The Accuracy of Nate Silver’s Predictions

Nate Silver is paid to write for The New York Times, but he doesn’t favor Republicans or Democrats in his predictions, because he predicts both Republican and Democratic winners in each state and in the national elections

– see what conservatives have to say about Nate Silver –
This video was published October 30, 2012.

Nate Silver’s forecast this morning has Obama winning 307 Electoral College votes to Romney’s 231 and this prediction is based on statistics collected from every political poll in America, and there are a lot of them from the local, state and national levels. Silver also has Obama winning the popular vote 50.5% to 48.3%.

In 2008, he correctly predicted the winners of all 35 Senate races and the presidential results in 49 out of 50 states. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 1%.

In 2008, Silver projected electoral vote totals of 349 (based on a probabilistic projection) or 353 (based on fixed projections of each state).

Obama won with 365 Electoral College votes. Silver’s predictions matched the actual results everywhere except in Indiana and the 2nd congressional district of Nebraska, which awards an electoral vote separately from the rest of the state.

In 2010, Silver predicted 36 of the winners in 37 of the gubernatorial races—97.3% accuracy rate.

For the U.S. Senate Race of 2010, Silver predicted 6 of the 7 Republican winners—85.7% accuracy rate.

For the U.S. House of Representatives, Silver predicted 53 of the 63 wins by Republicans—84.1% accuracy rate.

– broadcast October 24, 2012 –

Silver’s prediction early this morning favors Obama 86.6% to Romney’s 13.4%.  Silver bases his predictions on computed mathematical formulas and the results change daily. He does not base his predictions on a hunch or his own feelings. This is not an emotional, gut-driven biased response.

If Silver is close a third time, he will become a legend.  By next Wednesday, we will know.

Discover Spinning Numbers to Manipulate Opinions


Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

What does Mitt Romney and The Poison Dwarf have in common?

If you read this blog regularly, you already know about Romney and Ryan and their win in the Malarkey contest during the debates ending with a malarkey score 233% above the Obama-Biden Malarkey score. Source: Ranking Romney and Obama

However, the latest lie told in Ohio is HUGE. It seems that the GOP candidate for president is following the advice of Adolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, also known as “The Poison Dwarf”, who said, “If you tell a lie BIG enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. …” Source: The Holocaust Research Project

There are several battleground states where Obama and Romney are so close in the polls that there is no way to predict a possible winner. Those states are: Colorado (9 Electoral Votes), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Virginia (13) and Wisconsin (10).

Together, those states add up to 146 Electoral Votes and Romney now has 191 and needs 79 more to win the election.

To tilt the vote in his favor, he has leaned heavily on telling BIG lies and repeating them to influence people to vote for him. His latest BIG lie is a claim that Chrysler will be moving Jeep production to China, and it will cost thousands of American jobs.

Not only has the Obama campaign been forced to respond in costly ads to counter this lie but the President of Chrysler had his public relations chief release a blistering reply calling Romney’s claims an “unnecessary fantasy.”

Fiat-Chrysler’s CEO Sergio Marchionne rebutted the claim as well, and wrote, “That (the) Jeep’s factory workforce in the United States had grown from 4,700 in 2008 to 9,300” and, “Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China.”

But according to Justin Hyde at Motoramic, that has not stopped Romney’s campaign from repeating this BIG lie in Ohio in a last ditch attempt to influence voters.

I wonder how many BIG lies Romney and Ryan are spreading in the other battleground states.

I think trust must be earned through loyalty and honesty. If Romney is willing to practice Dr. Joseph Goebbels’ advice and spread this much malarkey to win the White House and become the next president of the United States, can anyone in America trust this man?


Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

Wars and Unbridled Capitalism Cause National Bankruptcies—not socialist policies!

John, in a comment at Right, said, “Point I can’t get a liberal to answer … give me one example where socialist policies have not eventually driven that country into bankruptcy.”

My answer was China.  However, when I attempted to leave a longer comment with more evidence with linked citations, this right-wing political site seems to have limited the number of words one may use in a comment.

