I am almost finished with the biography of John Adams I have been "reading" (on tape). That is the biography which was made the subject of that mini-series, and I strongly recommend it. Yes, many of the same issues continue today that confronted us as a new country.
For example, as set froth in my previous article, the danger of an unrestrained majority was clear to Adams in the beginning--resulting in the "checks and balances" of our Constitution, including a separate House and Senate with different rules.
You will notice that the United States of America was founded on the view that PROCESS MATTERS. I mention that because the present Democrat/leftist "talking point" (seemingly for the purpose of convincing DEMOCRATS--rather than people in general) is that the American people do not care about "process". This, of course, is an "end jusitifies the means" argument that this health care "reform" bill--unwanted by most Americans--is so needed that it does not matter if we disregard the system of "checks and balances" envisioned by John Adams and the framers of the Constitution. All The American people want--the argument goes--is RESULTS, and the "process" is irrelevant. The American people understand "majority vote", and they are too stupid to worry about the way our government is supposed to work. Yes, this is typical leftist thinking, but I think leftists underestimate the American people.
This country was FOUNDED on "process". John Adams was appalled by the French Revolution--the section of the biography I read right after posting my previous article--after my own comment pointing to the French Revolution as an example of TYRANNY and TYRANTS resulting when you ignore "process". John Adams thought the French Revolution was a perfect example ow what happens when you have an unrestrained "majority". Adams stated: "An unrestrained majority can lead to a tyranny as bad as the worst despot who ever lived"
. Adams would, of course, be proved right about the French Revolution. It was an object lesson in how process matters. It was one of the worst-if short-lived--tyrannies in history. It would lead to an individual tyrant: Napoleon--as the people recoiled from the unrestrained actions of tyrants supposedly acting for the "majority" of Frenchman.
Did John Adams call call present day Democrats and President Obama "tyrants" (at least tyrant wannabes)? Sure he did. After eloquently defending the filibuster as the bulwark of liberty, when Republicans wanted to go to a majority vote on the appointment of judges (see previous article), Democrats are suddenly all for an unrestrained majority. Further, they are pushing the idea that would have APPALLED Adams: the idea that "process does not matter". As far as Adams was concerned, "process" was all that stood between America and the TYRANNY of the French Revolution. If the Senate becomes just like the House, it would destroy one of the central concepts Adams believed would save us from an unrestrained "tyranny of the majority" like the French Revolution. In the case of health care, of course, it is a MINORITY of the country trying to impose its will. However, like the French Revolution, it is a majority of what regards itself as a ruling cabal--like the leaders of the French Revolution--who want to impose their will be disregarding all of those checks and balances beloved of Adams.
As our Founders noted, democracy does not always produce a better result than a tyrant. Democracy--especially a democratic republic--is all about PROCESS. The idea is that it is ONLY the process that ultimately matters, and not the individual result. That also, by the way, happens to be the idea of free market theory. So long as the process is self-adjusting, and not subject to the whims and passions on individuals, the results will eventually take care of themselves.
SENATOR Obama said that the filibuster was essential to protect us against the tyranny that can result from an unrestrained majority. John Adams told us that an unrestrained majority can result in tyrants and tyranny as bad as any despot. France, in fact, would end up PREFERRING the despot (Napoleon) to the unrestrained majority cabal.
When Democrats say that Americans do not "care" about process--meaning Democrats don't care about process-they are asserting that Americans do not care about the essence of this country. The one single principle that most characterizes all of the principles upon which this country was founded is this one: PROCESS MATTERS. Unlike Democrats, I believe that Americans do ultimately understand this--not only as to the checks and balances in Congress but as to the idea that Federal Government control of our lives on the promise of RESULTS created/imposed by fallible human beings is a bad idea.
