"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. nonfarm payrolls declined for the 25th time in the past 26 months, falling by 36,000 in February to a seasonally adjusted 129.5 million, the Labor Department estimated Friday"
The above is a MarketWatch subheadline today. This is a follow up to my previous article today.
Note that the economy has been losing jobs for 26 MONTHS. The one month in those 26 the economy did not lose jobs was--as stated in my earlier article--last November. And the economy did not really CREATE net jobs in that month, but we came out even.
Note that--poetic justice here--the 26 straight months of NO job growth represent 13 months under President Bush and 13 months under President Obama (depending on what month you start counting). Also, President Obama was in the Senate, and pretty much controlling Congressional policy (if he wanted to) as the Democratic Presidential nominee/electee for the months he was not President.
It is not unfair to say that Bush and Obama share JOINT responsibility for this whole disaster. Yes, I know that Obama likes to act like he suddenly arrived in Washington after Bush had messed things up, but that is not true (except, perhaps, for the "Bush messed things up"--in COMBINATION with Obama and the Democratic Congress--part).
Obama, since he has formally become President, has done no better than Bush. He has merely continued the Bush/Democrat policies of the last year (really two or four years) of the Bush Presidency. Indeed, Obama has been WORSE--not because he has been any worse on unemployment but because he has BANKRUPTED the contry in the process of failing to accomplish anything on unemployment..
Friday, March 5, 2010
Obama Failure: Unemployment and the Destruction of a Country (USA)--Data Analysis
Let us look at the unemployment statistics (unemployment rate) since about last July (when the economy and unemployment rate first stabilized, before any Democrat "stimulus" had any chance to have any effect): 9.5%, 9.4%, 9.8%, 10.2%, 10%, 10%, 9.7% (as formula "adjusted" at beginning of year), 9.7%.
That is the month-by-month unemployment rate for the past EIGHT months. You will remember that the mainstream media, and their "economists", proclaimed that the drop in the unemployment rate seven months ago, from 9.5% to 9.4%, showed that the job market was "turning around". In this case, the numbers don't lie. The job market has not improved in EIGHT MONTHS. As I have been saying for almost all of that time, correctly, what we have been doing is "bumping along the bottom"--not improving but not getting substantially worse.
That is, we are not getting substantially worse as far as the labor market and the economy are concerned. We ARE getting substantially worse as far as our POSITION is concerned. That is because we have nearly BANKRUPTED ourselves as a country, for NOTHING. We have spent more than 1 TRILLION dollars in WASTED "stimulus"--along with other extra spending, and we are committing ourselves to deficits of more than 1 TRILLION dollars for as far as the eye can see--1.5 trillion for the next fiscal year alone. We have built ourselves a hole we may not be able to dig out of, and accomplished no more than if we had done NOTHING (probably less). Note that this is entirely apart from the "bailouts" and what the Fed has done, in an attempt to keep our financial system from "collapsing". That was not a good idea either, but does not justify the FAILED government spending under any circumstances.
Look at the other numbers. We lost 36,000 jobs in February. That is UP from 20,000 jobs LOST in January. There were 83,000 or so jobs lost in December. Oh, yes, the number stayed the same in November--a nominal gain of 4,000 jobs. In other words, those numbers showed that the job situation reached its high water mark in NOVEMBER--not a very high water mark, at that--and has DETERIORATED since then (three months ago).
Then look at the jobless claims--the numbers for new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs). Those numbers have not improved in about 4 months (confirming the jobs lost numbers and the lack of improvement in the unemployment rate). The AVERAGE for December (average weekly new unemployment claims) was about 455,000. For January, the AVERAGE was about 466,000. The February average number, with one week to go, is already certain to be HIGHER than January.
Thus, the numbers show a job market that has STALLED. Meanwhile, inflation is heating up. What does this add up to? If you remember the Carter years--which resulted in the last severe recession at the beginning of the much better Reagan years--there is such a thing as STAGFLATION. That is where you have inflation without growth. The last inflation numbers indicated an annualized inflation rate of 15%. While that was mainly because of the "volatile" food and energy prices, you do have to pay for food and energy. It is likely that the true inflation rate is not quite that high,--maybe not even close to that high, as the "core" rate--excluding food and energy--would indicate. But if nay "recovery" were to start to take off, the inflation rate is likely to EXPLODE. That will promptly shut down any "recovery".
All in all, despite Obama promises, the economy--and especially the job market--remains in BAD shape, even after we have bankrupted the country based on Obama's promises. Nor is it ture that Obama has had only "one year". In many ways, the Obama policies have been in effect since the election of 2006, when Democrats took control of Congress (Obama being one of those Democrats who voted FOR most of the policies of the last Bush years). Certainly, Obama/Democrat policies have been in effect since the beginning of 2008. Remember the FIRST "stimulus" bill: the Bush/Democrat bill about this time in 2008? Of course, Obama strongly supported the Bush BAILOUTS, and the vigorous attempts by the Federal Reserve to pump money into the economy (and conduct bailouts of its own).
Nope. We have been on this spending/bailout path for at least two years, and we have basically been following Obama policies since the Democrat takeover of Congress. If you consider the BETRAYL of the Republican Party under Bush--with its own out-of-control spending, although Obama has taken it to a new level---we have been following a policy of unrestrained spending this entire century (only, of course, a decade old).
The situation is not good, and Obama wants to make it much worse with a massive government takeover of health care--as he FAILS to focus "like a laser beam" on jobs.
That is the month-by-month unemployment rate for the past EIGHT months. You will remember that the mainstream media, and their "economists", proclaimed that the drop in the unemployment rate seven months ago, from 9.5% to 9.4%, showed that the job market was "turning around". In this case, the numbers don't lie. The job market has not improved in EIGHT MONTHS. As I have been saying for almost all of that time, correctly, what we have been doing is "bumping along the bottom"--not improving but not getting substantially worse.
That is, we are not getting substantially worse as far as the labor market and the economy are concerned. We ARE getting substantially worse as far as our POSITION is concerned. That is because we have nearly BANKRUPTED ourselves as a country, for NOTHING. We have spent more than 1 TRILLION dollars in WASTED "stimulus"--along with other extra spending, and we are committing ourselves to deficits of more than 1 TRILLION dollars for as far as the eye can see--1.5 trillion for the next fiscal year alone. We have built ourselves a hole we may not be able to dig out of, and accomplished no more than if we had done NOTHING (probably less). Note that this is entirely apart from the "bailouts" and what the Fed has done, in an attempt to keep our financial system from "collapsing". That was not a good idea either, but does not justify the FAILED government spending under any circumstances.
Look at the other numbers. We lost 36,000 jobs in February. That is UP from 20,000 jobs LOST in January. There were 83,000 or so jobs lost in December. Oh, yes, the number stayed the same in November--a nominal gain of 4,000 jobs. In other words, those numbers showed that the job situation reached its high water mark in NOVEMBER--not a very high water mark, at that--and has DETERIORATED since then (three months ago).
Then look at the jobless claims--the numbers for new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs). Those numbers have not improved in about 4 months (confirming the jobs lost numbers and the lack of improvement in the unemployment rate). The AVERAGE for December (average weekly new unemployment claims) was about 455,000. For January, the AVERAGE was about 466,000. The February average number, with one week to go, is already certain to be HIGHER than January.
