Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Ben Bernanke and Tony LaRussa: Non-Genius at Work--Failures Since 2006 (Obama too?)

Ben Bernanke was appointed as Chaiman of the Federal Reserve (by President Bush, at a time when the Obama/Democrat domestic policy was in the ascendancy, as I disowned President Bush and the Democrats prepared to take over Congress in January of 2007). Yes, Ben Bernanke PRESIDED over teh BEGINNING of the Great Recession--being appointed relatively early in 2006 before the recession had even come close to beginning. However, the signs were there when Bernanke was appointed (at almost the same time that fellow Wall Street economic fascist, Hank Paulson, was appointed Treasury Secretary, to the approval of Democrats, since both Bernanke and Paulson ae effectively Democrats of the "establishment" kind, whethr they have ever called themselves Repubicans or not).

What was I doing in 2006, and even before? I was arguing with people that we were in an outrageous housing BUBBLE, which was in the process of BURSTING. Bernanke had an entire TWO YEARS to "do something" about the loomng problem of the bursting of the housing bubble. What did Bernanke do? NOTHING. No, Bernanke did NOT even do as much as I did: that is, he did not raise red flags about how our financial institutions and government entities (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with Congress) needed to take ACTION to address a looming financial crisis. It is not too much to say that Bernanke and Paulson fiddled, while America burned. It was not until Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went under, and AIG was about to bring the rest of WALL STREET (not Amrica) down, that Bernanke actged (panbicked). What did he do? He BAILED OUT WALL STREET (especially including Goldman Sachs, which was the ONLY third party allowed to sit in a New York Fed meeting--prsent Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner being head of the New York Fed at the time--about what to do about AIG. Nope. Bernanke did NOT "save" America. He "saved" WALL STREET, after failing to do anything to stop the "crisis" from occurring.

You can see why Bernanke has earned his title: The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance. Doubt me? Don't. Bernanke--it is a fact--presided over the financial collapse that led to the Great Recession. But what has he done AGAINST us lately? Well, the Great Recession is universally viewed as the worst recession since the Great Depression. And it was totally internally generated: no outside shock. You could regard OPEC, and oil price shocks, as one of the prime things behind the Carter "stagflation", and resulting economic collapse. No one MADE our financial institutions go along with government in the uotrageous housing bubble, and no one mae them so stupid and greedy as to leverage themselves beyond all reason. And no one MADE Bernanke fail to take action to bring sanity to what was happening in the housing bubble, and the financial instruments that made EVERY money center bank and brokerage house a house of cards ready to fall. Still, surely Bernanke learned someting? Not a chance.

What has happened SINCE October of 2008? The economy did not reach its low until the spring (March-April) of 2009--after the Obama "stimulus" was already in operation. By July of 2999, before the "stimulus" had even had time to have any effect, the ECONOMY was already "recovering" on its own. Unemployment went DOWN from 9.5% to 9.4% in that summer of 2009, and the second half of 2009 was the ONLY solid growth we have experienced in GDP. Unemployment has NOT IMPORVED since the summer of 2009, and the GDP growth for the entire first half of this year was LESS than 1%. In the first half of 2008, it was later declared that we were in a RECESSION because of the SAME kind of "growth". By the time the failed Obama "stimulus" got ging, the "growth" was already OVER. The "stimulus" failed.

What happened was that Bernanke's PANIC made it impossible to have a normal economy, along with Obama's incredible govern ment takeover of the economy (sometimes literally, as with General Motors). Yes, Bernanke was already doing "Quantative Easing 1", as the Fed did a TONTINUUS bailout of the big banks and Wall Street, as both the Fed and Treasury pumped moneyinto FAVORED areas, as non-favored people suffered. It did not work. Growth stalled to notthing, and unemployment did NOT IMPOROVE. Thus, Bernanke was presiding over the WORST, and mongest lasting, "recovery" since World War II. Bernanke had now presided over the WORST recession since World War II, and now he was presiding over the worst recovery.

Bernanke panicked again, and--after being reappointed by Obama--did something "unprecedented" for the Federal Reserve. Yes, the continuing bank bailout relpresented by 0 percent money from the Fed stayed in place, but the Fed now did what has to be regarded as a Bernanke "magic trick". The Fed PURCHASED MOST OF OUR OWN BONDS IN MANY AUCTIONS. Where did the Fed get the money? It created it out of thin air. It PRINTED the money, although Dishonest Ben has continued to deny that obvious fact. Result? NOTHING. No growth. No improvement in unemployment.

Okay. I take it back. There WAS a result. Bernanke was deliberately lowering the value of the dollar, and INFLATING the stock market. Bernanke has even said that one of his main goals was to raise stock prices. And Obama has the nerve to talk about all of those "bad" people on Wall street, even when Obama is becoming PARTNERS with the economic fascists. This Bernanke attack on the dollar, to help Wall Street, had a predictable result: STEALTH INFLATION. Food? Yep, other countries actually accused us of STARVING people in the world because of our policies on "renewable energy" and lowering the value of the dollar. Did Obama and Bernanke KILL people? More pluasible than the idea that the Twa Party has done so. Gas prices? Obama has "blamed" the "Arab spring". It was really BERNANKE, and his policy of printing money, that has cuased GOD, OIL, FOOD, and virtually every commodity to rise in price. It was only when Bernanke's policy (QE2) began to SHUT DOWN our economy that oil began to fall in price. Again, Bernanke made it IMPOSSIBLE for the economy to really "recover". Every time it tries, the results of Bernanke policies shut down the economy again.

Yep. Last Friday, Bernanke made another SPEECH (words and government "central planning" being the only things he knows, just like Obama). Wall Street was looking for Bernanke to "save" THEM (to Hell with YOU). Bernanke actually said nothing, but Wall Street was "encouraged" that Bernanke essentaillly "promised" to do what it takes to keep us out of another recession (just like he did what it took to keep us out of the one in 2008?). In the meantime, Bernanke "promised" to keep interest rates at "0" (essentailly) for the next 2 years. As this blog said, if you took Bernanke literally he was saying that he DID NOT CARE if we were facing hyperinflation, as did the Weimar Repubicac as Germany headed for Hitler. Bernake was PROMISING to keep interest rates down for a LONG period of time. Forget that such a promise is the STUPIDET thing I have ever heard. Was Bernanke really sayng that he would keep that promise even if things change on the inflation front? I hope not. I would hte to think that even Bernanke is that dumb.

Yet. There STILL has been no improvement in the ECONOMY. Oh, Bernanke again succeeded in raising the stock market. That helped ME, as I invested jsut for such a bounce. My only problem is that the "b'ounce"--based on no economic improvement--went so far and so fast that it is really hard to SELL into the bounce (because everything is going up a little, instead of the "right" stocks going up a LOT over a longer peirod of time, giving you a chance to get out before thee nextg plunge). Yes, I have SOLD into the rally as much as I can, but not enough. This is "computer gaming", and not investing. That is how I am playing it. Yep. I told Rush Limabugth this back in March of 2009, when Limbaugh was sayig that Wall Street "smart guys" were voting "thumbs down" on Obama. Limbaugh does ot understand the modern stock market. I do . These are NOT "smorat people". They do NOT "anticipate" where the economy is going. These are The Stupidest People on Earth (excet, maybe, at the computer gaming casino, where they know Bernanke will BAIL THEM OUT of any grave mistakes). I actually heard a guy on CNBC call Bernanke the "greatest central banking mind of all time". Can you even imagine what the OTHERS are like? I, personally, think they are TAUGHT to be this dumb.

I know. The headline is unfair to Tony LaRusssa. LaRussa--even if past being able to effectively manage a major league baseball team to get the most out of his pllayers--has won world championships. He has won the third most baseball games, as a manager, all time, and the other two OWNED the team they managed. Bernanke has NEVER accomplished anything. It is hard to say he lost what he never had.

Still, since 2006, I believe LaRussa has been a failure. The St. Louis Cardinals have just IMPLODED--effectively falling out of contention before September began. It would not be quite right to say that the Cardinals "quit". But, in a recent stretch of games against teams under .500, the Cardinals lost about 2 out of every 3 games. That was a DISASTER, and I think LaRussa cannot be regarded as a genius any longer. Under pressure, in recent years, LaRussa teams have FOLDED. Yes, the Cardinals are "my" team, ever since I listened to Harrry Carey talk about Stan Musial when I was growing up in Mt. Ida, Arkansas.

Since the middle of 2006, the Cardinals have been no better than a .5000 team, in probably the WORST division in baseball--certainly in the National League. There are no monster teams in the Central Divisioin The Cardinals actually should be in contention every year---especailly with the best player in baseball (Albert Pujols)--now joined by Matt Holliday. There are two, and only two, exceptions to the statement that the Cardianls have been a .500 team (basically) since the middle of 20076. The first exception was the World Series run of 206, which might end up being regarded as the "last hurrah" of "genius" LaRussa. The second was a six week period after the Cardinals got Holliday, around the Al-Star break--in 2009. The Cardinals FADED into the playoffs in 2006, onlly to get it togehter for one big run. The 2005 team ws the GOOD geam, but it did not win the World Series. In 2009, the Cardinals did get back into the playoffs, but lost 3 games in a row to a not very good Dodger team. Again, the Cardinals had FADED the last month, but were not put under any pressure, as the rest of the Central Divisoion was hopeless to challenge the big lead the Cardinals had built up . The Cardinals have sometimes made it look better than it was by MEANINGLESS victories late. For example, the Cardinals won their last 6 games in 2008--after alling apart earlier in late August and September. They had no chance of catching Milwaukee. It was too late. The same thing happened in 2010, when the Cardinals were 78-74--only to win 8 out of their last ten games.. Again, this was a case of a .500 team making it look better in the end, as the Cardinals had no chance to catch the Reds. They had already blown it earlier. Now, this year the Cardinals have fallen 20 games behind Milwaukee, and history would suggest they have almost no chance to catch the Brewers--even if they win games late to get closer. Wild card chances are also slim, as the Cardinals are again little better than a .500 team.

