Friday, August 31, 2012

Ryan/Romney on Spending: No Credibility

.26 GDP equals B; .20 GDP equals xB.  Solve for x.  Or you can just realize that redkucng spending to 20% of GDP from 25% means cutting spending a full 20% (percentate 5 bears to 25).  Paul Ryan said that under a Romney/Ryan administratin, spending woud be cut to 20% of GDP.  He lies. Ryan also said that time is running out: that we con't have much time left.  In terms of any URGENCY in his ACTIONS, or proposed spending cut in the Hous GOP budget, or romney saying that his administratin will "move toward a balanced budget", Ryan LIES again. 

Doubt me? Never, ever do that. It jsut mkaes lyu ylook like a fool.  Note that gettng down to 20% of GDP does NOT mean "cutting' PROJECTED spending by 20%.  It means REAL CUTTING of PERSENT SPENDING by 20%. Now "growth" in GDP might give you a ittle extra, but very little.  We now have spending this year of at least 3.7 TRILLIOIN.  What is 20% of that?  It is 740 BILLION in ONE YEAR.  And, in the deceptive world of Washington, the "cut' would have to be considerably GREATER than that, since "cuts" are figured on PROJECTED spending (growing much greater than the present "growth" in GDP).

If I believed Romney and Ryan would actually CUT the prsent level of spending by 740 BILLIONI in ONE YEAR, I would vote for the.  I don't believe it, and will NOT vote for them. (or Obama, who is--at least in theory, if not in practice--considerably worse than Romney/Ryan).

So far, the House GOP has not passed a budget--no Ryan budget--that has proposed anything close to 740 billion in spending cuts in one year.  In fact, as you know, the GOP has not "cut" ONE DIME in spending so far, despite lthe POWER to do so (IF they had the courage to force Democrats to either accept spending cuts or shut the government down, which they don't).  The House has to VOTE FOR  every DIME of spending, and this last year they have. 

None of this Soviet-style "ten year plan" crap.  Did you not just hear from Ryan that we are RUNNING OUT OF TIME.  Exactly hwere, in the budgets he and the House GOP have proposed, and the spending they have voted for, do you see this sense of URGENCY.  Instead, Ryan and the House GoP have boght fully into this FRAUD of taking "cuts" (that may never take place) over TEN YEARS, and counting that as "cutting spending" TODAY.  When you listened to Ryan, did yu get the idea that he was talking about TEN YEARS?  His rehtoric says we don't HAVE ten years. His ACTIONS indicates the exact opposite. This rehetoric is correct.  We do NOT have ten years.

Take HALF.  Have Romney, Ryan or the House GOP given any indicatin that they will "cut" 370 BILLION, in ONE YEAR, from present spending?  Not a chance.  The GOP has proposed NO such cuts, and Romney/Ryan DO NOT INTEND TO.  Again, IF I believed that Romney/Ry;an would actually CUT 370 BILLION from yearly spending EACH of the next two years, I would vote for them.  But it is as close to certain as things get that they have NO INTENTION of doing that. In fact, Ryan has said his--the House GOP--budget would "balance the budget" by 2040.  Huh?  Is Ryan, again, not saying we do NOT HAVE THE TIME.  If Romney and Ryan weer actually to CUT current spending (not jsut projected spending) by 740 BILLIN, even by the END of Romney's first term, would it really take until 2040 to "balance the budget".  Nope.  Remember, Ryan said we should reduce spending to 20% of GDP, or BELOW, and that we had NO TIME.   But his ACTIOINS indicae that he, like all politicians in Washington, thinks we have ALL OF THE TIME IN THE WORLD, and that all we have to do is spin tales of "ten-year plans" and people will be satisfied. 

Are we really going to be spending 740 billiion dollars LESS a year, in real terms, by the end of a Romney/Ryan firt tem?  Not a chance. This "across-the board" "compromise" that Ryan and the GOP HAILED as a "deal' out of the deb limit farce is something they are now CRING AOUBT.  I know that they are mainly--except Ron and Rand Paul--crying abut "defense cuts", but these "automatic" spending cuts in this "forced sequestratin" are SMALL in comparsion to what we NEED to actualy get spending to 20% of GDP, or BELOW (lol). 

No.  Ryan and Romney are both playing the usual Washington game, where actual spending "cuts' jsut NEVRE HAPPEND: are ALWAYS ten years or so in the future. 

So much for Paul Rayn.  I can't vote ffor him. I could not vote for him for PRESIDENT.  And Romney is even LESS reliable on actualy "cutting' spending.  Romney is a Big Government Guy.  So is Ryan, but Ryan is sometimes willing to talk specific numbers, even if things like the limit to 20% of GDP are LIES.  Romney will not really even talk like he believes the LIES.  Sorry.  No sale.

Better than Obama?  IN THEORY, if they could wave a magic wand and do EVERYTHING they want.  In practice?  Not much, if any, and tahere is some possibility that a Romney/Ryan administratin will be WORSE (because theer is ot the vigoous oppositon you can expect if Obama is re-elected by a small margin). 

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

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Gas Prices: Fatal to Obama?

A news item today you may have overlooked is that gasoline prices set a NEW RECORD for this date, and will likely remain high through the Labor Day weekend. And wahat if we have another hurricane in the Gulf of Mexcico? 

This blog has repeatedly predicted taht Barack Obama LOSES this electin if the economy does not materially IMPROVE by electin day.  How can it, with gas prices HIGH and FOOD PRICES even hogjer

Sure, Isaac had an effect on gas prices, even though it was pretty much a non-event (for a hurricane). But, if it were not for Obama and Bailout Ben Bernanke, we would not be in this situation with NO "margin for error". We have "stealth inflatin" going on, and Obama policies--combined wiht Bailut Ben and his money printing--have made ti certain that nay ATTEMPTED "recovery" will SHUT DOWN immediately, because of immediate rises in energy, food and commodity prices.

With the econmy in EUROPE collapsing, how can we possibly handle 'recorfd" gas prices, when we don't even yet have a real "recovery".  The answer is probably tghat we CAN'T handle it, and that the economyh CAN'T IMPROVE. 

Can we even stay the same: no growth, but no collapse.?  I ma becoming mroe and more pessimistic on that.  Yo may discount this, because you know I am naturally a pessimist. Btut the "headwinds" developing are truly formidable, and it is hard to see how we make headway against them.

This "record" on gas prices is just another indicatin that the "headwinds" to the econmy are indeed formidable.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesght).  Will Obama make a last throw of the dice with teh Strategic Oil Reserve, even though he KNOWS (form last summer) that it cannot be used to successfully control prices?  Maybe. 

Obama Loses 376,000 Jobs Last Month: Labor Dept./Media Lies Continue

The weekly Labor Dept. initial report (to be revised next week) on new unemplyment claims came out this Thursday morning.  As happens more often than not, this blog was EXACTLY right as to the REVISION of the initial report from last Thursday. The Labor Dept. has to be regarded as DISHOENST because of the extremely consistent under statement of new unemplyment claims, which the media promptly uses in HEADLINES that are almost always LIES.

For example, the number of new unemployment claims initially reported last Thursday was 372,0000. Thie article in this blog had the CORRECT headline :  "Obama Loses 374,000 Jobs Last Week."  The number of new claims is laways reported on Thursday for the previus week. 

Why did this blog report lthat the number of new unemplyment claims whichSHOULD have been reported last Thursday ws 374,000, instead of the 372,000 initially reported by the Labor Department?  Because the initial number is ALWAYS revised UPWARD the next week by 2,000. or more.  It used to average 3,000 or more, but--for some reason--teh Labor Department has reduced the CONSISTENT error/dishonesty to 2,000.  That has been the CONSISTENT revision upward for teh last two months or so.  Tere was one week with a revison of 3,000, and I think one week with a revision of 1,000.  But this averages out to 2,000, and EVERY other week has been revised upward by 2,000 the next week. 

Look at the LIES last week.  The number of new unemployment claims was reported as 372,000.  It was actually 374,000, as REVISED in the numbers reported this week. The media reported that claikims had increased last week by 4,000.  hey actuallly increased by 6,000.  And this blog told you ALL of tis LAST WEEK (in advance of this week's revision).  If this blog can do it, can't the Labor Department and the MEDIA? yep.  But they are DISHONEST: in the case of the media, somme of the most disonest and incompetent peole who have ever lived.

It is not like this is some kind of aberration.  The Labro Department, and the media, have been donig this SAME THING for YEARS (literally) . The number of nw unemployment calims is ALWAYS understated, and the medi aheadlines are ALWAYS LIES. For YEARS.  And this blog has reported this almsot every week, for YEARS. DISHONESTY just does nto get any worse than this.

Dow Jones (part of the "unfair and unbalanced" empire) even had the gall to say last week that the Labro Department had "counted" 372,000 new unemployment claims last week.  That is such a Big Lie that it represents some sort of "proof' that God does not exist.  If God  exists, Dow Jones offices EVERyWHEE shuld have been hit with THUNDERBOLTS last week.  No, the Labro Department does NOT "count" the number o new unempyent claims, which are ALWAYS revised the next week.  The Labor Department COMPILES data, subject to 'more complete data" the next week.  Isn't it AMAZING that the "more complete data" is ALWWAYS erroneous in the SAME DIRECTGIN (understating the number of new claims)?  In the past, it has been even more blatant, with the "revision" sometimes being MORE than 10,000 (a truly large number), and consistently 3,000 and above.  Somehow, the Labro Department has decided to be a little "less" DISHONEST (like being a little bit pregnant). 

What can yu say about our DISHOENST medai?  As I say above, they are simply some of the most dishonest people who havve ever lived.  First, they "report" (NOT in healines) that the3372,000 in new unmplyment claims initially reported last week was REVISED to 372,000.  What they don't do, because they are DISHONESSST, is highlight a CORRECTIN of laast week's headlines, and admit those headlines were a LIE.  Then the medai reports this week's new unemplyment claism reported by the Labor Department as 374,000, and say that is UNCHANGED (one of the worst LIES I have ever seen because it is repeated week aftger week, year after year). Note that the number is "unchanged" ONLY if yu compare this week's initially reported number of 374,000 with last week's REVISED number of 374,000. That is obviusly a LIE, expecially when you KNOW that the initally reported number is ALWAYS revised in the SAME DIRECTION.  Comparing an UNREVISED number with a REVISED numbe is absur:  apples to orange.You eitgher have to compare revised numbers or unrevised numbers, or unrevised numbers with unrevised numbers.  "But we don't know the REVISED number to be released next week."  Well, YES YOU DO (or can estimate it, as this blog did last week, adn routinely does).  But if yu don't want to compare ESTIMATED revised numbers (estimated for nextg week), then yo can compare unrevised numbers. Note, in this case, whatever you do--honestly--give you the SAME RESULT:  The best interpretatin of the data is that new unmployment claims ROSE 2,000 last week (NOT "unchanged", according to the media LIES). Either you can compare the unrevised 374,000 with the unrevised 372,000 (reported last week), or you can compare the EXPECTED revised number to be released next week (376,000) with the revised number from last week (374,000).  Either way, the result is a RISE of 2,000, which is the only HONEST way to report the numbers released this morning.

