Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Yes, it was a big, ------- deal last week (in the censored words of our Vice President). No, I am not talking about the disastrous health care bill, although that WILL destroy us--in terms of being anything like the great country we once were. I am talking about Social Security, which has some relevance on the health care bill. It has some relevance because Social Security is another government managed program that has been mismanaged to the point of destroying us. This is on top of a 36 TRILLION dollar unfunded liability for Medicare/Medicaid (obviously directly relevant on the absolute insanity of creating an even bigger new entitlement such as the new "universal health care" entitlement).
What happened last week? It was announced that Social Security is, or will be, in the RED (adding to the deficit) THIS YEAR. That is six years ahead of "schedule"--ahead of the calculations of the bean eaters--rather than "bean counters"--pf the gas passing CBO (Congressional Budget Office--one of the sources for that six year estimate). What does that mean for our budget deficit? It means DISASTER#ER, given all of our other spending, whether or not we pull an Enron scam and simply declare Social Security "off budget".There is simply not enough money to do all we need to do, and try to create another entitlement bureaucracy at the same time (not to mention get out of this stubborn economic downturn). We NEED to "save" Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, before we even dared to think about distracting ourselves with this ObamaCare nonsense.
The problem is that Social Security (not to mention Medicare and Medicaid) was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning--whether we should have "privatized it" or not. Did you think that you are putting money into Social Security for YOUR retirement? Think again. Social Security taxes from current workers pay for CURRENT retirees--NOT for a retirement account for the people paying the taxes. It is well established that you--as a current worker--have NO RIGHT to any certain level of Social Security (or, indeed, to any Social Security at all). This is the true definition of a Ponzi/Bernie Madooff tpe scheme, where current "investors" pay for "benefits" for earlier investors. As my accountant/former business owner brother likes to point out to me, HE would have gone to jail for this sort of thing. Bernie Madoff did.
This all arose from the way FDR and Congress set u Social Security as a Big Government program, rather than a true retirement account (INVESTED). As I said in my social science honors class at New Mexico State University way back in about 2968, Social Security made no sense--the way it is set up--as a retirement/insurance program. It also made no sense as a welfare program. It was always a political SCAM. My professor, by the way, showing that leftist thinking is not new in even more "conservative" universities", said that I was being "mean" to want to deprive senior citizens of the "dignity" of the fantasy that they actually "purchased" their retirement entitlement.
It was not, of course, ME who has deprived most senior citizens of dignity, but leftist Democrats and other politicians. Who paid for the Social Security of those who were elderly when the law was passed? Answer: the same people who have been praying for current Social Security benefits ever since--namely CURRENT WORKERS. The government merely collects taxes from CURRENT workers, and uses those taxes to "pay for" current Social Security recipients. The government sets both the level of taxes and payments, and there is really not such thing as a RETIREMENT INVESTMENT. It did not have to be that way.
Could we have set up actual RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS for every living American? Sure we could have. There are a number of entities allowed to "opt out" of Social Security, such as local governments, and those managed retirement accounts have generally done very well. There were many options here. One was a separate account for every single individual (basically a "defined contribution" plan). Another option was a "defined benefit" plan, but treated as an actual INVESTMENT ACCOUNT for which the government would be contractually obligated--basically a "defined benefit plan". I don't like this option, because it lends itself to the kind of manipulation that has actually taken place. However, it would have been better than what we got. What we actually got was BERNIE MADOFF--a political scam that left control in the hands of politicians.
Note that I have said NOTHING about "privatization", in terms of leaving investment decisions up to the individual--within restrictions. That is merely an OPTION--although one I would have favored, at least to a degree. It has NOTHING to do with setting up Social Security as a real RETIREMENT INVESTMENT.
"Wait a minute,", you say. What about all of those people who contributed nothing--especially in the beginning. Even later, there are still people who contributed little. And wives were an issue--more then than now, but some women still know when they have it good. Well, this is the bad WELFARE program I criticized back in 2968 (leaving aside wives, as to whom there were several alternatives, including something like what was actually done). In other words, the people who did not pay enough in to set up an adequate account could simply have been treated as WELFARE RECIPIENTS, where the government SUPPLEMENTED their account every year (sort of like the "earned income tax credit"). Obviously--and this was basically a deficit scam to rival the new health care bill--the first Social Security recipients were WELFARE RECIPIENTS. Their payments should have simply been set up that way. Notice an actual retirement ACCOUNT, like a 401(k), would be YOURS to keep. And an actual managed investment account would surely have created greater return than the government regulated payments people actually get today. Most people would have ENOUGH for a comfortable retirement on Social Security alone.
Could we afford it, or have afforded it? Sure we could. What we could not afford is what we have actually done. Obviously, some part of "richer" people's Social Security taxes would have had to go to pay those initial welfare payments, and to supplement the accounts of those not able to pay a minim amount into their retirement. But that supplemented amount would still BELONG to those individual people, and NOT to the government. Sure, some people would get more than others, btu they do today. ALL people would probably get more than they do today, if this had been the original approach--even if it had to be phased in.
What has actually happened? Well, first the government (including Republicans) realized that Social Security was really a FICTION--nothing more than a government program transferring money from one group (current workers) to another (senior citizens and some other recipients). So long as this was a SURPLUS--more tax money than payments--this was an easy way to CUT THE BUDGET DEFICIT. Indeed, unlike the health care bill budget scam--it is actually true that Social Security SHOULD be part of the budget. It is nothing more or less than a government program--a general obligation of the Federal Government.
The problem, of course, was that the politicians--as with the new health care bill--spend money we do not have. This included the Social Security surplus, even though the politicians knew that we were fast approaching the point that current workers would not be sufficient to "pay for" the benefits of current Social Security recipients. We have now reached that point, with more "baby boomers" retiring every year. The recession, of course, did not help. but it is not like recessions are a new thing. You can see that this result was almost inevitable from the beginning, by making Social Security a Big Government program, under the control of the politicians, rather than a true retirement program. Sure, there were a lot of details to be worked out, but IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. You could have had a real retirement account, without politicians being able to use the taxes for their own purposes (power).
If you do not understand how badly this has worked out, I disown you (as I did President Bush in 2006, even though he was right about trying to reform Social Security to give people a REAL retirement account). You are hopeless (if you do not understand how you have been HAD).
If you do realize this basic point--the Madoff scheme that Social Security turned into--then it is only a very short step for you to realize that the new health care bill is another total disaster. I will leave the actual reasoning--aside from the fact that the new Social Security deficit makes clear that we absolutely cannot afford it--to you as an exercise in intelligence. No applause please (for not making you read another 1000 words).

P.S. Why was/is Social Security a BAD welfare program, when you consider its welfare component separately from its (equally bad, or worse) insurance/retirement compoent? Come on. You know this one. The Social Security tax is the ultimate in REGRESSIVE taxes in the way it "takes care of" people who did not contribute much to the system. Poorer people pay a GREATER percentage of their income than "richer" people, because the Social Security tax is only paid on the first so many dollars of income (which keeps going up). As I hope I have proven to you, Social Security was never an "insurance/retirement" program at all. That was just how it was SOLD. If you are paying attention, you realize that leftist Democrats are about ready to discard the entire FICTION of an "insurance" program which you pay for with your Social Security taxes, in favor of treating Social Security as totally a Big Government program to be "paid for" by the "rich". Republicans--ever people of NO real principle--have tried to buy into this concept with the idea of "temporary" payroll tax "rebates" "paid for" out of general tax revenue. If you think these people (politicians and Federal bureaucrats) are capable of running health care, or any other part of our economy, you are beyond delusional. These (our politicians--especially recently--are dishonest, stupid people. And I have never excluded Republicans from that assessment, although you can trust Republicans more in OPPOSITION to a leftist Democrat like Obama. But it is especially Democrats who want to make Social Security merely another political football--as they attempt to do every election--a constantly manipulated instrument of policial POWER, with ont even a pretense that it is any kind of real retirement program.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

WASHINGTON – New claims for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week as layoffs ease and hiring slowly recovers.

The Labor Department said Thursday that first-time claims for jobless benefits dropped by 14,000 to a seasonally adjusted 442,000. That's below analysts' estimates of 450,000, अच्कोर्डिंग