P.S. The filibuster rule NO LONGER EXISTS if Democrats manage to pass major legislation like this health care "reform" by majority vote. Forget "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Forget John Adams and his "checks and balances". The filibuster has changed over the years, since "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" talked abut it is a great bastion of liberty. Yet, Senator Obama was still able to talk about the filibuster in the same terms a few years ago--in effect condemning Prescient Obama, and Harry Reid as they contemplate an "end run" around the filibuster. As Obama said, once you eliminate the filibuster, the House and Sent ate are basically the same, and you have destroyed one of the main protections against a temporary majority imposing tyranny over the minority (or, in this case, over a majority of the country). Why are Democrats flirting with this violation of our founding principles, knowing it can be used against them in the future? Easy. They are dishonest HYPOCRITES. They have such a low opinion of the American people that they believe that they can simply argue what I am arguing next time--what they argued when they accused Republicans of trying to do away with the filibuster rule (what DEMOCRATS called that great protector of freedom). They expect the American people to forget wheat they said last time, and they expect that--with the aid of the mainstream media--they can get the American people to forget what they said this time (about "process" not being important when it gets in the way of majority vote). Plus, despite Massachusetts and polls, Democrats still think that they will rule FOREVER, because they deserve to. Nope. Republican politicians are often hypocrites--the nature of politicians--but Democrats and the left have taken dishonest hypocrisy to a new level.
Nope. The filibuster is DEAD if Obama and the Democrats manage to do what they are planning: A secret deal--among Democrats--which produces a final bill (or bills) that Democrats will try to push through Congress by majority vote in a matter of days after it is unveiled (a vote they will think they have wired among Democrats). Dead forever. Unless, of course, it becomes obvious that Senator Obama and John Adams were right, and that something like the filibuster was necessary for our freedom. In tat event, however, our country will have been pretty much already destroyed. So we might get anything, as punishment for abandoning the "process" upon which our country was founded. We might even get Napoleon (or his equivalent).
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Obama: Tyrant (wannabe)
You may think the title is harsh, and somewhat disrespectful of the President. You may think that, even though you are a leftist (meaning you are automatically a hypocrite) who called President Bush a tyrant, a dictator, and worse. Keith Olbaermann, of MSNBC: "Mr. Bush, you are a fascist". (meaning Hitler type fascist,--rather than an Obama/Wall Street/Big Business economic fascist--a term which predated Hitler, and has little to do with him).
Well, you are wrong anyway. It is not ME who is criticizing President Obama for wanting to be a tyrant. It is Senator Obama who gave a devastating indictment of President Obama's call for "majoritarian tyranny". You heard President Obama yesterday say that Americans do not care about the procedures in the Senate; that Americans believe in majority vote. They--according to Obama--just want a VOTE on Obama's health care legislation--an up or down vote without all of those procedural hurdles. No, you probably did not hear it, since the whole farce was so BORING. But that is what Obama said. But what did SENATOR OBAMA say about the filibuster, and the Senate becoming just like the House--where majority rules?
I am glad you asked. Senator Obama said that our Founders had set up two houses of Congress for a reason: to prevent the evil of strict "majority rule"--to prevent the majority from exercising tyranny over the minority. by merely majority vote. According to Obama, who was mainly right on this, the very reason for the existence of the Senate was to make sure that the strict "majoritarian" philosophy of the House of Representatives did not result in this sort of tyranny of the majority over the minority. Obama--as usual--was truly eloquent on the subject.
And Obama was not alone. Joe Biden. Harry Reid. Almost all of the leftist Democrats. They all asserted that the filibuster is one of the essential bulwarks of American freedom. They were all truly eloquent in explaining why America is not about majority vote, but more about protecting the rights of the minority not to be rolled over because the minority may have one less vote than the majority.
You seer the point here? It is not ME calling Obama a tyrant (wannabe). It is OBAMA who has eloquently called Obama a tyrant (wannabe). Obama and the Democrats what their health care bill at any cost, and they don't care about principle. Again, Obama himself told you that yesterday when he suggested that the filibuster rule was merely an arcane procedural rule, unimportant to the American people. It did not matter to Obama that he said exactly the opposite a mere few years before--in connection, by the way, with JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS, which had traditionally not been the subject of filibusters. Republicans did not succeed in abolishing the filibuster as to even that relatively minor matter (minor in comparison with the government taking control of 16% of the economy).
