the largest corporate loss in U.S. history.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. fell 4.7 percent following the worst drop in book value in Buffett’s career at the company. Citigroup Inc. tumbled 20 percent as AIG posted a $61.7 billion quarterly loss and HSBC Holdings Plc said it needs to raise capital, triggering the worst plunge in U.K. banks since at least 1985.

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s biggest company by market value, fell as oil slid 10 percent. General Electric Co. sank below $8 for the first time since 1994.

“You have almost no reason to own a bank stock,” Keith Wirtz, who helps oversee $20 billion as chief investment officer at Fifth Third Bancorp in Cincinnati, told Bloomberg Television. “There is too much turmoil.”

The Dow decreased 299.64 points, or 4.2 percent, to 6,763.29. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index dropped 4.7 percent to 700.82, the lowest close since October 1996. Europe’s Dow Jones Stoxx 600 Index tumbled 5 percent, its steepest loss in three months. Nineteen stocks fell for each that gained on the New York Stock Exchange, making it the broadest decline in almost three weeks.

Whenever you ObamaBats are ready to accept the Obama Recession, let me know. I won't say "I told you so". I promise!

AIG: Biggest Quarterly Loss In US History; FED: Let's Give Them Even More Money!

AIG has already stolen and misused over $100 Billion or $150 Billion (do numbers even matter anymore in Washington?) in taxpayer money!

Too big to fail? What the hell does that even mean?

Bloomberg reports:

American International Group Inc., the insurer deemed too important to fail, may get a commitment for as much as $30 billion in new government capital after a record quarterly loss, said two people familiar with the matter.

The insurer may also be allowed to make lower payments on government loans, said the people, who declined to be identified because there was no public announcement. New York-based AIG may forfeit part of stakes in its two largest non-U.S. life insurance divisions to lower the firm’s debt, the people said.

Really?

American International Group Inc., once the world’s largest insurer, said Monday it lost $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter, the biggest quarterly loss in U.S. corporate history, amid continued financial market turmoil.

The results come as the U.S. government also Monday announced a restructuring of a bailout plan for the troubled insurer, extending $30 billion in additional aid to the company.

New York-based AIG said it lost $22.95 per share in the last three months of 2008. It lost $5.3 billion, or $2.08 per share, in the same quarter a year ago. Revenue fell to negative $23.8 billion, as the company had to reverse gains it recorded from investments in past quarters.

Screw these companies.