" Isn't it neat how the mainstream media--the despicably AP, CNN, MSNBC, and every other "news" outlet using the despicable AP, often including Fox News--feels free to LIE. They feel free to lie because they are both stupid and do not expect to be called on the lies--except by me. For more than six years, I have exposed the lies of the despicable AP, as well as other mainstream media outlets, on a detailed basis you will not get anywhere else (as regularly). Nope. We are not talking matters of opinion here. The AP tells objective lies, and I have documented that over at least the last six years more fullly than any other person. In case you had not guessed, the qobe quoted paragraphs come from the despicable Associated Press, Notice that the first--lead--paragraph quoted above, from the AP story, contains nothing but lies. There is no truth in that first paragraph, and all of the FACTS are in the second--non-lead--paragraph. That shows you how far "journalism" has fallen, and why you should have nothing but CONTEMPT for the "journalists" of the AP, and almost all of the mainstream media. Let us get to the specifics. No, this is an analysis piece, and I felt no obligation to try to put the facts in the "lead" paragraph. The AP should have, but the AP is too busy lying to worry about "journalism". First, this was not, in fact, an "unexpected" number, despite the use of that word in the headline and the use of "more than expected" in the first paragraph. As the AP well knows, since it uses the word almost every week (since economists almost NEVER get the number right, often missing by 20,000 or ore), it is ridiculous to say that 442,000 was "unexpected", when the economist "estimate" was 450,000 (meaning economists were estimating a DROP in claims). For economists, coming this close is GOOD, and the actual number is not "unexpected" at all. And that is probably the least of the multiple lies in that short "lead" paragraph from the AP. Second, the jobless claims number--especially when the "improvement" is as small as 14,000, and then only getting back to the four week AVERAGE of 3 to 4 months ago--says NOTHING about hiring. The AP made that up. It is a total, inexcusable LIE. The jobless claims number does NOT indicate, in ANY way, that "hiring is slowly recovering". In fact, the only numbers available indicate that not only is it a lie to suggest that you can conclude that from this jobless claims number, but that the statement is simply a flat lie (from oteher data that DOES measure hiring). The best measure of NET hiring (the only kind that matters) is the JOBS LOST number. That number was EVEN in November, 85,000 (or so) in December, some 30,000 in January, and some 20,000 in February. In other words, the economy has LOST JOBS (NO "recovery" in hiring) since November. In fact, the economy has LOST JOBS in 25 out of the last 26 months--the only exception being that stand-off in No ember. Not only is hiring not "slowly recovering", but it is not recovering at all. It is not even improving in the past 4 months. Indeed, the unemployment rate has stayed essentially the same since last July-August (for the last EIGHT months). The jobless claims rate measures ONLY "layoffs", and it does that--with any significance--only over a longer period of time than one week. The AP well knows that, because it points it out when the numbers go UP in an individual week. Thus, it is another AP LIE that this week's jobless claims number shows an "ease" in layoffs. In isolation, the 14,000 drop is almost statistically insignificant. Note that these numbers are SEASONALLY ADJUSTED--one of the smaller lies in the first paragraph being that this is not even mentioned until the second paragraph. A 14,000 "seasonally adjusted" "drop" is not of much significance--other than indicating that we are not getting significantly WORSE. It is a number that shows NO IMPROVEMENT--especially when considered with the weekly jobless claims number over the past 4 months (that is, the weekly numbers over that 4 month period). Let us, therefore, go back over the numbers (which the lying AP never does, except when it is necessary for the agenda of the AP). For that matter, the despicable AP does not report the number his way ("shows hiring is slowly DETERIORATING") when the weekly number goes up. 14,000, 5,000, 6,000, and 29,000: those are the improving numbers for the past 4 weeks. Now, if you don't really understand the weekly volatility in the weekly number, you could take this to mean that the "recovery" is STALLING (going from 29,000 to a much lesser "improvement" in the next three weeks). But it is much worse than that. For the two weeks immediately before the four weekly "drops" I cite, the number of unemployment claims went UP 66,000 (33,000 and 22,00). In other words, the last four weeks have just brought us back to the same level we were at a month ago. And that big LOSS of jobs in those two weeks was blamed on the SNOW--which meant you would EXPECT the number to "normalize". Wait. It gets still WORSE (for the LIARS of the AP). The AVERAGE number of weekly jobless claims for DECEMBER was about 455,000. The AVERAGE for January was 466,000 or so. The AVERAGE for February was higher still (blamed on SNOW, remember). The present 4 week moving average is close to that same 455,000 average for December, and about the same as the lowest 4 week moving average (in the last year) was about the same 442,000 we got for this ONE SINGLE WEEK. The low fro a single week was LESS than 435,000. The lows--average and single week--were all FOUR MONTHS AGO. Conclusion: NO IMPROVEMENT over the past four months. The best that can be said is that we have stabilized, and are not getting worse. Indeed, as I have proved in previous articles, the unemployment situation pretty much stabilized by last August, before the Obama "stimulus" could have accomplished anything. The "stimulus" has accomplished NOTHING as far as NET employment is concerned. That is the "inside joke" in the headline. Yes, Obama cannot be blamed for the whole 442,000 layoffs last week. At the same time, he cannot be credited--as he and his supporters want desperately to do--with the GROSS jobs "created/saved" (lol) by the Federal Government. Just like there were people HIRED last week not "measured" (one way or the other) in the layoff number (seasonally adjusted and volatile week to week), the Obama ""stimulus" has COST jobs in many ways. Simply calculating the GROSS jobs "created" by any Federal program is irrelevant. It is only the NET jobs that count, and Obama has created essentially NONE (by the official numbers--showing NO net job creation and an unemployment rate that has been about the same for eight months). Q.E.D. The AP lies. Nor can it be mere stupidity, although AP "journalists" are stupid. The AP regularly cites the four week moving average as the more meaningful number, when the AP wants to do so. And the AP regularly cites factors which make one week jobless claims numbers pretty meaningless. It is only when the weekly number moves in the "right" direction, no matter how small a movement, that the AP writes a sentence like that "lead" paragraph above. Instead, when the number goes UP, the AP STILL talks about the "trend" of a "recovering" job market. If you get nothing else out of this article, you should realize that the AP LIES: that there is NO TREND of improving employment over at least the past 4 months (with no trend in unemployment for EIGHT months). NO IMPROVEMENT, and that includes this week. No, it is not getting worse, either, but that does not change the fact that the AP routinely lies.

P.S. 442,000 new unemployment claims--besides not representing an improvement--is NOT a "good" number--I hasten to mention lest you get lost in the underbrush of words above where I try to lay out the LIES of the despicable AP. Buried in an earlier AP story--months ago, when the weekly number of new unemployment claims seemed headed under 430,00000--was the information that the weekly jobless claims number needed to get to 425,000 (at least) before there could be ANY job "growth". In other words, 442,000 is a weekly number that--even in isolation--shows a WEAK job market that is likely still LOSING (net) jobs (although likely at the same "slow" rate as recent months).

P.S. 2: No, I do NOT forgive you for refusing to go through the torture of wading throgh the "underbrush of words" I refer to above--including enduring the typos and garbled sentences which sometimes result from my lack of good proofreading (only partially explained by the fact I can't see). If you don't pay attention, the despicable AP gets away with its "journalistic" CRIMES, because no one else is analyzing those crimes in the kind of detail I do. So there!!!!!!!

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Obama, Iran and Israel: Obama and Pelosi Fiddle (with Health Care) While the World Burns

It has not just been the economy and jobs which have stalled while Obama obsessed over health care (destroying the Democratic Party in the process--seer yesterday's article, "Democrats R.I.P.).

Remember how Obama said--in one of his characteristic flat statements that he obviously did not mean, much like: I will focus on jobs like a laser beam"--that we could not afford to let Iran have nuclear weapons? What has Obama done to STOP: Iran from getting nuclear weapons? NOTHING. Absolutely nothing.

No real sanctions. No effective "negotiations. Nothing. Certainly no attack taking out Iran's nuclear facilities (as Israel did with Syria). Indeed, all we have done is antagonize Israel--our ally--while allowing Iran to stall for the entire Obama Presidency.

Prediction: Short of a major attack, there is now no way to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Therefore, it is going to happen, since an attack is not in the cards (unless by Israel, which really cannot afford to let Iran become a nuclear power, whatever the cost).

For Israel, Iran should be like a government takeover of health care has been fro Obama: Worth any cost--including bribery, cheating, lying and slash/burn tactics to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. But it is going to be a tough job for Israel, and the total failure of the Untied States to do any thing about Iran--even support the dissidents there--is a major error.

I have said that the country may not survive Obama's obsession with health care (in its present form). The total failure to deal with Iran is yet another way in which that may be a true prediction, besides the economy.

Now don't get me wrong. President Bush was not successful, either, with Iran. At least, however, I think Iran was a little AFRAID of President Bush. They are obviously not afraid of Obama. Who could be, if you are a country who does not like the USA. Obama does little but apologize for this country, when he is not obsessed with health care.

It is ironic, is it not, that IRAQ may be the big foreign policy SUCCESS of the Bush Administration--even if it took too long and cost too much. Oh, the overall War on Terror was a success, and the initial invasion of Afghanistan was a success. But Bush accomplished little with Iran, except a little intimidation. Ditto with North Korea. And Afghanistan is a continuing problem, as is Pakistan. Overall, if you told either me or President Bush that Iraq would be in the present position--even if fragile--I think that would have been regarded as SUCCESS (especially if you don't look at the pain getting to this point). Any truly objective observer would have to agree. Indeed, Joe Biden--in one of the most cynical ploys in American history--tried to take credit for the Obama Administration as to how well Iraq is doing (relatively).

Obama, on the other hand, has NO foreign policy "success". Oh, he has killed some terrorists with drones in Pakistan--in an aggressive policy begun in the Bush Administration but apparently expanded under Obama. However, Obama's allies on the left--such as the ACLU--OPPOSE this kind of killing of terrorists without giving them Miranda rights (dropping leaflets?). Meanwhile, with health care, Obama is not paying much attention. I trust our military is capable of handling things without him, because that is what they have been doing. It took Obama about 6 months just to decide whether to give the generals the troops they wanted, and then--military genius (lol) that Obama is, he CUT the number and told the terrorists how long the troops would stay).

Iran, however, is where Obama has really dropped the ball. Again, we are going to have trouble surviving Obama's concentration on health care.

P.S. Yes, a powerful Iran not only threatens world stability, but threatens to undermine our hard-won (with blood and treasure) success in Iraq. We could never expect more in Iraq than to give the people of Iraq a CHANCE to build a stable country not under the thumb of a tyrant. Even World War II resulted in the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union rather than a free Eastern Europe. But the CHANCE we have given Iraq could be negated if we allow Iran to dominate the region.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Democrats R.I.P.:: Democrats Go the Way of the Federalists and the Whigs

It is not just that the Democratic Party is now going to have to defend a massive, 3000 page bill for FOUR YEARS before it even goes into full effect. When even Howard Dean sees that as a disaster for the Democratic Party, you know that it is. It is not just that the Democratic Party has shown complete contempt for the American people by pushing through this massive new Federal program and bureaucracy after the American people voted it down (in Virginia--which has passed a state law against it, New Jersey and Massachusetts). It is not just that the Democratic Party has now signalled it is firmly on the LEFT FORK of the road, and that no "moderates" need apply. It is not just the incredible arrogance of this health care vote, which Obama and the Democrats made clear they were going to push through no matter what--no matter what rules stood in their way or how many people were against it in the country. It is all of those things, and a lot more.

There are no "moderates" left in the Democratic Party. Oh, there may be a few people left who CALL themselves "moderates", but the party has set itself squarely on the far left. Every Democratic Party member of the Senate voted for this bill, and none can hide by now voting against the "Reconciliation Bill" still to be voted on in the Senate. The Senate health care bill is now LAW, and it does not even matter whether the Democrats succeed in continuing to tinker with it for POLITICAL reasons The few Democrats in the House who voted against the bill have NO influence in their party. Unless they switch parties, they are going down with the ship. Indeed, you can't trust any of them unless they do switch parties. Any such Democrats have no principles, after this smack down by their party. You could pretty much bet that, if their votes had been NEEDED, they would have voted for tis bill. It was obvious, at the end, that this bill was going to pass, and therefore some Democrats had "permission" to register a FALSE vote against the bill--which is what you should assume every Democrat vote against the bill was unless that Democrat switches parties.