What is funny, of course, is that the Democrats are not even really pushing a "tyranny of the majority" in this case--except if you limit "majority" to members of Congress. Democrats are pushing a "tyranny of the minority". It is absolutely clear that a majority of the American people do not want the Democratic health care bill. Yet, Obama and the Democrats seem determined to push this bill through at all costs--even if it means using what they, themselves, have called TYRANNY to do it.
What about Republicans (of the political type, wimps that they are)? Why are not Republicans out there QUOTING the Democrats on tyranny and freedom--including quoting President Obama. Why are not Republican as referencing the economic data this week--including more disastrous jobs and housing data--and calling Obama and the Democrats to to task for continuing to push a health care bill that no one wants, when we can least afford it (even if it were otherwise a good idea, which it is not). You say Republicans stood up to Obama and the Democrats in that meeting yesterday? Maybe. But they should be shouting these things from the rooftops EVERY DAY--not just at political theater meetings called by the President. Instead, Republicans have mainly left it up to the people to carry the lead in fighting this insanity. Where are the Republicans talking about tyranny and freedom--quoting Democrats like Obama--when it is suggested that the filibuster rule be disregarded? Why are Republicans not at least as brave as Obama was, to the point of agreeing with Obama that Obama is a TYRANT (wannabe)?
Nope. Republicans can stop this bill (if they want to). "But", you say, "Republicans don't dare quote Democrats calling Democrats tyrants, because it will merely show that Republicans are hypocrites too." After all, many Republicans have pushed this "nuclear option" in they past--giving rise to all of that Democratic eloquence about freedom, tyranny, and the Founders. Now Republicans would say that what they were trying to do was different--not this kind of major legislation, and not even usually successful. You may not agree with Republicans on this, and you may think they are being hypocrites. You will, of course, not learn from the mainstream media what the purpose of the "Budget Reconciliation Act was, and in what circumstances it has been SUCCESSFULLY used. After all, if you take Obama's present positiion, that all Americans want is a majority vote, then the filibuster is GONE. The Senate really does become just like the House, as Obama so eloquently warned against.
It does not matter. Yes. I mean that. It does not matter whether Republicans would be hypocrites or not. Does it bother OBAMA? Does it bother the DEMOCRATS? Of course not (partly because the Democrats count on the mainstream media to protect them, but the mainstream media is not what it once was, and Fox News, for example, is playing all of those clips of Democrats talking about the filibuster as a bastion of freedom and barrier against tyranny). Obama said yesterday, in effect, that the public does not care about the details of procedure. What he MEANT was that the public does not care about procedure unless you explain to them why procedure matters (or--in this case--where they just don't want the bill). That was what Democrats did--mostly successfully--in previously linking the filibuster to freedom and tyranny.
"Hypocrisy" is a funny thing. It is not a charge that "sticks" much in politics. People sort of expect it. Obama regularly says exactly the opposite today of what he said yesterday, although it has begun to hurt him. Democrats, and their allies in the mainstream media, are already pushing the "talking point" that Republicans have previously used "budget reconciliation", and therefore should not complain about the Democrats. Now the rule exists, and therefore it was obviously meant to be USED (in the circumstances to which it was meant to apply). But that is beside the point. The responsibility of Republicans here is to use the words of Obama, and other Democrats, to make their case. This is not just a defense against their own hypocrisy, although it could be regarded as that, but it is a matter of making the ARGUMENT clear to the American people--making it clear (as the Democrats did) why people should CARE about the filibuster. Democrats are now betting that the people--dumb as they are--will FORGET the eloquent reasons Democrats gave as to why they should care about the filibuster--reasons that had validity in principle. It is up to Republicans not to let Democrats get away with that--even at the slight risk of being labeled hypocrites themselves.
Stay tuned. Will Republicans grow cojones (Mexican border word, since that is where I live)? Will Republicans stop worrying about the mainstream media, and actually stand for principle--adopting the Democrat philosophy that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds? They may not. Why not? Well, most of them may have no principles. But the dirty little secret here is that many Republican politicians WANT the Democrats to ram through a health care bill. They think that will help destroy the Democratic Party, and give Republicans POWER (which is their only real principle, just like it is the main principle of Democrat politicians).