Thus, the numbers show a job market that has STALLED. Meanwhile, inflation is heating up. What does this add up to? If you remember the Carter years--which resulted in the last severe recession at the beginning of the much better Reagan years--there is such a thing as STAGFLATION. That is where you have inflation without growth. The last inflation numbers indicated an annualized inflation rate of 15%. While that was mainly because of the "volatile" food and energy prices, you do have to pay for food and energy. It is likely that the true inflation rate is not quite that high,--maybe not even close to that high, as the "core" rate--excluding food and energy--would indicate. But if nay "recovery" were to start to take off, the inflation rate is likely to EXPLODE. That will promptly shut down any "recovery".
All in all, despite Obama promises, the economy--and especially the job market--remains in BAD shape, even after we have bankrupted the country based on Obama's promises. Nor is it ture that Obama has had only "one year". In many ways, the Obama policies have been in effect since the election of 2006, when Democrats took control of Congress (Obama being one of those Democrats who voted FOR most of the policies of the last Bush years). Certainly, Obama/Democrat policies have been in effect since the beginning of 2008. Remember the FIRST "stimulus" bill: the Bush/Democrat bill about this time in 2008? Of course, Obama strongly supported the Bush BAILOUTS, and the vigorous attempts by the Federal Reserve to pump money into the economy (and conduct bailouts of its own).
Nope. We have been on this spending/bailout path for at least two years, and we have basically been following Obama policies since the Democrat takeover of Congress. If you consider the BETRAYL of the Republican Party under Bush--with its own out-of-control spending, although Obama has taken it to a new level---we have been following a policy of unrestrained spending this entire century (only, of course, a decade old).
The situation is not good, and Obama wants to make it much worse with a massive government takeover of health care--as he FAILS to focus "like a laser beam" on jobs.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
California, Get Smart and Ronald Reagan: Is California--a Failed State--Worth Saving?
The title is misleading. There is absolutely no doubt that the ongoing Federal Government bailout of California is a TERRIBLE MISTAKE--not even defensible. As with the bailout of Wall Street, the banks, and car companies, the bailout of California only REWARDS and encourages bad behavior.
California is the largest economy i the United States, and the NINTH (give or take one or two) largest economy in the world. The Federal Government gets its money from the people in the states--to the extent it does not just print it--which means that California residents are bailing out THEMSELVES (to the extent the money is not siphoned off by the Federal bureaucracy). What sense does that make? Why can't California solve its own problems--of its own making. Texas--probably the second biggest economy in the United States, or at least close--does not have nearly the problems of California.
Why does leftist California have to use the shell game of relying on the Federal Government to "save" California, even though California has the resources to save itself? After all, if California does not have the resources to save itself, neither does the whole country.
It is, of course, BECAUSE California is leftist that it is in such trouble. And one of the key components of leftism is DECEPTION. Money routed through the Federal Government is not "real" money (to the people, or at least so leftists believe). It is Monopoly money--"free" money that is more expensive than any money you earn.
California--to a degree, anyway--has to live within its means--"pay as you go". In California, and every state, you can SEE where the money comes from, and where it is going (to a degree, again). Despite the fraudulent statements of Obama, the Federal Government does NOT "pay as you go", and can print money. Plus, it is so big and remote that the money seems to come from--and may actually come from--some large printing press sending out unlimited money (like a counterfeiter out of control, which is what the Federal Government has become). Thus, the Federal Government becomes a FINANCIER of leftist irresponsibility in California, because California cannot get away with its irresponsibility itself without the deception of "free" Federal money--despite the fact that California has more resources than any other state. It does not matter that using the Federal Government in this manner is the most WASTEFUL and INEFFICIENT way to spend money. It is a way for California, and California politicians, to escape responsibility for their own FAILURE.
Let us go to health care. Does California have the resources to create its own health care "solution"? Of course it does. If leftist California likes a leftist "public option", it could do it. Massachusetts did. This is true, really, of every state, and that is the way it SHOULD be done. But California found that it could NOT AFFORD leftist health care. So rather than bankrupt California, which leftists did anyway, California wants the Federal Government to go BANKRUPT providing a massive Federal health care program that California found too expensive. There is no way that makes sense. California is more capable of "solving" its own health care problems, on an efficient basis, than is the Federal Government--if, in fact, a leftist "solution" makes sense. Why siphon off money in a Federal bureaucracy when the money could stay in California? You know why. It is that same DECEPTION that Federal money is "free" money.
Now look at that 40% increase in insurance premiums in California. Leftist Democrats are using that to BASH the "evil" insurance companies (with which Obama has made a "deal"), and as a main reason we need a Federal takeover of the health, and health insurance, industry. It is exactly the opposite; showing that a Federal takeover is absurd and stupid.
What is the most leftist state in the union? Now that Massachusetts has elected Scott Brown, it may be California. California has to be close. If leftist California--with FULL AUTHORITY to regulate insurance companies--cannot successfully control insurance costs, what makes you think the Federal Government can do it? Are you insane? That is the leftist deception. If California fails, use the "free" money of the Federal Government. If the Federal Government fails, as it does, then we need MORE Big Government. This is the route straight to Hell (as a country).
Segue to "Get Smart" (TV show rating: 100 out of 100 for the series). KAOS has a plan to blow up California (or "kal ee fournia" in Arnold slpeak). The episode is called "Valerie of the Dolls". Here is some of the dialogue (approximate):
Chief: "Max, if KAOS succeeds in blowing up California, it will be a disaster."
Maxwell Smart: "Chief, that WOULD be a disaster. Ronald Reagan would have to go back to making movies."
Chief: "Max, why would that be such a disaster."
Maxwell Smart (with a knowing look): "Think about it, Chief."
Yes, that is funny stuff, although Ronald Reagan was not really THAT bad an actor. Even "Bedtime for Bonzo", where it is alleged the chimp out-acted Reagan, was not THAT bad a movie (average--rating 51out of 100).
What Reagan was, of course, was remarkable. As this dialogue shows, Reagan was not just the last truly successful President of the United States. He was also the last truly successful governor of California. Reagan has to be rolling over in his grave to see Arnold in the chair Reagan once occupied --alleging himself to be a Republican.
We now get to the real meaning of the title. Is California worth saving? Not bailing out. Saving. In other words, if an intelligence agency (like CONTROL) finds out that a terrorist organization (like KAOS, or al-Qauda) intends to blow up California, should it be stopped? This seems to me to be a serious moral dilemma. Thee are all of those people. But we are talking about CALIFORNIA. God must have faced the same dilemma with Sodom and Gomorrah.
A close questioning.
P.S. Contrary to rumor, my willingness to consider the total destruction of California as a desirable thing has nothing to do with my ex-wife living there. We get along fine, so long as we are far enough apart and don't talk to each other much. It also hurts if my daughters carry reports back to my ex-wife of the things I say. See yesterday's article.