Of ocurse, we are still not talking "counting".  The dishonest medai does not even REPORT the supposed "counting' number of actual new unemplyment claims filed.  Waht the Labor Department does is take this "raw" number and SEASNALLY ADJUST IT (by 100,000 or more, sometimes).  The medai ONLY reports the ADJUSTED number, which MISLEADS the public that this is a "concrete" number instead of a mere ESTIMATE based on a FALIBLE seasonal adjustment formula. Thus, this weekly number of new unemplyment claims only has significance OVER TIME.  Any single week can be DISTORTED by a GLITCH in teh "weasonal adjustment'. 

Over time, there is NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims this entire year.  The range for the entire year is basically 350,000-390,000.  We are now almost exactly in the MIDDLE of that range, except that the last two weeks have "trended" toward the TOP of the range.  And the range from late January to a time in March--a perod of more than twomonths--was 350,000-365,000.  We are now ABOVE tghe TOP of that range.  Thus, you COULD say that the job situatin has DETERIORATED since March.  I won't say that, because I think the "seasonal adjustment' is not adequately accounting for a changed seasonal pattern and unusual weather.

What the data really seems to show is that we are STUCK.  We are NOT MPROVING, and have NOT IMPROVED this entire year.  This is especially isgnificant because ALLL of the methods/numbers used in calculating job numbers were CHANGTED on January 1. Tihs means that you can't really comparet numbers this year with numbers last year.  The only "apples-to-apples numbers are WITHIN THIS YEAR.  And ALL of those numbers are STUCK. 

The unempllyment RATE has stayed the SAME, since January, at 8.3%: NO IMPROVEMENT this entire year.  GDP "growth" is STUCK in almost neutral:  2% for the first quarter and 1.5% for the second quarter.  Number sof net "new jobs added" have FALLEN since January/February, and have AVERAGED less than 100,000 a mnth for about 5 months. As stated bove, new unemplyment claims have NOT IMPROVED this entire eyar.  STUCK.  We are STUCK, in a BAD PLACE.

Not only are we STUCK in a bad place on the economy an d jobs, but there seems NO preospect of real "improvement'.  Who can we "mprove' with hasoline prices at a RECORD for this date: with ObamaCare LOOMING over the economy; with HIGHER TAXES looing over the eocnmy; and with Europe collapsing? And we--Obama and Bailut Ben Bernanke--have made a real "recovery" impossible.  With our deficit and PRINTING MONEY, any signs of a real "recovery" are ABORTED by an IMMEDIATE shut down of the economy as energy, commodity and food prices EXPLODE.  Did I mention FOOD PRICES?   Food prices are SKYROCKETING..  And this "stealth" inflatin CANNOT be "improved" with these deficits and MONEY PRINTING (BAilout Ben at work). 

My borther, the trucking company executive and previus trucknig compay owner, says that 'his" company is getting LESS BUSINESS. In my brother's experience, trucking companies are a pretty good indicatin of economic activity.  When their business starts falling off, it suually means TROUBLE for the economy.

My brother does nto think it is ossible for a real "recovery" to be in process by November.  I have predicted tghat means OBAMA LOSES (if econmy does not improve by electin day).  But.  I am not quite so certain as my brother that Obama cannot somehow convince peole, with media assistance, that the ecomy is actually "improving', when it is not.  It is obviusly APPEARANCE that matter here--not necessarily reality.  Now I dont' think peole are easy to FOOL ont he eocnmy  Thus, I agree with my brother that it is UNLIKELY Obama is gong to lull offf a "miracle' by seeming to produce an IMPROVING econmy by electin day.  But I am more cynical than my brother, and do not consider it absolutely IMPOSSIBLE--just unlikely.

Stay tuned next week as we discover if the Labor Department and our media will EVER stop LYING.  Odds are they won't, since they have put out the SAME LIES week after week, year after year.

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

Monday, August 27, 2012

Obama and Taxes: Leftist Ideologue/Extremist

Do you realize that President Obama himself makes clear jsut how much of an EXTREMKIST he is on taxes?

What Obama says is that he ispropsing to raise income taxes (ObamaCare taes are another iissue) on only the top 2% of income earners. Obama puts it another, even mroe revealing, way:  "The GOP and I agree on 98% of  tax rates. We are only disputing taxes for the top 2% of ihcomes."

Look at how EXTREME this positin is:  by OBAMA.  Notice, first, that th e"Bush tax cuts" gave MOST of their benefits to the "middle 'class", and poorer. Over 10 years, the "Bush tax cuts' "saveed" the middle class (and lower) 3.3 TRILLION dollars, while "saving' the "top 2%" "only" 7000 billion ("only" 70 billion each year).  It is simply a LIE (by our Liar-i-Chief to sayt hat the Bush tax cuts were mainly "for the rich", or that EXTENDING the Bush tax cuts (i full) is "only for the rich". 

But look at how EXTREME Obama is!!!!!  He is sacrificing the ECONOMY for...WHAT?  To use President Obama's favorite (usually dishonest when he uses it) rhetorical device:  ALL economists, and financial peole, agree that UNCERTAINTY on taxes is a KILEER.  Leftist economists and conservative economiss agree on this.  Indeed, essentially all economists agree that raising ANY tax rtes SLOWS the economy (the dispute being over how much, and whether it is still "fairer" to increase taxes on "the rich" than to cut spending). 

What Obama is doing is holding TAX CERTAINTY HOSTAGE for 100% of the people, includng the 98% that Obama says SHOULD have this tax certainty, because of Obama's IDOLOGICAL/POLITICAL,. class warfare, belief that the "rich should pay more taxes. 

President Obama told Joe the Plumber that he did not much care whether increased taxes on "the rich" actually raises more more REVENUE for the government, because Obama believes in redistributin of the wealth: that it is "fairer" for the 'rich" to paya higher tax RATE, whether or onot that really raises mroe TAX REVENUE. 

This is EXTREME, to th epoint of being FANATIC.  ALLeconomic "experts" agree that one of the things holding the economy back is tghe UNCERTAINTY over what income taxes are going to be: next year and the years after that.  The GOP WANTS to make ALL of the "Bush tax cuts" (on income taxes) PERMANENT.  That would HELP the eeconomy, by providing CERTAINTY.  No, it doesn't matter that middle class" voters may rightly figure that they will eventualy get to keep their tax cut.  There is jsut no doubt that this UNCERTAINTY over taxes is KILLING the economy.  There is further no doubt that more taxes on the "top 2%" will SLOW the econmy (only qauestion over how much).  Thus, what Obama is dong is PUNISH the econmy because of his EXTREME IDEOLOGY, and he wants the "class warfare" POLITICAL ISSUE>  This is the mark of an EXTREME FANATIC, and/or a political opportunist putting politics over our economic recovery. 

But "extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich will increase the deficit." .......................................Sorry.........................Sorry................................Sorry........................on the loor in my usual fetal positin, alughing/crying.  Obama has told us time and time again that he DOES NOT CARE about the short-term deficit.  It is difficult for me to be sure what Obama even wants to do with the MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts.  Yahoo, a little while back, pubished a story that said Obama only wanted to extend the "middle class" tax cuts ONE YEAR. I don't trust Yahoo "News", or the mainstream media, and it is hard for me to believe that the GOP would not be makng a BIG ISSUE out of this (if ture).  To raise taxes on  the "top 2%" AND continue the eyarly uncetainty for the rest of us, would be the WORST of all possible polices.  Again, would the GOP not be makng a BIG ISSUE out of this:  pointing out that Obama does nto even want to provide tax certatiny for the MIDDLE CLASS?  Proble: I believe that the GOP is often this STUPID.  Nevertheless, let us assume, for the sake of argumetn, taht Obama is willing to PERMANENTLLY extend the Bush tax cuts for the "middle class" (and poorer). . That will "cost" 3.3TRILLION dollars (not really, because the ECONOMY will be better than it would otherwise be.  Stopping th e"Bush tax cuts" for the "top 2%" will ony "save" 70 billion dolars per year, and 700 billin dollars over ten years.  Clearly, this only has a MINIMAL effect on the deficit.  Short term, Obama AND the GOP have passed "compromise", "temporary", "payroll tax cuts" (and extensins), and extensions of extended unemployhment benefits. These "stimulus" measures have COST (when other things in the bills are included) about 15l0 BILLIN dollars a year, or about 300 BILLION dolalrs for 2011 and 2012. It is obvius to everyone that Obama does NOT CARE about the deficit.  I would assert that the GOP does NOT CARE about the defict, in reality.  But that is absolutely certain for Obama.  Note that 300 BILLIN is almost HALF of what MIGHT (as government rEVENUE might actually go DOWN) be "raised" by increasing the tax rate for the "top 2". 

What you have here is a FANATIC  EXTREMIST/political oooporunist (as usual, I vote for both) who is willing to SELL OUT the economy for ideological reasons, when the "deficit savings' are IMMATERIAL.  Obama's original "stimulus' bill ALONE added MORE (800 plus BILLION) to the Federal deficit in TOW YEARS (or so) than this tax increase on the "top' 2%" will add to the deficit OVER THEN YEARS (assuming that it even adds extra revenue, and that legal tax evasin and sloer growth will not ADD more to the deficit than the "projected" money raised by the extra taxes). 

If President Obama loses this electin, he has only himself to blame.  He says he is in "98% agreement" with the GOP.  For that 2%, which will hae an IMMATERIAL effect ont he deficit, especially in comparison with other things we have done and are doing, Obama is SACRIFICING OUR ECONOMY IN 2012. Again that is the makr of an EXTREMIST FANATIC: nto a leader ro believer in "compromise". 

But the GOP could agree to that same 2%, and get 98% of what THEY WANT."  Yes, but Obama is PRESIDENT.  The idea of him sacrificing the econmy this way, for essentailly NOTHING (except what he can get out of it POLITICALLY), should be disturbing to you. 

Notice that, whatever else they are doing, the GOP politicians are NOT "sacrificing the ecomy" for IDEOLOGICCAL PURITY.  That is what kdeological fanatic Obama is doing. Even leftist economists agree taht keeping ALL of the tax cuts, including for the "top 2%", will HELP the economy "grow".  And the GOP positin is that raising taxes on teh "top 2%" will HURT the small businesses wo produce MOST of the jobs in this economy. Look at Obama, in contrast.  Is he saying that this TAX INCREASE wil HELP the economy?  Nope.  Is he saing that he really cares that much about the deficit?  Nopee.  Is he saying this will really "solve' the deficit? Nope. Obama is holding the ECONOMY hostage merely for  IDEOLOGICAL/POLITICAL reasons:  this idea that higher tax RATES for the "rich" is FAIRER, no mntter whether it hurts the economy or fails to raise significant extra revenue for the government.  This is the mark of a FANATIC ((bama). It may "sound good" for Obama to say that the GOP is "for the rich", rather than the middle class, but it is simply not ture.  The GOP wants to KEEP the "Bush tax cuts" for EVERYONE: Sure, that means the "rich" get to keep their tax cuts, just like the middle class, but that is the pont:  the GOP is not DEPRIVING the middle class of anything: jsut refusing to deprive the "rich" of the tax rates that were part of the OVERALL cuts in the Bush tax cuts.  The GOP says this BENEFITS the middle class by CREATING JOBS and helping the economy.  To SOME degree, even liberal economists would have to agree with that.  So the GOP is not SACRIFICING anyone or anything, except maybe the deficit (that NO ONE believes Obama cares aobut, and which is not MATERIALLY affected by increased taxes on the "top 2%" that Obama is proposing). 