I agree with my brother on this one. If Republicans let this bill pass, or even let some cosmetic "compromise" pass, then they are betraying the country. They will live to regret it. It will indicate that they have learned nothing, and are just playing the standard Washington game--politics as usual, just like Obama. It is no accident that Obama is often the most devastating critic of Obama. He--despite all of his talk of "change"--regards everything he says as a matter of POLITICS. Does it sound good? If so, say it, because the American people will not remember that you said the opposite yesterday. If all Republicans do is continue playing this same game of power--more interested in their political power than in actually stopping bad legislation--they will again deserve what they eventually get--as they deserved what happened to them in 2006 and 2008, no matter how bad it was for the country.
P.S. "Obama Fiddles With Health Care as America Burns" (reference being to Roman Emperor Nero, and the similar way Obama is ignoring the terrible economic news such as job data, consumer confidence and new home sales, in favor of pushing a health care bill that can only make our present problems worse). That was part my article headline yesterday, and I stand by it. With our deficits and economic problems, we have no business even TALKING about a massive new Federal entitlement program, and more burdens on the private economy. Upside: So long as the Democrats are concentrating on health care, they are deflected from doing other things to RUIN the economy (like that disastrous "stimulus" bill last year). But this is Russian roulette. If the Democrats manage to push through a massive health care bill, that alone will RUIN the economy, and the country, without anything else. It may well ruin Democrats as well, but it will be too late for the country.
Well, you are wrong anyway. It is not ME who is criticizing President Obama for wanting to be a tyrant. It is Senator Obama who gave a devastating indictment of President Obama's call for "majoritarian tyranny". You heard President Obama yesterday say that Americans do not care about the procedures in the Senate; that Americans believe in majority vote. They--according to Obama--just want a VOTE on Obama's health care legislation--an up or down vote without all of those procedural hurdles. No, you probably did not hear it, since the whole farce was so BORING. But that is what Obama said. But what did SENATOR OBAMA say about the filibuster, and the Senate becoming just like the House--where majority rules?
I am glad you asked. Senator Obama said that our Founders had set up two houses of Congress for a reason: to prevent the evil of strict "majority rule"--to prevent the majority from exercising tyranny over the minority. by merely majority vote. According to Obama, who was mainly right on this, the very reason for the existence of the Senate was to make sure that the strict "majoritarian" philosophy of the House of Representatives did not result in this sort of tyranny of the majority over the minority. Obama--as usual--was truly eloquent on the subject.
And Obama was not alone. Joe Biden. Harry Reid. Almost all of the leftist Democrats. They all asserted that the filibuster is one of the essential bulwarks of American freedom. They were all truly eloquent in explaining why America is not about majority vote, but more about protecting the rights of the minority not to be rolled over because the minority may have one less vote than the majority.
You seer the point here? It is not ME calling Obama a tyrant (wannabe). It is OBAMA who has eloquently called Obama a tyrant (wannabe). Obama and the Democrats what their health care bill at any cost, and they don't care about principle. Again, Obama himself told you that yesterday when he suggested that the filibuster rule was merely an arcane procedural rule, unimportant to the American people. It did not matter to Obama that he said exactly the opposite a mere few years before--in connection, by the way, with JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS, which had traditionally not been the subject of filibusters. Republicans did not succeed in abolishing the filibuster as to even that relatively minor matter (minor in comparison with the government taking control of 16% of the economy).
What is funny, of course, is that the Democrats are not even really pushing a "tyranny of the majority" in this case--except if you limit "majority" to members of Congress. Democrats are pushing a "tyranny of the minority". It is absolutely clear that a majority of the American people do not want the Democratic health care bill. Yet, Obama and the Democrats seem determined to push this bill through at all costs--even if it means using what they, themselves, have called TYRANNY to do it.