That is the ultimate problem for the Democratic Party. It may be misled by the mainstream media, who believe that the Big Government far left represents the majority of Americans, but the Democratic Party is doomed once the people perceive it to represent only the far left. Nope. It does not matter if the mainstream media orchestrates a "bump" in the polls for the Democrats--based on the media "game theory" of politics: that "everyone loves a winner". The problem is that the Democratic Party is now "all in" (poker term) on the left, and will arrogantly make that clear from now on. In fact, this health care vote almost FORCES Democrats to push similar Big Government "solutions" to EVERYTHING (their inclination, in any event). This vote--including any "bump" in the polls---is merely going to fuel the ARROGANCE on the left that it can ignore the HICKS who oppose them and continue to push through their far left agenda--ignoring any "rules" in their way and that the American people (mainly HICKS, remember) do not want that agenda.

Yes, the Whig Party was a 19th Century American political party that disappeared. But the real ancestor of the modern Democrats--in philosophy--was the original "Federalist" Party--especially the "high Federalists" led by Alexander Hamilton. That party, too, disappeared, because it was totally out of step with the American people.

Yes, the "high Federalists" pushed an "historic vote" too. That was the vote on a NATIONAL BANK. You say tat you do not see a national bank now in existence? Clever you, although Ron Paul would suggest that the Federal Reserve is WORSE, and the modern Democratic Party wants to give the Federal Reserve the powers of a national bank. You will note that the Federal Reserve, and the whole Federal Government, did NOT stop either the Great Depression or this latest severe recession. I digress (sort of). The "high Federalists" rode that obsession with a "national bank", and with a powerful Federal Government, right into the grave made just for failed political parties. "Historic" does NOT mean either "good" or "successful". The mainstream media is likely to convince Democrats otherwise, to the extent this vote alone does not kill off the Democratic Party, and Democrats are likely to arrogantly push their leftist agenda to the end--their end. We have an "historic" President, and an "historic" vote. We will thus have an "historic" demise of a party, although the Federalists paved the way.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Republican Party, quickly took advantage of a public who distrusted Big Government to doom the Federalists. George Washington and John Adams--the first two Presidents of the United States--were "Federalists" (at least nominally). In fact, John Adams was accused--falsely--of being a "royalist" wanting either the return to Britain and kings or to remake the American system in the British image. Alexander Hamilton and the "high Federalists" so discredited the Federalists in the public mind that John Quincy Adams--the son of John Adams--was elected President AS A REPUBLICAN. The American people have NEVER liked the idea of an all powerful Federal Government, and they still don't. Jefferson, of course, professed to like the idea of a violent revolution every 20 years just to keep the government from getting arrogant. (One may doubt whether Jefferson really meant it, although he said it in all seriousness and wrongly supported the French Revolution long past the time its failure was obvious, but it would probably have been enough to get Jefferson "suspended" from Newsvine--putting me in good company.) Yes, the "Federalists" are the ones who first showed that leftists do not really believe in free speech by putting into Law the "historic" Alien and Sedition Acts.

As stated, Alexander Hamilton--the great villain of early American politics--was the real intellectual ancestor of the present Democratic Party. He wanted the all powerful Federal Government--preferably with himself as king or power behind the king. You will remember that Hamilton--having already mainly failed in his machinations to become the effective ruler of America--was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr. Since both Hamilton and Burr plotted to become king, this was one of those happy events in history where the American people could not lose. It sort of makes you wish for the return of dueling. Imagine a duel at high noon between Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi and Harry "Dirty Oil" Reid! CENSORED. Yes the follow up to this riff has been CENSORED by the Newsvine (MSNBC) "Code of Honor" self-censorship board (me). In future, you will probably be able to find the uncensored material on my Google blog. But this time I think it is obvious enough to leave for the reader as an exercise. Aaron Burr, by the way, TIED Jefferson, in the electoral college, for President of the United States. Only a few principled Federalists saved the country then in the 'historic" vote in the House of Representatives. Too bad there were not enough such Democrats in this "historic" health care vote.

Obama, Pelsoi and Reid are leading the Democratic Party off of a Cliff. That is no problem. Most Americans, including me, are going to have no sympathy for them. But will the COUNTRY survive (in recognizable form)? That is the worrisome question.

Democrats R.I.P. USA R.I.P.?

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Obama, Pelosi and Health Care: Deficit Scams--Seven Deadly Sins (CBO Bean Eaters Pass Gas)

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.
The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red."

The above is from the leftist Associated Press, as even some leftist "journalists" find it hard to swallow the FRAUD involved in the Pelosi PROPAGANDA that the CBO report on the health care bill was "good news". Fox News, of course, was one of the disgraceful entities repeating that fraud as fact, even while putting on some commentators debunking the idea. Other mainstream media outlets, of course, did not even point out Pelosi's (and Obama's) fraud at all.

"Skip, you can't do a headline like that. You know that the CBO people are not bean EATERS, but bean COUNTERS." Do I? They might as well be bean eaters, since they are not ALLOWED (by Congress) to actually count the beans, and since the mainstream media follows Pelosi's lead and blasts headlines about the FRAUD of ignoring the CBO footnotes, caveats, and assumptions Let us review the SCAMS of the health care bill (which should, all alone, cause no Democrat to be elected to any office in this country for at least 10 years--at least none not affirmatively exposing these scams):

Scam no. 1 (biggest of all): It is absurd to suggest that we are "paying for" this health care bill--even if the CBO numbers were not a fraud--when we have a 12 TRILLION dollar debt, INCREASING at a deficit of 1.6 TRILLION dollars per year. Doubt me? Assume that you ran up a credit card deficit of 1 million dollars, which you can't afford, and are running a monthly deficit (expenses over revenue) of $10,000. Then you go to your accountant (a moonlighting CBO guy used to this kind of fraud) and ask whether you can afford a second yacht--can "pay for" it. But you tell the accountant that he is NOT ALLOWED to consider the interest on the debt you already owe, or that you are running a deficit every month. You tell the accountant that he is only allowed to consider the assumptions you give to him, and one of those assumptions is that you are getting a second job "earning" $250,000 a year which will "pay for" the yacht. The accountant wants to ask how lyou intend to pay for the yacht you have, and all of our other expenses--maybe suggest that this new job will not bring in as much revenue as you "project" because the economy will not do as well as you think--but the accountant is NOT ALLOWED to bring up those things (except maybe mildly, in footnotes or something). Thus, the accountant gives you the "conclusion" you have guaranteed he would have to give: "Yes, based on the assumptions in the "bill" you gave me, you CAN afford that second yacht." Now people have gone to JAIL (Enron?) for frauds less obvious than this, which is not a bad idea for Pelosi. But politicians think that they will not only avoid jail, but get reelected. It is up to US to make sure they are wrong.

Scam no. 2: The costs of this health care bill--the "benefits"--mainly do not begin for FOUR YEARS. But the revenues--to the extent they are rel--start right away (in the main, except for other scams referred to below). Let us go back to our poor bean counter again--our CBO account. We tell him that he MUST, in his calculations, consider that we will be renting out the second yacht we are buying for 4 years, without any extra expenses (see AP quote above as to fraud in this), but that I will then be OBLIGATED for the full cost of the yacht, including major ongoing expense. The accountant is again NOT ALLOWED to suggest that you NEED that "rent money" to pay for your OTHER YACHT, and your ongoing deficit. The accountant MUST assume that you "save" that "rent money". Then the accounted must consider a ten year period comparing apples and oranges--comparing 10 years of revenue (assumed to be ongoing) with 6 years of "benefits" (when you actually get to use the yacht). What if you needed the yacht for your HEALTH, and the uncertainty of whether than second yacht may really help you may kill you. Too bad. It will be FOUR YEARS before you even know what you are buying--much less get to use it. That is what the Democrats are doing to us. To GAME the CBO, they have postponed the "benefits" of this health care legislation for FOUR YEARS, but the TAXES are going into effect immediately (10 years of revenue the CBO is required to compare to 6 years of expenses). This is, again, FRAUD. It further guarantees a four year nightmare, as 1/5 of our economy is left in uncertain turmoil for four years. Further, the immediate new TAXES will hurt the economy, and hiring, just when we are trying to come out of this deep recession. Disaster. And the CBO has been FORCED to "sign off" on this They should sue for defamation.

Scam no. 3: See the AP "lead" quoted at the beginning. Way back in the Clinton Administration (a DEMOCRAT administration), the Medicare formula for reimbursement of doctors was scheduled to change. Yes, this was a CUT in Medicare, designed to help "save" Medicare. The CBO duly "scored" this bill to raise so much money in the future. The future is NOW. However, letting that CUT in Medicare go into effect, as that previous CBO was FORCED to assume would happen, will CUT reimbursement to doctors for care of the elderly by as much as 22%. Cardiologists and oncologists have already said tthat the elderly will NOT GET CARE if this goes into effect. Democrats have PROMISED (a former BRIBE to get support for the health care bill from the AMA) to "fix" this threat to the care of the elderly by again adjusting the formula back so that doctors do not suffer this 22% cut. This was part of the health care bill, where it clearly belongs--more than the government takeover of student loans and more student aid. Indeed, $500,000 in "savings" in Medicare is still included in the health care bill, despite the fact that those "savings" are NEEDED to cover the 200-3000 billion in extra deficit Medicare is going to suffer because of this "fix". That $00 billion--if real--in "savings" is NOT a "necessary" part of the health care bill. It is more properly a part of a MEDICARE bill--having nothing to do with health insurance. However, Pelosi and Obama NEEDED the fictional "saving" to "pay for" the bill, and so they instructed the CBO to ignore the doctor "fix". However, the doctor "fix" is still going to happen. FRAUD again, as the CBO is again GAMED. This time the CBO is TELLING YOU (see AP story) that they have been GAMED, but Pelosi and Obama are counting on the mainstream media to ignore the fraud.