What I have discovered over time is that most far-right conservatives spout opinions supported by emotion and malarkey.  To respond to these emotional rants usually requires longer comments and/or posts.  It is easy to claim anything without facts and much more difficult and time consuming to respond with logic and facts to reveal the truth.

After a few days, it occurred to me that there must be a history of countries going bankrupt and the reasons that led to those financial collapses, so I used Google.

First, I found a list of ten countries that went bankrupt at Bill, but could not find one on the list that failed due to socialist policies. In fact, the evidence indicates that the primary reason a country goes bankrupt is usually unbridled, unrestricted capitalism and greed.

When the private sector is given too much freedom from government oversight to make money, greed and risk taking overrules common sense.

From I learned that in 2001, Argentina’s bankruptcy was caused by a run on its banks followed by a collapse of the country’s national currency.

In 2008, Iceland was a casualty of America’s 2007 global financial crisis. The value of Iceland’s currency dropped so low that it wasn’t worth enough to pay for imports on which the country is heavily dependent.

Another reason for countries going bankrupt is too many expensive wars. Germany went bankrupt in 1920 and 1945 as a result of losing World War I and World War II.

In addition, Great Britain faced bankruptcy in 1945 as a result of fighting World War II. So ravaged was the British economy following the war that almost all national resources were dedicated to paying war debts for five full years after its completion. On another site, I learned that the last payment on that World War II debt was made in 2008.

That caused me to consider that the US has spent more than $40 Trillion on defense since the end of World War II but less than $10 Trillion on socialist welfare programs, and America funded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with borrowed money.

Such stories are sobering reminders that national bankruptcy is very real, and has happened repeatedly throughout history to nations that fail to take proper precautions. The origin of socialist policies started with the French Revolution of 1789. Then the Communist Manifesto was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848. In the last third of the 19th century, social democratic parties emerged in Europe and started to push socialist policies.

In fact, Common reports that the three happiest countries in the world for quality of life are Social Democracies: Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands, ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd, respectively. Two other Social Democracies ranked 6th and 8th: Canada and New Zealand. The U.S. didn’t make the top 10 list.

However Spain went bankrupt seven times in the 19th century. In addition, France has become insolvent eight times between 1500 and 1800. Ecuador has gone bankrupt six times since 1830.

From another site, I learned more details about why a few of these countries went bankrupt.

Futurist says, “In Argentina’s case in 2001, wealthy people took their money and fled the country. Over $40 billion left the country in one single night. This resulted in a run on the banks, followed by a collapse of the country’s national currency. Argentina’s citizens were so desperate, many panicked that many spent nights sleeping in front of the automated teller machines.

“Iceland, a tiny country with just under 320,000 residents, was the first domino to fall in the 2008 global financial meltdown, when its banks defaulted on $85 billion.

“Iceland was hit harder by the crisis than many other countries because of its inflated banking system. In just five years, the banks went from being almost entirely domestic lenders to major international financial intermediaries.

“Unbeknownst to most of the population, the country basically turned itself into a massive hedge fund. The whole nation was caught up in a web of deception.

“Spain, once one of Europe’s economic superstars, rose to the top largely through real estate speculation and its growing assimilation with the rest of the EU.”

Again, socialist policies are not mentioned as the cause of these bankruptcies. Instead, it seems that the cause is unbridled, unrestricted capitalism—the same policies the GOP promoted in 1999 that led to the 2007 global financial crises, and the same policies that brought on The Great Depression of 1929.

Historically, wars and unbridled capitalism causes national bankruptcies—not socialist policies, not yet anyway. In fact, socialist policies are a way to avoid rebellions such as the French, Russian and Chinese rebellions and civil wars. With socialist policies, we avoid the poor from suffering to the point of an uprising due to suffering and anger.