California is the largest economy i the United States, and the NINTH (give or take one or two) largest economy in the world. The Federal Government gets its money from the people in the states--to the extent it does not just print it--which means that California residents are bailing out THEMSELVES (to the extent the money is not siphoned off by the Federal bureaucracy). What sense does that make? Why can't California solve its own problems--of its own making. Texas--probably the second biggest economy in the United States, or at least close--does not have nearly the problems of California.
Why does leftist California have to use the shell game of relying on the Federal Government to "save" California, even though California has the resources to save itself? After all, if California does not have the resources to save itself, neither does the whole country.
It is, of course, BECAUSE California is leftist that it is in such trouble. And one of the key components of leftism is DECEPTION. Money routed through the Federal Government is not "real" money (to the people, or at least so leftists believe). It is Monopoly money--"free" money that is more expensive than any money you earn.
California--to a degree, anyway--has to live within its means--"pay as you go". In California, and every state, you can SEE where the money comes from, and where it is going (to a degree, again). Despite the fraudulent statements of Obama, the Federal Government does NOT "pay as you go", and can print money. Plus, it is so big and remote that the money seems to come from--and may actually come from--some large printing press sending out unlimited money (like a counterfeiter out of control, which is what the Federal Government has become). Thus, the Federal Government becomes a FINANCIER of leftist irresponsibility in California, because California cannot get away with its irresponsibility itself without the deception of "free" Federal money--despite the fact that California has more resources than any other state. It does not matter that using the Federal Government in this manner is the most WASTEFUL and INEFFICIENT way to spend money. It is a way for California, and California politicians, to escape responsibility for their own FAILURE.
Let us go to health care. Does California have the resources to create its own health care "solution"? Of course it does. If leftist California likes a leftist "public option", it could do it. Massachusetts did. This is true, really, of every state, and that is the way it SHOULD be done. But California found that it could NOT AFFORD leftist health care. So rather than bankrupt California, which leftists did anyway, California wants the Federal Government to go BANKRUPT providing a massive Federal health care program that California found too expensive. There is no way that makes sense. California is more capable of "solving" its own health care problems, on an efficient basis, than is the Federal Government--if, in fact, a leftist "solution" makes sense. Why siphon off money in a Federal bureaucracy when the money could stay in California? You know why. It is that same DECEPTION that Federal money is "free" money.
Now look at that 40% increase in insurance premiums in California. Leftist Democrats are using that to BASH the "evil" insurance companies (with which Obama has made a "deal"), and as a main reason we need a Federal takeover of the health, and health insurance, industry. It is exactly the opposite; showing that a Federal takeover is absurd and stupid.
What is the most leftist state in the union? Now that Massachusetts has elected Scott Brown, it may be California. California has to be close. If leftist California--with FULL AUTHORITY to regulate insurance companies--cannot successfully control insurance costs, what makes you think the Federal Government can do it? Are you insane? That is the leftist deception. If California fails, use the "free" money of the Federal Government. If the Federal Government fails, as it does, then we need MORE Big Government. This is the route straight to Hell (as a country).
Segue to "Get Smart" (TV show rating: 100 out of 100 for the series). KAOS has a plan to blow up California (or "kal ee fournia" in Arnold slpeak). The episode is called "Valerie of the Dolls". Here is some of the dialogue (approximate):
Chief: "Max, if KAOS succeeds in blowing up California, it will be a disaster."
Maxwell Smart: "Chief, that WOULD be a disaster. Ronald Reagan would have to go back to making movies."
Chief: "Max, why would that be such a disaster."
Maxwell Smart (with a knowing look): "Think about it, Chief."
Yes, that is funny stuff, although Ronald Reagan was not really THAT bad an actor. Even "Bedtime for Bonzo", where it is alleged the chimp out-acted Reagan, was not THAT bad a movie (average--rating 51out of 100).
What Reagan was, of course, was remarkable. As this dialogue shows, Reagan was not just the last truly successful President of the United States. He was also the last truly successful governor of California. Reagan has to be rolling over in his grave to see Arnold in the chair Reagan once occupied --alleging himself to be a Republican.
We now get to the real meaning of the title. Is California worth saving? Not bailing out. Saving. In other words, if an intelligence agency (like CONTROL) finds out that a terrorist organization (like KAOS, or al-Qauda) intends to blow up California, should it be stopped? This seems to me to be a serious moral dilemma. Thee are all of those people. But we are talking about CALIFORNIA. God must have faced the same dilemma with Sodom and Gomorrah.
A close questioning.
P.S. Contrary to rumor, my willingness to consider the total destruction of California as a desirable thing has nothing to do with my ex-wife living there. We get along fine, so long as we are far enough apart and don't talk to each other much. It also hurts if my daughters carry reports back to my ex-wife of the things I say. See yesterday's article.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Obama: Smoker and Drunk?--Hypocrisy of the Mainstream Media
I bet that most of you did not know that Obama still smokes. In fact, many of you probably did not know that Obama is a long-time smoker--even during the campaign. But both are true.
In fact, one of the headlines today is: Doctors advise Obama to Quit Smoking". See Drudge for link. The Drudge headline goes further, and basically accuses Obama of excessive drinking of alcohol as well. "Obama doctors advise moderation of alcohol intake".
Do I care whether Obama smokes and drinks? Not on your life. In fact, I strongly oppose the smoking NAZIS, the fast food NAZIS (including, I think, the Obamas), and the other people out there making this a nation of PRIGS. Tom me, this is a matter of FREEDOM. It is none of your business whether I smoke, drink, or like fast foods. In fact, of course, I have never smoked, but I LOVE ice cream, and I have always been addicted to Coke (the soft drink--and not, like the Young Obama, cocaine).
The point here is the HYPOCRISY of the mainstream media: the most hypocritical people--the most dishonest people--who have ever walked the Earth (on two legs or four). What if George W. Bush had smoked and drank (as President). It would be a major SCANDAL. Bush's "wild youth" would be regurgitated over and over again.
With Obama, instead, we get stories about Michelle Obama's obsession with obesity ("Michelle Obama is a kook" is a planned article of mine--citing the Penn and Teller BS program on obesity). Obesity, of course, is not a healthy thing. But smoking and drinking are vastly MORE UNHEALTHY. And ALL of them may not be unhealthy as promiscuous sex, as to which we are doing NOTHING (except maybe encourage it).
No. I won't back off on this. there is a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCED on this stuff with Obama. That would not bother me if it were for the right reason. But it is for the wrong reason (do you understand COVER UP). I repeat: The mainstream media "journalists" are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth (followed closely by other leftists).
Is Obama setting a bad example? Sure he is. But that does not bother me nearly as much as the hypocrisy in encouraging the HEALTH NAZIS as the same time you are setting that bad example.
P.S. You may have gotten the impression that I am disrespectful of mainstream "journalism"--like that on MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and all of the rest. How very discerning of you. I have NO respect for mainstream "journalists". They are SCUM--somewhere BELOW pond scum.
In fact, one of the headlines today is: Doctors advise Obama to Quit Smoking". See Drudge for link. The Drudge headline goes further, and basically accuses Obama of excessive drinking of alcohol as well. "Obama doctors advise moderation of alcohol intake".