Go back to our hypothetical. You tell your accountant--who supposedly is going to tell you whether you can afford a second yacht--that you need repairs on the first yacht. But you expect to SAVE more than those repairs by stopping scams people are using to skim money off of the operating budget of the yacht into their pocket. The accountant tells you: "Fine, but you realize that if you use the "savings" on the first yacht to pay for the needed repairs, then you can't afford the second yacht--even under these ridiculous conditions you are placing on me." Well, this does not bother YOU (Pelosi and Obama). You merely tell the accountant (CBO): "Fine. Don't consider the repairs I need for the first yacht. That is entirely a separate matter. But do consider the "savings" on the first yacht. You must assume that those savings "pay for" my second yacht, whether I need them for the first yacht or not.

Scam no. 4: What about that $500 billion dollars in Medicare "savings'" needed to cover the rising cost of Medicare, including that "doctor fix"? Will the "savings" really happen? Go back again to that CUT in doctor reimbursement, previously ""scored" by the CBO. We KNOW that is NOT going to happen. If Obama and the Congress could "save" all of that money from Medicare, why have they not already done so? Democrats--including Obama, before he was President--have controlled Congress since 2007. If all we had to do was wave a magic wand and "save" all of this money from Medicare, why have we not already done it? And part of that "saving" is a CUT in Medicare Advantage--a cut so disadvantageous to senior citizens--raising the costs fro those on the Medicare Advantage program or maybe doing away with the program entirely--that FLORIDA received an exemption (bribe) from those cuts in the Senate bill. Now we KNOW Democrats intend to eventually KILL OFF senior citizens by denying care to those who use too many medical resources. However, do the politicians really have the will to follow through on the CUTS in Medicare? And as for "fraud, waste and abuse", I have heard about saving money by eliminating that all of my adult life. The next time it happens will be the FIRST. Now Obama may well CLAIM to accomplish such "savings", as he has claimed to "save/create" jobs, but past experience tells you that real "savings" are not going to happen.

Back to our hypothetical case. The accountant asks you: "If you can really save all of that money on the first yacht, why have you not already done it?" You say: "It is in the bill. You have to assume I will do it". Accountant ant: "What bill?" Oops! I left the hypothetical. Accountant: You told me more than a decade ago that you were going to cut ongoing costs for your first yacht, but you are telling me today that you have to revise that to save the first yacht, even though I am not allowed to consider that cost in "scoring" whether you can afford a second yacht. Are you sure it is okay for me to make these unreasonable assumptions?" You (Pelosi/Obama): "You are just a bean eather--oops, bean counter--and it is not for you to reason why. You juts do what I tell you, and assume what I tell you to assume. If it is in the bill--oops again--you are REQUIRED to believe that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen."

Scam no. 5: What about all of the extra Federal employees and expenses in OTHER parts of the government caused by this incredible new bureaucracy and 3000 page bill? What about extra IRS expense to enforce the mandatory insurance/fines procedure? Won't this bill cause all kinds of extra expenses not directly part oft he bill? YES. The CBO says that will occur, in another one of those footnotes. Now the CBO says--optimistically--that this will ony be a matter of tens of billions of dollars instead of hundreds of billions of dollars, but it remains part of the FRAUD here. This bill is going to bloat the entire Federal Government beyond all measuring--once it goes into full effect. I tire of the hypothetical, and will therefore leave it as an exercise for the reader to extend these last scams to the hypothetical.

Scam no. 6: Will the extra taxes really raise as much revenue as projected? Well, new taxes almost never do, when you take into account the REDUCED revenue from the damage done to the economy. The CBO--another footnote-says that its projections assume no new "downturn". Yet, the taxes in this bill will make such a downturn more likely. My brother, the accountant, says this health care bill will make a depression CERTAIN. I am not a wild and woolly bean eater, and therefore I would not go that far. I will merely say that economic disaster is the likely result of this bill,for many reasons.

Scam no. 7: You want to know how worthless the Democrats--and Republicans before them--have made the CBO? I can tell ou how to GAME every CBO "score", without even being creative. Just put in every spending bill an outrageous new tax, to take effect FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. Think how "good" a score Pelosi could have gotten by simply putting a 90% income tax in the bill on everyone making over $250,000, to "take effect" 5 years from now. You know, and I know--as Pelosi knows--that such a tax would never take effect. But the hapless bean eaters of the CBO would have to "score" it as if they believed the law would be actually put into effect (and as if such a tax would not DESTROY the economy). You see how easy it is to GAME the CBO "score". You say that Pelosi and Congress would never commit that kind of fraud? Read the above again. They DID--in fact in this very manner. Remember that tax on Cadillac health care plans, where unions got a special exemption? Well, in one version of the bill--why should I know what will be in the final version when members of Congress have no idea even as they vote--that "Cadillac tax" would not happen until 2016. Yet, Congress was perfectly willing to have the CBO "socre" such a ridiculous provision, as if it were ever going to raise any revenue.

Democrats have done a lot. They have DESTROYED any procedural rules of Congress. NO future Congress, if this bill gets pushed through and maybe even if it does not, is going to worry about the filibuster rule--or any other rule of Congress. There are simply no longer gong to be any rules. Bills will be routinely "deemed" passed, and every other deceptive rule change will be fair game. There will be--maybe already are--NO RULES. It is just a matter of how much DECEPTION you can get away with. And the CBO is now officially USELESS. With tis bill, Democrats have shown--without even much "sugar coating"--that the CBO "score" is merely a game to be played with phony numbers and assumptions.

For the WAY they are trying to pass this bill, every participating Democrat should be barred from public office for ten years. It is up to us to see that happens. The bill itself, unfortunately, may ensure that THIS COUNTRY will not last another ten years--in recognizable form

P.S. No, the list of scams does not end with 7. I never even got into the BRIBES and PAYOFFS, except in passing. But you get the idea. If you don't get the picture by now, nothing I can say is going to mean anything to you. You are brain dead. .

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Amid signs that the labor market is approaching a trough but remains frail, the consumer sentiment index declined to 72.5 in March from 73.6 in February. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had been expecting the sentiment index to hit 74 in March.
Consumer sentiment is "meandering," wrote Ian Pollick, economics strategist with TD Securities, in a research note. "

The above quote is from MarketWatch about yet another piece of bad economic news on Friday. See my previous article (skip33666 search of "Users") to fully understand the reference to the "frail" labor market "at the bottom of the trough". Even though not as dishonest as the despicable AP (see previous article again), MarketWatch IS a mainstream media/Wall Street site that does not totally give the "news" right down the middle. If you read my articles, you know that the labor market reached a--not necessarily "the"--"bottom of the trough" months ago. For those months--in some ways, such as the unemployment rate, all of the way back to July--the labor market has NOT IMPROVED. For the past three to four months, it can be said that aspects of the labor market have DETERIORATED. Jobless claims---the measure of layoffs--have INCREASED over the past 3 to 4 months. The four week average is higher now than it has been in four months.

Note again that economists (the Stupidest People on Earth) got consumer sentiment wrong again. No, they were not way off (for economists), but they "predicted" IMPROVEMENT, when consumer confidence actually FELL (got worse). Now all of this may be pretty much within the "margin of error", but somehow economists almost never get it right. Yet, these are the people that central planners (leftist Democrats who believe in Big Government) depend upon to know enough about the economy to do better than the free market. That is a ridiculous position, which is why the faith of leftist Democrats in government central planning is absurd--both in theory and in practice.

Finally, note that consumers in general are smarter than the AP, and rest of the mainstream media--admittedly a LOW bar. Consumers are perfectly aware that things are NOT IMPROVING, and that the Obama "stimulus" has FAILED. One of the most astounding numbers I have ever seen is the poll number about the percentage of Americans who believe that the Obama "stimulus" has actually created jobs (net): 6^ (or was it as high as 8%) of Americans believe that the Obama "stimulus" has "created" (net) jobs. As I have previously said, I think you can get a bigger percentage than that who believe that CHILD PORN should be legal. And the poll was commissioned by leftist/mainstream media organizations.

Americans have rightly concluded that we have BANKRUPTED the country for NOTHING. Yes, we may not be getting significantly worse, but neither are we getting significantly better. And in trying to use the Federal Government to MAKE things get better (if you want to be that generous to what is really a political "slush fund"), we have made it almost impossible for us to have a sustained recovery.

Meanwhile, President Obama fiddles (with health care). As I have stated: "Obama fiddles--with health care--while America burns." The reference, of course, is to Roman emperor Nero. And the health care bill for which Obama, Reid and Pelosi are engagin in/have engaged in bribery, extortion, blackmail and intimidation, will not even go into full effect for FOUR YEARS. Even if the 2700 page bill were a good idea, and it is not, we may not SURVIVE (as a healthy economy) for four years.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

"WASHINGTON – The number of newly laid-off workers requesting unemployment benefits slipped last week, the latest sign the employment picture is slowly brightening."

"And, "the labor market is still very iffy," added Boockvar of an early report from the U.S. Labor Department, which reported the count of Americans filing first-time jobless claims declined for a second week, while the four-week moving average of claims increased to 475,500."

For more than six years now, I have done more than any other person to DOCUMENT the utter dishonesty and "journalistic" crimes of the despicable Associated Press--pointing out that you should SHUN "news" outlets, such as AOL and Yahoo "News", who use the despicable AP as the source of most of their featured stories. While I have done this pretty much in obscurity, I have done it IN DETAIL--citing dishonest AP story after dishonest AP story. And the AP keeps giving me more examples--worse examples--of how the AP is NOT a "news" organization, but a propaganda organization. See the two quotes above.

The first quote is from the AP story Thursday morning on last week's jobless claims numbers--the number of new unemployment claims of people who have lost their jobs recently and are filing a new unemployment claim because of that newly lost job. Notice how the AP LEAD (for it was the "lead") paragraph) violates every "journalistic" principle. It contains almost no FACTS, but merely propaganda (AP opinion). Contrast that with the more neutral second quote from MarketWatch (still a mainstream media source, but a financial site that has to be more accurate if they are to have ANY credibility in the financial community). The Marketwatch quote--of about equal length and also representing essentially the lead/summary as to this subject) is both more "neutral" (accurate) AND contains some actual FACTS.

What are the facts (some of which you would get LATER in the AP story, after the propaganda)? Jobless claims essentially STAYED THE SAME--declining 6,000 to 462,000, That is a meaningless "drop"--not a "sign" of anything except a continuing weak labor market (as stated by Market Watch). . That is because a change of 6,000 (in either direction) is within the MARGIN OF ERROR for this number. Indeed, the weekly number is always REVISED the nest week--sometimes more than 5,000.