The United States could learn from history to avoid a national bankruptcy. For example: Republican President Herbert Hoover refused to use socialist policies during the Great Depression. “(He) did not think the federal government should offer relief to the poverty-stricken population. (Instead, he focused) on a trickle-down economic program to help finance businesses and banks” … When Hoover asked the CEO’s of large private sector businesses and banks to help the unemployed and poor, he met resistance, because the private sector believed the way to solve the Great Depression was to fire workers. “Hoover was widely ridiculed: an empty pocket turned inside out was called a “Hoover flag;” the decrepit shantytowns springing up around the country were called “Hoovervilles.” Source:

Studies have estimated that thanks to Herbert Hoover refusing to use socialist policies to feed the unemployed/poor that more than seven-million Americans died of starvation during the Great Depression. Source:

Today, thanks to socialist policies known as welfare, few starve to death in the US. The cost to feed unemployed and poor Americans for 2012 was $113.5 billion. The average monthly food stamp benefit per participant in the US is $133.84. The budget for unemployment is $109 billion. The cost of Defense is $902 billion. Source: US Government and State Health

The national average for unemployment benefits in the US was $293 per week according to the MSN Money website. That’s 35 percent of an average salary in America reports USA Today. Then Bloomberg reported that almost 2,400 millionaires collected unemployment benefits of the 11.3 million Americans that collected unemployment in 2009.

Lloyd Lofthouse is a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran,
who taught in the public schools for thirty years (1975 – 2005).

His third book is Crazy is Normal, a classroom exposé, a memoir. “Lofthouse presents us with grungy classrooms, kids who don’t want to be in school, and the consequences of growing up in a hardscrabble world. While some parents support his efforts, many sabotage them—and isolated administrators make the work of Lofthouse and his peers even more difficult.” – Bruce Reeves

2014 Florida Book Festial and Comment by Writers Digest JudgeLOW RES Biographies and Autobiographies for the 2014 Southern California Book Festival

2014 London Book Festival

Lofthouse’s first novel was the award winning historical fiction My Splendid Concubine [3rd edition]. His second novel was the award winning thriller Running with the Enemy. His short story A Night at the “Well of Purity” was named a finalist of the 2007 Chicago Literary Awards. His wife is Anchee Min, the international, best-selling, award winning author of Red Azalea, a New York Times Notable Book of the Year (1992).

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

Ranking Romney and Obama: who is the better candidate?

One way to learn more about a candidate is to see how well he or she is doing in the polls for the state where he was born and grew up and/or the state where he served as an elected state and/or US official.

Mitt Romney was born and raised in Michigan where his father served as governor (1963-1969). Because his father was the 43rd governor of Michigan, one would think the state’s voters would favor the son.

However, in Michigan, Obama holds a 4 point lead in the polls and 48.8% of voters say they will vote for him compared to 44.8% that say they will vote for Romney.

Then Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts (2003 – 2007), but Romney is losing the state to Obama. As a newly elected governor in 2003, Romney had a 61% approval rating but by 2007, that approval rating dropped to 34%. In addition, in 1994, when Romney ran for the US Senate in Massachusetts against Edward Kennedy, he had trouble establishing consistent positions. For example, his views on abortion kept shifting—something we have witnessed in the presidential election.

Fifty-six percent of voters in Massachusetts say they will vote for Obama but only 39.7% say they will vote for Romney.

Historically, states tend to favor presidential candidates that served or lived there, so why has Massachusetts abandoned Romney?

Now, how about Obama’s home states of Illinois and Hawaii?

In Illinois, where Obama served as a State Senator (1997-2004), than a US Senator (2005-2008), his average in the polls is 15 points ahead of Romney and 50.5% of voters say they will vote for Obama but only 35.5% say they will vote for Romney.

In Hawaii, where Obama was born and then later raised by his grandparents, his average lead in the polls is 30 points above Romney and 60.5% say they will cast votes for him while only 31% say they will vote for Romney.

If we must choose between two candidates by voting for the lesser of two evils, what is the best way to discover who is the lesser of two evil? I think one answer is knowing who exaggerates and/or uses false statements the least.

Final Malarkey Score from all Four Debates Combined

Romney and Ryan = 37 or 70%

Obama and Biden = 16 or 30%

In the 1st presidential debate, Fact caught Romney spouting malarkey almost twice the number of times Obama’s made exaggerated and/or false claims. Fact listed nine for Romney and five for Obama.

In the vice presidential debate, Ryan, Romney’s running mate, was caught by Fact spouting malarkey eleven times, and I found two more boosting Ryan’s use of malarkey to thirteen. Biden was only called out for three claims that were malarkey.