Do I care whether Obama smokes and drinks? Not on your life. In fact, I strongly oppose the smoking NAZIS, the fast food NAZIS (including, I think, the Obamas), and the other people out there making this a nation of PRIGS. Tom me, this is a matter of FREEDOM. It is none of your business whether I smoke, drink, or like fast foods. In fact, of course, I have never smoked, but I LOVE ice cream, and I have always been addicted to Coke (the soft drink--and not, like the Young Obama, cocaine).
The point here is the HYPOCRISY of the mainstream media: the most hypocritical people--the most dishonest people--who have ever walked the Earth (on two legs or four). What if George W. Bush had smoked and drank (as President). It would be a major SCANDAL. Bush's "wild youth" would be regurgitated over and over again.
With Obama, instead, we get stories about Michelle Obama's obsession with obesity ("Michelle Obama is a kook" is a planned article of mine--citing the Penn and Teller BS program on obesity). Obesity, of course, is not a healthy thing. But smoking and drinking are vastly MORE UNHEALTHY. And ALL of them may not be unhealthy as promiscuous sex, as to which we are doing NOTHING (except maybe encourage it).
No. I won't back off on this. there is a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCED on this stuff with Obama. That would not bother me if it were for the right reason. But it is for the wrong reason (do you understand COVER UP). I repeat: The mainstream media "journalists" are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth (followed closely by other leftists).
Is Obama setting a bad example? Sure he is. But that does not bother me nearly as much as the hypocrisy in encouraging the HEALTH NAZIS as the same time you are setting that bad example.
P.S. You may have gotten the impression that I am disrespectful of mainstream "journalism"--like that on MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and all of the rest. How very discerning of you. I have NO respect for mainstream "journalists". They are SCUM--somewhere BELOW pond scum.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
President Obama, Tyrant: BOTH Senator Obama and John Adams Condemn Obama and the Democrats as Tyrant Wannabes
I am almost finished with the biography of John Adams I have been "reading" (on tape). That is the biography which was made the subject of that mini-series, and I strongly recommend it. Yes, many of the same issues continue today that confronted us as a new country.
For example, as set froth in my previous article, the danger of an unrestrained majority was clear to Adams in the beginning--resulting in the "checks and balances" of our Constitution, including a separate House and Senate with different rules.
You will notice that the United States of America was founded on the view that PROCESS MATTERS. I mention that because the present Democrat/leftist "talking point" (seemingly for the purpose of convincing DEMOCRATS--rather than people in general) is that the American people do not care about "process". This, of course, is an "end jusitifies the means" argument that this health care "reform" bill--unwanted by most Americans--is so needed that it does not matter if we disregard the system of "checks and balances" envisioned by John Adams and the framers of the Constitution. All The American people want--the argument goes--is RESULTS, and the "process" is irrelevant. The American people understand "majority vote", and they are too stupid to worry about the way our government is supposed to work. Yes, this is typical leftist thinking, but I think leftists underestimate the American people.
This country was FOUNDED on "process". John Adams was appalled by the French Revolution--the section of the biography I read right after posting my previous article--after my own comment pointing to the French Revolution as an example of TYRANNY and TYRANTS resulting when you ignore "process". John Adams thought the French Revolution was a perfect example ow what happens when you have an unrestrained "majority". Adams stated: "An unrestrained majority can lead to a tyranny as bad as the worst despot who ever lived"
. Adams would, of course, be proved right about the French Revolution. It was an object lesson in how process matters. It was one of the worst-if short-lived--tyrannies in history. It would lead to an individual tyrant: Napoleon--as the people recoiled from the unrestrained actions of tyrants supposedly acting for the "majority" of Frenchman.
Did John Adams call call present day Democrats and President Obama "tyrants" (at least tyrant wannabes)? Sure he did. After eloquently defending the filibuster as the bulwark of liberty, when Republicans wanted to go to a majority vote on the appointment of judges (see previous article), Democrats are suddenly all for an unrestrained majority. Further, they are pushing the idea that would have APPALLED Adams: the idea that "process does not matter". As far as Adams was concerned, "process" was all that stood between America and the TYRANNY of the French Revolution. If the Senate becomes just like the House, it would destroy one of the central concepts Adams believed would save us from an unrestrained "tyranny of the majority" like the French Revolution. In the case of health care, of course, it is a MINORITY of the country trying to impose its will. However, like the French Revolution, it is a majority of what regards itself as a ruling cabal--like the leaders of the French Revolution--who want to impose their will be disregarding all of those checks and balances beloved of Adams.
As our Founders noted, democracy does not always produce a better result than a tyrant. Democracy--especially a democratic republic--is all about PROCESS. The idea is that it is ONLY the process that ultimately matters, and not the individual result. That also, by the way, happens to be the idea of free market theory. So long as the process is self-adjusting, and not subject to the whims and passions on individuals, the results will eventually take care of themselves.
SENATOR Obama said that the filibuster was essential to protect us against the tyranny that can result from an unrestrained majority. John Adams told us that an unrestrained majority can result in tyrants and tyranny as bad as any despot. France, in fact, would end up PREFERRING the despot (Napoleon) to the unrestrained majority cabal.
When Democrats say that Americans do not "care" about process--meaning Democrats don't care about process-they are asserting that Americans do not care about the essence of this country. The one single principle that most characterizes all of the principles upon which this country was founded is this one: PROCESS MATTERS. Unlike Democrats, I believe that Americans do ultimately understand this--not only as to the checks and balances in Congress but as to the idea that Federal Government control of our lives on the promise of RESULTS created/imposed by fallible human beings is a bad idea.
P.S. The filibuster rule NO LONGER EXISTS if Democrats manage to pass major legislation like this health care "reform" by majority vote. Forget "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Forget John Adams and his "checks and balances". The filibuster has changed over the years, since "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" talked abut it is a great bastion of liberty. Yet, Senator Obama was still able to talk about the filibuster in the same terms a few years ago--in effect condemning Prescient Obama, and Harry Reid as they contemplate an "end run" around the filibuster. As Obama said, once you eliminate the filibuster, the House and Sent ate are basically the same, and you have destroyed one of the main protections against a temporary majority imposing tyranny over the minority (or, in this case, over a majority of the country). Why are Democrats flirting with this violation of our founding principles, knowing it can be used against them in the future? Easy. They are dishonest HYPOCRITES. They have such a low opinion of the American people that they believe that they can simply argue what I am arguing next time--what they argued when they accused Republicans of trying to do away with the filibuster rule (what DEMOCRATS called that great protector of freedom). They expect the American people to forget wheat they said last time, and they expect that--with the aid of the mainstream media--they can get the American people to forget what they said this time (about "process" not being important when it gets in the way of majority vote). Plus, despite Massachusetts and polls, Democrats still think that they will rule FOREVER, because they deserve to. Nope. Republican politicians are often hypocrites--the nature of politicians--but Democrats and the left have taken dishonest hypocrisy to a new level.