LaRussa's fault? Well, I think so. At the very least, lyou can't call him a "genius" since 2006. He has not won a single playoff game. However, at least he was ONCE arguably a genius. Oh, I could go into the reasons I say LaRussa is no longer a genius. But the details hardly matter. The RECORD--as with Bernanke--seems conclusive. I will mention a couple of things. Promisin young pitcherr Jaime Garcia was left in to pitch earier this year until he gave lup 11 runs in the first 4 innings (3 and 1/3, actually). Gracia--who before that had one of the lowest earned rn averages in the National League, has not been the same since. LaRussa? You can't be sure, but LaRussa hardly helped. Then there was Colby Rasmus--once the top prospct for the Cardinals who seemed to fall apart. Could LaRussa have done anything? Who knows. But you get the iea. The point is that the RECORD sohows FAILURE since 2006. Yes, there have been injuries. Adam Wainwright would have helped this year. Still, there is enough talent there, in the weak Central Division, for the Cardinals to be in contention in LATE September. The fact is that LaRussa seems to be able to do no better with his injured players back than when they are injured. For example, Wainwright ws THERE in 200, and the Cardinals still collapsed when the Reds refused to fade.

Am I calling for LaRussa to be FIRED? Don't be silly. It is only a GAME. I would probably gently suggest he go somewhere else next year, as he, himself, kkeeps saying he should do. But it is not something I feel strongly about, except when I am watching the Cardinals blow another game. It really is only a game. Bernanke and Obama are destroying the COUNTRY.

Ah. Obama. Yes, you read the headline right, and I still don't know how Obama got away with it--or the Democrats. Democrats took over control of Congress in January of 2007. Yes, it was not only Bernanke who "presided" over the Great Recession. It was Obama and the Democrats, who controlled BOTH houses of Congress (dealig with a President who is not much less of a Big Government guy than they are). Democrats, including Obama, have CONTROLLED domestic policy since January of 2007. In fact, the ONLY thing that changed before the economy collapsed was that DEMOCRATS controlled Congress. I still don't know why Republicans have not made a major point of that, and let Obaa get away with the Big Lie of being an "outsider" who "found" a "mess" in Washington.

I take it back. I do know why Repubicans did not make a point of the FAILURE of government policies under a DEMOCRAT controlled Congress, and why Republicans did not BLAME Democrats for the recession (which Democrats clearly did nothing to stop from happening--including Obama). Repubiicans COOPERATED in those Democrat domestic policies, including both Bush and McCain. As this blog has repeatedly shown, we are now in BUSH'S THIRD TERM, only worse. Too many Republicans realize lthat they would be criticizing THEMSELVES if they attack the DEMOCRATS who controlled Congress in 2007 and 2008. Still, and objectively, Obama has FAILED since 2006 (or 2004, when he came into the Senate), and not jsut since he became President. He was part oft the MAJORITY in Congress after 2006.

P.S. Yes, I am aware that the Cardinals have defeated (I think, as I did not look at tonight' final where the Cardinals were way ahead) the Brewers 2 games in a row. The Cardinals have 6 games against the Brewers in less than two weeks. The problem is that the Cardinals need to win ALL SIX GAMES just to get back in some kind of conttention, and they still would have an uphill battle to make the playoffs. The Cardinals MUST win 5 out of 6 to have any realistc chance at all, and they still need to win about 75% of their other games, unless the Brewers self-detstruct (as the Phillies did in 19964). The Cardinals have put themselves in a deep hole, under pressure, and the odds are heavlily against them even getting back in contention. They have just not shown they are that goood a team. They leak runs on offense and defense. Their starting pitching and relief pitching are both spotty and inconsistent. LaRussa simply does not seem to be capable any longer of inspiring a CONSISTENTLY winning team. Milwaukee, of course, had been on one of the hottest streaks in the history of baseball, but that is no excuse for the Cardinals not to actually WIN games against supposedly inferior teams. Again, it is only a game, and by no means important to anyon's life. But I call them the way I see them. The RECORD shoes that LaRusssa has been a faiure sincde 2006, even if his World Series run in 2006 could be called a work of genius. Bernanke has NO "work of genius" to point to. Still no proofreadin or spell checking (my gad eyesight).

P.P.S. How do ou know I am sensitive about my age? Contrary to rumor, I do not PERSONALLY remember the Great Depression . That is my 89 year old mother whose hero is FDR. I was not born until 1947. However, I do personally remember things much too long ago. My fingers, for example, simply refused to type "2964", which (unless my memory has failed me) is the year that the Phillies collapsed and the Cardinals came from something like 10 games back in September to win the pennant. I originally typed "2994"--obviiously a Freudian slip because I did not want to reveal my true age. My mother continues to believe that OBAMA, and modern leftist Democrats, are betraying the memory of sainted FDR by their insistence on something for nothing. She is lPROUD that FDR corectly opposed public employee unions, and set up a Social Seucirty system that everyone paid into. She is ahast that we now give all kinds of taxpayer benefits to ILLEGAL immigrants. It tuns ut that some 57% of immigrants (legal and illegall) are receiving taxpayer aid (including Social Security for many elderly immigrants who never contributed to the system). I believe that my mother is looking at FDR through rose colored glasses. But if you went by what FDR SAID, she is probably right that BOTH Obama and Bush have betrayed the legacy of FDR. Of course, if you take what Obama has SAID, you can say that Obama has BETRAYED the legacy of OBAMA. How many times has Obama said that we MUST "live within our means, just lieke ordinary families?" (referring to government). He has never meant it, but that does not stop him from SAYING it. He is going to give yet another SPEECH, saying things like that, next week. Is anyone listening anymore, outside of the propagandists of the mainstream media? I don't think so. Words ares imply not enough anymore, and it shows how clueless Obama is that he does not seem to realize that another SPEECH is not what we need (a speech where he will contgradict hiself from paragraph to paragraph, trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that he is proposing the same FAILED policies that he has advocated for the past 7 years--since he was elected to the Sennate in 2004r, although it is not quite yet 7 years).

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Obama Jobs Program: Concept Problem--The Devil Is Not Only in the Details

My A&T&T/Yahoo internet default page is AGAIN carrying an article setting forth what is expected to be in Obama's "new" "jobs program". Now considering that Obama has "focused like a laserf beam" on jobs about a HUNDRED times since he became President, it is unclear why he does not face RIDICULE over yet another speech on the subject. What, after all, was the "Obama stimulus bil". and the EXTRA spending passed right after Obama became Preisdent. Those combined spending bills were more than ONE TRILLION dollars, and did not good. Meanwhile, Obama spent most of his time getting enancted the worst JOB KILLER of all time: ObamaCare (a new "entitlment" whose cost has alrady been shown to be vastly understated).

The "new" AT&T/Yahoo article is funny, because it is labeled "exclusive" (the source not even being clear, but I am glad to give credit to AT&T and Yahoo--BOYCOTT AT&T and Yahoo). However, if youi read this blog regularly--why would you not?--I already gave you the details last week. That is when AT&T/Yahoo featured the REUTERS article setting forth the same "list" of proposals. The "payroll tax cut" (see previious article). The payoff to the teachers' unions (aid to teachers). The reincarnation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with another stupid "quasi-government" entity (infrastructure bank--giving "loans" for infrastrucure while its proponents fail to explain HOW the loans get repaid, and from WHOM). The "tax credit" BRIBE to business--as if a sane business would hire extra people because of a tax credit (they will hire the same people they would hire anyway, and pocket the welfare payment). The "school renovation" payoff to unions (as is also true of the "infrastructure bank", except that the economic fascist establishment types of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also support this fraud) The extension of the 99 weeks of unemployment--again. As with the "pyyroll tax cut", Democrats would like to make this one permanent). As you can see, every single anticipated proposal INCREASE the defict--many of themm MORE (each--not in combination) than the total amount that Republicans have supposedly "cut" the deficit for the term of this Congress. If THIS program passes, then the Tea Party will have FAILED. For all of the good they will have done--much more harm than good, if they can't even stop an INCREASE in the deficit--then they should all be voted out.

You can see what is missing in the article (today's article, and the SAME article last week): THE COST. That is hat makes an apparent "neutral" listing of what Obama is going to say pure propaganda. If you leave out the COST of what Obama is proposing, you are leaving out the main issue. Yes, there are other minor details, such as the fraud of that "payroll tax cut" (see, again, the previous article), and why the "infrasstructure bank" is not jut a repeat, in a different area, of the mistake of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (ocsting us trillions, when they were not supposed to cost us hardly anyting--using the very same reasoning as is being used for the "infrastructure bank"). But, if you are putting out anything but propaganda, you HAVE to describe the COST of these things. How much will they ADD to the deficit? Will it not be MUCH more than the supposed "cuts" that will supposedly take effect through the next fiscal year. And how much will these things ADD to the "debt ceiling" increase we wil HAVE to pass next time. Yes, that is why I accurately call the passsage of this program a Tea Party BETRAYAL---if it passes. But the Tea Party can't stop it, can they, wihout establishment Republicans? Ah. That is why you have me--to explain how Washington works. It is true this is why I am ready to abandon the Republican Party for good. But you are deluded if you believe that Tea Party Republicans cannot STOP this "jobs program". They just have to make a big enough STINK (do more, in other words, than pass a useless vote--useless if it fails to win). Enough, however, as I have not even gotten to the headline point of this article.

The details of the Obama "jobs program" are terrible. But they are not as bad as the CONCEPT, and the failure to attack the concept is what drives me crazy about Republicans. The Federal Government has no business doing ANY "jobs program", as if the Federal Government can wave a majic wand and create NET jobs. If the past four years (yes, dating back to the last two years of Bush and the DEMOCRATIC Congress in which Obama was part of the group creating this mess) have not tuaght us that the government cannot "solve" unemployment with a central planning "jobs program", then we will never learn it. What is uunny is that I think the PEOPLE are ready to learn this, and have gone a long way in that direction. It is the POLITICIANS how refuse to learn.

"Wait a second, Skip. You just said that the Federal Government shoud do NOTHING about jobs. That is political suicide." No, that is not what I said. However, it is the CHARGE that the COWARDS in the Republican Party fear (not to mention that many of them are Big Government guys and gals--no matter what they say). What I am telling you is that the Magic Wand Theory of Government is not valid--in theory or practice. The whole bais of free market theory is that NO human being knows enough to CONGROL the economy in a beneficial way. That has been proven again in this recession--including by the FAILURE of Ben Bernanke (The Wort Failure in the History of World Finance).

What , then, do you "do" about jobs. If yo think that is the right QUESTION, then you have not been listening (or, at least, understanding). What the Federal Government needs to "do" is to have the right policies to create the propper environment for the PRIVATE ECONOMY to create jobs. The extreme regulation represents a wrong policy. The extreme debt represnts a wrong policy The subsitution of "government created" jobs for jobs created by the economy prepresents the WRONG policy. Bailing out SOME people and companies, but not others, represents the WRONG policy (and the wrong message to the economic fascists of Wall Street). Tax reform, and a CUT in general TAX RATES, represents a right policy. "Short term" "gimmicks", such as these "one-year" "tax cuts" and tax credits, represents a WRONG policy. In other words, the CONCEPT should be to get the whole economy on a PERMANENT right track. That is what Ropnald Reagan attempted--to great success, except the concept has been eroded ever since Reagan. Enable people to act upon economic REALITY, and not because of the tax code or because of aiming for government MONEY.

