A great video about the national debt under Obama

So...how's that "fiscal responsibility" thing workin' out for ya, eh, Mr. President?

Mr. Obama seems to be just as ready as the prior administration to ignore facts in the interest of pursuing ideology.

In order to pander to the majority of the electorate, women, Obama has promised to close the "wage gap" in the face of DOL conclusions that discrimination plays no significant part in the earnings differential caused by women's CHOICE and ABILITY to work less in the marketplace, and more in the home. Simply put, their is no "wage" gap. In fact studies show that, per hour, women are paid slightly MORE than men. This makes no difference to Obama and his feminist mistresses.

Now, he sees no problem in passing off a huge debt to a future population whose numbers -- especially of the wealthiest who pay the bulk of all taxes -- are declining, and are projected to decline further as women are forced to bear more of the burden of workplace toil and are "liberated" from the unsavory task of having children.

It all makes sense, though. Driving women out of their homes and away from their roles as mothers and homemakers may not benefit them or their families (if they have any), but it sure does benefit:

-- GOVERNMENT, which can't tax the work performed by women in their own homes, but which sure can tax their wages earned out of the home, as well as the wages of the nannies, housekeepers, and day-care workers who take their place.

-- BIG BUSINESS, which must pay wages based upon the supply of labor. When women flood the labor market, wages for everyone go down, and the potential for corporate profit goes up.

-- CONSUMERISM, as the "extra" money being earned by women is spent financing their work-related transportation, clothing, dining, etc., and the "keeping up with the Jones" dynamic is accelerated. Think SUV gas-hogs, negative savings rates and housing bubbles.

-- FEMINISM.

Women now serve the state and business more than their own families, and thus are losing those families at an increasing rate.

BTW, when a wife's income is taxed along with her greater-earning husband's, the IRS adds her earnings to his, and thus taxes her earnings at the highest possible marginal tax rate. So, even though they may earn less, a bigger chunk of wives' earnings go to the government. Then, with what is left over, there is the cost of paying for the child-care, the wardrobe, the transporation, the housekeeping, the restaurant meals, the insurance, etc., that go along with the "extra" income produced by working.

The emotional and psychological cost of being removed from their own family? You tell me.

The cost to society as women increasingly are wage slaves and so don't have the time to devote to volunteer community organizations? Again, you tell me.

Feminism, with the help of government and big business, would turn women into a bunch of tax-paying, second-rate men (i.e., worker drones) with vaginas. Marriage is only an impediment to that mutual goal, which would explain its remarkable decline of late.

Is that what women want?

Am I a misogynist for asking?

I don't know where he got it, but my dad just sent me an email with a picture of Obama holding a book, the title of which is "The Post-American World", supposedly written by a (as stated in the caption) fellow muslim. Think maybe he's trying to tell us something? Like he doesn't even give a shit about "fiscal responsibility"? Oh and I hear the government is giving rebates for old appliances, when you buy a new "energy star" appliance. Kinda like "dough for dishwashers", I guess. o.O

If any naval submaraine commanders read this blog I have only one request, nuke the ice caps