Nope. The filibuster is DEAD if Obama and the Democrats manage to do what they are planning: A secret deal--among Democrats--which produces a final bill (or bills) that Democrats will try to push through Congress by majority vote in a matter of days after it is unveiled (a vote they will think they have wired among Democrats). Dead forever. Unless, of course, it becomes obvious that Senator Obama and John Adams were right, and that something like the filibuster was necessary for our freedom. In tat event, however, our country will have been pretty much already destroyed. So we might get anything, as punishment for abandoning the "process" upon which our country was founded. We might even get Napoleon (or his equivalent).
For example, as set froth in my previous article, the danger of an unrestrained majority was clear to Adams in the beginning--resulting in the "checks and balances" of our Constitution, including a separate House and Senate with different rules.
You will notice that the United States of America was founded on the view that PROCESS MATTERS. I mention that because the present Democrat/leftist "talking point" (seemingly for the purpose of convincing DEMOCRATS--rather than people in general) is that the American people do not care about "process". This, of course, is an "end jusitifies the means" argument that this health care "reform" bill--unwanted by most Americans--is so needed that it does not matter if we disregard the system of "checks and balances" envisioned by John Adams and the framers of the Constitution. All The American people want--the argument goes--is RESULTS, and the "process" is irrelevant. The American people understand "majority vote", and they are too stupid to worry about the way our government is supposed to work. Yes, this is typical leftist thinking, but I think leftists underestimate the American people.
This country was FOUNDED on "process". John Adams was appalled by the French Revolution--the section of the biography I read right after posting my previous article--after my own comment pointing to the French Revolution as an example of TYRANNY and TYRANTS resulting when you ignore "process". John Adams thought the French Revolution was a perfect example ow what happens when you have an unrestrained "majority". Adams stated: "An unrestrained majority can lead to a tyranny as bad as the worst despot who ever lived"
. Adams would, of course, be proved right about the French Revolution. It was an object lesson in how process matters. It was one of the worst-if short-lived--tyrannies in history. It would lead to an individual tyrant: Napoleon--as the people recoiled from the unrestrained actions of tyrants supposedly acting for the "majority" of Frenchman.
Did John Adams call call present day Democrats and President Obama "tyrants" (at least tyrant wannabes)? Sure he did. After eloquently defending the filibuster as the bulwark of liberty, when Republicans wanted to go to a majority vote on the appointment of judges (see previous article), Democrats are suddenly all for an unrestrained majority. Further, they are pushing the idea that would have APPALLED Adams: the idea that "process does not matter". As far as Adams was concerned, "process" was all that stood between America and the TYRANNY of the French Revolution. If the Senate becomes just like the House, it would destroy one of the central concepts Adams believed would save us from an unrestrained "tyranny of the majority" like the French Revolution. In the case of health care, of course, it is a MINORITY of the country trying to impose its will. However, like the French Revolution, it is a majority of what regards itself as a ruling cabal--like the leaders of the French Revolution--who want to impose their will be disregarding all of those checks and balances beloved of Adams.
As our Founders noted, democracy does not always produce a better result than a tyrant. Democracy--especially a democratic republic--is all about PROCESS. The idea is that it is ONLY the process that ultimately matters, and not the individual result. That also, by the way, happens to be the idea of free market theory. So long as the process is self-adjusting, and not subject to the whims and passions on individuals, the results will eventually take care of themselves.
SENATOR Obama said that the filibuster was essential to protect us against the tyranny that can result from an unrestrained majority. John Adams told us that an unrestrained majority can result in tyrants and tyranny as bad as any despot. France, in fact, would end up PREFERRING the despot (Napoleon) to the unrestrained majority cabal.
When Democrats say that Americans do not "care" about process--meaning Democrats don't care about process-they are asserting that Americans do not care about the essence of this country. The one single principle that most characterizes all of the principles upon which this country was founded is this one: PROCESS MATTERS. Unlike Democrats, I believe that Americans do ultimately understand this--not only as to the checks and balances in Congress but as to the idea that Federal Government control of our lives on the promise of RESULTS created/imposed by fallible human beings is a bad idea.
P.S. The filibuster rule NO LONGER EXISTS if Democrats manage to pass major legislation like this health care "reform" by majority vote. Forget "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Forget John Adams and his "checks and balances". The filibuster has changed over the years, since "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" talked abut it is a great bastion of liberty. Yet, Senator Obama was still able to talk about the filibuster in the same terms a few years ago--in effect condemning Prescient Obama, and Harry Reid as they contemplate an "end run" around the filibuster. As Obama said, once you eliminate the filibuster, the House and Sent ate are basically the same, and you have destroyed one of the main protections against a temporary majority imposing tyranny over the minority (or, in this case, over a majority of the country). Why are Democrats flirting with this violation of our founding principles, knowing it can be used against them in the future? Easy. They are dishonest HYPOCRITES. They have such a low opinion of the American people that they believe that they can simply argue what I am arguing next time--what they argued when they accused Republicans of trying to do away with the filibuster rule (what DEMOCRATS called that great protector of freedom). They expect the American people to forget wheat they said last time, and they expect that--with the aid of the mainstream media--they can get the American people to forget what they said this time (about "process" not being important when it gets in the way of majority vote). Plus, despite Massachusetts and polls, Democrats still think that they will rule FOREVER, because they deserve to. Nope. Republican politicians are often hypocrites--the nature of politicians--but Democrats and the left have taken dishonest hypocrisy to a new level.
Nope. The filibuster is DEAD if Obama and the Democrats manage to do what they are planning: A secret deal--among Democrats--which produces a final bill (or bills) that Democrats will try to push through Congress by majority vote in a matter of days after it is unveiled (a vote they will think they have wired among Democrats). Dead forever. Unless, of course, it becomes obvious that Senator Obama and John Adams were right, and that something like the filibuster was necessary for our freedom. In tat event, however, our country will have been pretty much already destroyed. So we might get anything, as punishment for abandoning the "process" upon which our country was founded. We might even get Napoleon (or his equivalent).
Friday, February 26, 2010
Obama: Tyrant (wannabe)
You may think the title is harsh, and somewhat disrespectful of the President. You may think that, even though you are a leftist (meaning you are automatically a hypocrite) who called President Bush a tyrant, a dictator, and worse. Keith Olbaermann, of MSNBC: "Mr. Bush, you are a fascist". (meaning Hitler type fascist,--rather than an Obama/Wall Street/Big Business economic fascist--a term which predated Hitler, and has little to do with him).
Well, you are wrong anyway. It is not ME who is criticizing President Obama for wanting to be a tyrant. It is Senator Obama who gave a devastating indictment of President Obama's call for "majoritarian tyranny". You heard President Obama yesterday say that Americans do not care about the procedures in the Senate; that Americans believe in majority vote. They--according to Obama--just want a VOTE on Obama's health care legislation--an up or down vote without all of those procedural hurdles. No, you probably did not hear it, since the whole farce was so BORING. But that is what Obama said. But what did SENATOR OBAMA say about the filibuster, and the Senate becoming just like the House--where majority rules?
I am glad you asked. Senator Obama said that our Founders had set up two houses of Congress for a reason: to prevent the evil of strict "majority rule"--to prevent the majority from exercising tyranny over the minority. by merely majority vote. According to Obama, who was mainly right on this, the very reason for the existence of the Senate was to make sure that the strict "majoritarian" philosophy of the House of Representatives did not result in this sort of tyranny of the majority over the minority. Obama--as usual--was truly eloquent on the subject.