This means that there is NO "quck fix". Now a general tax RATE cut may have been someting of a "quick fix" had it been done at the beginning of the Obama Presidency, and been PERMANENT. Too late. Tax reform, and reduction of tax RATES (income tax rates) still is essential . But it will not "create" a lot of immeidate jobs. NOTHING will (short of a WPA that we absolutely cannot afford, and that will not "create" NET JOBS over even the mediumm term). Now Obama SAYS this: That there is no "quick fix". But that is not what he PROMISES. He PROMISES to wave his magic wand, if we will only let him, and create jobs. This actually COSTS JOBS (net jobs--which is why I use that satiric headline every time the Thursday report of new unemplyment claims coomes out showing the loss of GROSS jobs the previus week). No, conservatives need to forget about fighting this battle for our country's soul on the ENEMY turf. Republicans should NOT be talking about "creating jobs", except in the Rick Perry sense of POLICIES that end up allowing private jobs to be "created". Every now and then Republicans do correctly say that the Federal Government does NOT "create jobs". But then they go back to talking aoubt "jobs" as if it is something the government must DO SOMETHING about immediately . What government needs to do is NOT to attempt to wave a magic wand, but to create an environment where the free market can work. As Ronald Reagan said: "Government is not the 'solution' to the problem; Government IS the problem." That is not to say that all government action is bad, such as maintaining some sort of "safety net", althouugh the idea of a massive central Federal Government "protecting" everyone is a very bad one. However, that is another LONG article. The point here is that the very idea of a "jobs program" is WRONG. The idea that the Federal Government "knows" how to create jobs, and WHAT jobs to create, is simply STUPID. That is what a "jobs program" assumes, as the Federal Government creates winners and losers-instead of creating an econoomic environment where the WINNERS create themselves.

Thus, Repubicans should be rejecting the very IDEA of a "jobs program". They really are not. That is because they are COWARDS. They think the public still wants the government to DO SOMETHING. Maybe, in a way, the public still does (heroin addiction being hard to kick). But the amazing thing seems to be that the PUBLIC seems much more ready to "kick the habit" of the Magic Wand Theory of Government than our "leaders" (media, establishment, politicians, etc.).

You can see why I am both pessimistic and optimistic. I am optimistic becuase I see signs that the PUBLIC is getting it, and that the "establishment" is on its last legs. At the ssame time, I am pessimistic because we have no LEADERS. Ronald Reagan, where are you when we really need you? My pessimism is overwhelming my optimism simply because we have NO TIME. It is like turning the Titanic. At some point, you are doomed to hit the iceberg. This is not about turning the economy around tomorrow. This is about the entire future of this country, and that is what at risk here if we continue to "double down" on the Magic Wand Theory of Government.

P.S. No proofreadin or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Monday, August 29, 2011

Social Security Attack: Democrats and Wall Street Fascists Double Down on Destroying Social Secureity

Why is Social Security not a welfare program? I am srious. Why did FDR not set up Social Security as a straight welfare program for old people (like me--although I am "only" 64, but an effectively blind 64)?

My honors social studies class professor answered that question in 2968, at New Mexico State Universtiy, when I accurately pointed out that Social Security is a BAD welfare program and a BAD retirement/insurance program. By the way, you might wonder what I was doing in an honors social studies class (not to mention an honors economics class), when I had a major in physics and a minor in mathematics. You might be less puzzled if you knnow that I went out of the United States Army (where I went directly after college) into the University of Texas School of Law (with an LSAT of 785 out of 800, after I had been out of college for 3 years, withouit a prepatory class). I digress. I am sort of proud, though, of ding that well without a preparatory class--hardly possible with the "logic games" on the modern LSAT.

What my professor correctly said was that Social Security was set up for EVERYONE (not just the poor) to beoth give EVERYONE a stake in the program, and to send the message that the program involved the DIGNITY of the elderly. FDR's position--the kind of position that made him my 89 yer old mother's hero, even though she cannot stand Obama--was that the elderly had EARNED a minimum amount of dignity in their old age--especailly if the Social Security program was a self-sustaining, self-financed program. Now the fraud here was that Social Security never was a true retirement program, where people paid into their own retirement. Instead--the falw that may yet turn out to be fatal--it was a program where the YOUNG paid for the benefits for the OLD, with the PROMISE (not legally enforceable) that they, in turn, would get the same sort of benefit when they (the young) became old. The key point here, however, is that FDR (and the whole nation) set up Social Security as a self-sustaining, self-financing program that EVERYONE had a stake in (not only with regard to benefits, but with regard to paying into the program).

What was the financing? You know this one. It was, and is, the PAYROLL TAX (what used to be called the Social Security Tax). That is supposed to be the ONLY financing for Social Security. That was how the system was set up. That is why the payroll tax is separate, and Socail Secruity is not treated as a wealth redistribution scheme to be paid out of general tax revenue (a graduated income tax).

Thus, the payroll tax is not just another tax. It is a retirement contribution, even if lyou are contributing to the retirement of people other than yourself. In a way, it is like a gasoline tax dedicated to highways, bridges, and transportation. If you change this system by financing Social Secruity with general tax revenue, you are ATTAKING the very concept by which FDR set up the Social Security system. Notice that the DIGNITY is gone. The "stake" of everyone is GONE. What you have left is merely another Big Government welfare program for the elderly. This is exactly lwhat Obama and the Democrats--not to mention the economic fascists on Wall Street--intend to do. They intend to DESTROY Social Security. Oh yes, too many Republicans, and even "conservatives", buy into this attack on Social Security (hence the reference to "economic fascists"--having nothing to do with Hitler but a lot to do with the idea that your life shold be CNTROLLED by a "partnership" of Big Government and Big Business).

Doubt me? Never do that. What have we had for the past year, because of the "lame duck" "deal" wich INCREASED the deficit much moe than the Repubicans have even nominally cut it (throughg the next fiscal year and beyond).? Right. Obama got the Republicans (not much arm twsting involved for thsese Big Defict/Big Government guys and gals) to agree to a "temporary", one year, "payroll tax cut". As this blog has spent a lot of time showing yhou, there is no such thing as a "payroll tax cut" reducing the amount available to pay Social Secruity benefits. Remember, the "payroll tax" is the ONLY financing for Social Security. Except now it isn't, as we have already gone a long way toward DESTROYING Social Security. That is because the "cut" does NOT come out of Social Security. It comes out of general tax revenue. You should be able to see that this makes the "payroll tax cut" a WELFARE PAYMENT. It is a long step toward making Social Security a WELFARE SYSTME, which is exactly what many people want to do. (including Obama and the Democrats). You should also be able to see that this is not only CASS WARFARE but AGE WARGARE. The young and productive have to pay for the payments to the old and unproductive--NOT as having a stake in the entire system but as part of a welath redistribution scheme. It gets wore--much worse.

What is Obama gong to propose in his "jobs" program? You guessed it. He is gong to propose that this "payroll tax cut" be EXTENDED at least another year--this "temporary" "stimulus" that FAILED to do anything over this year but increase the deficit MORE than any supposed "cut" that our politicians have agreed to (not counting "cuts" ten years or so from now, which really don't count). This welfare gimick "stimulus", that DID NOT WORK, wil increase the deficit another 1000 billion dollars or so (Not too sure of this number, but it is a LARGE number, as lou can tell by merely multiplying $1000 by 100 million). Yes, the "tax cut"/welfare lpayment is 2% of only the worker's part of the tax, as to every worker in America. Are there 100 million workers in America? I don't know. Thee really should be., if Obama has not cost them all their jobs with gimmicks like this (alrealdy failed gimmicks). It gets still worse. Remember, this is NOT a "payroll tax cut", if you realize that the "payroll tax" is the ONLY financing for Soecial Security (unless we are going to destroy the concept of Social Security). Social Security already cannot meet its obligations. We have to BORROW the money, and then pay it back form general tax revenue. Thus, we are notw financing Scoial Security with general tax revenue. Meanwhile CNBC, and most of Wall Street, is saying that tihs "payroll tax cut" is a foregone conclusion"--made that wy by Ben Bernanke's speech on Friday (Ben Bernannke being the Fed Cahriman, or otherwise known as The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance). Yep. I could never make this up. The economiic fascists on Wall Street believe that Bernanke signalled that he is supporting THEM (as, in fact, he has, rather than supporting the people of the United States). See how this "economic partnership" is supposed to work: Wall Strreet tells Washington what to do, and the Republican establishment is supposed to go along because they ARE Wall Street.

"Wait, Skip, you said it was WORSE than this. How could it possibly be worse?" Ah. What is the goal here? It is obvious that this "gemporary" "gimmick" accomlishes nothing except increase the deficit, and give people money--like the Bush/Democrat "stimulus" of 2008). Oh, and that cash welfare payment that people will get each month, as they got thins year? That will COST people much mor than the money they get. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But the way this is WORSE than that is that everyone can see that this "temporary" "stimuulus" will NOT help employment or the economy. It has not helped. Obama likes to claim that the Obama "stimulus" contained all kins of "tax cuts". Not so It containted the same kind of WELFARE PAYMENTS (disguised as "tax cuts") which we are talking aobut here. Short-term, "temporary" "tax cutrs" are not true "tax cuts" at all. They are just GIMMICKS to "stimululate the economy. Republicans who talk about real, permanent tax cuts as if they are just another "gimmick" to stimuluate the economy should probably just be taken out and shot. They are a useless drag on humanity. However, it IS possible to have a PERMANENT "cut, or repeal, of the payroll tax. That would be a "real" tax cut--if a fraudulent one.

How do I know that this is what Obama. leftist democrats and Wall Street fascists are planning? Well, I LISTEN to leftists, and that is what I hear. Further, the ONLY avenue for CLASS WARFARE leftist is to cut the payroll tax, until there is no payroll tax. Why is that? It is because 50% of the country PAYS NO INCOME TAX. The "rich" already ay much more than their "fair share" of the income taxes. How can leftist Democrats avoid the (correct) label thqat their primary goal in life is to RAISE TAXES? Easy. CUT the payroll tax, and RAISE other taxes. I feel like crying. You should be able to see where this is going. Already, we are heading towards a society were a smaller and smaller lpercentage of the people are looked at for ALL of our revenue. If we add Social Security, and all of Medicare (50% is already there) to this, we are facing DISASTER squarely in the face. Not least of the problems is that we will DESTROY the very rationale for Social Secuirty, as it has existed since FDR. You just can't finance the government from a constantly diminishing number of people, such that the vase majority of people have no stake at all in the country (except in terms of "gimme"). I will be as bluint as I can (Ben Bernanke, FAILURE that our are; This means YOU and all of CNBC): We will not survive this kind of concept of the financing of government--especailly when the government is merely an agent for WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. Further, Social Secruity will ot survive it, which is why FDR set it up this way in the first place (so it would survive).