No.  You can accuse the GOP of lots of things, and I do.  But the GOP is NOT being EXTREMIST on taxes. Obama IS.  The GOP may be very reluctant to raise income tax rates, but ALL econmists agree that AIDS growth in the economy.  It is not like the GOP has made "hge cuts' in PRESENT SPENDING that hurts the "middle class'. Taht is one of my main gripes against the gOP: They hage CUT NOTHING (certainly not yet).  The GOP has hardly been "ideologically pure". But Obama HAS BENN, and continues to be, IDOLOGICALLY EXTREME.  He cannot even explain HOW increased taxes on the "top 2%" will even THEORETICALLY "help" the economy.  All Obama can say is that raising taxes on the "top 2%" MAY give us an extra 70 billin in reveue a year.  But our DEFICT is more than 1 TRILLIN dollars a year. This is a drop in the bucket, and Obama is willing to materially HURT our economy in 2012, by maintaining ths UNCERFTAINTY, for no other reason thann this FANATICISM about the "rich" paing higher tax rates.

I haven't even addressed the MAIN long-erm problem with this Obama fanaticism of having a VERY SMALL portion of our populatin "finance" an ever-increasing share of our ENTIRE GOVERNMENT.  Already ,the bottom 50% of income earners pay LITTLE in taxes, with approximately the bottom 40% paying NOTHING.  Already the "top 2%" pay for something like 50% of the ENTIRE income taxes collected from individuals by the U. S. government.  See Any Rand for the PREDICTIN (60 years ago) that this is what would eventaully happen).  It is moraly wrnog, and IMPOOSIBLE, for an ever FEWER number of peole to 'pay for' and EVER-INCREASING part of our entire spendning.  In the end, this class warfare ida ALONE will destroy us, as class warfare destroyed the Roman Republic. 

Q.E.D. President Obama is a FANATIC EXTREMIST on taxes: willing to RIN the eocnomy for 2012 based on IDEOLOGICAL PURITY about class warfare.  The uncertainty alone is fatal to present economic growth.  The 10-year "life' of the "Bush tax cuts", by the way, was a MISTAKE.  I know. Bush and tehe GOP always wanted to make them permanent, and (I think) wanted the ISSUE Still a terrible mistake.  Obama has compunded that mistake. Think of how BAD OFF the gOP would now be if President Obama had done what he should have done:  reject "ideological urity" and say thaqt the ECONMY and JOBS requuried tax rate CERTAINTY, and since the GOP would not budge, he--Obama--was gong to act on behalf of the EcoNMY (grate man that he is--lol), and agree to make the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT for EVERYONE.  Obama could have said that it is too bad the GOP insisted on unfairly not putting the major burden of taes where it belongs, but that Obama could not--n good conscience--sacrifice the economy because the GOP refused to be reasoanble on taxes for the "top 2%", proving that they did not really care aobut the deficit.  I truly believe that ONE decison on Obama's part would have WON him the electin: not least because the ECONOMY would be dong better. The GOP is lucky that Obama is a IDEOLOGTICAL FANATIC, and never even considered such a master stroke.  I mean, Obama could have said that he wuld continue the "fightg" for tax "fairness" and "tax reform", but that theCOUNGTRY needed CERTAINTY in the shorter term.  The GOP is blessed in its enemies.  Too bad it is NOT blessed in its political leaders.

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

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Obama and the Democrats: Running on Death and Taxes

 You are familiar with this statement:  "There is nothing certain in life but death and taxes."

And the media has claimed Obama is "brilliant".  I admit I have not seen this, despite the media, althugh this blog HAS proclaimed President Obama to be a COMIC genius. But I may change mymind.  "Brilliant" may be the only word to describe the "theme" for the Democratic Convention, and the fall electin campaign.  Since everyone knows that we cannot avoid death and taxes, they have decided to EMBRACE them as the entire baseis of their campaign.

Really.  Obama and the Democrats seem enthusiastic about death (abortion) and taxes (on the "rich") as being the entire basis of their convention, and their election campaign.  Todd Akin is going to be talked about like he is the gOP nominee, or at least the man in charge of gOP policy from now on, no matter who is in office.   And the Democrats are going to segue from that to abortion (Gop platform)--death--and taxes (class warfare).

Econmy?  Jobs?  Forget it.  This is the really briliant plan Obama and the Democrats have come up with:  "We need to concentrate on the two things that have been recognized as most important since the beginning of time:  death and taxes". If they are inevitable, we need to embrace them, and make them work for us.  Besides, women are stupid, They will believe anything, if our media women tell them so. We already have them with this 'free contraceptoin" bribe (at a cost--ObamaCare, or another form of death policy--that they don't seem to realize they can't afford).  This 'death and taxes' campaign will close the deal with women."

Iknow:  This "if rape is inevitable, enjoy it" idea did not work for Clayton Williams, running for governor of Texas.  But Obama and the Democrats seem to think that Todd Akin can be associated with that idea, and through him the entire GOP, rather than women realizing that it is Obama and the Democrats really running with this (figurative) idea as to death and taxes.  Obama and the Democrats evidently believe that women will learn to "enjoy" what Obama and the Democrats are doing to them on the economy, so long as they can be deflected with this death and taxes theme. In fact, it can also be analogized to that other "advice" given to women, long ago, if they are experienceing an unplesant experience: "Just close your eyes and think of England.'.  Since Obama considers himself a "citizen of the world" and aBOVE America, the advice here would probably be:  "Just close yur eyes, listent to media women, and think of Obama.'

The other caveat as to how "brilliant' this plan to run on death and taxes is was mine.  Women are intensely lPRACTICAL creatures.  My older daughter (wh considers hrself a feminist, but keeps sayig things like this, as is true of all "feminists") assures me this is so:  She says "sex" is NEVER the primary goal of a woman, which is explains why women are willing to consider money, and so many other things, without being distracted by mere sexual attractin  My daughter insists that MEN, on the other hand., often let sexual attractin overwhelm them completely, whcih NEVER happens to women.  Hey.  Don't blame ME. I am jsut repeating what my olde, feminist daughter has told me more than once.  If women are really that PRACTICAL, rather than either romantic or ideological, are they not gonig to VOTE (in the end) based on the PRACTICAL view of the economy and jobs?  Many of them may not LIKE the GOP attitude on abortion, and refusal to give them special bribes, but are women not--in the end--gong to vote  what they perceive their economic SELF-INTEREST?  And are even women dumb enough to believe that a HYPOTHETICAL argument about the details of THEORETICAL abortion laws that cannot be passed in any form unless the Supreme Court changes its mind is more for them to worry abut than their ECONOMIC LIFE?  I don't think so.  Nor are women likely to believe that "taxes on the recih" are really gong to have good PRACTICAL effects on their economic life.

Funny.  I seem to have talked myself into questioning whether this Obama/Democrat idea of running on DEATH AND TAXES is really that "brilliant'.  Oh well.  I am probably missing something.

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Oh, the basic contention that Obama and the Democrats appear to have decided on a conventin, and campaign, based on embracing DEATH AND TAXES, comes frm Rush Limbaugh.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Obama Loses 374,000 Jobs Last Week: No Improvement This Year (as Media Doubles Down on LIES)

New unemployment claims data (for the previus week) was released Thursday, and again showed NO improvement in the job market this entire year.  I know, by th eway , that the Labor Department said there were 372,0000 new claims for unemployment last week, and that our dishoenst media 9especially the financial media) reported this as a "fact", but MY headllne contains the (more likely) correct number.  It is not my eyesight, or a typo. The CORRECT number (really ESTIMATE, since the "sasonal adjustment' creates a built in margin of error of 50,000 or so) is much more likely 374,000, than the INITIAL 372,000 reported by the Labor Deparment.  How can I say that, in conflict with the expets in the Labor Department? It is because the Labor Department is DISHONEST (no more pussyfooting around--when you report a weekly number wrong in ONE DIRECTION for year after year after year, yoiu are DISHOENST, especially when you donot make a major effort to ADJUST the GLILTCHES).    And the LIARS of the media are WORSE in the way they report the Labor Department information.

Look at this blog's weekend article on the numers the Labor Department reported last week, for the previus week.  Again, this blog was EXACTLY right, and the Labor Dpeartment was proven to be dishoent---along with our media. The number of new unemployment clais initially reported last week was 366,0, up a mere 2,000 from the REVISED 364,0000 for the week before that.  As this blog's article said, the media DOBLED DOWN last weeek on DISHONESTY, trying to suggest not ony that the number was essentailly "unchanged", but that the fact that the four-week moving average moved "down" last week actually meant that last week was an IMPROVING number. This blog told you in the wekend article, correctly, that the REVISED number of new unemployment claims which SHOULD have been reported last week was likely either 368,000 or 369,000.  Dead on, as usual (as you get tomorrow's news today in this blog).  The REVISED number which SHOULD hav been reported last week was 368,000, up 4,000 (rather than the minuscule 2,000 the media suggested ws nothing.  In additn, this blog told you taht the move "down' in the four-wek moving average was a statistical FLUKE, brought about my the way the weeky number has been jumping arund since the edn of June (as "seasonal adjustmennt" anomlies continue, as they have all year).  Thus, the number "dropped off" the four-week movieng average last week was 388,0000. This blog told yu that the number to be "dropped ff" this week would be 367,0000 (notice the impossible "drop' of 31,000 that happened a month ago--the result of thoose "seasonal adjustment' inaccuracies).  This blog told you that the fact that the number to be dropped off this week was the lower 357,0000 meant that thefour-week moving average would likely GOUP this week , for the same statistical reason  It did.  you will note that the 17,0000 difference between 374,000 and 367,000 meant that the four-week average ROSE over 4,000 this week (using the more correct 374,000 number for this week), essentially offsettnig the "drop" in the four-week moving average last week.   No. The media stories this week did not highlight this PROFF of their DECEPTION (not to metnion proof of the validity of what appears on this blog).