In the 2nd Presidential debate, Romney was called out by Fact for eleven examples of malarkey (exaggerations and/or false statements) compared to Obama’s three uses of malarkey.

In the 3rd and last presidential debate, Romney again won the malarkey contest by making six misleading and/or false statements to Obama’s four.

In conclusion, what is it that Romney has going for him to explain why he is running almost equal to Obama in the polls?

Is it the fact that Romney and Ryan have exaggerated and used false statements 233% more than Obama and Biden?

Has it been proven that politicians that exaggerate and lie more always win?

You may be surprised to learn that it worked for Thomas Jefferson in 1800 when he ran for president against John Adams. The key difference between the two politicians was that Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics.

To Jefferson’s credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election. Source: Founding Father’s dirty

My final question: Will Romney steal the 2012 election based or malarkey, or will the lesser of two evils win?

Discover these posts if you have not seen them:


Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

Malarkey for the third Presidential Debate of 2012

Once again, I turned to Fact to compile a score and discover the candidate who spouted the most malarkey and the winner (or should I say loser) was Romney. However, this time it was by a slim margin: Romney’s malarkey score 55.5% to Obama’s 44.4%.

Over the years as GOP candidates have continued to win the political malarkey competition, I’ve often wondered when the Democrats were going to wake up and learn to fight fire with fire. The turning point may have been in the third presidential debate as you will learn.

As always, I urge you to read the cited details on Fact

The full transcript of the third presidential debate.


1. It is not technically true that our “Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917″—a repeated claim made by Romney and Ryan during the VP debate.

2. Romney was wrong when he said Obama went on an apology tour of the Middle East and criticized America. The evidence clearly shows that Obama did not do this.

3. Romney claimed responsibility for the success of Massachusetts’ fourth and eighth graders who tested first in the nation in reading and math after he became governor. But that was wrong—Massachusetts students had tested at the top or near it before Romney took office.

4. Romney exaggerated the size of the federal debt held by the public and/or foreign countries such as China that he also mentioned in the second debate.

In fact, on April 10, 2012, foreign holdings of US Treasury Securities as of January 2012 increased to $5.048 Trillion (only 31.55%) with China reducing its share to $1.1595 Trillion (7.24%). The largest holders were the central banks of China, Japan, Brazil, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Russia. In addition, the US government owes itself $4.6 Trillion (28.75%).  Source: Statistics

5. Romney was wrong when he claimed that in the 2000 presidential debate there was no mention of terrorism, because Al Gore did make one mention of terrorism in the third debate with G. W. Bush on October 17, 2000.

6. I’m going to add number SIX because Fact missed this example of malarkey that they seem to have missed every time it has been used in every debate.

Even Obama seems to have missed this one.  Romney keeps saying that 23 million Americans are unemployed and looking for work. Twenty-three million is a huge exaggeration when the Bureau of Labor Statistic of the U.S. Department of Labor reported on October 5, 2012 that “The number of unemployed persons, at 12.1 million, decreased by 456,000 in September.” In addition, “the unemployment rates for adult men (7.3 percent), adult women (7.0 percent), and whites (7.0 percent) declined over the month.

“The unemployment rates for teenagers (23.7 percent), blacks (13.4 percent), and Hispanics (9.9 percent) were little changed. The jobless rate for Asians, at 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), fell over the year.” Source:

Even if we add in the 2.5 million persons that are not counted as unemployed because they did not look for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey, we still do not come up with 23 million.

And we could add the 802,000 discouraged workers that gave up because they believe no jobs are available for them and Romney’s continued claim of 23 million looking for work still doesn’t add up. If Romney included this number, he was wrong, because these people are not looking for work.

It is obvious to me that Romney’s repeated claim of 23 million unemployed is to mislead adult voters to believe the economic situation is much worse than it is—almost a hundred percent worse.


1. Obama claimed that during the 2008 campaign Romney said “we should ask Pakistan for permission” before going into that country to kill or capture terrorists. That was not true.