Ah. The final proof. Yep. I saw a small part of Hannity on the unfair and unbalanced network. Hannity had on the susual suspects from the %$%)^% Business channel, and the man (Stuart Varney, or however he speels it) was saying that this "payroll tax cut" is merely a gimmick that has already proven not to help. The womn, however, as a true economic fascist, said that such criticism was only valid if this is not a PERMANENT tax cut. I feel like crying. See above.

Yes, a PERMANENT "payroll tax cut" would be a "real" tax cut, rather than a direct welfare payment and short-term "stimulus". Problem (making this the WORST proposed tax "cut" in the history of man): The "payroll tax" is NOT jsut a means of raising revenue. It is the ONLY financing for Social Secruity. Therefore,, a payroll tax "cut" is NOT a "real" tax cut. It is a plan to DESTORY Social Security, and a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME. Social Security itself needs funding HELP (being already broke, on any kind of long-term basis). Thus, people who proose this are proposing to BORROW the money to pay Social Security, and then to pay that money back out of GNERAL REVENUE. Social Security, as we know it, disappears. If we "fund" it with general revenue, then Social Security is merely another Big Government welfare program. Yes, I am perfectly aware that Social Security is a "regressive" tax. So is the gasoline tax. But we absolutely have to retain the concept that people have to PAY for what they expect to receive, at least in part. Remember, 50% of the country pays NO income tax. Thus, the other reason that at permanent "payroll tax cut" is not a "real" tax cut is that money intended to PAY for a program--speciafically to make the program a responsibility of everyone--is merely GIVEN to people who will payNOTHING toward their retirement. Sure, that alrady occurs (sojme immigrants come to mind), but Obama, Democrats and Wll Street fascists want this to DEFINE the way we finance Social Security.

I have told you that I WALK AWAY from the Repubican Party--FOREVER--if this payroll tax "cut" passes. I can about say the same thing about the entire Obama "jobs" program. I thought I was being tolerant not to take this step at the time of the FRAUDULENT "lame duck" "stimulus". Or at the time of the FRAUDULNT budget deal for the current fiascal year. Or at the time of the FRAUDULENT "deal" on the deb ceiling, where a simple extension would have actually been better. You should be albe to see why I am so pessimistic. I now think that the chances are 90%, and rising, that I will walk away from the Repubican Party forever. That will have consequences. First, it will mean that I probably will NOT support either Romney or Perry against Obama. I will support Bachmann, but NOT because she is a Republican. No, that is not already my positiion. I have tried to give the Republican Party every chance, but they have used them all up. What can they do? Basically, do what I don't expect them to do: Avoid being COWARDS. Pas NONE of Obama's "jobs program"--fraudulent and deficit busting as it is--and REJECT a fraudulent "deal" by the "gang of 12" (the only kind of deal at all likely, as any "deal" will involve spending "cuts' in the FAR TUTURE, while any tax increases will occur pretty quickly),

P.S No proofreading or spell checking (that eyesight). That is badas to a complex article like this, where I am trying to explain what everyone else is tryong to CONFUSE. I hope the redundancy is enough to make the above intelligibnle, despite the typos and inability to proofread garbled sentences. Your corss to bear is putting up with this. Mine is perhaps dong this for nothing. Well, I AM doing this for nothing, but I do have some hope of spreading some light out there, if only among a few people. If you can't even read what I write, then there is no way I can do any good. Here's hoping, pessimist that I am. Oh, you are not reallly any worse off than I am. Not only can I not read my own blog entreis (in any reasonable amount of time), but I caN't read even the AP articles upon which I comment. How do I do that? I do what you probably have to sometimes do with this blog. I have to make an educated GUESS as to what the article says, based on what amounts to picking out the headline, and maybe one word in two or three. Trust me. I am not being unfair to the despicable AP. Long before my eyesight got this bad, I was writing the sAME type of articles on the AP stories. That is how I can be so sure about my 'guess" on what the AP says. For 7 years and more, I have written more analysis of AP stories than any other single person alive. I don't intend to stop, even if I have trouble reading the stuff now (which would otherwise be like being in Heaven--if I liked the concept of Heaven--as no one should have to read an AP story. This P.S. should tell you that it is getting late, and I am getting tired. Feel free to ignore it. But this "payroll tax cut" issue is important to me, which I am trying to convey with this P.S. For me, it shows--more than any other single "issue"--what is WRONG with the way "we" (meaning the mainstream media, leftists, the establishment, and the like) are approaching "issues' today. This "issue" alone shows why I am such a pessimist, and may be the reason I leave the Republican Party behind forever. That is why I really want to get this across, typos, garbled sentences and all. Yep. I have again been confirmed n my view of the unfair and unbalanced network, but you knew I would be.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Wind Gusts and Hysteria (Wolf Blitzer, Idiot and Obama Shil, in Irene "Crisis)

Spring happens in El Paso, and thunderstorms happen (especially in July and August). So what? Well, this blog has told everyone that you should move to El Paso, becasue El Paso has NO hurricanes, NO tornadoes, NO earthquakes, and NO (extensive) flooding (despite that one summer we were designated a national disaster area because of "too much rain" (lol--this year we had some 140 straight days without ANY rain, which is more typical). However, the wind usually BLOWS in El Paso in the spring. One year the Italian cypress trees outside of my house seemed to have developed a premanent tilt because of the constant wewt to east winds. Winds of 30 to 40 mph are often almost a daily occurrence. 50 mph gusts are a common occurrence. Then there are the summer monsoon thunderstroms, driven by the energy of the summer heat. Not every long ago this summer, we experienced winds of above 60mph.

What is the point of this? I saw another 30 seonds of hurricane coverage on cable TV, and I heard the anchor describing inland 50mph wind gusts as though they were a big problem. That is simply not ture. Sure, they might occasionally cause damage, as spring winds, and thunderstorm winds, sometimes do in El Paso But it is simply absurd to make a point out of 51mph winds, as if they show some sort of extreme problem Unimpressed. That is me. See my previous two articles. I am more than unimpressed with our media and government reaction to a Category 1 hurricane. Yes, the flooding and storm surge danger CAN be real. Otherwise, this strom shoiuld be something we hangle in stride. It is disturbing that we cannot handle a routine hurricane like this in strike. And NO, this is not 'unprecedented". There was a time that east coast hiurricanes were so frequent that the coastline was called the "bowling alley". In recent years, that has not been true, but we USED to be able to hande these events in strike. That was before Katrina, and before both media and government decided they really needed to SCARE everone. It is a shameful lthing. lI am glad I already knew what kind of idiot Maryor Blloomberg is It keeps me from hainvg to eat crow if I had evdr made the mistake of referring to him as an intelligent man at all interested in telling the pubic the truth. I talked toy my New York Ciuty daughter today, and she said thatthe subway shutd down at NOOON today for no reason (as the storm is not expected to have an real effects until early int he orning). And, contrary to the usual unreliabe "news" reports, cabs cost MORE today instead of less (even as you had to share a cab). And my daughter said that there was PROPAGANDA out thre suggesting that Con Ed (the power company) volluntarily SHUT DOWN electriciy in at least some areas. Luckily, Con Ed (in a burst of sanity) decided against this INSANITY.

Then there is Wolf Blitzer, Obama shill on the Obama shill network (like MSNBC), who said that President Obama cut short his cacation (which was gong to get rained on anywa, and hardly gong to be much of a vacation in the path of a strom, even if not that major a storm). to deal withthis "crisis". Wolf Blitzer, certified idiot (although the certification has to be an insult to idiots), said: This is, indeed, a crisis". Say what? A Category 1 hurricane is a "crisis? Nuts. Our general said that to the Nazis at Bastogne, and I say it to Wolf Blitzer now. No"crisis". Just an ordinary hurricane that we need to deal with As with recent flash flooding (not hurricane related) that KILLED people, and with recent midwest flooding, and as with low0w-lwying area flooding in El Paso caused by excessive rains and no drainage a few years ago, we have to DEAL with this kind of ordinary proble in a cost efficient and effective way (meaning without absurd overreactinon in a CYA frensy, and media "self-i-interest" frenzy).

Irene actually shows why I am becoming more and more pessimistic about this coountry THINKING is out. HYSTERIA is in. The only reason I am not totally pessimistic is that my NYC daughter says that the PEOPLE of NYC are RIDICULING the overreactiion, in person and on Facebook, although everyone is almost FORCED into shareing the overreaction (everything closing, no cabs after 8 p,m. tonight, no subway, etc.). I have absolutely no doubt that Maryor Bloomberg would have tried to evacuate HOUSTON (Hurricane Rita), and KILLED lpeople in that absurd project. I would bet that Maryor Bloomberg has managed to KILL people in NYC--just not in ways quite as obvious. as stranding people on gridlocked freeways.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Hurricane Irene: Two Million Ordered to Leave as Irene Takes Aim!!--Hype Gone Amok

Yes, this is a follow up to the previous article, because I made the mistake of checking the AT&T/Yahoo internet default page before I went to bed.

Yep, my head line above (before the dash) is the present AP/AT&T/Yahoo headlie on Irene.

Is that headline "information" even important? Nope. Does not mean a thing. People right on the coast would be expected to think abuot getting out of the way of a hurricane. "Ordered to leave" is a LIE. I mean it. That is an outright LIE. What happens to you if you don't leave? NOTHING (except ou may, of course, die). I repeat: This is a Category 1 hurricane. How many people would be "oredered" to leave if iIrene were a Category 4, or even a Category 3, hurricane? 50 million? 40 million? 30 million? The same 2 millioni (because they are the same peoople who will be "ordered" to levave for ANY hurricane)? The whole headline is absurd. The story is absurd. Our media is absurd (as I continue my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter).

Hurricane Irene: Media Lies, as Category 4 Hurricane Hites New York City

Hacker Boy (hackng into this despicable blog, while still making no comment on Skip's outrageous charge that I am connected to Rupert Murdoch and/or the unfair and unbalanced network): "Skip, yoiu have done it again. You know full well that Irene will not be a catetory 4 hurricane as it approaches New York City."