This is what Dow Jones "reported" on its radio "money repoort:":  "The Labor Department counted 372,000 people who reported losing jobs last week, up 4,0000 from the previus week."  Can you LIE any worse tha Dow Jones (again PROVING my view of the unfair and unbalanced network not really being any better than the others, as Dw Jnes and the Wall Street Journal have a common ownership, and affiliation with, the unfair and unbalanced network).  SSob.  Where to start.  So many lies, so little time.  No, the Labor Department did not COUNT ANYTHING., or at least did not reprot what they "cunted".  The article on (also LIARS--ssee the weekend article) noted the revsion of last week's nummber from 366,000 to 368,000, based on lack of "complete data".  Amazing, isnot it, how the "complete data ALWAYS makes the number HIGHEER, usually by a very consistent number (used to be 3,000, and now seems to be usally 2,000, although 3,000 last week). A few times, the number has really risen a LARGE amount, such as 5,000, 10,000, or even more, although usually the ERROR is pretty consistent). Obviusly, if tehe Labor Department is "counting on its fingers", as it just counts up the new unemplment claims, it is not doing a very good job.  But Dow Jones peole are much worse LIARS than that.  The Labor Department does not even pretend to have "counted" 372,0000 new unemplyment claims. Rather they "counted" (compiled, with incomplete data that will be revised next wee, almost surely UP 2,000 or more) a RAW NUMBER, which the Labor Department then SEASONALLY ADJUSTMENT.  This "adjustment" can be as much as 1000,000 or more, and is based on a "formula" to "smoooth out" the variations in new unempllyment claims created by purely seasonal factors (predictable rise in hiring heading into Christmas beng an obvus example).  This"seasonal adjustment" is NOT "counting", and can be WAY OFF (expalining the bouncing around since the end of June).  The "seasonal adjustment" is NEVER EXACT: never a "counting" number.  It is ALWAYS an "estimate" based on a falible forumula. It is basically an educated guesss as the "raw" number is MASSAGED to supposedly give a more meaningful number.  I sitll maintain that HONEST "jounalists" (no such creature appers to exist today--a myth, like unicors) would ERPORT the "raw" number, alnog wiht the "seasonally adjusted" numbe.r.  But the idea is that this wuld merely "confuse yyou" (let you know actual INFORMATIN, and that the way the media is reorting thesee numbers as exact is DISHONEST).

Marketwatch, some of the most dishoenst peolle who have ever lived, was the entity that made so much of the "four-week average" last week.  This week, the HEADLINES did not mentin that the four-week average had basically retraced the previus "drop" over which Marketwatch had made so muc.  Both Marketwatch and Dow Jones stuck with this LIE  that the new unemplyment claims rose 4,000, when that is an OUTRAGEOUS LIE.  Yu CANNNOT (as an honest person, whcih leaves "jurnalists" out, I guess) COMPARE a REVISED NUMBER (last week's revised 368,000) with an UNREVISED number (this week's initially reported 372,000).  You are comparing apples and oranges. You either have to compare this week's UNREVISED number with last week's UNREVISED number, or else WAIT for the revised number next week. Or wyou can ESTIMATE the revisin, as I do, and often come very close.  Again, it is a LIE to compare a revised number with an unrevised nummber, especially when yu KNOW that the revision is ALWAYS in ONE DIRECTION (usually very coonsistent).

No.  It is simply a fact: Today's "journalists" are sorry specimens of humanity, both incompoetent and massively dishonest.  And, as stated, the Labor Deaprtment has to be regarded as dishonest to keep reorting this SAME kind of df "revisin" week after week, year after year, allways in ONE DIRECTIN. The "data" is obviusly being compiled in a way that ALWAYS understates the number n the initial report.

This constant dishonesty is annoying.  But these weely numbers--another media LIE wehn they hype an individual week--are significant ONLY over time.  Here, we have a yearly RANGE between 351,000 and 390,000, with NO "improvement' as the year as gone on.  In fact the BEST numbers were ni a period from late January to early March, when the "range' was 351,000 to a little above 365,000.  Notice that we are now in the MIDDLE of the yearly range, and ABOVE the TOP of the range we seemed to have reached n February.  Again, what this all MENS is that we are NOT IMPROVING.  We bounce around weekly, and even monthly (as the seaonsal adjustment fails oto get it right ni certain months, or maybe alllmonths as seasonal patterns change), but overall we are STUCK.  We are STALLED in a BAD PLACE.  Note that if we o=move UP from here (the 374,0000 that likely should have been reported this Thursday), we will be right back toward the 390,000 area were were in for most of June. If we back off from the 374,000, then we may seem to get back to the type of range we were in early this year.  In all events, there is NO TREND, and the job market is STALLED.

To show just how little trend there is, let me give yu the (revised, except for this week, where I have done the revision) numbers starting at the end of June, after we had about four weeks AVERAGING almost 390,000 for most of June):  374,0000 (I think, although this may have been revised higher), 352,000 (impossilbe drop), 388,000 (impossible rise), 357,000 (impossible drop), 367,000, 364,000, 368,000 and 374,000 (as I have revised it, since others will not).   Q.E.D.  We are NOT IMPROVING (especially when you realize that early this year we were in that lower range of 351,000 to 365,000). The seasonal adjustment is not getting the seaonsla pattern right, but it is obvius we are STUCK.  This is confirmed by the fact taht the unemplyment RATE is the SAME as it was in January. Monthly jobs data (also adjusted) has shown NO improvement over the year.  GDP has "grown" almsot nothing: 1.5% this last quarter, and 2% the irst quarter.  You may remember that the first two quarters of 2008 showed GDP GROWTH, even thugh the 2008 recession OFFICIALLY began on January1 of that year.

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

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Cincinnati Wins Central Division: The Maverick Conservative Makes the Call

On Sunday, the Pittsburgh Pirates beat the St. Louis Cardinals in 19 innings.  It was a game that cassued the projection/selection desk of The Maverick Conserative to make the "call", even though all of the votes ((games) are not yet in, that the Cardinals will NOT win the Central Divison of the National League  (although they are stil in the 'wild card" race, and now even in a playoff position).

Amazingly, or maybe not so much, BOTH the winnter and loser of that 19 inning game seem to have LOST the CentralDivison because of that game. The Cardinals lost, and that caused the selectin desk to determine that the Cardinals had LOST the Central Division.  However, the Pirates got no opendate, and had to immediately play a 3 gameseries, on the road, against tthe San Diego Padres, with even a change in their pitching rotation becaues of the 19 inning game  The Prirates lost all three games to the Padres, and The Maverick Conservative can now make the CALL that Cincinnati HAS WON the Central Division of teh Natinal League.

Yes, the Cardinals proceeded to sweep the hapless Astros, and to move ahed of the Pirates in the wild card race, with the aid of an open date on Monday (following the 19 inning game) . Yes, the Cardinals would surely like to have won the 19 inning game, whch may have delayed the CALL that the Reds have WON the Central Divisin, but by merely forcing 19 innings the Cardinals may have dealth a MORTAL blow to the Pirates. They certainy did so as far as the winner of the Central Division is concerned, and that 19 inning game may turn out to be the turning pont for the Cardinals to move ahead of the Pirates i the wild card race for good.  HOWEVER, the Astros are hopeless, and the Cardinals now go on the raod against DECENT TEAMS, including the Reds and Pirates.  The road trip will probably tell us  lot abut whether the Cardinals are going to be a playoff team.

Why did the selectin desk not wait for the Cardinal series with the Reds to declare the Reds the winner of the Central Division?  Mainly because the Reds are not the BRAVES (responsible for a wrong projectin last year that the Cardinals would not make the playoffs). The Maverick Conservative sees no way the Cardinals will catch the Reds, even if they make a belated run.  This road trip, in fact, is gong to make it difficult for the Cardinals to even stay as close as they are.  IF they come out of the road rtip ahead of the Pirates, and nto losing ground to the Reds, they wll be doing well.  And, yet, that will still leave the Cardinals HOPELESSLY behind the Reds.

No. Cincinnati has WON the Central Divisin.  The quetin now is whether the Cardinals can become a wild card team. They did what this blog told you they NEEDED to do: SWEEP the Astros with their (present) best pitcheers.  They did that. Nowt he Cardinals face the tougher task of at least holding their on on the road, against teams that are a lot better than the Astros.  We will see.

Wild card teams, with the new one game playoff, really face a tough road.  So the Cardinals really needed to win the Central Divisin.  But now that The Maverick Conservative has declared the Reds the winner of the divisin, the Cardinals are going to have o repeat last year, only better, in order to repeat as world chamions.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Housing Bubble

We appear to be heading for another housing BUBBLE in this country, although probablyl not as bad as the last one because loan standards are tighter and crazy mortgages not so common (interest only, adjustable rate, negative amortizatiln, etc.).

Amazingly, this new housing "bubble' (really a return to the old cyclical pattern in housing)  is developing because the worldwide economy is so BAD.  This has driven U.S. mortgage interest rates to about as LOW as they can possibly go.  A LOT more people can afford a 30-year mortgage at a 4% interest rate, and a HIGHER home lprice, than at a 6^ interest rate.  Yet, there is a STEALTH inflation out there--for example in ENERY and FOOD--that shows that any hint of a REAL "recovery" will cause long-term interest rates to explode. Thus, you have people rushing to buy a house because they now CAN, before they lose the opportunity because of rising house prices and higher interst rates.  Totally rational, and the usual kind of boom-bust cycle in housing (exacerbated by the precarious state our economy s in, and teh fact we have made a real "recovery" IMPOSSIBLE).

Thus yu have Wall Street (and CNBC), The Stupidest People on Earth, talking about the sudden prosperity of the home builders as though it is a surprise, AND as if (the really stupid part) it somehow means a long-term boom in housing.  Toll Brothers, for example, came out with "double" their expected earnings, and a 57% rise in orders, as well as higher selling prices.

Whyu is this a "bubble", especially with an ailing worldwide economy?  Look at what happens.  A LOT of people, even in a down economy, are suddenly abble to afford a home (because of lower COST.  We are not even talking about the price of the HOME.  We are talking about the price of the MORTGAGE.  Thus, demand rises and prices go up (some, as there is still that "overhang" of foreclosures).  The overhang of foreclosures will also keep the bubble somewhat in check.  But what happens if interst rates RIS and/or the demand for houses is satisfied as everyone rushing to get a "bargain house" gets one?  Right . Economics 101 again.  Suddenly, even though there is a bigger supply on the market (as optimism picked up), there are suddenly FEWER BUYERS.  This means that peole who buy during this "mini-bubble" may have a home they can afford (unlieke the last bubble), so long as nothing goes terribly wrong, but they do not have a home they can SELL.  People who want to sell become more numerous than people who want to buy, and the "bubble' bursts again. 