What about Republicans (of the political type, wimps that they are)? Why are not Republicans out there QUOTING the Democrats on tyranny and freedom--including quoting President Obama. Why are not Republican as referencing the economic data this week--including more disastrous jobs and housing data--and calling Obama and the Democrats to to task for continuing to push a health care bill that no one wants, when we can least afford it (even if it were otherwise a good idea, which it is not). You say Republicans stood up to Obama and the Democrats in that meeting yesterday? Maybe. But they should be shouting these things from the rooftops EVERY DAY--not just at political theater meetings called by the President. Instead, Republicans have mainly left it up to the people to carry the lead in fighting this insanity. Where are the Republicans talking about tyranny and freedom--quoting Democrats like Obama--when it is suggested that the filibuster rule be disregarded? Why are Republicans not at least as brave as Obama was, to the point of agreeing with Obama that Obama is a TYRANT (wannabe)?
Nope. Republicans can stop this bill (if they want to). "But", you say, "Republicans don't dare quote Democrats calling Democrats tyrants, because it will merely show that Republicans are hypocrites too." After all, many Republicans have pushed this "nuclear option" in they past--giving rise to all of that Democratic eloquence about freedom, tyranny, and the Founders. Now Republicans would say that what they were trying to do was different--not this kind of major legislation, and not even usually successful. You may not agree with Republicans on this, and you may think they are being hypocrites. You will, of course, not learn from the mainstream media what the purpose of the "Budget Reconciliation Act was, and in what circumstances it has been SUCCESSFULLY used. After all, if you take Obama's present positiion, that all Americans want is a majority vote, then the filibuster is GONE. The Senate really does become just like the House, as Obama so eloquently warned against.
It does not matter. Yes. I mean that. It does not matter whether Republicans would be hypocrites or not. Does it bother OBAMA? Does it bother the DEMOCRATS? Of course not (partly because the Democrats count on the mainstream media to protect them, but the mainstream media is not what it once was, and Fox News, for example, is playing all of those clips of Democrats talking about the filibuster as a bastion of freedom and barrier against tyranny). Obama said yesterday, in effect, that the public does not care about the details of procedure. What he MEANT was that the public does not care about procedure unless you explain to them why procedure matters (or--in this case--where they just don't want the bill). That was what Democrats did--mostly successfully--in previously linking the filibuster to freedom and tyranny.
"Hypocrisy" is a funny thing. It is not a charge that "sticks" much in politics. People sort of expect it. Obama regularly says exactly the opposite today of what he said yesterday, although it has begun to hurt him. Democrats, and their allies in the mainstream media, are already pushing the "talking point" that Republicans have previously used "budget reconciliation", and therefore should not complain about the Democrats. Now the rule exists, and therefore it was obviously meant to be USED (in the circumstances to which it was meant to apply). But that is beside the point. The responsibility of Republicans here is to use the words of Obama, and other Democrats, to make their case. This is not just a defense against their own hypocrisy, although it could be regarded as that, but it is a matter of making the ARGUMENT clear to the American people--making it clear (as the Democrats did) why people should CARE about the filibuster. Democrats are now betting that the people--dumb as they are--will FORGET the eloquent reasons Democrats gave as to why they should care about the filibuster--reasons that had validity in principle. It is up to Republicans not to let Democrats get away with that--even at the slight risk of being labeled hypocrites themselves.
Stay tuned. Will Republicans grow cojones (Mexican border word, since that is where I live)? Will Republicans stop worrying about the mainstream media, and actually stand for principle--adopting the Democrat philosophy that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds? They may not. Why not? Well, most of them may have no principles. But the dirty little secret here is that many Republican politicians WANT the Democrats to ram through a health care bill. They think that will help destroy the Democratic Party, and give Republicans POWER (which is their only real principle, just like it is the main principle of Democrat politicians).
I agree with my brother on this one. If Republicans let this bill pass, or even let some cosmetic "compromise" pass, then they are betraying the country. They will live to regret it. It will indicate that they have learned nothing, and are just playing the standard Washington game--politics as usual, just like Obama. It is no accident that Obama is often the most devastating critic of Obama. He--despite all of his talk of "change"--regards everything he says as a matter of POLITICS. Does it sound good? If so, say it, because the American people will not remember that you said the opposite yesterday. If all Republicans do is continue playing this same game of power--more interested in their political power than in actually stopping bad legislation--they will again deserve what they eventually get--as they deserved what happened to them in 2006 and 2008, no matter how bad it was for the country.