2. Obama went too far when he accused Romney of not telling the truth about Obama’s position on leaving a residual force of U.S. troops in Iraq. Obama was partly correct but did not clarify the details of this disagreement.

3. Obama was wrong when he insisted over and over that Romney never advocated “help” or “government assistance” for automakers if they went through bankruptcy.

4. Obama claimed that Romney once called Russia, not al Qaeda, the “biggest geopolitical threat facing America.” This was wrong.  Romney said a Nuclear Iran was America’s greatest threat.

Conclusion: The final score, once my #6 was added, was 60% for Romney and 40% for Obama.

See the previous posts about the use of malarkey in the Presidential and VP debates:


The Malarkey Score for the 2nd Presidential Debate


Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

The Malarkey Score for the 2nd Presidential Debate

Who won the Malarkey contest in the second presidential debate?

My wife and I think that President Obama deliberately tanked the first debate. Here is why we think this.  It’s a popular plot for film and novels that a character starts out looking as if he or she is going to fail and/or lose because the odds are against him or her, and then he or she turns it around and comes back like a Rocky Balboa. Many Americans love to see an underdog take a beating as the victim of a bully, and then stand up and fight back to win later when the odds seem stacked against him or her. An example of this is the classic It’s a Wonderful Life with Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey that is popular around the Christmas and New Year holidays. Then there is Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

There is a bully in both of these films, and the winner of the malarkey contest will reveal who the bully is in this Post’s plot.

Fact said, “The second Obama-Romney debate was heated, confrontational and full of claims that sometimes didn’t match the facts.”

After I compared the claims that did not match facts, Romney’s score was 367% higher than Obama’s. This means that Romney won the spitting contest for malarkey, but lost to his vice presidential running mate who scored 433% for the use of malarkey in the VP debate.

As usual, I wanted to compare the claims of each candidate that did not match the facts. However, it wasn’t easy keeping score this time, and I had to avoid the Summary and focus on the more detailed Analysis at Fact If a candidate said something that was correct, it will not appear in this comparison. If you want to see more details with links to cited sources, I recommend clicking Fact

Romney’s Malarkey Score

1. Romney was wrong when he claimed Obama waited 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi and act of terror. In fact, Obama said in the Rose Garden speech the day of the attack that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation …”

2. Romney changed his campaign statement about cutting taxes for the wealthy, and when Obama pointed this out, Romney tone and the substance of his reply did not match what he has been saying on the campaign trail.  Obama was correct.

3. Romney was wrong when he said “the middle class will see $4,000 per year in higher taxes as a result of Obama’s fiscal policies. It seems that Romney was quoting an opinionated AEI blogger and, in fact, there is no proof this will happen.

4. Romney was wrong about women’s jobs. He said “in the last four years, women have lost 580,000 jobs” under President Obama. But that loss was really 93,000, making Romney’s exaggerated false-claim six times higher. Fact then mentions that in the last four months of the Bush presidency, 833,000 women lost jobs and the large majority of women’s job were lost before Obama was sworn in as president.

5. When Obama claimed Romney said he would let Detroit (the auto industry) go bankrupt and a million more jobs would have been lost, Romney defended himself saying that he meant he was against a government bailout but for a managed bankruptcy. However, a Congressional Research Service Report said that without U.S. Government assistance, GM would not have been able to survive the bankruptcy. I cannot call this a lie or false or an exaggerations but it may indicate that Romney was ignorant about the danger of the US losing its auto industry. Something I haven’t heard mentioned yet is the fact that the US auto industry is vital to the defense of the United States in case of a conventional war. During World War II, the US auto industry was a crucial factor in turning out more weapons than Nazi Germany and Japan.

6. Romney has made confusing and conflicting statements about Pell Grants for college students. Fact shows that Romney does not seem to have a fixed position on this issue, but pretends that he does.

7. Romney made the misleading claim (an inflated exaggeration that ignores many facts) that “gasoline prices have gone up $2,000.” … “But the $2,000 figure is greatly inflated because gasoline prices were much higher during most of 2008 than they were at the moment Obama was sworn in.”