It is much WORSE if we have a rREAL "recovery", and/or inflation rears its ugly head .  Then banks are WHIPSAWED. They have all of these ong-germ mortgages at LOW interest rates, but their COST OF MONEY rises dramatically.  And look at thosepoor potential home buyers!  Most long-term mortgages now are NOT ASSUMABLE at the same interest rate.  Thus, a seller with a LOW interest rate is trying to sell to a buyer who must quali=fy at a MUCH HIGHER interest rate.  Again, buyers dry up . This is one of the reasons that we have ut ourselves in a positin that we CANNOT have a real recovery.  We have set ourselves up for inflatin, and higher interst rates, at the slightest hint that we are entering into a strong economic recovery.  And we are STARTING with high energy and food prices.  That means that if we really didd beging a strong recovery, it will SHUT DOWN almost immediately, because both prices and interest rates will EXPLODE. What has actually happened, n fact, is that the terrible worldwide economy has kept interst rates from exploding, as they otherwise would with al of this printing of money, but has NOT kept food, commodity and energy prices from EXPLODING becalsue of the deliberate inflation.  In oour fragile economy, combined with total government domination and suppressin of the economy, this keeps SHUTTING DOWN any small recovery BEFORE interest rates ev ven have a chance to rise.  Make no mistake, however, IF we could get past that hurdle to a real recovery, interest rates would EXPLODE, and THAT would immediately shut down any recovery.

Remember I said the people on Wall Street are The Stupidest People on Earth?  Well, in the economic doldrums of this summer, those stupid peopole (as reflected on CNBC AND the business network of the unfair and unbalanced network) weer talking aobut how lower oil and gasoline prices created by the slowing economy would act like a TAX CUT, and that there were lots of reasons to believe that the economy would qickly bounce back from the slowdown.  This was in those alternate days when these stupid people were not taling about the 1,000th "deal" in Europe, or the way Bailout Ben Bernanke would "save" us if we got in any real trouble with QE3. 

Problem:  Waht about the TAX INCREASE we are not suffering?  The price of oil l, and gasoline, is back toward earlier highs:  oil now above 97 a barrel for U.S. crude, which is HIGHER than last year at this time and not far from approaching the $105 a barrel that SHUT DOWN the economy this spring.  FOOD prices have become ridiculous high, and not just because of the drought--as we continue to put FOOD in our gasoline tanks for POLITICAL reasons ("green energy and the VOTE of farm states). 

Then you have ObamaCare, and higher taxes (inlucing some 20 taxes within ObmaCare) on the near horizon.  This is all a recipe for DISASTER, and for the present blip in housing to be a bubble. 

But you no longer  hear much from Wall Street, at least as reported in our financial media, about the TAX INCRFEASE represented by higher gasoline and food prices. That is because these people are not only stupid; they are dishoenst. 

Letist Democrats, incuding the media, are pushing this hysteria and propaganda on Todd Akin to suggest that Obama can count on WOMEN to vote based on an entirely HYPOTHETICAL argument on abortin and rape.  There is no present prospect of abortin being illegal, much less illegal in cases of rape.  It is entirely HYPOTHETICAL.  Women hae been, in the past, intensely prctical creatrues, rather than people who (taken generally) "stand on princiiple".  I hestitate only because women have shown an increasing tendency to be swayed by the MEDIA, and by these vocal leftist women (in the media, and elsewhere).  Men (generally again) are not.  But I have confidence taht women will not be so blind as to actually vote based on what is really a meaningless (tot heir lives) "insult" by a single gOP Senate cnadidate.  Will women really support Obama jsut because he is pro-abrotin, even though the economy is FAILING and even though his conntued policies will continue to make recovery IMPOSSIBLE.  I don't think so.

That is why I maintain my PREDICTINO that Obama LOSES this electin, unless the economy is PERCEIVED to be substantially improvving on electin day  You jsut can't convince me that a totally hypothetical "debate" on abortin is going to cause peole to SELL OUT what they perceive as their economic interest.

Me/  I am neutral.  I agre that Obama will be a disaster, as he has already been  I jsut can't stomach votng for Romney, and do not think--IN PRACTICE--he will be any different than Obama as far as the economic future o this country is concerned.  3 of my brothers beleive that Romney can't be WORSE than Obama, and that there is at least a chance he will do better.  Better a mnan of no principle, who at least knows how to manage and does not have a leftist ideology that a man who is a leftist ideologue at heart (even though he will SAY anything).  I see my brothers' argument.  I jsut can't stomach it.  What happens if Roney wins and FAILS, as I expect?  Do we finally go comopletely to the left?  But, my brothers would argue, if Romney fails we are doomed anyway, and you can't wait for some Nirvana when another Ronald Reagan will finaly appear to save us.  Mabye so. I jsut can't stomach voting for Romney, and the way he has "handled' this Aking matter is yeat another reason  No, I did not exxpect hi sto actaullyl support Akin, who shot himself in the foot (albbeit in a way that has NO IMPACT on either the lives of women or the real issues in this electin).  But Romney again gave every indicatin of being a man of NO principle, just trying to say those things that will get him into the CEO job of this country.  I jsut can't take that.  I won't.

Thus, on Twitter ("mavconservative") I have changed my mind on Romney and Obama.  I have previusly told you that I would support Romney only if Hell freezes over, whole I wouild not support Obama until BOTH Hel freezes over AND the sun burns out (or becomes a black hole) . My changed position is the SAME for Romney and Obama:  I will support NEITHER until Hell freezes over AND the sun burns out (or becomes a black hole).

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).  I did, by the way, realize lthat I made a meaningless mistakein my correct article on the St. Louis Cardinals and teir performance this baseball season.  I said Tony LaRussa had the Cardinals at 78-74 before the late run.  That was actually the PRIOR YEAR, as LaRussa recently had a pattern of maknig late runs that were tOO LATE. The Atlanta Braves helped him out last year to make the run that turned out not be be too late (as it really should have been).  Thus, it is true that on about August 24 of last year, the Cardinals were onlyl abut 4 games over .5000, but the numbers were not 78-74. And yes, Mahtney is actually doing BETTER this year, at this pint, than LaRussa did last year at this ponit.  But Matheny has not shown he can do what LaRussa did, and until he proves  himself as a new manager the jury will be out.  The jury is NOT out as to his performance up until now.  As stated int he previuos article, it ha been unsuccessful, as indicated by the performance in one-run games, two-run games, AND extra inning games.  In the games where the manager woulld be expected to make a difference, Matheny has fialed.  He may well be LEARNING, and improve the rest of this year and/or next year.  Cardinal fans had btter hope so  As yet, he is not getting it done.  The Cardinals ar now plahing the Astros, at home, and MIGHT look good against them (as almost everybody but the Cardinals has).  They won 7-0 last night (tkhe blow-out kiknd of game where they pad their statistics, only to fail in competitive games).  The test will bbe (assuming the Cardinals can really handle the Astros and sweep, which they NEED to do) how the Cardinals do when thye again have to play a decent team.  The Cardinals have already LOST the Central Divison (projectin that inspired LaRussa last year).  But they are in the thick of the wild card race, even as being a wild card team is much more daunting this year than last because of the one-game "playoff' between the two wild card teams.  You have the rather funny possibility of TWO one-game playoffs if there is a TIE for the last wild card spot (unless they have worked out a tie-breaker for that situation which does not invovlve pllaying a game, as they really should). 

Monday, August 20, 2012

St. Louis Cardinals Are Not a Good Baseball Team: Mike Matheny Unsuccessful in First Year (ESPN Idiots)

ESPN announcers did a game between the Cardinals and Reds--in the process of sweeping the Cradinals as the Cardinals fell back toward .5000 for the season.  The announcers had the usual kind of media narrative, which had n orelationship with reality.  "Mike Matheny has a laid back style very diffrent from TnyLaRussa, and it is obviusly workng."  Not so, yu idiots.  It obviuisly was NOT working, and still is not. The Cardinals started off the season 20 and 11. Since then, despite pretty good hitting "statistics" AND pretty good pitching satistics, the Cardinals are no better than a .500 team. Last night was typical, as the Cardinals played 19 innnings--as the home team with last at bat--against the Pittsburgh Pirates, only to lose 6 to 3.  Tey lost two 2-1 games beofre tlhat, incuding one in the ninth iining after leading 1-0. Right befoe that, thhe Cardinals lost a game 8-7, after leding 7-4  gong into the bottom of the 8th inning.

"It is said that losing a lot of one-run games is the mark of a bad team. The By this standard, the Mets were a bad team, losing lots of one-run games.  But they also lost innumerable games by many runs, and that is the mark of a TERRIBLE team."  (paraphrase fro a book on the expansion Mets managed by Casey Stengel: "Can't Anybody Here Play this Game/"

By this standrad, this year's St. Louis Cardinals aer a BAD team.  Oh.  "Mediocre" is probably a better word for a team playing .500 and below after the first 31 games. But "bad" is not too strong in view of the pretty good INDIVIDUAL statistics of both hitters and pitchers. And it is not jsut one run games.  That game with the Pirates last night ended up a 3 run game, but it was !9 innings.  That was WORSE than almost any one-run loss yoiu can pint at.  The Cardinals, form the beginnig of the eason, have lost COMPETITIVE GAMES in which they have been tied or leading in the 6th inning and later. This is partly bullpen.  But not nearly all.  When the Cardinals NEED a hit, they tend not to get it.  When the game is on the line BOTH Cardinal pitchers and hitters are not coming through. 

This blog got it right way back in May, when this blog CORRECLY "called' the Cubs, Milwaukee and Astros as OUT of teh playoff picture.  What was impressive abut that was that I did NOT "make the call" that the Pirates were "out'.  Instea, I correctlyl said that the Pirates could NOT yet be counted ut, even when they wre quite a ways back o f the Cardinals, because they wre showing potential.  At tims, Houston and Milwaukee were about as "close' as the Pirates, but The Maverick Conservative selectin/projection desk correcly saw that the Pirates MIGHT be there (when all of the votes are counted--the games played), bu that the Brewers and Astros would nto be there.

Now I am makng another call, based on not the raw "votes" but on the expert Maveick Conservative projecions as to what the situation will be afer all the "votes" have been counted (all the games hav been played). The Cardinals will NOT win the Central Division of the National League.  It is over for the Cardinals, except as a possible "wild card"in a year you don't want to be a wild card team. No.  The selectin desk says that we cannot YET make the call that Cincinnati has won the Central Divisin.  Pittsburgh cannot yet be counted out, alatough the situation is looking precarious.  But the Cradinls HAVE LOST the division race, even though the "raw vote" shoes them not that far behind Pittsburgh stilll.  That gives the Cardinls a sot at the wild card, but the Central Divisioin is LOST. 

Back to ESP idiots.  AGain, new manager Mike Matheny's style is NOT WORKNG.  Yes, I pefer a laid back style to the "I am a genius, and you are not" high wire intensity of Tony LaRussa.  This does not change the FCTS. 