P.S. "Obama Fiddles With Health Care as America Burns" (reference being to Roman Emperor Nero, and the similar way Obama is ignoring the terrible economic news such as job data, consumer confidence and new home sales, in favor of pushing a health care bill that can only make our present problems worse). That was part my article headline yesterday, and I stand by it. With our deficits and economic problems, we have no business even TALKING about a massive new Federal entitlement program, and more burdens on the private economy. Upside: So long as the Democrats are concentrating on health care, they are deflected from doing other things to RUIN the economy (like that disastrous "stimulus" bill last year). But this is Russian roulette. If the Democrats manage to push through a massive health care bill, that alone will RUIN the economy, and the country, without anything else. It may well ruin Democrats as well, but it will be too late for the country.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Obama Fails on Jobs: Obama Un-Creates 53,000 New Jobs in Two Weeks (Un-Creating 496,000 Jobs a Week)--Obama Fiddles With Health Care as America Burns
This week's economic numbers have been a DISASTER--the worst economic news since the very depths of the recession। Early in the week, the "consumer confidence index" fell from 56.5 to 46--the worst since April and almost an unprecedented DETERIORATION in that number. Yesterday, the report was that new home sales had fallen to the worst level ON RECORD (record keeping began in 1963). Today came this news on jobs, quoting from MarketWatch:
"The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly jobless claims unexpectedly surged last week by 22,000 to 496,000 in the week ended Feb। 20, their highest level in over three months। Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected initial claims to decrease by 13,000।" (Editor's note: Economists truly are the Stupidest People on Earth outside of the mainstream media। Who else is ALWAYS wrong?)
"initial jobless claims" is the statistic showing the gross (not the net, but when Obama brags about jobs "saved/created" he is also talking about the gross and not the net) number of jobs lost in the previous week---as measured by people filing a new unemployment claim saying that they have lost employment। In the past two weeks, Obama truly has "un-created" 53,000 ADDITIONAL jobs, and is now "un-creating" jobs at a rate of 496,000 a week. 425,000 is about the number necessary (normal attrition) to avoid losing NET jobs. Yes, if you go back three weeks the jobless claims number improved by 40,000, at which point "economists" (the Stupidest People on Earth-as I stated at the time, IN FORESIGHT) said that this showed that the job market had finally "turned the corner". No, it hasn't. The weekly jobless claims number has now rsen 6 of the past 8 weeks--to a more than three month HIGH (as I have been telling you).
This week's items of economic news are CONSISTENT with one another। Taken together, they indicate an economy--certainly a job market--that is now DETERIORATING again. This is a total FAILURE of Obama economic policy, and shows his promises about Big Government spending to be FALSE.
What is Obama's response to this disastrous situation? Oh, come on। You know this one. Obama is continuing to push that ridiculous 2700 page health care "ref form" bill that nobody wants--to the point of that six hour exercise in political theater today. If Obama and the Democrats somehow manage to ram that bill trough--a bill that raises TAXES and puts burdens on both business and individuals--it will only make the economy WORSE. Yes, Obama's "response" to disaster is more of the same--more of the same Big Government spending that has FAILED, and more burdens on the private sector in favor of Big Government. How can businesses possibly hire when Obama continues to make their future uncertain (massive government takeover of health care; cap and trade "environmental" taxes/insanity, etc.). We obviously should not even be TALKING about any kind of massive new government health care bill unless and until the economy is on better footing--even if it were otherwise a good idea (which it is not).
Now a comment to my article yesterday (on the terrible new home sales number) asked how I can say this is the fault of one man। Here is my response, and I stand by it:
There is no doubt I am merely using Obama as the visible SYMBOL for the utter FAILURE of Federal Government central planning। Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and even George W. Bush--certainly almost all of the Democrats in Congress and a number of the Republicans--can be regarded as "at fault". As I have previously shown, Obama is now in the midst of "Bush's third term", only worse than the disastrous Bush's second term.