And Obama was not alone. Joe Biden. Harry Reid. Almost all of the leftist Democrats. They all asserted that the filibuster is one of the essential bulwarks of American freedom. They were all truly eloquent in explaining why America is not about majority vote, but more about protecting the rights of the minority not to be rolled over because the minority may have one less vote than the majority.
You seer the point here? It is not ME calling Obama a tyrant (wannabe). It is OBAMA who has eloquently called Obama a tyrant (wannabe). Obama and the Democrats what their health care bill at any cost, and they don't care about principle. Again, Obama himself told you that yesterday when he suggested that the filibuster rule was merely an arcane procedural rule, unimportant to the American people. It did not matter to Obama that he said exactly the opposite a mere few years before--in connection, by the way, with JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS, which had traditionally not been the subject of filibusters. Republicans did not succeed in abolishing the filibuster as to even that relatively minor matter (minor in comparison with the government taking control of 16% of the economy).
What is funny, of course, is that the Democrats are not even really pushing a "tyranny of the majority" in this case--except if you limit "majority" to members of Congress. Democrats are pushing a "tyranny of the minority". It is absolutely clear that a majority of the American people do not want the Democratic health care bill. Yet, Obama and the Democrats seem determined to push this bill through at all costs--even if it means using what they, themselves, have called TYRANNY to do it.
What about Republicans (of the political type, wimps that they are)? Why are not Republicans out there QUOTING the Democrats on tyranny and freedom--including quoting President Obama. Why are not Republican as referencing the economic data this week--including more disastrous jobs and housing data--and calling Obama and the Democrats to to task for continuing to push a health care bill that no one wants, when we can least afford it (even if it were otherwise a good idea, which it is not). You say Republicans stood up to Obama and the Democrats in that meeting yesterday? Maybe. But they should be shouting these things from the rooftops EVERY DAY--not just at political theater meetings called by the President. Instead, Republicans have mainly left it up to the people to carry the lead in fighting this insanity. Where are the Republicans talking about tyranny and freedom--quoting Democrats like Obama--when it is suggested that the filibuster rule be disregarded? Why are Republicans not at least as brave as Obama was, to the point of agreeing with Obama that Obama is a TYRANT (wannabe)?
Nope. Republicans can stop this bill (if they want to). "But", you say, "Republicans don't dare quote Democrats calling Democrats tyrants, because it will merely show that Republicans are hypocrites too." After all, many Republicans have pushed this "nuclear option" in they past--giving rise to all of that Democratic eloquence about freedom, tyranny, and the Founders. Now Republicans would say that what they were trying to do was different--not this kind of major legislation, and not even usually successful. You may not agree with Republicans on this, and you may think they are being hypocrites. You will, of course, not learn from the mainstream media what the purpose of the "Budget Reconciliation Act was, and in what circumstances it has been SUCCESSFULLY used. After all, if you take Obama's present positiion, that all Americans want is a majority vote, then the filibuster is GONE. The Senate really does become just like the House, as Obama so eloquently warned against.
It does not matter. Yes. I mean that. It does not matter whether Republicans would be hypocrites or not. Does it bother OBAMA? Does it bother the DEMOCRATS? Of course not (partly because the Democrats count on the mainstream media to protect them, but the mainstream media is not what it once was, and Fox News, for example, is playing all of those clips of Democrats talking about the filibuster as a bastion of freedom and barrier against tyranny). Obama said yesterday, in effect, that the public does not care about the details of procedure. What he MEANT was that the public does not care about procedure unless you explain to them why procedure matters (or--in this case--where they just don't want the bill). That was what Democrats did--mostly successfully--in previously linking the filibuster to freedom and tyranny.
"Hypocrisy" is a funny thing. It is not a charge that "sticks" much in politics. People sort of expect it. Obama regularly says exactly the opposite today of what he said yesterday, although it has begun to hurt him. Democrats, and their allies in the mainstream media, are already pushing the "talking point" that Republicans have previously used "budget reconciliation", and therefore should not complain about the Democrats. Now the rule exists, and therefore it was obviously meant to be USED (in the circumstances to which it was meant to apply). But that is beside the point. The responsibility of Republicans here is to use the words of Obama, and other Democrats, to make their case. This is not just a defense against their own hypocrisy, although it could be regarded as that, but it is a matter of making the ARGUMENT clear to the American people--making it clear (as the Democrats did) why people should CARE about the filibuster. Democrats are now betting that the people--dumb as they are--will FORGET the eloquent reasons Democrats gave as to why they should care about the filibuster--reasons that had validity in principle. It is up to Republicans not to let Democrats get away with that--even at the slight risk of being labeled hypocrites themselves.
Stay tuned. Will Republicans grow cojones (Mexican border word, since that is where I live)? Will Republicans stop worrying about the mainstream media, and actually stand for principle--adopting the Democrat philosophy that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds? They may not. Why not? Well, most of them may have no principles. But the dirty little secret here is that many Republican politicians WANT the Democrats to ram through a health care bill. They think that will help destroy the Democratic Party, and give Republicans POWER (which is their only real principle, just like it is the main principle of Democrat politicians).
I agree with my brother on this one. If Republicans let this bill pass, or even let some cosmetic "compromise" pass, then they are betraying the country. They will live to regret it. It will indicate that they have learned nothing, and are just playing the standard Washington game--politics as usual, just like Obama. It is no accident that Obama is often the most devastating critic of Obama. He--despite all of his talk of "change"--regards everything he says as a matter of POLITICS. Does it sound good? If so, say it, because the American people will not remember that you said the opposite yesterday. If all Republicans do is continue playing this same game of power--more interested in their political power than in actually stopping bad legislation--they will again deserve what they eventually get--as they deserved what happened to them in 2006 and 2008, no matter how bad it was for the country.
P.S. "Obama Fiddles With Health Care as America Burns" (reference being to Roman Emperor Nero, and the similar way Obama is ignoring the terrible economic news such as job data, consumer confidence and new home sales, in favor of pushing a health care bill that can only make our present problems worse). That was part my article headline yesterday, and I stand by it. With our deficits and economic problems, we have no business even TALKING about a massive new Federal entitlement program, and more burdens on the private economy. Upside: So long as the Democrats are concentrating on health care, they are deflected from doing other things to RUIN the economy (like that disastrous "stimulus" bill last year). But this is Russian roulette. If the Democrats manage to push through a massive health care bill, that alone will RUIN the economy, and the country, without anything else. It may well ruin Democrats as well, but it will be too late for the country.
Well, you are wrong anyway. It is not ME who is criticizing President Obama for wanting to be a tyrant. It is Senator Obama who gave a devastating indictment of President Obama's call for "majoritarian tyranny". You heard President Obama yesterday say that Americans do not care about the procedures in the Senate; that Americans believe in majority vote. They--according to Obama--just want a VOTE on Obama's health care legislation--an up or down vote without all of those procedural hurdles. No, you probably did not hear it, since the whole farce was so BORING. But that is what Obama said. But what did SENATOR OBAMA say about the filibuster, and the Senate becoming just like the House--where majority rules?