Waht is teh best way of evaluating a manager's performance?  In what games can the manager--SHOULD the manager--make a difference. Sure, there are "blow-out" games whre a manager MIGHT have made an early difference. But if the manager's "on field" performance is EVER to make any difference at all, is it not most likely to show up in CPMPETITIVE GAMES. I don't think thiscan be argued. Just as with Barack Obama, Mathenty's performance seems to indicate that EXPERIENCE does make some difference. Mahteny's performance in competitive games has been ABYSAL Extra iinning games?  Close games?  The numbres are so MARKED asto almost be conclusive (as conclusive as this kind of thing can ever be).  Mathenty's first eyar as a manager has been UNSUCCESSFUL.  Note what this blog said back in May:  "The real test for the Cardinals will be when they start playing temas outside of the Central Division.' . The Cardinals prompltly fell on their fce against temas n the Eastern Divisin, and atgainst any "decent" team (after initiall being able to handle all of the teams in the Central Divisin, which started the season as the worst divisin in baseball, until the Pirates and Reds improved).  There are a thusand and one decisions a manager makes every game.  Some are obviusly moe imortant than othes, but it is futile to try to itemize individual "wrong" decisions of Matheny.  In games where the manager COULD have mde a difference,Matheny has LOST too many of them (that ark of a "bad" team--truly the mark of a manager who has been unsuccessful). 

Should Matheny be fired?  Dont' be silly.  He is not even through his first year.  When the Cardinals wwnt with a man who had NEVER managed before, they HAD to accept the possibility--even probability--that Matheny woud have to "learn on the job". His real test as a long-term prospect is whether he is caapable of LEARNING to make a positive difference.  An "appealing' "style"--ESPN idioots aside--is NOT enugh.  This may be a "ost year' for the Cardinals, although the wild card possibilites are stil there. But Matheny needs to start showng he is LEARNING. Otherwise, this will be more than a ne-year problem.  No.  The manager canot "play" for the players, but you have a manger for SOME reason.  If it is not to give your team at least a little "edge" in competitive games, what is it? I have no doubt at all that Matheny's year has so far been unsuccessful, ased on the prsonnel he has and the type of games he has lost.  If that is not obvious from Matheny's record this year, what basis do you ever have of saying a manager is not really getting it done?

No. I have not forgotten.   Last year, about this time, The Maverick Conservative declared the Cardinals DEAD.  I fruther said that Tny LaRussa was having antoher unsuccessful year as manager. The Cardinal record was something like 78-74, and they were OUT OF IT.  Thus, you can CREDIT ME with the Cardinal world series victory. Did not La Ruassa do it jsut to SHOW ME that he ws, too, stil a genius?  I thinks so.  The way the Cardinals fihnished the year rpoves that I was right; For MOST of last year, Tony LaRussa failed as a manager.  The Difference between LaRussa and Mathenty is that LaRussa has shown he CANget results.  Matheny has not yet shown that.  There is no reason to beleive Matheny can do what La Russa did last year.  However, with TWO wild card teams, if Matheny gets it together at all, the Cardinals can still becoeme a wild card team.  A toughter road to the World Series than last year, but anything is possible (as last lyear proved).

Actaully , The Maverick Conservative selecton desk was RIGHT last yea, by any reasonable standards. The Cardinals finished the year somehting like 23-9.  It should NOT hhave been good enoguh.  It was not good enough to catch the Milwaukee Brewers, or even get close.  But the selectin desk failed to take into acocunt the ATLANTA BRAVES.  They went something like 10-20 in the last 30 games--not too far away from the pace of those hapless expansion NY Mets. The selectih desk has learned its lesson.  No more PROJECTINS relying on the Atalnta Braves to fit a statistial model.  The only way The Maverick Conservative wiill "project" the BRACES as a wild card team (they are way ahead aain, although not QUITE as far as last year) will be if the Brves have MATHEMATICALLY CLINCHED.  Taht means that if the Braves have to lose 20 game in a row not to clinch, The Maverick Conservative sill SILL not 'make the call' that the Braves are in. Other teams, yes.  We have confidence in our statistical models.  But not for the Braves. Even i the final week last year, the Braves SILL had it won with a week to go, playing only .500.  They LOST THEM ALL.  LaRussa established his "genius' title for all time because of the Atlanta Braves.  It should have been too late.  It WAS too late. But for the Braves.

Beleieve it or not, the Cardinals are "my team', since I grew up (most of first 12 years of my life) n Mt.Ida , Arkansas listening to Harry Carey doCardinal games with Sttan"The Man" Musial as the star player. This does not keep me from seeng reality.  Reality is that the Cardinals sill have a realistic, if fading, hope t be a wild card team.  They have NO hoope of  winning the Central Divisoni, snce it is not the Atlanta Braves ahead of them.  And the RECORD sseems to conclusively show that Mike Mathenty has to take the "blame"  (It is only a game, unlike NFL football) for this. Maybe he is learning.  I hope so, if ony for next year.  A wild card team this year will have to win a ONE GAME playoff, and THEN face two separate series without home field advantage jsut to get into the World Series.  If Matheny can do THAT--make the Cardinals a wild card team, now that the CALL has been mde that they have LOST the Central Division, ND then go al of the way to the World Series--then Matheny will be well n his way to starting a legend to rival LaRussa's.  Don't hold yur breath.

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

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Obama Fails on Jobs; Dishonest Labor Department, Media Lies and New Unemployment Claims

No more pussyfooting around . The way the Labor Department compiles these weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims for the previus week (released every Thursday) is dishoenst. 

This blog, for YEARS (not jsut weeks or months) has shown that the number released on each Thursday (for new unmplllyemnt claims filed the previuos wekk--therotically a measure ofweekly job losses) is ALWAYS revised uward the next Thursday.  I the past that revisinh has msot often been 3,000 and above, although occasionally 2,000.Very rarely--maybe two or three times a year--the number will re revised upward only 1,000, or (almsot never) be unchanged.  I cant even remember the last time the weekly number was revised DOWNWARD.  Sorry,.  This CONSISTENT upward bias in the HEADLINE number initay reported is DISHOENST. No.  I don't care if the Labro Department is getting the dishoenst numbers from its reporting sources, instead of creating themitself. It is still disoenst.  If you KNOW that you are CONSISTENTY getting reports on new unemplyment claims off by 2,000, 3,000 or more in ONE DIRECTIN, then you are oblicaged to either improve the reporting or ADJUST the weekly number BEFORE initial reporting.  If the number is ALWAYS going to be off, why not jsut wait for the "good" number (release each report one week later--after all of teh "revisions" ae in)?  This problem is compunded by the MEDIA SIHONESTY, which is even greater than the Lbaro Department dishoensty.  This blog's previus article on this subject noted that the Labor Deaprtmentst SEEMED to be gettting SLIGHTLY better, as the weekly revisoin seemed to have settled in at 2,000, instead of the previous 3,000.  And CNN, for one, on their "detailed" page, was comparing unrevised numbers with unrevised numbers, instead of LYING by comapring revised numbers (from previus Thrusday) with unrevised numbers (released the current Thursday).  But this last Thursday showed that the apparent "progress" was an ILLUSING, and that the media was MORE DISHOENST than ever. 

First, the revision.  The number of new unemplyment claims released the previus Thrusday was revised upward to 364,000 from 351,000:  returning to the previus weekly pattrern of an uward revision averaging at least 3,000.  This means that the reported drop" the previous week (two Thursdays ago) was really 3,000 rather than the "headline" 6,000 reported at the time.  This was a miniscule "drop" (from 367,000 to the revised 364,000, instead of the initially reported 361,000). It gets worse.

What were the consistent headlines on Thrusday?  The headlines were that the number of "new unemplyment claims" "edged up", "rose very slightly", OR "remained unchanged".  The number of new unemplyment claims reportedon Thursday, which led to these headlines, was 366,000.  Note that the widelspread media headines were a LIE.  "But, Skip, the number only rose 2,000. That is essentailly unchanged.".  YOU FOOL YOU.  Have you not been reading this blog?  The initially reportednumber of 366,000was actually 5,000 more than intially reported last week, on an apples-to-apples basis.  To put it another way, the 366,000 number will lbe REVISED this next Thursday to 368,000 (or maybe 369,000). Notice that this means the RISE in new unemplyment claims this week was likely at least as large as the FALL in new unemplyment claims reorted (falsely) the previous Thrusday (that supposed "drop of 6,000 from 367,000 to 361,000, which became a "drp" of 3,000 after the 361,000 was revised upward to 364,000). Thus, the umber of new unemplylment claims has remained essentially UNCHANGED for THREE WEEKS, but that is not how the HEADLINES for the past two weeks read, because of this consistent distortion in comparing an unrevised number to a revised number.  Now you might notice that even 6,000 can be viewed as "essentailly unchanged", because the real margin of error here is something like 50,000 each week (because of the bvery large number thhat the seasonal adjustment may be off).  But that is NOT how the DISHOENST media reports these numbers--one of the facts of dishonesty being that the number reported each week is an ESTIMATE, rather than a  concrete, "counting-on-your-finger" number.  The raw number is adjusted by a SUBEJECTIVE "seasonal adjustment" formula, and that formual can be way off. But the dishoenst media keeps reporting a 4,000 "deop" in claims as significant, which is DISHOENST when we KNOW that the 4,000 "drop" will become an'essentially unchanged" "drop" of 1,000 or so once the revised number comes out the next week.  Message to yu financial "journalists":  you are about the most dishoenst, incompetent people who have ever lived, and your headline writers (unchecked by you dishonest peole) are even mroe dishoenst.  It gets worse.

Then there are the people of  in the competitn for the MOST dishoenst people who ever lived, bar none, along with some other 'journalists".  How did the absurdly dishoenst peole of Marketwatch report last Thrusday's nubmes?  First, you could hardly find the actual number of new unemplyment calims (the unrevised number of 366,000) in the Marketwatch story.  What the dishonest peole of Marketwatch did was dishoenstly focus on the "four-week average", which they ONLY do when that "shows" a "drop". When the four-week average incrases, even thought he weekly number is down, it is IGNORED (by Marketwatch and all other dishoenst "journalists"). It is much wrose in this particular case.  Here are the numbers of new llunemplyment claims for the past 6 reported weeks (remember, with 366,000 in current week to be REVISED):  366,000 (this last Thursday unrevised); 364,000 (revised frmo 361,000); 367,0000 (revised from 365,000); 357,0000 (revised from 356,000); 388,0000 (revised) and 352,000.

Note how BAD the the "seasonal adjustment" has worked recently.  The econmy stayed pretty much the same since the beginning of the year.  GDOP rose 2% in the firt quarter and 1.5% (initial estimate) n the second quarter.  Meanwhile, since the beginning of the year, the number of new unemlylment claims has JUMPED AROUND, in a large range of 351,000 to 392,000.  From late January to March, we entered into a range of 351,000 to abut 365,000, whch had the dishoenst, incompetent media taling aobut "turning the corner' on jobs (as they had in 2011 and 2010, when the SAME thing happened).  Then that number of new unemplment claims suddently JUMPED--for three straight weeks--to an AVERAGE of close to 390,0000.  Seasonal adjsutment problems (in the 351,000 low as well as in the 390,000 high).  Then the weeky number of new unemplyment claims fell back again to right above the TOP of the previus range of 351,000 to 356,000 that had held for February -March.  Then the number of new unemlyment clams AGAN JUMPED, right ack up to that 3 week verage of almost 390,000.  Indeed, for almost ALL of June, the number of new unempplyment claims aVERAGED right around 390,000, until you got to the last week in June and first week in July (Juy 4 week).  Then the number supposedly fell SUDDENY to 352,000 in the first week of July.  That was obviusly a seasonal adjustment glitch caused by changes in schedules of auto plant closings.  Then the number JUMPED right back up to 388,00) (a ridiculous supposed "increase" of 36,000).  Then the number "dropped" back to 357,000 (an eqully ridiculous supposed decrese of 31,000).  .We have now 'stabiized" at about 365,000 (at the TOP of the February-March range agai).  Meanwhile, there is NO evidence to suggest that the EcONMY (or job market) has really jumped arund this way.  This is almost surely ALL the "seasonal adjustment".  The relevatn act is that we have made NO PROGRESS since the beginnning o the year, and that there is NO IMPROVING TREND evident. 

