For the President to enter the House chambers to give a major address to a joint session of Congress, it is normal protocol for the President and the Speaker of the House to negotiate, behind the scenes, the appropriate date and time. Only then is the date and time of the address to be announced.
Not the case with this president. Instead, he announces to the world that he will be giving his speech on jobs at a time when Obama's own campaign people must have calculated to have the greatest political impact: Directly opposite the Republican Debate to be aired on NBC. In doing so, he completely sidesteps the historical normal protocol to negotiate with Speaker Boehner.
This just show how in-your-face. petty, and partisan this President is. It also raises the specter that this whole "jobs" speech is another political show for the benefit of the President's 2012 campaign. How sad...
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
No! Not Another Academic Economist In the Obama Administration
On Monday, Obama announced his choice to lead his Economic Council: Princeton Professor, Alan Krueger. While doing so, Obama claimed he was some kind of "superhuman" labor economist.
But, Krueger, like a lot of appointments in the Obama's Administration, has some pretty quirky, academic beliefs that don't hold water when scrutinized.
First, there was Krueger's supposedly famed and ground breaking study in support of increasing the minimum wage which contradicted almost every other economist's belief that an increase in the minimum wage killed jobs. Krueger, along with another Princeton economist, David Card, conducted phone surveys of fast food restaurant managers in both New Jersey (where the minimum wage had just been raised) and in Pennsylvania (where no such raise occurred) and found that New Jersey hired more people after the rise in the minimum wage; while, in Pennsylvania, the level of jobs actually declined. However, since publishing their so-called study, the results were peer-reviewed and the conclusions were found to be substantially flawed (Click here to see the results of the Employment Policy Institutes' Counter-Study: The Crippling Flaws of the New Jersey Fast Food Study).
Then, there was Krueger's brilliant idea to increase tax revenues so that Obama could just keep spending: A National Sales Tax of 5%. While, yes, there might be an immediate increase in revenues, the long term impact would kill the economy because that tax would completely rob it of 5% of its consumer spending activity; which normally drives more than two-third of this country's economic activity. On top of that, the hardest hit by this tax would be the poor and working poor and those on fixed incomes; resulting in higher food stamp activity and other welfare support.
To me, Krueger is not a superhuman; he's a super-ideologue who is willing to bend normal rules of economics to support a progressive agenda. Certainly, that's the only reason why Obama really wanted to hire him. The President must think, that by hiring someone with the title "labor economist", Americans will believe, falsely, that he's keenly focused on labor; as in jobs. Sadly, Krueger's philosophies are mainly job killers. That's why some have already taken to calling him "Freddy Krueger": That disfigured killer from the horror movie: "Nightmare on Elm Street". Except, in the case of this Krueger, the nightmare will be on both Main street and Wall Street.
But, Krueger, like a lot of appointments in the Obama's Administration, has some pretty quirky, academic beliefs that don't hold water when scrutinized.
First, there was Krueger's supposedly famed and ground breaking study in support of increasing the minimum wage which contradicted almost every other economist's belief that an increase in the minimum wage killed jobs. Krueger, along with another Princeton economist, David Card, conducted phone surveys of fast food restaurant managers in both New Jersey (where the minimum wage had just been raised) and in Pennsylvania (where no such raise occurred) and found that New Jersey hired more people after the rise in the minimum wage; while, in Pennsylvania, the level of jobs actually declined. However, since publishing their so-called study, the results were peer-reviewed and the conclusions were found to be substantially flawed (Click here to see the results of the Employment Policy Institutes' Counter-Study: The Crippling Flaws of the New Jersey Fast Food Study).
Then, there was Krueger's brilliant idea to increase tax revenues so that Obama could just keep spending: A National Sales Tax of 5%. While, yes, there might be an immediate increase in revenues, the long term impact would kill the economy because that tax would completely rob it of 5% of its consumer spending activity; which normally drives more than two-third of this country's economic activity. On top of that, the hardest hit by this tax would be the poor and working poor and those on fixed incomes; resulting in higher food stamp activity and other welfare support.
To me, Krueger is not a superhuman; he's a super-ideologue who is willing to bend normal rules of economics to support a progressive agenda. Certainly, that's the only reason why Obama really wanted to hire him. The President must think, that by hiring someone with the title "labor economist", Americans will believe, falsely, that he's keenly focused on labor; as in jobs. Sadly, Krueger's philosophies are mainly job killers. That's why some have already taken to calling him "Freddy Krueger": That disfigured killer from the horror movie: "Nightmare on Elm Street". Except, in the case of this Krueger, the nightmare will be on both Main street and Wall Street.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Obama's Bogus Oil Production Claim
On more than one occasion, I have heard Democrats defend Obama's oil policy by saying production has increased under his presidency. In fact, in March, Obama, himself, deceptively tried to take credit for the current increased domestic production of oil by saying that, in 2010, U.S. oil production was at the highest level in seven years (Click here to See Story: Energy Policy Defended as Gasoline Prices Rise). Of course, the "inference" is that it was all due to his oil policies.