Skip: "I checked it out. Hacker Boy is right again. However, I thought I was on SOLID ground on this one. I saw a MAJOR story--with scare stuff and pictures and everything--on a cable TV network about how a category 4 hurricane woud affect New York Citgy--with the clear message that Irene ws potentially such a hurricane. ALL of the stories I saw as Irene hit the Bahamas talked about how Irene would STRENGTHEN into probably a catetory 4 hurricane--at least a strong category 3--after it left the Bahamas. The implicaton was always there that Ireen COULD be a category 4 hurricane almost alll of the way up the East Coast. And the story has been for at least a WEEK that Irene will almost surely be the first "major" hurricane to hit the U.S. in 3 years--with a hing of DISAPPOINTMENT in every such story that the media has not been able to HYPE such a storm in the past three years. Yes, the media looks at Katrina (incorrectly, unless you really think 10,000 people died in New Orleans) as its "glory days", for which the media YEARNS to return. If lyou understand me to be saying that many in the media yearn for death and destruction, you are readig me correctly.

What is wrong with media hurricane coverage--ALL of it? What is wrong is that, as is true of the way modern "journalists" cover everything else these days, the media is UNINTERESTED in the FACTS. Look at the old "Dragnet" TV show if you don't know wahat I mean by a fact. For hurricanes, the "facts" are its path (with caveats that the path is always uncertain), the intensity and strength, and the FACOTRS that might strengthen or weaken the storm.

What aer the facts on Irene? Well, right now it is projected to make "landfall" on the outer banks of North Carolina as a Category 1 hurricane. Yep. That is what I said: a Category 1 hurricane--the WEAKEST of the hurricane categories, and NOT a "major" hurricane (unless you change the definition). Is the media eve TALKING aoubt how WRONG their projections-almost all of their stories--were? Not on your lie, which tells you the reason for the HYPE in the first place. It is what I call the "horror movie syndrome". Media people believe--proably with some justification as tothe validity of their opinion, but NO "justification" for prostituting themselves based on this opinion--that people WANT to be SCARED. Or, to put it with more accuracy, peple get a THRILL out of the WORST "projections", no matter what the facts are. Thus, in El Paso you get about 5 stories every winter about possible major SNOW storms, even thouhg we get a "major" (for El Paso) snow storm about once ever three to five eyars. But if you PROMOTE a weather/"news" broadcast as telling the audience about SNOW, the idea is that yoiu will get a greater audience. Am I cynical? Not nearly as much as these DIHONEST "journalists" who HYPE hurricanes and weather events.

Fact: There NEVER was gong to be a Category 4 hurricane hit New York City. My duaghter lives in NYC, and I told her that (in foresight, as usual). I almost did a blog article on the subject, but never got around to it. The fact is that Irene MAY not be a hurricane at all when it reaches the NYC area. It is now pojected to be a WEAK Category 1 hurricane.

Is Irene a dangerous storm? Of course. Any hurricane deserves respect. But as far as WIND is concerned, it is probably only a little more dangerous than a strong El Paso THUNDERSTORM. It is a lot LESS dangerous than a midwest TORNADO (almost always more dangerous for WIND than a hurricane). What is the real danger from Irene? FLOODING (massive rain). But notice that it is possible to have massive flooding without a hurricane. What am I saying? I am saying that if this country cannot deal effectively--without shutting down entire states and cities--with a Category 1 hurricane, then we might as well hang it up. We are doomed. Nope. I am still not saying to ignore a hurricane. People on low-lying islands should generally get out. People in low-lying, flood prone areas should take precautions. Everyone shoud be purdent. But "prudent" does NOT mean spending BILLIONIS of dollars on every hurricane "threat" (including hurricanes that don't even hit us).

What is in the running for the WORST decision by public officials in modern times? Theattempted evacukation of Houston for Hurricane Rita. That decsion KILLED people, as it was IMPOSSIBLE to evacuate Houston (the whole ciet). Am I saying you should NEVER evacuate NYC--the whole city? Damn right. If you cant't do better than that, you should not be mayor, or governor, or whoever makes the decision. Now I don't think NYC is being evacuated (let us hope not), but there ar e stories aobut shutting down the transportation system. STUPID. No, I am not talkingaabout a CONTINGENCY plan if Irene were bearing down on NYC as a Category 3 hurricane. I ma talking about no CYA PANIC, before a decision needs to be made--especailly if that panic is partly based on "news" HYPE aoubt a Category 3/4 storm Is it (barely) pssible for a Category 4 hurricane to hit NYC? Yes. But it was IMPOSSSIBLE for Irene to be such a strm. And the odds are ALWAYS about a thousand to 1 against.

What is wrong with SCAREING peopple? Well, you might ask those DEAD people in Houston who died in the EVACUATION. But the idea that people need to be LIED to in order to get them to do the right thing is an EVIL idea, with NO redeeming social value. Have you never heard of "the boy who cried wolf"? Tell people the facts. Storm surge is NOT going to cover Washington D.C. Flooding from RAIN is a real danger in lowlying areas. The WIND of Hurricane Irene is not much of a real danger--so long as you don't get really stupid. You may be in about as much danger from lightning. Now can the wind blow down a flimsy structure, or one that is somehow vulnerable? Of course. So can the 70 mph winds in a strong El Paso thunderstorm. It is the HYPE, and overreatction to the facts, that is wrong here--not reasonable cautiion.

Am I saying we are gong way beyond reasonable caution for hurricanes? Damn right I am saying that. We are getiting to the point that we may PARALYZE the country if a REAL Category 5 hurricane approaches. Hell, we are getting to the point that we will paralyze a god part of the country if a Category 1 hurricane approaches. I was ALIVE (altough not there) when Category 5 Camille struk the U.S We could handle that sort of theing back then. Now we seem unable to do it. Is part of the problem too many people in hurricane zones? Sure. Bt we HAVE to learn how to deal reasonably with these storms. No wonder we can't deal with our deficit. We can't even deal in a cost effective--humanity effective--way with a Category 1 hurricane.

No. I REJECT the idea that we shold PLAN for a Category 5 hurricane every time a hurricane appears in the Carribean. Contingency plans, yes. Overplanning for a worst case scenario, NO. Why not? Because it is STUPID. As a country, and as a threatened area, we need to make plans based on FACTS--with the ability to adjust to changing facts quickly. That means NO "evacuation" of MAJOR CITIES (okay, I am not sure what to do about a good part of New Orleans--sort of a special case). We really need to learn how to fact "threats" with EFFECTIVE use of resources, and not with the idea that it does not matter how much OVERKILL and HYPE we put out there. Concentrate on effectively dealig with the real risks, and not the IMAGINARY risk of New York City being hit with a Category 4 hurricane. Not one second. That is how much time I would have spent "preparing" for Irene AS A CATEGORY 4 HURRICANE. Prepare for the real. Have a contingency paln (NOT developed because of Irene, or in connectin with Irene) as to an unexpected, once -in-a-centry event. But don't OVERHYPE real events.

Of couurse we now do this with almost everything. It is almost "lucky" that you don't have much time to prepare for tornaodes (which really do kill people with wind). It keeps us from this ridiculous hype we get with the slow developing threat of a hurricane (when the "slow developng" part SHOULD enable us to deal really well). Lok at nuclear plants, and the SCARE stories? Look at HqN1 flu ("swine flu"). Remember that? The health organizatinos declared it a "pandemic"--totally devaluing the word (as this blog told you AT THE TIME. The media thinks we LIKE to be scared unnecessarily. No chance of a tsunami AND an earthquake above 7.0 in most of the U.S.? Doesn't matter. We still get the HYPE on whether our nuclear plants can deal with that. You have to live in the REAL--not in a fantasy world of your own making. Do you want to confirm the media view of you: that you WANT to be scared as basically entertainment, and will reward the people who HYPE instead of ginve you the facts (as if you are adults)? I hope not.

What would I advise my daughter in New York City? Well, I would advise her not to STAND out in the wind and rain (like a stupid media person). I would advse here not to walk along the water, as the storm is affecting the city. I would advise here to stay out of low-lying areas prone to flooding. Yes, I would even advise here to try to keep up with the FACTS on the situation (hard as that is). Otherwise, I see no reason for her to change her life.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkig (bad eyesight).

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Unemployment Claims: Blog 3,037, Economists and Media 0 (Obama Fails on Jobs: Loses 1,5630,000 Jobs inFour Weeks)

The usual Thursday report on the number of new unemployment claims made last week (a reflection of layoffs/lot jobs) came out today As usual, it ws bad news, although it had basically nothing to do with the fall in the stock market (computer gaming casion that it is--as financial analysts make fools of themselves by giving "resons" for these market drops that are absurd, and the sutupid people know they are absurd as they say it). More about today's number below. First, however, let us review this blo'g article earlier this week on last Thrusday's report on the number of unemployment calims filed the previous week.

You will remember, or you can refer back to the aricle two days ago in this blog, that the number of new unemployment claims was rEPORTERD lat week as 408,0000--up a supposedl 9,0000 rom the previous week, This blog told you that was a LIE--caomparing apples and orages That was because the 408,000 number was an UNREVISED number--to be revised nexte Thursday, wiich happens to be today--while it was being compared to a REVISED number of 399,000 (revised upward from the previously reported 395,000--as to which the media went inot an orgasm of LIES about how "good" that nuumbr was). What I told yoou eariler this week, in that previous blog article, was that the REVISED number, to be reported Thursday (i.e. today), was likely 411,000 or 412,0000, because the number was almost always revised upward 3 or 4 thousand. Well, the revised number for last week was reported today. Guess what? Right This blog was dead on again. Last week's reported number of 408,000 was revised UPWARD to 412,000, meaning that the number of new unemployment claims actually rose 13,000 (for the week previous to last week), instead of the headline LIE of a rise of 9,000. This headline LIE is repeated every single week, and I correctly call the media LARS every single week. You cannot compare apples and oranges, AND report each week's number as it wre a deinit, concrete number that will no change, wihout being a LIAR. that is a word that applies to every financial "journalist' out there reporting on these weekynew unemploymnet claim numbers--at least every financial "journalis" I have ever seen. The despicable AP,of course, has never gotten it right, as befits a group of 'journlists" that is the subject of my futile, Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter.