Look at the "four-week average", and how it is DISTORTED by the seasonal adjustment glitches.  The Thursday before last, the fur-week average" (which dishoenst Marketwatch said reached its low since March in the numbers reported this last Thursday) ROSE (even though that was ignored by dishonest "journalists" focusing on that supposed 6,000 "drop" last week, which turned into only a 3,000 "drop" wth the revisin reported this last Thursday).  How could the "rur-week average" RISE the previous week, and FALL this last Thursday?  Easy.  Look at the FICTINAL numbers the "four-week average"is DROPPING OFF.  First, we "dropped off" the 352,000 and added a 364,000.  That RAISED the "four-week average" by 3,000, and actually left us at a pretty HIGH numbe (ignored by dishonest "jurnalists').  This last Thrusday, we "droped off" the 388,000, and added 366,000 (or, likely, 369,000).  That "dropped" the "four-week average" 5,000. Fiction. All fiction.  "but is it not true that we have at least 'improved' from that 390,000 averge for most of JUNE?"   Yes, that is true. But does it MEAN anything, when we have merelly returned to a level at the TOP of the range we maintained earlier this eyar?  Evn more significant, the number of new unmplyment claims dos nto seem to match the ecomy, in the timing and magnitude of this bounding around (after the "seasonal adjustment" is applied)?  Notice that the "four-week average" will RISE this Thursday, unless Thursday's reported number is 357,000 or less. That is because we are gong to"drop" 357,000 from the 'moving average" this Thursday, and the average will INCRFEASE  unless we at least match that number (on the low side).  That will be true EVN IF the weekly number reported this Thrusday DROPS, like to 363,000. Note, yet again, that this does not even count that the number reproted this Thursday will likely be a LIE, becaues it will be an unrevised number. 

Dazed?  Our dishonest media calls this "in the weeds".  But I do this because you are SMART. More importantly, I HAVE to do it to show you that our media LIES.  If they were doing their job, they could do CORRECT stories without repeating this exensive analysis of numbers every week.  But they SHULD be reporting MULTIPLE WEEKS (not jsut the "four-week average" when it suits them, AND the fact that this weekly number is ony an ESTIMATE.  And they should NEVER "compare' an unrevised number with a revised number.  That is an outright LIE.  The media, if they were honest, would also report that the Labor Department is CONSISTENY off--in ONE DIRECTION--2,000 or 3,000 (sometimes more) almsot EVERY WEEK.  How can you defend that? You certainy cannot defend "reporting", or doing hedlines, on the assumptin that the number released by the Labor Department is the "real number'. 

To me, this refusal of modern "journalists" to go "into the weeks', even to INFORM THEMSELVES so they can give the informatin to us in a more digestible form, is the wort indictment you can make of modern "jrunalists".  they are BAD, DISHOENST peole.  Sure, there MUST be a FEW exceptins.  I have jstu not seen any.

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).  Look at that six week listing of new unemplylment claims numbers if yu think there is a typo in some number. That listing is correct. 

Friday, August 17, 2012

Obama (ObamaCare) Tries to Kill My 90 Year Old Mother

My mother took an ambulance ride today. Someone tried to cut off her oxygen. Was it Obama?  Not directly, but my mother has been convinced for some time that Obama is tryijng to kill her (impersonallly). She recognizes, as EVERY seniro citizen should recognize, that Obama and ObamaCare are putting PRESSUREW on Medicare, because Obama HAS to do that We only have a finite amount of medical resources and MONEY (despite Obama and Bernanke).  ObamaCare is the largest new "entitlement" program attempted since Social Security, at a time when Medicare and Medicaid alone threaten to bankrupt us.  Obama could ONLY lie about ObamaCare being "fully paid for" by asserting taht he would make "savings" in Medicar (that famous 716 billion that Romney and Ryan are talking about).  While soeme of those "savings" come from targeting Medicare Advantage, it is obvious that Obama HAD to put PRESSURE on Medicare, and seniors. Now politicians always target "waste", but that is jsut another way of saying they are going to put PRESSURE on the system.  Thre is no "easy" way to "target waste", as conservatives have found when they talk about "eliminating waste, fraud and abuse." 

Waht does this have to do with kiling my mother, and her ambulance ride today?  Agai, my mother has been on supplemental oxygen 24/7, for a decade or more.  She can't live wihout it, as her lungs just are not adequate (from smoking most of her life). Apria health care has been hassling her the past several weeks about whether she really needs all f this oxygen. She has been asked (after all of these years):  "have you tried doing without the oxygen/"  Now Apria obviusly does NOT CARE if my mother is purchasing oxygen from them---business for them--so long as MEDICARE is paying for it (as they have been).  The PRESSURE has to be coming from Medicare. Now my mother an I have no DIRECT evidence that this is specifically the effect of ObamaCare, and that would be hard to conclusivelly "prove'.  But the Medicare Actuary (in the Obama Administratin itself), and numerous other peoiple--including Obama taling about "savings" in Medicare--have come tot he concclusion that ObamaCare is putiting ENORMOUS PRESSURE on Medicare, to the point that seniors are not likely to be able to get the care to which they are accustomed, as ObamaCare goes into effect. Medical care providers like Apria KNOW that the PRESSURE IS ON, or is about to be applied. Sure, there is a lot of fraud and abuse in Medicare, but the peole doing fraud and abuse simplly ADJUST THEIR (fraudulent) PAPERWORK. It is people like my mother who get ut through the wringer.  My mother is so afraid of NOT BREATHING that she literally DOES NOT LEAVE THE HOUSE, exxcept in an ambulance (for which Medicare does not pay).

Thus, my mother was told that she needed a "lung saturation test" (or some such thing) from her doctor, to keep getting oxygen from Apria (wihout paying for it herself).; Let me be as clear as I can on this.  Obama has promised younger women (a BRIBE) absolutely FREE CONTRACEPTION, but HIS MEDICARE was proosing to DENY MY MOTHER THE OXYGEN SHE NEEDS TO BREATHE.  I have written this article before, except I hav used CANCER DRUGS as the example.  When did we become a society where FREE CONTRACEPTION (by government fiat) is the ULTIMATE GOOD:  more important than keeping people ALIVE (especially senior citizens).  ObamaCare, of course, estgablishes what amounts to a "death panel" board to evalulate what treatment is appropriate (IPAB, or whatever the acronykm is).  Medicare is already putting the pressure on. 

What did my mother do, when she was told she needed this test of lung capacity (essentially cutting off oxygen for a time, and seeing how FAST the lungs lose capacity).  Again, my mother does not leave the house, even to go to the doctor, except in an ambulance, because she is deathly afraid of NOT BREATHIING. Now I (hearless as I am) have suggested to her that maybe this is being a bit obsessive.  But my mother has the obvius answer:  "Have you ever NOT BEEN ABLE TO BREATHER.  Until you can say you are familiar with that, which happens to me all of tgh time, then I suggest yoiu shut up.".  What can you say to that?  Being me, I still will sort of mention it from time to time, but my mother is NOT going to leave the house again, except in an ambulance.  So what did she do about this "test" lthat Apria was REQUIRING, based on the assertin that otherwise Medicare would no longer pay for the oxygen?  My motehr did wha any SANE person would do, who does not feel she breathes well enough to leave the house.  I shoould mention that my mother experiences her oxygen level DROP, even whenthe oxygen tank is providing maximum oxygen, whenever she does exertion, or experiences stress. What my motehr did was have a HOME HEALTH NURSE do the lung capacity test. Apria, obviusly based on its view of what Medicare is requiring, refused to acceept the report of the home health nurse.

Thus, I fielded a call yesterday, as the "emegency" number my mother gave, from a Paula Hernandez, of Apria, saying that it was IMPERATIVE that she talk to my mother, and that she had been unable to reach her (my mther often being unavailable by hone because of hour lohng breathing treatments and the fact she is unable to WALK normally oto the phone).  Well, I reached my mother by phone, after awhile, and found out about this "simmering' problem that my mother had thought was solved with the nurse's report.  No. I do NOT appreciate Apria's role in this.  You can take this as HEARTFELT:  I DO NOT RECOMMEND APRIA TO ANYONE.  Anyway, Apria told my mother that she had to IMMEDIATELY get a DOCTGOR to certify this "test", or else Medicare would NOT be providing her oxygen through Apria.  This is EXPENSIVE stuff, oxygen. I am sure lthat my brothers and I would not let our mother die, even if she did not have the money to by the oxygen.  But what if my mother had gotten STUBBORN, as she is capable of doing, and decided tghat she would "show them" and DIE?  Would OBAMA HAVE KILLED HER.  I think the case would be BETTER than that famous Obama ad about Romney killing tha woman with cancer.

Yu should guess how this goes. My mother, faced with thewse THREATS, took an ambulance to the doctor's office for this TEST. What happened?  Have you ever been to a doctor? You SEE the doctor, if at all, for a FEW MINUTES.  All of the TESTS are done by office personnel (who may or may not even be nures).  My mother, rightly, thinks this is STUPID.  They would not accept the report of a home health nurse, but my other has to take an ambulance to have a woman in the doctor's office perform the "test".  Now this owman MAY have been a really expert technician, but this is absurd.  This is how the GOVERNMENT operates health care. 

My mother already thought that Obama is tryhing to kill her--crucify her on the cross of ObamaCare--long before this incident.  WhY?  First, my mother (without me telling her this, as it can't do her any god). already knew that ObamaCare was going to put PRESSURE. EVERY senior citizen shuld know that, and I am convinced most of them do.  The Medicare Actuary knows it.  But my mother did have another SPECIFIC grievance.