8. Romney claimed that Obama “doubled” the deficit. Romney was wrong. Obama inherited a projected $1.2 trillion deficit when he took office and the deficits remained high. However, what Fact does not say is that Obama had no choice. Revenues from taxes were down and could not be increased without raising taxes, while the cost of running the government increased 20%. In fact, Obama did not “double” the deficit with new, carless spending programs as Romney inferred. For example, many programs such as Social Security and Medicare are mandated by law and cannot be changed without cooperation from Congress.

9. Romney accused Obama of saying “NO” to an oil pipeline from Canada, which isn’t entirely accurate making this one a false claim. In fact, no final decision has been made yet on this pipeline and the project stands a good chance of being approved early in 2013.

10. Romney claimed health insurance premiums have gone up by $2,500.  Fact says, “Not True.”

11. Romney claimed, as he has in many campaign speeches across the country, that Obama “said that by now we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent.” This is a false claim. In fact, Romney is referring to a speculative report issued at the beginning of Obama’s presidency projecting the lower unemployment rate. It was a prediction—not a promise.

Obama’s Malarkey Score

1. Obama was wrong when he claimed that Romney called Arizona’s 2010 immigration enforcement law “a model for the nation”.

2. Obama misquoted something Romney said about renewable energy.

3. Obama claimed he would return tax rates for the richest Americans to where they had been under President Clinton. However, according to the  numbers, these rich people will actually pay more in federal taxes under Obama’s proposed rates than they did under Clinton.

Note: For anyone that wants to discover more Malarkey for each candidate, I have provided this link to a written transcript of the debate and there is the embedded video in this post of the complete debate. However, for Malarkey to count, there must be evidence equal to the quality of evidence that Fact uses to support what is reported on its site.

See my posts about the First 2012 Presidential Debate and Two days after the first 2012 Presidential Debate.


Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”

First 2012 Presidential Debate

I watched about fifteen minutes of the first debate then turned it off. I didn’t want to waste any more of my time. I had better things to do.

Instead, I waited for the fact checkers and the analysts to examine the claims made by Obama and Romney during the debate.

The morning after the debate, I learned that the perception was that Obama lost the first debate by a WIDE margin.

Further reading revealed that President Obama lost because he wasn’t as aggressive as Romney or should I say he only exaggerated and made half as many false claims as Romney did and many of Romney’s exaggerations were WHOPPERS.

For example: inflating the unemployment numbers from 12.5 million to 23 million compared to Obama inflating the number of jobs created to 5 million from the actual number of 4.63 million.

There is a HUGE difference between 370,000 jobs and 10.5 million unemployed people that did not exist.

Fact said, “Romney came off as a serial exaggerator”.

I read the report from Fact and counted the exaggerations and false claims made by each of the White House contenders and discovered that Romney exaggerated twice as much as Obama and that Romney’s false claims made Obama look terrible, then President Obama stumbled defending himself against Romney’s false claims magnifying the perceptions of Americans watching the debates.

In fact, the exaggerations and false claims (a LIE  is a LIE no matter the term used to soften its impact) were so huge it is obvious that President Obama was not ready to deal with them.

If the majority of Americans that vote want the BIGGER liar to be its next President, the United States deserves who moves into the White House but beware the devil you do not know.

As an example, instead of regurgitating what Fact has already reported, I will point to one of Romney’s lies.  Romney claimed that Obama was responsible for an annual trillion dollar deficit without revealing the facts behind that claim (why would he?—the truth would sink his chance to move into the White House).

Romney said that the deficit doubled under Obama.  Not true. Obama inherited a $1.2 billion deficit and the deficits have remained (due to budget items mostly beyond any President’s control) at or above that level every year since because you cannot “get blood out of a rock” (my words).

What about the truth?

Fact said, “Obama added to the 2009 deficit, but not by much. We found that Obama was responsible at most for an additional $203 billion. The government ended $1.4 trillion in the red that year. The deficits were about $1.3 trillion each year for the next two years , and this fiscal year just ended with a shortfall of nearly $1.2 trillion.”

In one piece that I read this morning, it was mentioned that the Iraq  (2003 – 2011) and Afghan (2001 -) wars have been and are still being funded by borrowed money.