The UNREVISED number of new unemployomnent claims reported today was 417,000. You should realize by now that the most likely REVISED number (to be reported next Thursday) will be 420,000 or 421,000, if past history is a guide. Now about 15% of the time, the expected 3 or 4 thousand upward revision does not occur. A time or two, over the past year, the revision has been as much as 6,000 or more. A few times the revision has been 0 or 1,000. But by far the most common revision has been 3 or 4 thousand, with a samttering of 2,000 upward movew. I can't even remember the last time the revision wsa DOWN. That just does not seem to happen. As usual, the 417,000 number was reported as a "concrete" number, instead of the unrevised ESTIMATE that it is. Liears (today's "journaliss") just do not learn, or do not care (it beig too hard to try to correctly explain the facts) You get the truth here, even if it may require a dull exposition of numbers that confuses you, or gets me caught up in convoluted sentences easy to garble (not to mention numbers easy to mistype).

EXCEPT. This time MarketWatch (and probably the rest of the mainstream media, who will automatically repeat Obama Administration propaganda) reported that the weekly number (the 417,000) was UNRELIABLE because it was inflated by the Verizon strike. Now the cluelss "journalists" of today's media do not seem to realize thata they are CONDEMNING themselves when they say something like this. Oh, the Verizon strike may well have had some distorting effect on today's report of new unemployment claims (lathough I often wondered what happpened to those 70,000 people supposedly thrown on unemployment by that shutdown of the FAA--who NEVER appeared in the weekly number of new unemplyment claims). However, that is just an EXAMPLE of the kind of event--some not so obvious-that makes EVERY single weekly report UNRELIABLE (in itself). Mere glitches/errors in the "seasonal adjustment" (as seasonal lpatterns change) can distort the weekly number 10,000, 20,000 or more. It is only OVER TIME that these weekly numbers mean anything. That is one reason that it is absurd to suggest that the weekly unemployment claims number is responsible for big stock market moves. Even Wall Street--The Stupidest People on Earth--people are not THAT dumb. Do you see why it is a LIE for the media to report each weekly number as it it is a solid, concrete number--as if it is just like counting your dailyu cash register receipts? Each weekly number is not only subject to revision, but it is UNRELIABEL (each single number being unreliable, altthough the pattern over time can be meaningful). Here, after the four week average had fallen to 400,000 (still a BAD number, and NO improvement from the beginning of this year), ut us begubbubg ti kiij significant that the number is back above 410,000 for two weeks in a row (depending on the magnitude of the Verizon effect). Time will tell, but surveys of planned layoff indicate that the economy may be IN TROUBLE (along with other bad economic data).

Ah, econoists. Thee are part of that group of financial "analysts", and Wall Street/government people/ who I call The Stupidest People on Earth (a title they share with the "journalists" of the mainstream media). What did economists "predict" for the number of new unemployment claims to be reported today? 410,000 (according to the MarketWatch survery of "expert" economists). Note that these "expert" economists were most likely at least 10,000 WRONG, if the revision next week follows historical norms. Terrible performance, right? Except it is a normal performance. Economists are NEVER right. Their real mistake is to make any prediction at all, when they KNOW that they have no clue. By the way, should not economists KNOW about the Verizon strike, and take it into account? Sure, they should, and maybe they did take it into account (making it even more obvious that they are clueless as to the real factors influencing the number). These "expert" economists did predict what they may have thought was a 2,000 rise in claims, since they may have been operating off of the REPORTED number of 408,0000 (instead of the actual previous number of 412,0000). Hold on, though. If I have been aware of, and reported for YEARS, this constant revision that goes in only one directin, am I saying that economists are really that DUMB? Actually, I am. saying that they are that dumb, altthough I obviusly cannot be sure whether they are figuring in the probable revision of the previois week's number or not. Still, look at what happened this week. Economists should have EXPECTED both the 4,000 revisioin of last week's number, AND the inflation of the number caused by the Verizon strike, and they STILL "predicted" that the number of new unemployment claims would FALL 2,000 this week (instead of rise between 5,000 and 9,000, after the revision is reported next week). This is actually the most important point of this article, and has MAJOR pubic policy implilcations.

WHO do Obama, Bernanke, Geitner, and the rest rely upon to tell them how to PLAN the economy (to the extent some of those people are not economists themselves)? They rely upon ECONMISTS. They rely upon these people who cannot even COPME CLOSE (most of the time) to predicting a WEEK ahead as to a number that usually lmoves no more than 10,000 to 20,000 at a time (economists absolutely NEVER get bigger moves right). Think of what this means as to the discredited idea of CENTRAL PLANNING (discredited, but a philosophy that seems to still be firmly in control in Washington). How can anyone believe that these same economiss know enough about our entire economy to CONTROL our economy based on their predictins of how a "jobs program" (to use just on e example) will affect overall jobs in the economy? These people have FAILED over the past 4 years (dating back to the last 2 years of the Bush Administration)--really for the past 5 years (since Bernanke and Paulson took over as Fed Chariman and Treasury Secretary respectively). Obama was PART of that earlier failure, as he SUPPORTED the Paulson policies that failed. Now Obama is gong to propose more of the same in about a week.

Yep. As far as I am concerned, I have just PROVED that Repubicans should reject ALL of the Obama "jobs program", as just more of the same FAILED central lplanning stupidity. Do Republicans have that much courage? We shall see. As you know, if you read this blog, I doubt it, and fully expect to walk away from the Repubican Party FOREVER before this year ends. School building renovations (lol)? More pork and a union payoff. Aid for teacher hiring? A teacher's union payoff. Aid for the housing industry? more central planning, like the FAILED 8,000 housing tax credit that HURT the housing industry by distroting the market without long-term positive effect. Tax credit for businesses who hire people? A BRIBE for business; a WELFARE payment for busineesses who will--unless they are totally stupidd--merely hire who they need to hire, and TAKE THE MONEY. Am extension of that "worker payroll tax cut"? Another BIRBE and welfare payment which was part of that SHAM betrayal in the lame duck Congress in 2010--Repubican betrayal "deal--and which FAILED to help jobs this year. Where did I get the above list? From the Reuters PROPOAGANDA article featured on AT&T/Yahoo this evening (BOYCOTT AT&T and Yahoo), setting forth the possible "jobs program" items Obama will propose that he believes will pass the Repubican House (only if the Repubican Party wants me to declare it DEAD as a doornail--a dead party walking that will at least be dead to me forever after).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Jim Cramer and T. Boone Pickens: Dishonest Economic Fascists Together

I don't even watch Jim Cramer on CNBC. But I saw 30 seconds this Wednesday night. It was 30 seconds too many I will remind you again of the definition of "economic fascist": someone wh favors central plannning control over the economy by means of a "partnership" between Big Government and Big Business/Wall Street. This is antoher descrtiption of economic fascism: "socialism with a cappitalist veneer". As I have often stated, President Obama is an economic fascist (having noting to do with Hitler). As this blog has said for onger than a year--probably two years or more--"god old boy" T. Boone Pickens is one of the worst, most sself-promoting economic fascists out there.

Typical statement from dishonest T. Boone "there is a sucker born every minute" Pickens to Jim Cramer, in support of a pendin g bill in Congress that would line T. Boones' pockets: "This bill does not provide for a SUBSIDY (emphaiss in tehe original T. Boone). It merely provides for a 'tax credit', which means you do ot have to pay taxes." Pickens said this to Jim Cramer, who nodded (not turning a hair, because Cramer and all of CNBC are just as DISHONEST as T Boone, and just as much economic fascists).

What can yoiu say about a man who can tell an Orwellian LIE like this iwith a straight face? First, the man is as DISHONEST as they come. Second, whatever his is SELLING is something you should not buy, and something which should make you vote AGAINST any politician who does buy this snake oil . What good ol' T. Booone is promoting is NATURAL GAS. But T. Boone does ot want natural gas to compete in the marketplace. He is an econom;ic fascist, who favors an energy "pklan" to CONTROL the energy industry of this countgry. Part of that "plan"--the part in which T. Boone is intrested after his "wind power" project failed utterly--is for the Federal Government to SUBSIDIZE natural gas use by vehicles, becaukse we have so much natural gas in this country (making it not dependent on OPEC). T. Boones never answers, because he can't, why--if natural gas is so goo--we need to have TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE natral gas use by vehicles. I have no problem with use of natural gas, if it makes ECONOMIC sense. As stated, you know that gold ol' T. Boone is not TRYING to "make sense" when he LIES this blatantly (by dentying, flat out, that a subsidy is a subsidy).

Let me be as direct and blunt as I can. EVERYBODY (butr Jim Cramer and Pickens) agrees that a tax credit is a SUBSIDY. In fact, most agre it is a TAX EXPENDITURE (indistinguishable from welfare for the benefit of individuals favored by our government). As asked above, what can you say about a man who would make the kind of absurd statement T. Boone made? What you can definitely say is that it DISCREDITS every single other word he says. A tax credit is a direct subsidy--favoring on e product and certain individuals over other products and other indivicuals and companies. To say otherwise, as Pickens did, is to say black is white.

What can you then say about Jim Cramer, who openly endorsed what T. Boone Pickens had to say, and did not even question the absurd falsehood that a tax credit is not a subsidy? Well, Cramer, we can say that you, and all of CNBC (this not being the first time that CNBC has featured Pickens and his snake oil), are DISHONEST. Furter, Cramer, we can say that you, and all of CNBC, do not believe in a free market system, but do believe in economic fascism.

I ask you people out there: Do you really want to SUBSIDIZE Pickens, who is a RICH man, instead of making him compete in the marketplace like anyone else? I hope not. For that matter, do you want to encourage the DISHONESTY of CNBC and Jim Cramer? I hope not again.

Obama, Wall Street and Economic Fascist: Ben Bernanke, Messiah--and the Worst Failure in the History of World Finance

It is embarrassing. You feel like telling Ben Bernanke, Big Businees and Wll Street to "get a room" as Big Business and Wall Street fawn over Bernanke like besotted female lovers wanting their beloved "sugar daddy" to take care of them, as he has done before. And Bernanke, The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance, reciprocates by makng the STOCK MARKET the focus of his disastrous policies. Meanwhile, an ineffectual President Obama--in way over his head--delegates POLICY to the economic fascists on Wall Street, and in Big Business, who Obama supposedly blames for most of the ills of this country.