More significantly, Marketwatch correctly noted that the four week "moving average" INCREASED to 475,000 (near the four month high). Since the weekly number is so volatile--bouncing up and down--the four week average is looked upon as the more reliable "trend" number. Indeed, the 5,000 "drop" in the one week number represented the WRONG "trend". Not only did the four week average go UP, but but last week's number dropped 29,000. For you mathematically challenged, 29,000 is more than 6,000. In other words, the "improvement" DECELERATED to only one fifth of the previous week. Now the dishonest, despicable AP knows about this, because it has previously used the "average" as the better indication of the "trend" when the weekly number has gone up, but the average has declined (the opposite of this week's situation). It gets worse fir the dishonest hypocrites of the AP.

The numbers show that the labor market has DETERIORATED (not "strengthened") in the past four months. And this is NOT a matter of "opinion", but objective fact. Three to four months ago, the weekly number fell to 435,000 or so. Even the four week average fell to near 440,000. Notice how the numbers have WORSENED since then. The four week average has INCREASED by some 35,000--meaning 35,000 extra people losing their jobs EACH WEEK.

How can all of this be so? Easy. The INCREASES in unemployment claims have dominated the decreases, even though the weekly numbers have bounced around. For example, take the last four weeks. The numbers are about as follows: INCREASE of 33,000; INCREASE of 22,000 (making 55,000 extra lost jobs in two weeks); 29,000 DECREASE; and now a 5,000 DECREASE. You can see how the increases have exceeded the decreases, meaning that the four week average INCREASED.

The AP says that this is the "latest sign that the employment picture is slowly brightening". That is objectively FALSE. It is a LIE--as despicable LIE. This week's number actually could be said to show that the employment picture is slowly GETTING WORSE. However, the deterioration is small enough, and uneven enough--even though it has continued for abut 4 months as to the jobless claims number--that it is probably more accurate to say that this number shows that the employment picture is NOT IMPROVING (at all).

Or, as MarketWatch put it, this week's jobless claims number shows that the labor market continues "weak"--with NO current "sign" of "brightening"

Q.E.D.: The despicable AP is composed of dishonest hypocrites/propagandists rather than "journalists".

Deadline on Deadlines? Can the Country Survive Any More "End Games"? Can the Country Survive This Many "End Games"?

Yes, another headline Wednesday from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press"--story and headline repeated again on Yahoo "News"--BOYCOTT YAHOO) said that Obama was "pushing toward the end game on health care".

Problem: Drudge ( wnet back in time, and looked at when this kind of story first appeared. Drudge then did a TIMELINE of all of the times the Obama Administration and the mainstream media have said we are in the "end game" on health care, or said that there was a "deadline".

It turns out that this propaganda approach started last July 28 or so. And there were REPEATED stories about a new "deadline", or a new "end game", after that--MANY stories. Search Drudge for the Drudge "timeline".

Ridiculous, isn't it? How can these people (either the Democrats/Obama Administration or the mainstream media) keep ANY credibility after this kind of ridiculous propaganda> Well, they can't. They don't.

Now it is true that one of these times it MAY HAPPEN. The Health care bill may actually passed. Every threat, bribe and tactic is being used to make it happen. Still, it has been ridiculous.

What we need is a DEADLINE ON DEADLINES. Yes, if a deadline has not already been announced (March 18 is the last one announced), then there should be NO NEW DEADLINE. That really should have been true about last August.

Yogi Berra: It is not over until it is over." But it is past time for this farce to be OVER. See the previous article about what is happening while Obama's OBSESSION with health care is being pursued--pushing a bill whose main supposedly "beneficial" provisions will not even go into effect for FOUR YEARS.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Deficit Record in February and Foreclosures Increase (Again): Obama Fiddles (with Health Care) While America Burns

Yes, the February Federal DEFICIT set a new RECORD of 220 BILLION dollars--beating the record of last February.

The deficit remains out of control. At the same time, FORECLOSURES rose 5%. Foreclosures are also out of control. Yes, the DISHONEST AP put out a dishonest headline on the foreclosure data. That headline said this was the smallest INCREASE in four years.

Why is that headline dishonest? First, at some point the INCREASE in foreclosures has to slow down because so many houses have ALREADY been foreclosed. However, that does ot even appear to be what is really going on here. If you read the actual AP story, instead of the headline and lead paragraph, you will see that "analysts" believe that most of those borrowers under "evaluation" for one Federal (or lender) "program" or another will eventually end up in foreclosure. Those various loan "modification" and "grace" period programs are DELAYING foreclosures. Therefore, the lesser percentage increase is more disturbing than not--since the INCREASE occurred despite all of these government and private programs presently stopping foreclosures that would ordinarily have occurred. In other words, MANY more people are not current on their loans, but actual foreclosure has been delayed (while analysts still believe most of these homes WILL go into foreclosure as time goes on).

While this is happening, what is Obama doing? Oh, you know this one. This is my "summary": "Obama fiddles with health care while America burns." (reference is to Roman Emperor Nero). You will recall that--even if the terrible bill is passed--the health care bill will not go into full effect for FOUR YEARS. Even if you believe me incorrect on how bad the present proposed bill is, ask yourself where we will be in FOUR YEARS (especially with the added uncertainty the process of implementing the massive health care bill will bring to the economy).

Obama and Congress: Do Polls Show Obama Is Destroying Democrats in Congress (Guest Villains: Anti-American, Despicable AP and Yahoo)

"WASHINGTON – Americans have come to detest Congress ever more deeply as it nears the end of a nasty fight over health care. But more than half still back President Barack Obama, a bright spot for a Democratic Party counting on its leader to help stave off expected losses in elections this fall."

The above is from the propaganda merchants at the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete official name). The headline on both the story and on the equally despicable Yahoo News was: "Obama More Popular Than Obama". Yes, except for the AP propaganda, that means the headline could (should?) have been: "Congress More Unpopular Than Obama." Let me list just a few of the ways this story was pure propaganda, and why you should BOYCOTT Yahoo for using nothing but AP stories--with an occasional OTHER left wing source thrown in):

1. The premise of the above quoted propaganda paragraph is transparently ridiculous. Obama is not again on the ballot until 2012. Even assuming that the despicable AP were right about Obama's "popularity", the ONLY people up for election in 2010 are those in Congress (or in the states). Just HOW, AP, can you "spin" it as "good news" that Obama is DESTROYING the Democrats in Congress--meaning their election chances--in the pursuit of his own agenda?

2. The actual NUMBERS--the "news", except it is not real "news", but manufactured "news"--are not even mentioned in the above "lead" paragraph. Well, no surprise. The despicable "journalists" of the AP are not journalists at all, but propagandists. The number for Congress is an abysmal 22%, and DEMOCRATS CONTROL CONGRESS. The "more than half" for Obama IS A LIE. How can I say that? Well, if you take into account the margin of error, it could be LESS THAN HALF. In other words, the despicable AP is LYING about the accuracy of the poll. The number for Obama is really right at half. If you take into account the EXPECTED "margin of error", his real "approval" could well be UNDER 50%. Then consider that other reputable polls show that Obama's approval rating--epecially his JOB approval rating--is BELOW 50% by a LOT. Rasmussen--a perfectly respectable pollster--has Obama's approval rating at 43%. Is it a LIE to quote one poll--in a misleading way--without quoting other polls saying a different thing? Of course it is. If you are a REAL "news" organization, your duty is to consider ALL sources of information, and not just the poll you like (or paid for).

3. Obama POLICIES are not "popular". Thus the question a REAL "news" organization would ask is WHY Democrats in Congress are willing to let Obama act in such a way as to DOOM them, while propping up (to a degree) Obama's own popularity.

4. Polls are pretty much meaningless, except for showing--to a degree--a trend. That is, if almost ALL polls are showing movement in one direction--which is what has happened with the "popularity" of both Congress and the President over the past 6 months--you can pretty much assume that SOMETHING is happening. When you combine that with recent election results, you KNOW that something is happening--such as with the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. This would be true even if polls were HONEST. They are not these days--at least not all of them. As stated, you only have to look at the way the AP has "spun" this poll. Is the pol ll of "likely voters"? Does the poll measure how STRONGLY voters on one side feel, as compared to the other? These things are all generally ignored in the way polls are now REPORTED. That is because polls are now just another instrument of PROPAGANDA--especially in the hands of a propaganda outfit like the AP, helped by the despicable Yahoo News.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

I am serious about Yahoo News. You should BOYCOTT Yahoo. I only use it the way I used to use AOL: as a way to quickly see the leftist "talking points" for the day. Yahoo "News" consistently uses ONLY left wing, mainstream media sources--generally the despicable AP. No, you do not HAVE to do it that way. Drudge (, for example, uses MULTIPLE sources--left and right. Yes, Drudge is biased in its HEADLINES, but--like Yahoo, except Drudge rarely will originate a story---is mainly a conduit for others. And those "others" include BOTH left and right wing sources, however biased Drudge may be in the headlines.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Women: Is a Woman's Place In the Home?

Hey, it is not ME. I don't make this stuff up. I have even had to admit--to my shame--that I am more a feminist than almost every leftist out there. I supported BOTH Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton--ultimately refusing to vote for Palin only because of the MALE on the ticket.

Yes, there is evidently an international poll out there that finds amazing support for the idea that the primary role of a woman should be as a wife and mother.

Let us be up front here. Is there ANY woman out there stupid enough to adopt the role of wife and mother, as her primary function in life, because Skip--or Laura Ingram, who does not live that role--thinks that is the proper role of women? Don't be silly. NOBODY thinks that way. Nobody should think that way.

Yet Laura Ingram's radio program this morning--which I never listen to, which might explain why I may have misspelled her name--devoted HOURS to the question of this international poll, and the proper role of women. Further, there was considerable support for the idea that women's place really is "in the home". I could never make this up. It is a LIE, by the way, that feminists are okay with women making that choice. You can't say that and then measure "progress" by success that women have in in the workplace (as "feminists" do).

My position is not that women "should" regard their "place" as in the home. Nor--unlike the arrogant "feminists"--is my position that women should NOT regard their place as in the home. I don't think it is my place to say what will be better for WOMEN.