The only problem with this "deception" is that it takes 7 to 10 years to get a lease and EPA approval, explore, drill, and finally bring a well to production and distribution: and, in 2010, Obama had only been in office for 2 years. It just seems that, when Obama isn't trying to blame George W. Bush for something, he's busily trying to take the credit for any of Bush's successes.
For those who always seem to "believe" what Obama is saying, they should remember: A deception (or lie) is only a deception when you ignore the truth and allow it to be so. All too often Democrats try to apply the root of all propaganda as was once expressed by that famed Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, the people will eventually come to believe in it."
The only problem with this "deception" is that it takes 7 to 10 years to get a lease and EPA approval, explore, drill, and finally bring a well to production and distribution: and, in 2010, Obama had only been in office for 2 years. It just seems that, when Obama isn't trying to blame George W. Bush for something, he's busily trying to take the credit for any of Bush's successes.
For those who always seem to "believe" what Obama is saying, they should remember: A deception (or lie) is only a deception when you ignore the truth and allow it to be so. All too often Democrats try to apply the root of all propaganda as was once expressed by that famed Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, the people will eventually come to believe in it."
Throwing Cold Water (Droplets) on Climate Change
Recently, the scientists at the prestigious CERN labs -- The European Organization for Nuclear Research -- were able to determine that cloud formations are highly influenced by cosmic radiation hitting the Earth in a process called ion-induced nucleation. Somewhat creatively named, they called their research project the CLOUD experiment or the "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" experiment (Click here to See Story: CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised').
What's really shocking about their results is that their research blows a rather big hole in the theory of Anthropogenic (man induced) Global Warming. That's because it clearly puts the blame for the Earth's current global warming on the increased amount of "solar" cosmic radiation that bombards Earth at varying levels; every day. In doing so, it strengthens a long-held and well understood fact that water vapor, in the form of clouds, is the most powerful greenhouse gas in our atmosphere; and, not that "trace" gas known as CO2. In fact, ion-induced nucleation might be responsible for at least half, or perhaps all, of the global warming activity in the last 100 years. It also better explains why global temperatures have leveled off for that last decade-and-a-half; despite increasing levels of CO2 during that same period.
Unfortunately, the CERN's Cloud experiment results are already being suppressed. You've got too many liberal politicians and media, and too many research scientists who are highly dependent on pushing the CO2-caused global warming theory. For the liberal politicians and media, it's all about the redistribution of wealth and about pushing an environmental war against oil, gas, and coal. For the climate change scientists, it's all about saving their lucrative paychecks; despite what Al Gore seems to think. But, CERN's results are real science by a highly reputable group of scientists and their research can't be ignored. To do so, just proves that Climate Change is less about real science and more about politicized science. After all, the leading spokesman for Climate Change/Global Warming, Al Gore, only majored in government and was admittedly terrible at both math and science. Still, like the old E.F. Hutton commercials (Click to See a Typical TV Commercial) used to say: When Gore speaks, the Climate Change believers blindly listen (no matter how damn wrong he is).
What's really shocking about their results is that their research blows a rather big hole in the theory of Anthropogenic (man induced) Global Warming. That's because it clearly puts the blame for the Earth's current global warming on the increased amount of "solar" cosmic radiation that bombards Earth at varying levels; every day. In doing so, it strengthens a long-held and well understood fact that water vapor, in the form of clouds, is the most powerful greenhouse gas in our atmosphere; and, not that "trace" gas known as CO2. In fact, ion-induced nucleation might be responsible for at least half, or perhaps all, of the global warming activity in the last 100 years. It also better explains why global temperatures have leveled off for that last decade-and-a-half; despite increasing levels of CO2 during that same period.
Unfortunately, the CERN's Cloud experiment results are already being suppressed. You've got too many liberal politicians and media, and too many research scientists who are highly dependent on pushing the CO2-caused global warming theory. For the liberal politicians and media, it's all about the redistribution of wealth and about pushing an environmental war against oil, gas, and coal. For the climate change scientists, it's all about saving their lucrative paychecks; despite what Al Gore seems to think. But, CERN's results are real science by a highly reputable group of scientists and their research can't be ignored. To do so, just proves that Climate Change is less about real science and more about politicized science. After all, the leading spokesman for Climate Change/Global Warming, Al Gore, only majored in government and was admittedly terrible at both math and science. Still, like the old E.F. Hutton commercials (Click to See a Typical TV Commercial) used to say: When Gore speaks, the Climate Change believers blindly listen (no matter how damn wrong he is).