You remember Ben Bernanke? He is the Chariman of the Federal Reserve, appointed in relatively early 2006. Wait a second? Does this mean taht Bernanke PRSIDED over the bursting of the housing bubble (without any preventive action from him or the Fed), and over the slide of this country into the Great Recession of 2008-2009 (which could be regarded as still continuing)? Riht. Bernanke is the one man MOST reponsible for the Great Recession, because he is the single man who could have done the most to prevent it. Further, nothing he ha done since, despite being looked at as the "savior" of us all, has succeeded in putting us back on the right track. Gsoline prices derailed the economy (Obama)? That was not really because of the "Arab spring". It was because of BERNANKE and the Fed printing money, which raised the prices of almost ALL commodities, including FOOD. Oh, Obama did his share with his disastrous energy policy, discouraging development of fossil fuel energy resources, but it is BERNANKE who developed the "policy" of ever more Fed "stimulus" to push the stock market up (at the cost of making a real "recovery" from the Great Recession impossible). And, IT DID NOT WORK.

Quantitative Easing 1? Quantitative Easing 2? A continous bailout of the banks and Wall Street, continuing to thie very day? Bernanke and the Fed have tired them all--printing money on a scale never even considered in this country before--and NONE of it HAS WORKED. All of these things have merely prevented any real "recovery" from taking hold. And how could it work? This worshi of one man is contrary to all economic theory. It CANNOT WORK, even in theory, because one man cannot possibly know enough, and be wise enough, to control an economy as complex as ours. It did not work in the Great Depressoin--in a simpler, less complex economy--and it cannot work now. Further, we know it DID NOT WORK.

So where are Wall Street and Big Business putting their hoopes now--at least according to the economic fascists at CNBC? Remember, again, that economic fascism is not a reference to Hitler. It is a reference to the economic theory that the best from of economic policy is a "partnership" btwween Big Business/ Wall Street and the government to CONTROL our economy with central planning steps. It has been accurately described as: "socialism with a capitalist veneer." Obama is an economic fascist. That is alos ture of most of present-day Big Business and Wall Street, who believe that THEY are the dominate partners with Obama and Bernanke controlling the economic policy of this country. They believe that if they push hard enough, Bernanke and Obama will do their bidding--especially BAIL THEM OUT. This is the lesson they have learned from the bailuts produced by the Great Recessioni of 2008, and it is that "lesson" that is threatening to utterly destroy this country--as they "duoble down" on "central planning" "solutions" to our present prolems. No, these beneficiaries of free market economic theory do NOT believe in free market economic theory. That is why, for the past several weeks (as the stock market melted down and Wall Streeet lookef for another BAILOUT--CNBC, and almost every Wall Street/Big Business guest on CNBC, have been pushing Bernanke to act as the MESSIAH once again--a much faster Second Coming (from their point of view) than Christ.

As I said, it is embarrassing. These economic fascists are asking Bernanke so "solve" everything with a SPEECH. I could never make this up. The economic fascists of Wall Street, and our Big Business "community", are DEMANDING that Bernanke signal that he is ging to CONTROL the economy, with the Fed, in such a way as to "save" us. They are promising Bernanke: Yuo do what we want--delcare that you are going to take whatever action that needs to be taken to bail our economy, and everyone in it, out, but especailly us--and we GUARANTEE you that the stock market will SKYROCKET (because, I remind you, of a SPEECH). Exactly why does Wall Street believe that a sPEECH will mean our salvation, when Bernanke has FAILED for more than 5 years (since 2006, when he was appointed)? Well, Wall Street does not think Bernanke has failed in his main purposee--from both Bernanke's point of view and the people on Wall Street; TO BAIL OUT THE PEOPLE ON WALL STREET AND THE BIG CORPORATIONS. These economic fascists do not care about ou are me. The deluded souls--The Stupidest People on Earth--believe that they have figured out a way to guarantee that THEY do all right, even if the economy in general suffers. If you guarantee that banks can borrow at 0%, or LESS, who are you bailig out? Right. Your are bailing out the BANKS, as the Fed continues to do. Wall Street just expects Bernanke to signal that he will DO MORE, and INFLATE the stock market, while signalling that he will ALWAYS bail out the people of Wall Street, no matter what.

Hi Jackson Hole Bernake speech has been scheduled fro weeks. All of that time, teh economic fascists of Wall Street, CNBC, and elsewhere have been getting more and mor hysterical about how they are COUNTING on Bernanke to stop the economy from falling back into another recession, and to bail them out once again. Now you might WONDER why, if Bernanke is that good, he has not ALREADY "solved" all of the problems of our economy. You might even wonder why anyone should pay any attentino to Bernanke, wo has FAILED for FIVE FULL YEARS in his "steardship" of the economy. But you have to remember that these economic fascists of Wll Street are The Stupidest People on Earth--intereted, really, only n what they perceive--deluded as they are--as their own self-interest. That is why most of these people are/were for Obama. They believe Obama is their kind of CENTRAL PLANNER, who can be EDUCATED to do thigns their way. So far, they have been pretty much right about that.

Truth: Bernanke's Jackson Hole speech cannot possibly "solve" our economic problems. If Bernanke were capable of doing that, instead of being an emperor with no clothes who has FAILED for five whole years, he would have already done so. This wole idea of looknig to a "savior" (which partly explains the election of Obama) is absurd. And the idea that the economic fascists of Wall Street know how to properly CONTROL our economy is beyond absurd. It is about to result in the destruction of our country, if it has not already done so (the destruction just not yet having become complete).

Yes, Rick Perry was right. No, I am not endorsing his use of the word "treasonous", although his opponents made just as much of an overstatemetn when they accused Perry of accusing Bernanke of a "death penalty crime". Anyone who believes that Perry was accsuing Bernanke of legal treason is tuilty of much more--and more agenda driven--outrageous hyprbole than Perry. Perry was obviously speaking in a figurative/moral sense, and not any sort of legal sense as to the kind of "treason" referenced in our Constitutionn Still, the word was ill-advised. But the concept is pretty much dead on: the concept that Bernake has BETRAYED the fundamental principles of this country by his central planning approach to the Fed. Under Bernanke, more than at any time previously, the Fed has ASSERTED the right and power to CONTROL our entire economy, and to take unprecedented actions if its former "tools' do not accomplish what the Fed wants. Yes, in a fundamental sense, and with the approval of much of Wall Street and Big Business, Bernanke has become a CZAOR--a ral one, in the traidtion of the CZAR of Russia. Yep Bernanke is well on his way to becoming a DICTATOR over the econmy, and the restult will be the same as with all dictators: failure and disaster.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Obama and Jobs: Obama Loses 1,610,000 plus Jobs in Four Weeks

This is my article on last Thursday's report on new unemployment claims for the previous week (this article being a little tardy). The headline was, as always, a lie The number of new unemployment claims was reported as 408,000--up 9,000 from the previous week That headline ws an outright lie. This number, as this blog has connsistently reported, is subject to REVISION the next week. On an "apples to apples" basis--comapring the number reported on Thrusday with the number reported the previous Thrusday--the number rose 13,0000 from the 395,000 number reported the previous Thursday. The 408,000 will be revised next Thursday--probably up 3,000 or more, if past history is any guide. Reporting the weeky numbers as if they are cast in stone is such a LIE that the persistence of the lie discrfedits the whole media.

Remembe r how the 395,000 reported the previous Thrsuday before last was breathlessly reported: "The first time under 400,000 in more than 4 months, and a sign the labor market is improving'. This blog correctly told you that was HOGWASH, and that the 395,000 would probably be revised upward to right around the 400,000 level. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the number WAS 400,000--NO "improvement over the previoius weeks, and NO improvement since early in the year (when the number dropped as low as 375,000, and was regularly beow 4000,000--even as the economy was slowing down). Yes, the 395,000 was REVISED upward to 399,000, as this blog had predicted would happen, and that made LIARS out of the entire media.

Look at the numbers for the previous 3 weeks (before this week's reported, unrevised, 408,0000), beginning with the most recent: 399,000, 402,000 and 401,000. Even the mainstream media and the unfari and unbalanced network, stupid as all of those people are, would have to agree that those three weeks were FLAT--no change at all There is NO statistical difference between 399,000, 402,000 and 401,000. All of that HYPE about the number droppng 'under" 400,000 was an absurd distortion.

What is even funnier is that this last Thursday's reported number of 408,000 was NOT especailly "bad" news!!!! Oh, a number of 400,000 is BAD--not good enough to reduce unemployment. But that was true of teh numbers for teh previous 3 weeks. Even if you assume a revision of the 498,000 to 411,000 or 412,000, that number actually DROPS the four week average (slightly) to about 403,000. In other words, we are STUCK at 400,000, which is where we began the ya.r, This is BAD. It is NO improvement over this entire year. But the unfair and unbalanced network spent an entire day "blaming" the collapse in the stock market on Thursday on such a "horrible' jobs nuber. The unfari and unbalanced network (which callls itself the "fair and balanced" network) LIED. The modest rise in ONE WEEK'S new unemployment claims number---which actually lowered the four week average slightly--had NOTHING (I preat: nothing) to do with the stock market drop last Thursday. Even the people on Wall Street are not that dumb--even if they are The Stupidest People on Earth. The new unemplyment claims number can ONLY be evalulated over time . Yes, you and I--not to mention Wall Streeet--would suspect that the number is going UP, because of all of the bad news. But th 408,000 in new unemplyment claims reported last Thursday represented NO--none, zilch, nada--PROOF that the number is deteriorating. It was not many weeks ago that the number was consistently above 420,000.. You could say that the number has "improved" since then, despite the idiots of the unfair and unbalanced networkk spending a full day FALSELY telling you how much "worse" the 408,000 number was, although the "improvement" (especiallly given the uncertainty in the reliability of the "seasonal adjustment" in each week's reported number) does not mean much . All we can really say is that, for 4 weeks, the number has averaged pretty close to 400,000, without ever really goig under 400,000. Nothing changed with Thursday's reported number from the previous weeks.

Now the weekly number of new unemployment claims will again be reporte--with the usual lies-on Thursday agai. IF the number rises above 420,000, that MIGHT be an indication we are sliding toward a significant deterioration. IF the number is between 390,000 and 410,000, it will mean NO CHANGE. You may see the media report differently, but the media LIES about the signifiicance of each weekly number. Even a number above 420,000 wold not mean a whole lot--other than continued no improvement--until a deterioration is confirmed in future weeks.

Well, I have done my bestr to prepare you for this Thrusday's false headlines onn the new unemployment claims report. Last Thursday did accomplish someting: It confirmed that you should BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network as totally incompetent. You must look at these numbers in context, and with the understanding that each week's number is NOT even close to "exact" . This is NOT "counting (like on your fingers, for you leftists out there). These numbers are REVISED and ADJUSTED. You simply cannot take too much stock in a single week's number. Further, variations from week to week--even as much as 20,00 or more--MAY mean absolutely NOTHING (because there is some distorting factor, or simply statistical "noise").

No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).