A point missed by everyone, it seems, was that no one made the connection that this borrowed money adds to the annual deficit and grows the interest on the annual deficit that adds to the national debt.

Cost of says, “Total War Funding: $1.38 trillion has been allocated to date to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $121.1 billion in fiscal year 2012 (for a total of $1.5 Trillion—all borrowed adding to the national debt and the interest on that debt).

Let’s see what the interest is on debt that President Obama inherited and discover where the national debt comes from.

The National debt is currently $16 trillion and in 2012 the interest on that debt will be almost $360 billion. No matter how Romney or the GOP spins the facts, President Obama is not responsible for most of that national debt or its continued growth.

In fact, he inherited $13.76 Trillion (86%) of the national debt, and the interest that comes with that number. for 2012, the interest on each trillion dollars is $22.5 billion.  Do the math and you may discover that $309 billion of the interest on the national debt in 2012 comes from what President Obama inherited. In Obama’s first term (2009 – 2013), that adds up to $1.235 Trillion just in inherited interest.

To discover where all of the national debt came from by president, you may want to look at Table 4: Average annual deficit at to learn that the national debt we live with today started with Republican President Herbert Hoover, who left $42.5 billion in national debt when he was voted out of office in 1933.

Including President Hoover, GOP presidents are responsible for $8.73 Trillion of today’s national debt and $196.4 billion in interest for 2012, and Democratic presidents $5.02 Trillion in addition to $112.95 billion in interest for 2012.

F. D. Roosevelt and President Obama are the only Democratic presidents that added more than one trillion dollars to that debt and both presidents had to deal with war/s and each had an economic crisis that was inherited from GOP presidents.

When the Great Depression started in 1929, unemployment was less than 4%. During the one term that Herbert Hoover was President (1929 – 1933), unemployment exploded:

1929 – 3.2%
1930 – 8.9% unemployment
1931 – 16.3%
1932 – 24.1%
1933 – 24.9%

We cannot blame Hoover for the Great Depression. We can only blame him for how he handled the crises, but who did Hoover inherit the Great Depression from?

W. G. Harding (1921-1923) Republican
C. Coolidge (1923-1929) Republican

Then in 1933, F. D. Roosevelt (Democrat) was elected President and unemployment started to drop from Hoover’s high of 24.9%, and to achieve both putting people back to work and winning World War II, FDR borrowed $1.4 Trillion adding that sum to the national debt started by Hoover’s failed policies.

Unemployment under FDR:

1934 – 21.7%
1935 – 20.1%
1936 – 16.8%
1937 – 14.3%

In fact, by the end of 1941 when World War II started with the bombing of Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941), unemployment was down to 10%. Franklin D. Roosevelt was President from 1933 – 1945 (he died in office).

How does President Obama’s unemployment numbers compare to the Great Depression era (NOTE: 2009 was the last year of President G. W. Bush’s policies and budgets—2010 marks the beginning of President Obama’s policies and budgets):

2008 – 4.70% unemployment
2009 – 7.30%
2010 – 9.90%
2011 – 9.8%
2012 – 8.10%

Compare and contrast unemployment for the early years of the Great Depression with President Obama’s first four years in office.  Because there has never been a financial crises equal to the Great Depression until the Great Recession in 2007-2008 inherited from Republican President G. W. Bush, we have nothing else to compare with.

Note that President Obama never had double digit unemployment rates.

Who did a better job keeping more Americans working during his first four years as President of the United States?

A. Barack Obama
B. Franklin D. Roosevelt
C. Herbert Hoover
D. Mitt Romney

Discover Twisting History for Fun and Profit – Maybe


Lloyd Lofthouse, a former U.S. Marine and Vietnam Veteran, is the award winning author of The Concubine Saga.

His latest novel is Running with the Enemy. Blamed for a crime he did not commit while serving in Vietnam, his country considers him a traitor. Ethan Card is a loyal U.S. Marine desperate to prove his innocence or he will never go home again.

And the woman he loves and wants to save was trained to hate and kill Americans.

To follow this Blog via E-mail see upper left-hand column and click on “FOLLOW!”