However, Obama PROMISED। He promised that if we spent all of this money, things would be better. He PROMISED--false at the time he said it--that if we passed the Obama "stimulus" bill, Caterpillar--and other employers would be able to rehire workers. He PROMISED that, if we passed the Obama "stimulus" bill, unemployment would not rise above 8%, while if we did not unemployment would rise above 10% (as it did ANYWAY).
In the process of all of this spending for NOTHING (except political pork), Obama polices have BANKRUPTED the country।
Nope। I have no qualms about using Obama as the visible symbol of this failure. He ASKED to be that symbol, and should be held accountable for what he has said.
P.S. The reference in the title is to Roman Emperor Nero, who is reputed to have fiddled while watching Rome burn--in a fire Nero essentially created. The reference is NOT to the fraud of "global warming".
"The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly jobless claims unexpectedly surged last week by 22,000 to 496,000 in the week ended Feb। 20, their highest level in over three months। Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected initial claims to decrease by 13,000।" (Editor's note: Economists truly are the Stupidest People on Earth outside of the mainstream media। Who else is ALWAYS wrong?)
"initial jobless claims" is the statistic showing the gross (not the net, but when Obama brags about jobs "saved/created" he is also talking about the gross and not the net) number of jobs lost in the previous week---as measured by people filing a new unemployment claim saying that they have lost employment। In the past two weeks, Obama truly has "un-created" 53,000 ADDITIONAL jobs, and is now "un-creating" jobs at a rate of 496,000 a week. 425,000 is about the number necessary (normal attrition) to avoid losing NET jobs. Yes, if you go back three weeks the jobless claims number improved by 40,000, at which point "economists" (the Stupidest People on Earth-as I stated at the time, IN FORESIGHT) said that this showed that the job market had finally "turned the corner". No, it hasn't. The weekly jobless claims number has now rsen 6 of the past 8 weeks--to a more than three month HIGH (as I have been telling you).
This week's items of economic news are CONSISTENT with one another। Taken together, they indicate an economy--certainly a job market--that is now DETERIORATING again. This is a total FAILURE of Obama economic policy, and shows his promises about Big Government spending to be FALSE.
What is Obama's response to this disastrous situation? Oh, come on। You know this one. Obama is continuing to push that ridiculous 2700 page health care "ref form" bill that nobody wants--to the point of that six hour exercise in political theater today. If Obama and the Democrats somehow manage to ram that bill trough--a bill that raises TAXES and puts burdens on both business and individuals--it will only make the economy WORSE. Yes, Obama's "response" to disaster is more of the same--more of the same Big Government spending that has FAILED, and more burdens on the private sector in favor of Big Government. How can businesses possibly hire when Obama continues to make their future uncertain (massive government takeover of health care; cap and trade "environmental" taxes/insanity, etc.). We obviously should not even be TALKING about any kind of massive new government health care bill unless and until the economy is on better footing--even if it were otherwise a good idea (which it is not).
Now a comment to my article yesterday (on the terrible new home sales number) asked how I can say this is the fault of one man। Here is my response, and I stand by it:
There is no doubt I am merely using Obama as the visible SYMBOL for the utter FAILURE of Federal Government central planning। Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and even George W. Bush--certainly almost all of the Democrats in Congress and a number of the Republicans--can be regarded as "at fault". As I have previously shown, Obama is now in the midst of "Bush's third term", only worse than the disastrous Bush's second term.
However, Obama PROMISED। He promised that if we spent all of this money, things would be better. He PROMISED--false at the time he said it--that if we passed the Obama "stimulus" bill, Caterpillar--and other employers would be able to rehire workers. He PROMISED that, if we passed the Obama "stimulus" bill, unemployment would not rise above 8%, while if we did not unemployment would rise above 10% (as it did ANYWAY).
In the process of all of this spending for NOTHING (except political pork), Obama polices have BANKRUPTED the country।
Nope। I have no qualms about using Obama as the visible symbol of this failure. He ASKED to be that symbol, and should be held accountable for what he has said.
P.S. The reference in the title is to Roman Emperor Nero, who is reputed to have fiddled while watching Rome burn--in a fire Nero essentially created. The reference is NOT to the fraud of "global warming".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)