My position is that SOCIETY and CHILDREN would be better off if most women regarded their main function as making a home for their husbands and children. Yes, this is basically the position that EVERYONE--in the working world--needs a wife, including women. But can women really afford to put themselves at the mercy of men that way? My daughters---lawyers both--would answer "NO" to that question. But are women in general happier in the same role as men? I don't know the answer to tat, and I don't think most women do either.

Yes, I know. Most women these days may not have much choice. But that is part of the problem. If it is accepted that the role of women is to make a home, that does not keep them from working out of necessity. However, if women are EXPECTED to work, or most women do work, that makes it very hard for women to adopt the traditional role. The world is then set up so that most women are FORCED to work. Women may actually have more real choices when it is accepted that most women will be "taken care of" by a man than when it is expected that most women will work. It is NEVER true---always an illusion--that women will be able to choose whatever they want. The world just does not work that way. Society's expectations ALWAYS influence the options you really have, except to the extent you are one of those rare persons who makes his or her own rules.

Do we NEED a class of persons--women?--who regard their main responsibility as "making a home" and "raising the children". I have almost no doubt on this point., We DO need such a class of persons. But will women, as a class, be happier fitting themselves into that role than in moving toward the feminist model (which, as stated, really DEVALUES the "traditional" role, whatever "feminists" may say)? U di bit know whether women, as a class, would be happier if society embraced the traditional role (as society really now does not).

What is clear to me is that--at least in the United States--the role of women will NOT be determined by what I think it should be. Nor will it be determined by what the NOW type feminists think it should be. It will be determined, woman by woman, by what each WOMAN thinks will make her happy. Yes, that may be influenced by society's expectations, and even by opinions of persons such as myself influencing what a each woman thinks will make her happy. But, over time, that "woman-by-woman decision making will move society one way or another. The idea that women, or men, can have infinite choices--in the real world--is both an illusion and a delusion. Society--look up the meaning of the term--inevitably constrains choices. A society cannot measure "progress" by who many powerful (in a male sense) women there are, and then say that housewives" have equal value. The world just does not work that way. Sure, there can be a wider choice than in very restricted societies, but the "choice" is ALWAYS constrained. Among other things, it is easier for husbands to support wives if most women do not work--or at least don't "compete" with the men trying to support their wives.

This poll, and the rather large response to the question on the Laura Ingram radio show, indicates to me that the questuib of the role of women is not "setttled--especially worldwide, but not even in this country. As I have stated, it basically comes down--at least in this country--to what women THINK will make them "happy". And that can change.

Yes, there is no doubt that women CAN be happy as wives and mothers. There may be--and is, as far as I am concerned--some question about whether most women can be happy in a society where men and women have the SAME role. That is because men and women are objectively DIFFERENT. But there are obviously a large variety of roles in which most women can find some happiness--meaning that it is unlikely this "question" will ever be "settled".

I just hope the uncontrolled social experiment we are performing on our children--not only with the changing role of women, but things like sexual mores, marriage and overall morals--does not kill us in the end. As stated, I don't know what is best for WOMEN. But for society at large, I believe it important that SOMEBODY perform the traditional woman's role. If not women, then who?

P.S. Did I really say that women might have MORE real choices in a "traditional" society? Yes, I did. That is not true, of course, in a severely regimented society. But if you look at American movies of the 20th Century--even such movies as the early serials--women were OFTEN shown in "non-traditional" roles. Sure, a woman was not generally going to be a race car driver, a jockey ("National Velvet" aside) or a firefighter. But how many womn really WANT to be those things. But a determined woman could step outside the traditional role. Meanwhile, perfectly ordinary women could be housewives, with no pressure upon them to work other than economic necessity. They were not EXPECTED to work, even if it meant the family did not have as much money. My other, for example, was a registered nurse, but she could be a housewife when she wanted to be without stigma. That choice is fast disappearing for women, EXCEPT those women with truly well off husbands. Have women really gained in this trade off? I wonder.

Sandra Bullock: The Best of Times, and the Worst of Tijmes

For Sandra Bullock, it has been the best of times; and it has been the worst of times (to paraphrase the opening of "A Tale of Two Cities").

Forget the first woman director winning an Oscar. After all, women--especially feminist women--saw no value in having the first woman Vice President (Sarah Palin), and little value in having the first woman President (Hillary Clinton being in position to accomplish that if the left had not abandoned her for Obama). Obviously not important.

However, Sandra Bullock accomplished a truly significant "first"--evidently for either a man or a woman (although I am not sure about whether a male actor has done it in the "actor" category). Yes, it was an amazing feat.

Sandra Bullock, as you probably know, won the "best actress" Oscar for best performance by an Oscar. What you may not know is that Sandra Bullock also won the WORST ACTRESS "Razzie" for WORST performance by an actress in a leading role last year (for "All About Steve"). This was an unprecedented "double win" for an actress. Meryl Streep has never done it. Katerine Hepburn never did it.

What RANGE for an actress. It can't be easy to give two such widely different performances in one year.

Yes, "All About Steve" was yet more proof that Hollywood no longer knows how to make a good "romantic comedy". I recently saw "When in Rome", which was BETTER than most Hollywood romantic comedies in recent years, and it was not very good (63 out of 100--barely worth seeing). "When in Rome" was only as mildly good as it was because it was a throwback to the past--without most of the gross crudity of modern Hollywood "humor". Unfortunately, Hollywood has pretty much lost the knack for great comedy. Look at "The Lady Eve" and see how far Hollywood has fallen, or look at almost any Cary Grant romantic comedy. Hollywood no longer even knows how to make "While You Were Sleeping".

Still, Sandra Bullock showed class. She not only showed up in person to accept her Oscar. She showed up in person to accept her Razzie. You have to admire a woman like that, even if my daughter says she seemed pretty out of sorts with her husband (Jesse James) when my daughter was a waitress/hostes at an Hawaiian restaurant where Bullock had dinner some five years ago.

We all know that ALL wives habitually get irritated with their husbands. They are (the husbands) MALES, after all.

Monday, March 8, 2010

John McCain: McCain's Wife and Daughter Support Gay Rights Advocates--And That Is Not Even Why You Should Vote Against Him

"McCain's Wife, Daughter Support Gay Rights Advocates."

That was the MSNBC/Newsvine "story with an agenda" several weeks ago. What was the agenda? Oh, come on. You know this one. Even though it is DEMOCRATS conducting Soviet Gulag type PURGES of "moderates" from their ranks (see today's story on Eric Massa, and his allegations of how he was treated by the White House and Nancy Peolosi because of his position on health care legislation), the industrial grade hypocrites of the mainstream media like to concentrate on "divisions" within the Republican Party. The mainstream media mantra is to view with HORROR a supposed "right wing" attempt to takeover the Republican Party--while ignoring that the LEFT WING has taken over the Democratic Party, and is purging all dissent.

Even though the mainstream media portrayed John McCain as "right wing" during the campaign--hypocritical partisans that they are--they still want to use McCain as a "moderate" being purged (or at least attempted to be purged) from the Republican Party. McCain is in a primary in Arizona, challenged by a man who calls himself more conservative. MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream media, want to ENCOURAGE "conservatives" to "right" with "moderates" i the Republican Party, because MSNBC thinks that is good for leftist Democrats. That is a main motivation behind the above quoted headline. The other motivation is that the mainstream media is PUSHING the issue of homosexual marriage, and "gay rights".

Does it matter what McCain's wife and daughter think? Nope. Not a bit. It does not matter on whether McCain should be defeated (as he should be), OR on the merits of homosexual marriage. McCain's wife and daughter are merely tow people, with no more credibility on this "issue" than any other two people. You cannot believe in the emancipation of women and say otherwise. McCain can neither be "blamed" for the views of his wife and daughter, nor give credence to their views just because they are his wife and daughter.

Homosexual marriage is simply a TERRIBLE idea--conflicting with the entire THOUSANDS of years of human history before the 21st Century. "Sexual orientation" is merely a POLITICAL term with no objective meaning other than HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. Doubt me? Don't. What about the "sexual orientation" of pedophiles, polygamists, bestiality, necrophilia, and many other sexual "perversions". Indeed, there is MORE support in human history for both polygamy and incest than for homosexual marriage (as distinct from tolerance of homosexual conduct). There is absolutely no way to justify sanctioning homosexual marriage without sanctioning polygamy, and even incest. You are intellectually dishonest if you fail to recognize this. The goal here, of course, is societal APPROVAL of homosexual conduct as no different from heterosexual conduct--fully as sanctioned for society. This is NOT the same as "tolerance", and there is no reason for society to accept this political power play to force us to ignore reality, and all of those thousands of years of human history.

You can see I oppose "gay rights" (depending, of course, on what "right" you are talking about--as homosexuals are human beings entitled to the same rights as adulterers and any other human beings, whether they engage in questionable sexual conduct or not). But I would not vote against John McCain because of his wife and daughter.

Nope. I would vote against John McCain because of JOHN MCCAIN. And I would vote against him if I lived in Arizona. One of my brothers does live in Arizona, and WILL vote against McCain--even in the general election, if McCain makes it that far.

It is McCain who is as responsible as any other man for the continuing, ridiculous battle over the "issue" of homosexual marriage. It is MCCAIN--not his wife and daughter--who kept a Constitutional Amendment from being passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Yes. I do "blame" McCain for that, but even that is not why I would vote against McCain in Arizona.

I would vote against McCain in Arizona because McCain has devoted his political life to TRASHING conservatives, and conservative ideas. Even in his recent campaign, McCain was more enthusiastic in attacking conservatives than in attacking Obama--not personally, but even as to Obama's positions and qualifications to be President. I refuse to vote for a man like that. I did not do so for President, and I would not do so for the Senate in Arizona.

No, it is not just immigration, either, although McCain is totally wrong on that issue. It is not just "global warming", although McCain is totally wrong on that issue (except that McCain has at least opposed Obama's destructive "Cap and Trade" bill, after failing to make that an issue in the campaign). It is not just ANWR, although the McCain failure to make drilling and nuclear power an issue has virtually enbable Obama to (FRAUDULENTLY) "steal" the idea of encouraging both nuclear power and drilling. It is not even McCain's perverse insistence upon waterboarding as "torture"--when he could oppose it without that kind of stupid vehemence.