Obama, Fareed Zakaria, CNN, MSNBC and Our Left: The European Obsession

We in the United States used to, correctly, look down on the European welfare states as part of the past that we had to bail out and save--even as the people of Europe have always tended to loook at the people of the United States as barbarians. We were the fresh, energetic contry with the new ideas, and we showed the decadent, effete snobs of Europe how it should be done.

Now some of our elites have always been attracted by Europe. John Adams was accused of being corrupted--accused mainly falsely--by his stay in Britan: accused of wanting to bring the British system of monarchy to the new American nation he did more than anyone to found. Thomas Jefferson--a little too in love with revolution, as our media is a little too in love with revolutioin in the Arab contries--was accused of favoring the French. But, from the beginnig, the United States has been dEFINED by our REJECTION of the European model of how to do things. Now our entire left, inclulding our President and mainstream media, seem to have adopted the idea that Europe and the "world community" should define us. Our President seems unwilling to even act on the world stage without European approval. This is all ture, even as things seem to be going as badly in Europe as they ever have. The "pubil" health care system in the UK is a joke. The economies of Europe, except--perhaps--Germany appear to be collapsing. Why would we want to be like those countries? Beats me.

See my previous article, which illustrates just how far this OBSESSION with everything European has gone, as CNN endorses the Fareed Zakaria "idea' of SCRAPPING our system of government, and substituting a European system. CNN obviously believes that Jefferson, Adams, et. al.. , got it worng, and that John Adams SHOULD have set up a British system here. You can see where Obama--a man of the left--got his idea that the European way is the best way. That is how Obama could talk about ordianry Americans: "clinging to their guns and their religion, and taking out their frustrations on people different from themselves."

The left is actually sensitive to this obvioius obsession of Obama and the left with the European way. I saw Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, doing his best to assert that bringing up this "European obsession" was just an attempt to label Obama as "different", and therefore not worthy of respect. Yep. In effect, Matthews was tryong to say that any attempt to point out Obama's European obsession was RACIST (a standard, of course, that the hypocrites of MSNBC do not apply to crticism, and even mockery, of black conservative Herman Cain). To me, this absurd attempt by Matthews to defelct criticism shows that the left KNOWS that the PEOPLE of America don't believe we should adopt the Europeans as our standard of government and conduct.

We can into the world, as a country, with a frsh new slant: a government based on FREEDOM, including free marktets and a limited central government. That system made lus the greatest country in the world Now our President, and most of our media, want to abandon that system, in faovr of the European model we rejected when we became a country. It is not that everythng European is bad. It is that it betrays our very creatinon as a country to use the Europeans as a MODEL of how we should be.

Monday, August 22, 2011

CNN, Fareed Zakaria and Time: Anti-American, or Just Unbelievers in the American System

Again, I want youi to objectively consider a comparison here. Is it worse to "promise" that a Bachmann administration would see $2 a gallon gasoline, ore worse to say that theUnited States of America should have a European-style pariliamentary system?

Before you answer that, I want you to consider WHY Michele Bachmann has been ridiculed for what was a perfectly reasonable statement (the one about $2 a gallon gasoline). The idea seems to be that it is laughable that gasoline will ever be that low again--a self-fulfilling attitude that is much more rodoci;pis amd harmful than any possible criticism of what Bachmann said. Now CNN did say that it was BAD POLICY to have $2 a galon gasoline, which also happens to be the real policy of the Obama Administration (although never stated that way). However, no one is going to take that position to the American people, or to Bachmann's face. Let's discared that, and we are left with the assertion that Bachmann wants to discuss something that will never take place. CNN--as much or more than any other network--has ridiculed Bachmann on this ground: that Bachmann is talking about something that just can never happen (even though it happened not so long ago). Thus, an we conclude that CNN would NEVER seriously talk about a policy choice that could never happen--and has not happened in the entire history of the United States of America? Not so, doggy breath (May a charging rhinoceros strike you where the sun does not shine--my best Karnak/Johnny Carson impression).

Fareed Zakaria has a show on CNN. More importrantly, he appears all over CNN as an "expert" CNN analyst, and is an editor at large (whatever that is) for Time (which CNN calls a "sister" outfit).

Zakaria had a long, serious conversatoion with a nodding, approving CNN anchor about what is wrong with America. You know. The United States of American: the longest functioning true repesentative democracy in the world, with a government system and economic system sufficient to enable it to become the greatest nation in the world. Well, not according to Zakaria and CNN. I heard this, and id not believe it. Zakaria said, without any challenge, that the USA can no longer "afford" our quaint (my word, not his), flawed system where no one can get anything done (namely the things that CNN and Zakaria believe should be done, and want to FORCE us to do, if only those pesky Tea Party crazies were not in the way). Instead, Zakaria said, we need the Eurpoean parliamentary system that GETS THINGS DDONE--because you don't have all of this foolishness about "checks and balances", a bicameral legislature, and divided government that appears in the United States system. The "crises" now are just too great. We can't afford all of this "debate" and delaly inherent in our system. A "leader" needs to be able to get things DONE right now. Yes, the implicit idea of these partisan hacks at CNN is this: "if only Obama had a parliamentary system, he oculd do what he wants to do--what we want him to do--without all of these obstacles in the way. Now there is the inconvenient truth (thank you, Al Gore) that Europe is in WORSE TROUBLE than we are right now, and is threatening to brin our economy down with it. But CNN has never been distracted by facts before, and I don't see any reason for them to start now.

But you see the main problem here, don't you? What purpose does it serve to discuss something which CANNOT HAPPEN (short of the complete collapse of the United States)? These truly are the worst, most dishonest hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. They ridiculue Bachmann because she talked aobut someting that they consider almost impossible, as if it were perfectly reasonable. And then CNN is willing to seriously discuss switching the USA to a parliamentary system, because our system is not working anymore (something that CNN knows is IMPOSSIBLE). What can we conclude from this? Do not we have to conclude that Fareed Zakaria is ANTI-AMERICAN, along with CNN and Time? I thnk we do. If the USA is bringing the world down with a fundamental falw in our system that we KNOW is not gong to be fixed, which is causing us not to be able to make the decisions that need to be made, are we not a DANGER to the world? This has to be an anti-Amerian position. It makes no sense otherwise. It is jsut a way of sayig our system--which made us the greatest country in the world--is NO GOOD. (at least not anymore).

Forget how stkupid this is. Just when has the parliamentary system of Europe shown itself to be the savior of the world? World War I? World War II? The Cold War with the Soviet Union? The Great Depresson? The stopping of the rise of Hitler? The fiscal discipline that has led to Greece, Ireland, Span, Portugal and Italy (along with who knws what other basket cases)? Zakaria is an IDIOT with an agenda. But even if you do not agree with me on that, and that CNN is ENDORSING his views (which they are), how does it make any sense to "advocate" something that is flatly impossible?

Not impossible, you say? Hogwash. What would be required for the United States to "convert" to a parliamentary system? It would require a Constitutional Convention to REWIRTE our entire Constitution. Now some conservatives have called for this because of the way the Surpeme Court--mainly leftist justices exercising judicial fiat--has already rewritten our Constituion to say and mean things that were never there. Leftists have always ridiculued this idea as not reasonable. Whether reasonable or not, it is not going to happen. And it had, and has, a better chance than a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of setting up a parliamentary system. No voting for President. No Senate. Just one legislature which elects the head of government. No power for individual states. In fact, do "states" who have power and rights of their own have any pklace in a parliamentary system? Doubtful, although you have Scotland and Wales in the United Kingdom (with what separate powers I don't even know). You do have to have local administration, but you don't seem to see the kind of powerful governors in a lparliamentary system that you see in the USA. Doesn't matter. The point is that this complete "redo" of the American system will not happen--is much more ridiculous than the idea of $2 gasoline. Anyone who talks like it could happen (Zakaria and the others at CNN and Time) are idiots--or else have an anti-American agenda where the whole idea is simply to trash America. I vote for both: They are BOTH idiots and anti-Aerican. No, it is just noe good enough to say this was just a philosophical "discussion". For what purpse? This was not a class int he theory of government. This was ADVOCACY of something that is impossible.--on the basis that our entire system of government needs to be changed.

Is there any way that someting like this could happen? As stated, there is only one way: the complete coallpse f the United States of American. That would create what the peoplein physics (my college major) call a "singularity"--the situation where all laws of physics break down (as in a black hoe). In the complete collapse of the United States, anything could happen. No "laws" of governnment or politics will apply. We could end up with Napoleon. We could end up with Hitler. We coud end up with chaos, sort of like the thousand year "long night" that followed the fall of the Roman empire. Now it is true that it was not only darkness in those thousand years. The stage ws set for the Renaissance, the industrial revoluton, the rise of science, the rise of free market economies, the British empire, and for the........United States of America: the most successful democratic repuublic the world has ever known. But Zakaria and CNN want us to tun into something else. We know what the hypocrites of the rest of the mainstream media would have said had Michele Bachmann proposed something this insane. How about someone pointing out the insanity here? It is like when Time magazine ENDORESDE the philosophy of the Unabomber in a Time essay (the last time I opened a Time magazine). Waht the article really was, of course, was an ANTI-AMERICAN attack on the 'materialism" of the USA that wsa turning us into a bad country.

By the way, this is not a "new" problem. The original Roman Republic--destroyed by class warfare--had a method for coping when an "emergency" required strong action. They appointed a "dictator" (presumably where the word comes from, although I have not bothered to check) to act--for a limited period of time, but with very extensive powers to override the Roman Seante and act with what amounted to unlimited power. You can see the flaw here, which is why our system was set up with the checks and balances that it has. When class warfare was tearing apart the Roman Republic, Julius Caesarr was apponted dictator. But, when he crossed the Rubicon, Caesar signalled his intention to no longer abide by the "rules" fot he Repubic; in effect, his intention to become an EMPEROR. Thus, the Roman empire was born. You get the feeling that Fareed Zakaria would be happy to have Barack Obama cross the Rubicon, and become emperor (so long as he listented to "enlightened" people like Zakaria and the people at CNNM--who all basciallly think alike).

Do you see now why I have officially named CNN the "Evil, Anti-American Network"? You should. CNN does not believe in our system of government, or our country (in the form our country was established, based on the principles of our Founders).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight)--which gets bad in an article like this when I am gettig tired, but readers of this blog just have to live with it. Hey, that ay be a CLUE as to why there are not that many readers of this blog.!!! But hey, it is a labor of love (or more accurately, of a lperson without a life). Good thing I am not stark, ravig mad, like Zakaria and the other people of CNN and the mainstream media.