I am glad you asked. Senator Obama said that our Founders had set up two houses of Congress for a reason: to prevent the evil of strict "majority rule"--to prevent the majority from exercising tyranny over the minority. by merely majority vote. According to Obama, who was mainly right on this, the very reason for the existence of the Senate was to make sure that the strict "majoritarian" philosophy of the House of Representatives did not result in this sort of tyranny of the majority over the minority. Obama--as usual--was truly eloquent on the subject.
And Obama was not alone. Joe Biden. Harry Reid. Almost all of the leftist Democrats. They all asserted that the filibuster is one of the essential bulwarks of American freedom. They were all truly eloquent in explaining why America is not about majority vote, but more about protecting the rights of the minority not to be rolled over because the minority may have one less vote than the majority.
You seer the point here? It is not ME calling Obama a tyrant (wannabe). It is OBAMA who has eloquently called Obama a tyrant (wannabe). Obama and the Democrats what their health care bill at any cost, and they don't care about principle. Again, Obama himself told you that yesterday when he suggested that the filibuster rule was merely an arcane procedural rule, unimportant to the American people. It did not matter to Obama that he said exactly the opposite a mere few years before--in connection, by the way, with JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS, which had traditionally not been the subject of filibusters. Republicans did not succeed in abolishing the filibuster as to even that relatively minor matter (minor in comparison with the government taking control of 16% of the economy).
What is funny, of course, is that the Democrats are not even really pushing a "tyranny of the majority" in this case--except if you limit "majority" to members of Congress. Democrats are pushing a "tyranny of the minority". It is absolutely clear that a majority of the American people do not want the Democratic health care bill. Yet, Obama and the Democrats seem determined to push this bill through at all costs--even if it means using what they, themselves, have called TYRANNY to do it.
What about Republicans (of the political type, wimps that they are)? Why are not Republicans out there QUOTING the Democrats on tyranny and freedom--including quoting President Obama. Why are not Republican as referencing the economic data this week--including more disastrous jobs and housing data--and calling Obama and the Democrats to to task for continuing to push a health care bill that no one wants, when we can least afford it (even if it were otherwise a good idea, which it is not). You say Republicans stood up to Obama and the Democrats in that meeting yesterday? Maybe. But they should be shouting these things from the rooftops EVERY DAY--not just at political theater meetings called by the President. Instead, Republicans have mainly left it up to the people to carry the lead in fighting this insanity. Where are the Republicans talking about tyranny and freedom--quoting Democrats like Obama--when it is suggested that the filibuster rule be disregarded? Why are Republicans not at least as brave as Obama was, to the point of agreeing with Obama that Obama is a TYRANT (wannabe)?
Nope. Republicans can stop this bill (if they want to). "But", you say, "Republicans don't dare quote Democrats calling Democrats tyrants, because it will merely show that Republicans are hypocrites too." After all, many Republicans have pushed this "nuclear option" in they past--giving rise to all of that Democratic eloquence about freedom, tyranny, and the Founders. Now Republicans would say that what they were trying to do was different--not this kind of major legislation, and not even usually successful. You may not agree with Republicans on this, and you may think they are being hypocrites. You will, of course, not learn from the mainstream media what the purpose of the "Budget Reconciliation Act was, and in what circumstances it has been SUCCESSFULLY used. After all, if you take Obama's present positiion, that all Americans want is a majority vote, then the filibuster is GONE. The Senate really does become just like the House, as Obama so eloquently warned against.
It does not matter. Yes. I mean that. It does not matter whether Republicans would be hypocrites or not. Does it bother OBAMA? Does it bother the DEMOCRATS? Of course not (partly because the Democrats count on the mainstream media to protect them, but the mainstream media is not what it once was, and Fox News, for example, is playing all of those clips of Democrats talking about the filibuster as a bastion of freedom and barrier against tyranny). Obama said yesterday, in effect, that the public does not care about the details of procedure. What he MEANT was that the public does not care about procedure unless you explain to them why procedure matters (or--in this case--where they just don't want the bill). That was what Democrats did--mostly successfully--in previously linking the filibuster to freedom and tyranny.
"Hypocrisy" is a funny thing. It is not a charge that "sticks" much in politics. People sort of expect it. Obama regularly says exactly the opposite today of what he said yesterday, although it has begun to hurt him. Democrats, and their allies in the mainstream media, are already pushing the "talking point" that Republicans have previously used "budget reconciliation", and therefore should not complain about the Democrats. Now the rule exists, and therefore it was obviously meant to be USED (in the circumstances to which it was meant to apply). But that is beside the point. The responsibility of Republicans here is to use the words of Obama, and other Democrats, to make their case. This is not just a defense against their own hypocrisy, although it could be regarded as that, but it is a matter of making the ARGUMENT clear to the American people--making it clear (as the Democrats did) why people should CARE about the filibuster. Democrats are now betting that the people--dumb as they are--will FORGET the eloquent reasons Democrats gave as to why they should care about the filibuster--reasons that had validity in principle. It is up to Republicans not to let Democrats get away with that--even at the slight risk of being labeled hypocrites themselves.
Stay tuned. Will Republicans grow cojones (Mexican border word, since that is where I live)? Will Republicans stop worrying about the mainstream media, and actually stand for principle--adopting the Democrat philosophy that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds? They may not. Why not? Well, most of them may have no principles. But the dirty little secret here is that many Republican politicians WANT the Democrats to ram through a health care bill. They think that will help destroy the Democratic Party, and give Republicans POWER (which is their only real principle, just like it is the main principle of Democrat politicians).
I agree with my brother on this one. If Republicans let this bill pass, or even let some cosmetic "compromise" pass, then they are betraying the country. They will live to regret it. It will indicate that they have learned nothing, and are just playing the standard Washington game--politics as usual, just like Obama. It is no accident that Obama is often the most devastating critic of Obama. He--despite all of his talk of "change"--regards everything he says as a matter of POLITICS. Does it sound good? If so, say it, because the American people will not remember that you said the opposite yesterday. If all Republicans do is continue playing this same game of power--more interested in their political power than in actually stopping bad legislation--they will again deserve what they eventually get--as they deserved what happened to them in 2006 and 2008, no matter how bad it was for the country.
P.S. "Obama Fiddles With Health Care as America Burns" (reference being to Roman Emperor Nero, and the similar way Obama is ignoring the terrible economic news such as job data, consumer confidence and new home sales, in favor of pushing a health care bill that can only make our present problems worse). That was part my article headline yesterday, and I stand by it. With our deficits and economic problems, we have no business even TALKING about a massive new Federal entitlement program, and more burdens on the private economy. Upside: So long as the Democrats are concentrating on health care, they are deflected from doing other things to RUIN the economy (like that disastrous "stimulus" bill last year). But this is Russian roulette. If the Democrats manage to push through a massive health care bill, that alone will RUIN the economy, and the country, without anything else. It may well ruin Democrats as well, but it will be too late for the country.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Obama Fails on Jobs: Obama Un-Creates 53,000 New Jobs in Two Weeks (Un-Creating 496,000 Jobs a Week)--Obama Fiddles With Health Care as America Burns
This week's economic numbers have been a DISASTER--the worst economic news since the very depths of the recession। Early in the week, the "consumer confidence index" fell from 56.5 to 46--the worst since April and almost an unprecedented DETERIORATION in that number. Yesterday, the report was that new home sales had fallen to the worst level ON RECORD (record keeping began in 1963). Today came this news on jobs, quoting from MarketWatch:
"The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly jobless claims unexpectedly surged last week by 22,000 to 496,000 in the week ended Feb। 20, their highest level in over three months। Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected initial claims to decrease by 13,000।" (Editor's note: Economists truly are the Stupidest People on Earth outside of the mainstream media। Who else is ALWAYS wrong?)