You can almost see why I would NEVER vote for McCain for any office. But it is not just his positions on issue after issue. As stated, what I cannot forgive is the way McCain has CATERED to the mainstream media attempt to discredit conservatives. As far as I can see, McCain's wife and daughter are merely following in McCain's footsteps, without being as enthusiastic about it as McCain himself. For DECADES, McCain has been the person the media goes to when the mainstream media wants to get a quote trashing a conservative.

NO man deserved it more than when the mainstream media turned on McCain in the recent election. Yet, even then, McCain was more willing to trash conservatives than Obama. Even after Obama's electioin, McCain has pretty much been that way--at least until this primary campaign.

John McCain should get the vote of NO conservative in Arizona--for any election, whether in the primary or general election.

Texas, Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson: Conservative, Anti-Washington Tide Rolls On

You may have heard that Governor Rick Perry defeated Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson BADLY in the Republican primary for governor of Texas.

Is this because Rick Perry is such a great "conservative". Not on your life. One of my nightmares is that Perry--ambitious as I know him to be--will run for President. Like George W. Bush before him Perry has been okay as governor of Texas, but would be a disaster as President. He has hardly distinguished himself as a principled advocate of conservative causes. You only have to go to his Executive Order requiring young girls in public schools to have the HPV virus vaccine to know that Perry is not really a principled conservative. Yes, he also was somewhat two-faced on the Obama "stimulus" money, and was--I believe--very glad to get it to avoid any hard decisions on the Texas budget. Both groups supporting Perry and groups supporting Hutchinson were able to run attack ads against the other as not a "real" conservative. Perry supporting ads were right about Hutchinson, and Hutchinson supporting ads were right about Perry.

Yes, Hutchinson has been an okay Senator, but hardly--as Perry--a principled conservative. I think people of Texas saw no reason she should not stay where she was. But there was something more fundamental going on, as conservative commentators have pointed out.

Hutchinson is clearly part of the WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT. Even if you can attack Perry's conservative credentials--correctly recognizing that he is an OPPORTUNIST who becomes "conservative" mainly in Texas elections--he is not tainted with Washington. That was a decisive advantage for Perry.

Voters in Texas, and the country, no longer have ANY trust in Washington politicians--for good reason. That is especially true of Democrats--as the party "in charge"--but it is true of Republicans who are part of the Washington establishment as well. There was no way for Hutchinson to avoid that label, and so she had no chance in Texas.

Yes. Perry lucked out because Texas has done well--comparatively--in the recession. In my opinion, that has more to do with Texas being a conservative state than with Perry. Still, Perry did not mess it up--at least not badly. The Texas governor does not even have that much power, which is why many people were surprised that Hutchinson wanted the job. Nevertheless, it is true that the Texas result is another example of a conservative tide sweeping the country. There is absolutely no doubt it was an ANTI-WASHINGTON vote--whatever else it was. No Republican should doubt that. People are ready to vote against the Republican "establishment" in Washington almost as much as they are ready to vote against the Democratic establishment. Republican politicians who like their own power, rather than having any real conservative principles, had better take warning. Otherwise, their days are numbered. John McCain, this means YOU (although it is really too late for McCain, whether he survives the primary in Arizona or not).

Sunday, March 7, 2010

"Airplane": Before Jerry Zucker Helped Ruin NBC, as NBC Became the Darth Vader--"Spaceballs" Version--of Tv Networks

Yes, Friday night I saw "Airplane" again on Turner Classic Movies. It is still so much funnier than modern movies (intentionally anyway). This is not because it is so intelligent a movie. It is SILLY, and could be blamed for partially creating the genre of gross, silly movies that afflict modern Hollywood.

But "Airplane" (rating 100 out of 100) is so FUNNY. The jokes come at you so fast you can't even keep track of them, including jokes in the background and in the closing credits--one AFTER the closing credits.

""Give me ham on five, and hold the Mayo" (referring to a phone call from a man named Ham on one line, while the Mayo clinic is on the other line).

Kareem Abdul Jabbar, as "Roger Murdock", co-pilot, being hauled unconscious out of his seat--showing the btttom part of his LAKER'S UNIFORM.

Yes, some of the jokes are lame, and even offensive (would get me in "trouble" on Newsvine):

a0 year old girl to 10 year old boy: I like my coffee black, like my men."

Doesn't matter. The movie is FUNNY. As I could never read/see another Gothic story with a straight face, after reading Jane Austen's send up of the Gothic novel, I could never see another disaster movie--after "Airplane"--without almost laughing.

Another thing. Notice how we have become a nation of PRIGS. In "Airplane", you still had SMOKING on airplanes (admittedly probably a bad idea). Now the anti-smoking Nazis won't even give you the choice to smoke is a BAR. Nor was that a joke. "Crash Landing" (another, straight disaster movie shown that night) showed SMOKING passengers as well. Now Philadelphia is putting a major TAX on soda pop with the express intention of making people NOT DRINK IT. I repeat: When did we become a nation of officious PRIGS?

Yes, "Airplane" shows that Jerry Zucker once had actual talent, before he became part of the disaster movie known as "NBC" (including, of course, MSNBC). Once, Jerry Zucker knew what he was doing. Once, NBC was not an evil, terrible network (especially when MSNBC is included).

Oscars: Hollywood Fraud and Confempt for Its Audience

The title does not directly deal with the decline of Hollywood and movies। I watch Turner Classic Movies--not because the politically correct people in charge of that channel are such great people, but because Hollywood used to make actual GOOD movies. It does not do that anymore, except occasionally by accident. Where you once had "To Kill a Mockingbird", you now have any number of politically correct movies that are nothing but heavy handed propaganda or leftist talking points told as dully as possible. That is when the movie is not simply gross, or nothing but a series of impressive special effects (which my family unanimously assures me is true of "Avatar").

Worst of all, Hollywood (people and movies) is now DULL. Special effects do not excitement make. "Gunga Din" was MUCh more exciting than ANY movie made this year.
But, as stated, that is not exactly the fraud the title speaks of। No. The FRAUD is the most cynical marketing ploy ever--saying a LOT in view of the history of Hollywood. We are talking here about the incredible decision to nominate TEN movies for best picture, when it is unlikely there is ONE movie in 2009 actually worthy of the award.

What makes ploy especially cynical is that the last year more than 5 movies were nominated was 2939--the BEST year in Hollywood history। In 1939, there were at least 20 movies who would--at least SHOULD--win best picture if they had been made in 2009. Yes, that is true even if they were made in black and white. You almost could not make this up. In almost its WORST year, Hollywood chooses to nominate more pictures for best picture than in its BEST year--inviting comparison with that year.

That is the fraud: this cynical attempt to suggest that there are now MORE pictures worthy of an Oscar nomination, instead of FEWER।

No, there is no excuse for this. Among other things, this further shows the CONTEMPT of Hollywood for its audience. Can TEN best picture nominees do anything but make the Oscar telecast LONGER, and more BORING? Not a chance.
Yes, I did listen to the opening of tonight's Oscar telecast। BORING. I should know. I tell everyone that I ASPIRE to a boring, dull life. EVERYONE agree s I succeed on every level. Thus, I know whereof I speak.

There is a funny irony here. I got in "trouble" (lol--more about that in later articles) for my article on whether California is worth saving. I even denied, at the end, that my attitude toward California had anything to do with my ex-wife now living in San Jose. Did you hear that LAME joke about James Cameron giving his ex-wife a Toyota, and the similar joke about HER? Many of the other jokes were in similar bad taste. And some people thought I was in BAD TASTE

P.S. Yes, I know. Tom Hanks was right (at the end of the interminable Oscars last night--perhaps the most boring event in the history of television--which I only had on in the background, paying quarter-attention). 2943 was really the last year there were 10 nominees for best picture. However, I am also right. That is still the Golden Age of Hollywood, and it hardly makes things better to compare last night's winner with "Casablanca", than to compare it with "Gone with the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz." Yes, I am confident at leat 8 of the nominees of 1943--maybe all ten--would have deserved "best picture" last night. To return to 10 "best picture" nominees at a time when Hollywood is so weak--still invoking memories of the Golden Age highlighted by 1939--is an act of desperation. It was an act of inspiration for me to have an article on "Airplane" right after my article on the Oscars. You will remember--as you should have seen "Airplane"--that one of the standing jokes was that the "hero" kept telling war stories to the person sitting next to him--always ending with a variation of "Am I oring you.." to his seatmate. That seatmate is shown either having committed suicide or in the process of committing suicide--BORED TO DEATH. If you watched ALL of the Oscars last night, with attention, there is o reason to address any of this to you. You are not with us anymore. "Airplane" was right. It is possible to be BORED TO DEATH.

Obama, Bush and Bush's Third Term: Bernanke, Geitner, Paulson and Goldman Sachs Ruin teh Country under BOTH Obama and Bush

Read the previous two articles. Did you question what I said: that the Obama economic policies are only a continuation of the Bush economic policies of Bush's second term, only worse? Don't question it. The evidence is concluseive.

We must start back in early 2006--well before the economic "crisis" of 20008. What happened then? Ben Bernanke was appointed head of the Federal Reserve and Henry Paulson was appointed Secretary of the Treasury. Both would be SUPPORTED by Obama and the Democrats--then and later. Paulson was--before being appointed Secretary of the Treasury by Bush--the LEFT LEANING head of Goldman Sachs. Before Paulson, John Corzine (the defeated DEMOCRATIC governor of New Jersey) had been CEO of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs was evidently a politically connected Wall Street firm with major influence in both parties. There is no way to characterize the people of Goldman Sachs as "conservative". Former Goldman Sachs employees are very influential under Obama, and are close to the new Treasury Secretary, Geitner. Paulson was known as a "moderate" (liberal) Republican--to the extent he was really a Republican at all, intead of just labeling himself that to give Goldman Sachs influence in both parties (as well as to become Secretary of the Treasury under Bush).