Back to breathing. My other has an EXPENSIVE "inhaler" medication that is not really "covered" adequately by ANY Medicare Drug Benefit Plan.  That medication has EXPLODED in price.  It is now something like $95 for each bottle (or box or whatever). Now I believe this oxygen matter can probably be laid right at the door of Obama.  I have told my mother that I think itis a STRETCH to blame Obama for the increasing cost of this breathing medicatin.  Thre are two "alternate" drugs that are PREFERRED in the Medicare plans (different plans, of ccourse).  It jsut happens that such medicatins don't WORK for my mothe.  This is EXACTLY what is gonig to happen THROUGHOUT MEDICARE as ObamaCare uts enormous PRESSURE on Medicare to "control costs" (to "pay for' ObamaCare).  It is also what is going to happen IN OBAMACARE and MEDICAID.  Insurannce companies are bad enough.  Americans must be MASOCHISTS if they truly believe ObamaCAr3e is the way to go.  Seniors, of course, shouild probably vote for Ryan IN MASS.  No, this is not because Ryan's proposed Medicare plan will be so very good for FUTURE seniors.  But it is ONLY peole NOW under 55 who will have to deal with whatever changes Romney and Ryan would make in FUTURE Medicare.  For PRESENT SENIORS, like me, the Ryan plan would take all of the PRESSURE off of Medicare.  Well, that is not quite true.  Medicare sitll threatens to BANKRUPT us, in combinatin with Medicaid, and that will be a constant worry.  But Ryan has PROMISED that Medicare will STAY THE SAME for peole now 55 and older, FOR AS LONG AS THEY LIVE.  Thus, it is OBAMA who is putting PRFESSURE on Medicare--much more than Ryan and Rmney--and NEEDS to really increase that pressure to have ANY chance of ObamaCare working. 

As stated, I am not sure enough about WHY my mother's breathing medicatin is TARGETED by ALL Medicare drug benefit plans, such that my mother is being shafted.  I would suspect taht my moterh may be right, if only indirectly, and that ObamaCare (and Medicare under Obama) is playin some role. But maybe it would have happened without ObamaCare.  However, look again at FREE CONTRACEPTON.  Obama is BRIBING young women with this prmise of ABSOLUTELY FREE CONTRACEPTN (not even any co-pay), while my mothe has to PAY TRHUGH  THE NOSE FOR A MEDICATIN NECESSARY FOR HER TO BREATH.  So much for the "war on women".  Obama is obviusly conductin a wAR on SOME women. 

As readers of this blog know, my problem with FREE CONTRACEPTIN has nothing to do with religion, as I am an agnostic who has no problem with "before-the-fact" contraception.  I do STRONGLY oppose abortion on demand--as strongy as any Cathoulic and mroe strongly than most.  But my problem with this GOVERNMENT MANDATE of "free contraceptin" is reallyl based on FREEDOM, and not just religious freedom.  Why should employers and insurance comopanies be FORCED to provide this specific benefit--beynd wht is provided for LIFE-SAVING drugs and services--because this is the "ultimate good" for people who think like Obama (and because it is a PAYOFF to Planned Parenthood)?  So much for our Liar-in-Chief's LIE:  "If lyu like your present health insurance coverage, you will be able to keep it."  This was ALWAYS not true, and this whole "fee contgraceptin" thing makes that clear.  Yu can't possibly "keep" your prior coverage, because it WILL NOT EXIST.  Not how this is NOT the case for Ryan and Medicare.  You really will, unless you are under 55, get to KEEP your Medicare jsut as it is FOR YOUR WHOLE LIF. It is impossible to make that statement for your helath insurance, which you will NOT be able to keep the way it was (again, because that "paln" will not longer exist, in its previous form, under ObamaCare). 

No.  ObamaCare will DESTROY Medicare. I heard Phil Cavuto, on the unfair and unbalanced network, say he did not understnad why the Romney poll numbers in Florida got BETTER after the ryan choice.  Welll, Cavuto, it is because we seniors are not STuPID, like you peoile at the unfair and unbalanced network.  Read the previous paragraph.  You can argue that YOUNGER PEOLE (under age 55) are "threated" by Ryah's Medicare plan jsut as you can argue that Runa's plan (and mroe than Ryan's plan) is necessary to SAVE some form of Medicare for those peole . But SENIORS in Florida should realize, and I thi maos do (as does my mther), that Ryan's plan HELPS PRESENT SENIORS, because it purports to take the PRESSURE OFF Medicare for ten years, and allows present people 55 and older to KEEP their present Medicare coverage for the rest of their lives.  Why shoud older peole in Florida not LOVE Paul Ryan?   It is only if you are totally subject to the "narrative' of the leftist media, as the unfair and unbalanced network is, that you think seniors don't see the LILE in the Obama propaganda about Ryan's Medicare plan.

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  My problem with Ryan remains that his "budget" takes TEN YERS to make even a real dent in the deficit.  Not good enough. 

President Obama, Political Dishonesty/Opportunism and the Strategic Oil Reserve

Stories are again out there is th elast two days that the Obama Administration is "lookng into" the release of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve, after a "tgrial run" last summer.

Is the price of oil especially high?  Nope.  Today, the price (for U.S. "light, sweet crude" ) was a little over $96 dollars a barrel. The "record", during the Bush Administratin, was $145 dollars a barel (brief spike).. It is true that Bush was so CLUELESS (as this blg stated at the time, in an article or two or three) as to be PURCASING oil for the Strategic Oil Reserve as the price of ol went to $110, $120, and then $140 (briefly). This was bone-deep STUPID on the part of Bush, but that is true of a lot of what he did and said. Notice I did not go with thte leftist absurdity that Bush was a stupid man: only with my 2006 conclusion that Bush did, and was doihng, too many STUPID things for me not to disown him. But even Bush was not so stupid as to OBVIUSLY "use" the Strategic Oil Reserve for POILITICAL ADVANTAGE.  Obama is both more stupid and more disyhonest than President Bush (in tghe midst of Bus's Third Term, only worse).

Note that the price of a barrel of oil "peaked" this spring at a price of around $105 a barrel.  But Obama did not act THEN. Instead, on the verge of an electin, the subject is being raised. This, ALONE, should cost Obama the election (even if I still canot support Romney).

What does my cynical brother say, who used ot OWN a trucking comapany, and now works for one in a high position?  (Is it not amazing how many peole are MORFE cynical them I am, even though I thought I was as clynical as a person can get.) . My borther said, AFTER the Obama release last summe from the Strategic Oil Reserve FAILED to have any effect on price, that what Obama was really doing was conducting a "trial run" for the electin to TEST (last summer) the political gain that he could get out of a pre-election release form the Strategic Oil Reserve. Am I sayhing that Obama would SACRIFICE the security of this country (purpose of the oil reserve) for POLITICAL GAIN?  Se, I knew yu were not realy stupid.  That is exactly wha I am saying.  My borther--and I had not really tougt of it--said that Obama was tryhing to find out what kid of TIMING he needed to get a p9litcal gain out of an electin year release of oil for the reserve. 

My brother appears to have been RIGHT.  What could Obama conclude from his TEST last summer that would HELP him get elected (the whole purpose of the test, according to my brother)?  What Obama could conclude was that some sort of "moderate" release from the oil reserve would have NO real effect on the price of oil.  "But, Skip, you just contgradicted yourself.  Doesn't Obama have to give up on tghe idea after the TEST last sumemr?"  Ah,. I see yu still havve some things to learn, even if you are not totally stupid.  The TEST, really in the spring and very EARlY summmer of last year of last year, showed that Obama could NOT realy control the price of oil and gasoline, and that acting in the spring and early summer would do him NO GOOD.

But what if Obama acts LATE.  In other words, what if Obama acts rally CLOSE to the electin (and we are only 80 days out now) . Will Obama not get credit for TRYING: for doing SOMETHING?  Gasoline is heading back toward $4.000 a gallon.  That is because we are in a situation whhere Obama and Bernanke have made a real reocvery IMPOSSIBLE.  Let even the most mnor signs of a recovery appear, and OIL LPRICES BEGIN TO EXPLODE.  Already, they have not dropped nearly as much as they should have because of the STEALTH INFLATILN caused by Baiout Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama.  Now we also have exploding FOOD PRICEWS, caused by the OBAMA policy of using FOOD for FUEL (GOP shares blame on this one).  How can we POSSIBLY "recover", when every attempt at recovery is SHUT DOWN by an immediate rise in prices.  Anything approaching a real recovery would bring back the Wwimar Republi c and HYPERINFLATIN.  But thibngs work so much FASTER now. The beginning of hyperinflatin, unlike twtiht the Weimar Republic, creats an almost IMMEDIATE SHUT DOWN of the econmy.  That is realy the situatin we have been in since 2009. 

But look at what hapens if Obama releases oil from the reserve in, say, September and October.  It will have NO effect on prices, especially iover any length of time.  That is what Obama's TEST last summer taugth him.  However, Obama will NOT be--as usual--tyring to actually accomplish anything substantive.  Obama is all about IMAGE, and he is aiming for the IMAGE of a man who will ACTG.  Obama does not WANT the results to be determinable before the electin.  He wants the actual results to be evident only AFTER the electin , which is Obama's policy on EVERyTHING (think ObamaCare).

However.  Are the Amercan peole really THIS stuid?  Even Obama has to be careful here. Is this ploy not ToO OBVIUS?  I think it is.  You can have an IQ of 60 and still see what Obaa is tyring to do, if he releases oil forrm the reserve just before the electin  Is it not clear that Obama will then be exosed as jsut a dishonest OPPORTUNIST, willing to put the security of this country at risk for his own poitical advantage?  I think so.

You will remember that this blog, this spring, proposed soemthing that is a variatoin of my advice to President Bush that only a STuPID man woululd continue to purchase oil for the reesrve at AnY PRICE.  My prooosal was NOT a plan to control prices (impossible) or otherwise "control" the oil market.  My paln was an attempt to BUILD tghe "strategic reserve" at the LOWEST NET RICE for the taxpayer.  Thus, what I proposed was that we SELL oil (gradually and AUTOMATICALY) from the oil reserve whenever oil can be sold at $105 dollars a barrel or more (or whateverr we determine is a god upper price), and that we then BUY oil for the reserve when it can be done below $80 a barrel (or whatever is seen as an advantabous price).  This attempt to REDUCE taxpayer average cost would be strictly limited to, say, 10% of the reserve.  As staed, this would NOT be an attempt to manipulate price, although it would have the desirable effect of putting a check on WILD "speculation".  This would be a rational policy to ADD to the reserve, at lower prices, and at least rEUDUCE the net taxpayer cost of the reserve.    Might now work, although it certainly WOULD have worked as oil spiked to $145 dollars a barrel, and then fell to $35 dollars a barrel (depths of recessin).  Worth a try, as there is little to lose if the "playig around' is strictlly limited to 10% of the reserve (but using ALL of the money from sales to ADD to the reserve atg a LOWEER price).  Note that MY proposal would be AUTOMATIC, with NO political component. 

In contrast, Obama is ALL abut political oportunism.  The man is the most dishonest man to ever be President of the United Sates. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell cehcking (bad eyesight). I have to admti I am disturbed here.  No, I am not disturbed about my correct analysis of Obama.   I am disturbed that my brother MAY actuallyl be considerably more cynical than I am.  I have begun to get this distrubing feeling for somme time now, and it is now really beginning to bother me.  Even Sylvia, y Obama supporting female friend, has shown signs of being MORE CYNICAL than I am.  Am I a "closet romantic optimist", jsut as I have been fORCED out of t he closet as a FMINST?  I hope not . My very IDENTITY cannot take these shocks to my self-image.