"initial jobless claims" is the statistic showing the gross (not the net, but when Obama brags about jobs "saved/created" he is also talking about the gross and not the net) number of jobs lost in the previous week---as measured by people filing a new unemployment claim saying that they have lost employment। In the past two weeks, Obama truly has "un-created" 53,000 ADDITIONAL jobs, and is now "un-creating" jobs at a rate of 496,000 a week. 425,000 is about the number necessary (normal attrition) to avoid losing NET jobs. Yes, if you go back three weeks the jobless claims number improved by 40,000, at which point "economists" (the Stupidest People on Earth-as I stated at the time, IN FORESIGHT) said that this showed that the job market had finally "turned the corner". No, it hasn't. The weekly jobless claims number has now rsen 6 of the past 8 weeks--to a more than three month HIGH (as I have been telling you).
This week's items of economic news are CONSISTENT with one another। Taken together, they indicate an economy--certainly a job market--that is now DETERIORATING again. This is a total FAILURE of Obama economic policy, and shows his promises about Big Government spending to be FALSE.
What is Obama's response to this disastrous situation? Oh, come on। You know this one. Obama is continuing to push that ridiculous 2700 page health care "ref form" bill that nobody wants--to the point of that six hour exercise in political theater today. If Obama and the Democrats somehow manage to ram that bill trough--a bill that raises TAXES and puts burdens on both business and individuals--it will only make the economy WORSE. Yes, Obama's "response" to disaster is more of the same--more of the same Big Government spending that has FAILED, and more burdens on the private sector in favor of Big Government. How can businesses possibly hire when Obama continues to make their future uncertain (massive government takeover of health care; cap and trade "environmental" taxes/insanity, etc.). We obviously should not even be TALKING about any kind of massive new government health care bill unless and until the economy is on better footing--even if it were otherwise a good idea (which it is not).
Now a comment to my article yesterday (on the terrible new home sales number) asked how I can say this is the fault of one man। Here is my response, and I stand by it:
There is no doubt I am merely using Obama as the visible SYMBOL for the utter FAILURE of Federal Government central planning। Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and even George W. Bush--certainly almost all of the Democrats in Congress and a number of the Republicans--can be regarded as "at fault". As I have previously shown, Obama is now in the midst of "Bush's third term", only worse than the disastrous Bush's second term.
However, Obama PROMISED। He promised that if we spent all of this money, things would be better. He PROMISED--false at the time he said it--that if we passed the Obama "stimulus" bill, Caterpillar--and other employers would be able to rehire workers. He PROMISED that, if we passed the Obama "stimulus" bill, unemployment would not rise above 8%, while if we did not unemployment would rise above 10% (as it did ANYWAY).
In the process of all of this spending for NOTHING (except political pork), Obama polices have BANKRUPTED the country।
Nope। I have no qualms about using Obama as the visible symbol of this failure. He ASKED to be that symbol, and should be held accountable for what he has said.
P.S. The reference in the title is to Roman Emperor Nero, who is reputed to have fiddled while watching Rome burn--in a fire Nero essentially created. The reference is NOT to the fraud of "global warming".
"The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly jobless claims unexpectedly surged last week by 22,000 to 496,000 in the week ended Feb। 20, their highest level in over three months। Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected initial claims to decrease by 13,000।" (Editor's note: Economists truly are the Stupidest People on Earth outside of the mainstream media। Who else is ALWAYS wrong?)
"initial jobless claims" is the statistic showing the gross (not the net, but when Obama brags about jobs "saved/created" he is also talking about the gross and not the net) number of jobs lost in the previous week---as measured by people filing a new unemployment claim saying that they have lost employment। In the past two weeks, Obama truly has "un-created" 53,000 ADDITIONAL jobs, and is now "un-creating" jobs at a rate of 496,000 a week. 425,000 is about the number necessary (normal attrition) to avoid losing NET jobs. Yes, if you go back three weeks the jobless claims number improved by 40,000, at which point "economists" (the Stupidest People on Earth-as I stated at the time, IN FORESIGHT) said that this showed that the job market had finally "turned the corner". No, it hasn't. The weekly jobless claims number has now rsen 6 of the past 8 weeks--to a more than three month HIGH (as I have been telling you).
This week's items of economic news are CONSISTENT with one another। Taken together, they indicate an economy--certainly a job market--that is now DETERIORATING again. This is a total FAILURE of Obama economic policy, and shows his promises about Big Government spending to be FALSE.
What is Obama's response to this disastrous situation? Oh, come on। You know this one. Obama is continuing to push that ridiculous 2700 page health care "ref form" bill that nobody wants--to the point of that six hour exercise in political theater today. If Obama and the Democrats somehow manage to ram that bill trough--a bill that raises TAXES and puts burdens on both business and individuals--it will only make the economy WORSE. Yes, Obama's "response" to disaster is more of the same--more of the same Big Government spending that has FAILED, and more burdens on the private sector in favor of Big Government. How can businesses possibly hire when Obama continues to make their future uncertain (massive government takeover of health care; cap and trade "environmental" taxes/insanity, etc.). We obviously should not even be TALKING about any kind of massive new government health care bill unless and until the economy is on better footing--even if it were otherwise a good idea (which it is not).
Now a comment to my article yesterday (on the terrible new home sales number) asked how I can say this is the fault of one man। Here is my response, and I stand by it:
There is no doubt I am merely using Obama as the visible SYMBOL for the utter FAILURE of Federal Government central planning। Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and even George W. Bush--certainly almost all of the Democrats in Congress and a number of the Republicans--can be regarded as "at fault". As I have previously shown, Obama is now in the midst of "Bush's third term", only worse than the disastrous Bush's second term.
However, Obama PROMISED। He promised that if we spent all of this money, things would be better. He PROMISED--false at the time he said it--that if we passed the Obama "stimulus" bill, Caterpillar--and other employers would be able to rehire workers. He PROMISED that, if we passed the Obama "stimulus" bill, unemployment would not rise above 8%, while if we did not unemployment would rise above 10% (as it did ANYWAY).
In the process of all of this spending for NOTHING (except political pork), Obama polices have BANKRUPTED the country।
Nope। I have no qualms about using Obama as the visible symbol of this failure. He ASKED to be that symbol, and should be held accountable for what he has said.
P.S. The reference in the title is to Roman Emperor Nero, who is reputed to have fiddled while watching Rome burn--in a fire Nero essentially created. The reference is NOT to the fraud of "global warming".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)