You don't have to take my word for the above. No less a leftist than Michael Moore said essentially the same thing in his recent movie condemning "Capitalism". Now Moore is hardly a credible source, but on this he was right--even a stopped clock being right twice a day. Since early 2006, if not before, Goldman Sachs has--at least arguably--been controlling the economic policy of this country. In fact, the bailout of AIG was mainly a bailout of Goldman Sachs, which received some 13 BILLION dollars of the money paid to bail out AIG--without any obligation to pay that money back, because it was not considered a direct bailout of Goldman Sachs (although it was). This represented one of the biggest conflicts of interest in history, since Paulson--with Bernanke--was the major architect of the AIG bailout, and also former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Yet, Obama and the Democrats--willing to look so carefully at Haliburton, ow which Cheney was a former CEO--made no peep about Paulson. That is because they knew Paulson was "one of them", and that Paulson was pursuing the very type of Big Government policies they favored. Goldman Sachs, under Paulson, had been a major Wall Street player in the kind of "go-go" financial risk taking that--along with Big Government policy--had led to the financial "crisis" in the first place.

And it all took place, after early 2007--on the "watch" of Bernanke and Paulson. Paulson was the worst failure in the history of world finance--as I have labeled him before. That is because he not only failed to take any steps to prevent the economic meltdown after 2006, but because he had PARTICIPATED--as CEO of Goldman Sachs--in the very Wall Street/financial excesses that led, along with government policy, to that financial meltdown. Paulson SHOULD have known better than anyone what needed to be done in 2006. He had no clue, as he had no clue how to handle the "crisis" he helped create in 2008 (panicking, with all of those massive bailouts, and even changing the nature of the bailouts AFTER that farce of a debate in Congress all about "toxic assets").

Ben Bernanke was the second worst failure in the history of world finance. What did Bernanke do, as head of the Federal Reserve from the beginning of 2006, to anticipate/head off the financial/bank "crisis of 2008? NOTHING (effective). Absolutely nothing. Yet, the signs were there. People like me were saying that the housing "bubble was about to burst, and in fact beginning to burst. Bernanke did NOTHING. A complete failure. Yet, Wall Street still loves him--mainly because he let Wall Street/Goldman Salchs dictate government economic policies. See why I often refer to Wall Street people--along with economists, financial analysts, and financial people of all kinds--as the Stupidest People on Earth?

Thus, at the end of Bush's second term, you had economic policy being determined by Obama and the Democrats in Congress, by Paulson, and by Bernanke. Paulson and Bernanke were supported by the Democrats, and OPPOSED by conservative Republicans in their socialistic panic.

What did Obama do about the economy? Well, he continued the same policies, only worse. But he also appointed Timothy Geitner as Secretary of the Treasury. Who was Timothy Geitner? He was head of the New York Fed--under Bernanke--being the part of the Fed MOST connected to the financial meltdown. Yes, Geitner, even more than Bernanke, should have known what was happening, and did NOTHING to prevent the financial meltdown. No wonder it is looking like Geitner will dpreive Paulson and Bernanke of their titles: worst and second worst failures in the history of world finance, respectively. (The New York division of the Federal Reserve, FYI, supervises the MONEY CENTER banks, and is right there with Wall Street and all of the big financial institutions that ended up being the center of the "crisis", which is why the AIG meeting was held there).

Yes, Geitner was intimately involved with Goldman Sachs. It is the New York Fed that let a representative of Goldman Sachs sit in on a major meeting as to what to do about AIG--Goldman Sachs being the ONLY private company allowed to have a representative at that meeting. Obama and Geitner would bring more Goldman Sachs people into the Obama administration. Was not Paulson well connected with Bernanke and Geitner before the "crisis" in 2008? Sure, he was. It is no surprise that Geitner and Bernanke have continued the same policies of Paulson and Bernanke. How could they not, when those had really been the polcies of the TRIO of Paulson, Bernanke and Beitner prior to the "crisis" in the fall of 2008.

Can you have any doubt that the FAILED Bush/Democrat (remember the "stimulus" in the spring/summer of 2008/) economic polices have continued into Obama's first term (Bush's third term), basically under the SAME PEOPLE. The only difference is that Obama and the Democrats have made it worse by even MORE SPENDING--meaning a debt and deficit out of control. WHY should you believe these people should be able to "fix" our economy, when they are the very SAME people who were unable to stop the financial meltdown in the first place. In fact, they are the same people who had no clue it--the financial meltdown--was coming, until it was upon us. Yes, Obama--in Congress and as head of the Democratic party in the election year--was one of those people who had no clue as to what to do.

Q.E.D. Can you really have any doubt that Obama is now in the midst of Bush's third term, but worse?

P.S. You say Bush was the problem, and not Bernanke (still there), Paulson (policies still in place, although he is not), and Geitner (promoted for failure)? Just how big a hypocrite are you? Bush--according to the left--was not able to chew gum and walk at the same time. I give him more credit for intelligence thatn that, but I am not so delusional as to think Bush was running economic policy. His major fault was that he had NO conservative principles to oppose the massive government bailouts urged by Paulson and Bernanke, as they panicked. Yes, Bush is ultimately "responsible", as the man in charge--as is true of Obama. But Bush's failure was to put these people in charge, and to to down this Big Government path. That is also Obama's failure--made worse because Obama is a committed leftist, rather than just an establishment Republican Big Government guy like Bush.

Friday, March 5, 2010

Bush and Obama: 26 Months of Employment Disaster and Joint

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. nonfarm payrolls declined for the 25th time in the past 26 months, falling by 36,000 in February to a seasonally adjusted 129.5 million, the Labor Department estimated Friday"

The above is a MarketWatch subheadline today. This is a follow up to my previous article today.

Note that the economy has been losing jobs for 26 MONTHS. The one month in those 26 the economy did not lose jobs was--as stated in my earlier article--last November. And the economy did not really CREATE net jobs in that month, but we came out even.

Note that--poetic justice here--the 26 straight months of NO job growth represent 13 months under President Bush and 13 months under President Obama (depending on what month you start counting). Also, President Obama was in the Senate, and pretty much controlling Congressional policy (if he wanted to) as the Democratic Presidential nominee/electee for the months he was not President.

It is not unfair to say that Bush and Obama share JOINT responsibility for this whole disaster. Yes, I know that Obama likes to act like he suddenly arrived in Washington after Bush had messed things up, but that is not true (except, perhaps, for the "Bush messed things up"--in COMBINATION with Obama and the Democratic Congress--part).

Obama, since he has formally become President, has done no better than Bush. He has merely continued the Bush/Democrat policies of the last year (really two or four years) of the Bush Presidency. Indeed, Obama has been WORSE--not because he has been any worse on unemployment but because he has BANKRUPTED the contry in the process of failing to accomplish anything on unemployment..

Obama Failure: Unemployment and the Destruction of a Country (USA)--Data Analysis

Let us look at the unemployment statistics (unemployment rate) since about last July (when the economy and unemployment rate first stabilized, before any Democrat "stimulus" had any chance to have any effect): 9.5%, 9.4%, 9.8%, 10.2%, 10%, 10%, 9.7% (as formula "adjusted" at beginning of year), 9.7%.

That is the month-by-month unemployment rate for the past EIGHT months. You will remember that the mainstream media, and their "economists", proclaimed that the drop in the unemployment rate seven months ago, from 9.5% to 9.4%, showed that the job market was "turning around". In this case, the numbers don't lie. The job market has not improved in EIGHT MONTHS. As I have been saying for almost all of that time, correctly, what we have been doing is "bumping along the bottom"--not improving but not getting substantially worse.

That is, we are not getting substantially worse as far as the labor market and the economy are concerned. We ARE getting substantially worse as far as our POSITION is concerned. That is because we have nearly BANKRUPTED ourselves as a country, for NOTHING. We have spent more than 1 TRILLION dollars in WASTED "stimulus"--along with other extra spending, and we are committing ourselves to deficits of more than 1 TRILLION dollars for as far as the eye can see--1.5 trillion for the next fiscal year alone. We have built ourselves a hole we may not be able to dig out of, and accomplished no more than if we had done NOTHING (probably less). Note that this is entirely apart from the "bailouts" and what the Fed has done, in an attempt to keep our financial system from "collapsing". That was not a good idea either, but does not justify the FAILED government spending under any circumstances.

Look at the other numbers. We lost 36,000 jobs in February. That is UP from 20,000 jobs LOST in January. There were 83,000 or so jobs lost in December. Oh, yes, the number stayed the same in November--a nominal gain of 4,000 jobs. In other words, those numbers showed that the job situation reached its high water mark in NOVEMBER--not a very high water mark, at that--and has DETERIORATED since then (three months ago).

Then look at the jobless claims--the numbers for new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs). Those numbers have not improved in about 4 months (confirming the jobs lost numbers and the lack of improvement in the unemployment rate). The AVERAGE for December (average weekly new unemployment claims) was about 455,000. For January, the AVERAGE was about 466,000. The February average number, with one week to go, is already certain to be HIGHER than January.

Thus, the numbers show a job market that has STALLED. Meanwhile, inflation is heating up. What does this add up to? If you remember the Carter years--which resulted in the last severe recession at the beginning of the much better Reagan years--there is such a thing as STAGFLATION. That is where you have inflation without growth. The last inflation numbers indicated an annualized inflation rate of 15%. While that was mainly because of the "volatile" food and energy prices, you do have to pay for food and energy. It is likely that the true inflation rate is not quite that high,--maybe not even close to that high, as the "core" rate--excluding food and energy--would indicate. But if nay "recovery" were to start to take off, the inflation rate is likely to EXPLODE. That will promptly shut down any "recovery".

All in all, despite Obama promises, the economy--and especially the job market--remains in BAD shape, even after we have bankrupted the country based on Obama's promises. Nor is it ture that Obama has had only "one year". In many ways, the Obama policies have been in effect since the election of 2006, when Democrats took control of Congress (Obama being one of those Democrats who voted FOR most of the policies of the last Bush years). Certainly, Obama/Democrat policies have been in effect since the beginning of 2008. Remember the FIRST "stimulus" bill: the Bush/Democrat bill about this time in 2008? Of course, Obama strongly supported the Bush BAILOUTS, and the vigorous attempts by the Federal Reserve to pump money into the economy (and conduct bailouts of its own).

Nope. We have been on this spending/bailout path for at least two years, and we have basically been following Obama policies since the Democrat takeover of Congress. If you consider the BETRAYL of the Republican Party under Bush--with its own out-of-control spending, although Obama has taken it to a new level---we have been following a policy of unrestrained spending this entire century (only, of course, a decade old).

The situation is not good, and Obama wants to make it much worse with a massive government takeover of health care--as he FAILS to focus "like a laser beam" on jobs.