Monday, August 29, 2011
The Left's Attack On Perry's Job Creation Record
Over the last couple of weeks, the left-leaning, mainstream media has decided that Governor Rick Perry's job creation record needs to be discredited if Obama wants to be reelected. As a consequence, the media has centered on the "quality" of the jobs that were created in Texas while trying to bury the fact that it has created nearly 40% of all the jobs in the United States since the recession began and that Texas has an unemployment rate that is 1% point below Obama's national number.
In doing so, the Obama defenders have noted three specific facts: (1) 9.2% of all hourly-paid jobs are being paid below the minimum wage when the national average is only 3%; and, (2) Texas has created more minimum wage jobs than anywhere else in the U.S.;and, (3) the average hourly wage is lower than the national average of all hourly wages across the country. All of those arguments are both specious and dishonest and take statistics out of context.
In terms of the "below minimum wage" argument, a significant fact isn't being told. That's the fact that Texas has the 3rd or 4th lowest cost of living (depending on the survey) of all 50 states (Click here to See Story). As a consequence, people making less than the minimum wage in Texas are quite better off than in a high cost of living state like California, where even a minimum wage might not be enough live on. As a result, only 1 in 10 Texans are on food stamp assistance. Compare that with the national average of 1 out every 7 people receiving food stamps; thanks to Obama's record on employment.
Then there's the "more minimum wage earners" argument. Well...dah...if you have a high job creation rate, it's only logical that you will, similarly, have a high creation of minimum wage jobs. But, as noted above, getting paid minimum wage in a low cost of living state is a helluva lot better than in much higher cost of living states; like the ones that most liberals seem to live in.
Lastly, the average hourly wage" argument doesn't hold water either when you put it, again, into the context of cost of living. When it comes to average hourly wages, there's one statistic the press and liberals seem eager to ignore; and, that's how fast wages are rising in Texas. Just last year, the average hourly wage rose by 3.5% and is expected to meet that number again in 2011. In comparison, the national average hourly wage only increased by 0.5% in the same period. Again, this is hardly a record that Obama can be proud of.
I'll never forget my economics professor who, in my very first class with him, wrote on the board behind him: "There are lies, damn lies, and, then, there are statistics." He then proceeded to take this famous Mark Twain quote and hammer home the fact that you should always look beyond a single statistic and put it into a clear context. All too often, the press, the pundits and the politicians, alike, play the game of cherry picking statistics. That's why I write this blog. It's always my intent to clear the "fog" because I understand the truth in what Mark Twain had once said.
In doing so, the Obama defenders have noted three specific facts: (1) 9.2% of all hourly-paid jobs are being paid below the minimum wage when the national average is only 3%; and, (2) Texas has created more minimum wage jobs than anywhere else in the U.S.;and, (3) the average hourly wage is lower than the national average of all hourly wages across the country. All of those arguments are both specious and dishonest and take statistics out of context.
In terms of the "below minimum wage" argument, a significant fact isn't being told. That's the fact that Texas has the 3rd or 4th lowest cost of living (depending on the survey) of all 50 states (Click here to See Story). As a consequence, people making less than the minimum wage in Texas are quite better off than in a high cost of living state like California, where even a minimum wage might not be enough live on. As a result, only 1 in 10 Texans are on food stamp assistance. Compare that with the national average of 1 out every 7 people receiving food stamps; thanks to Obama's record on employment.
Then there's the "more minimum wage earners" argument. Well...dah...if you have a high job creation rate, it's only logical that you will, similarly, have a high creation of minimum wage jobs. But, as noted above, getting paid minimum wage in a low cost of living state is a helluva lot better than in much higher cost of living states; like the ones that most liberals seem to live in.
Lastly, the average hourly wage" argument doesn't hold water either when you put it, again, into the context of cost of living. When it comes to average hourly wages, there's one statistic the press and liberals seem eager to ignore; and, that's how fast wages are rising in Texas. Just last year, the average hourly wage rose by 3.5% and is expected to meet that number again in 2011. In comparison, the national average hourly wage only increased by 0.5% in the same period. Again, this is hardly a record that Obama can be proud of.
I'll never forget my economics professor who, in my very first class with him, wrote on the board behind him: "There are lies, damn lies, and, then, there are statistics." He then proceeded to take this famous Mark Twain quote and hammer home the fact that you should always look beyond a single statistic and put it into a clear context. All too often, the press, the pundits and the politicians, alike, play the game of cherry picking statistics. That's why I write this blog. It's always my intent to clear the "fog" because I understand the truth in what Mark Twain had once said.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
The U.S. Treasury Is Killing GM's Stock Price
General Motors (GM) has had 5 profitable quarters and the company looks to be stable. Unfortunately, for the taxpayers, that profitability came at a cost of nearly 50 billion dollars in infused bailout monies that were ultimately converted into GM stock. Now, the American taxpayers own one-third of that company's total shares of common stock; causing many to refer to GM as "Government Motors."
But, in order for the taxpayers to recoup its "investment" in GM, the stock price has to soar to nearly $134 per share (Click here to See the Wall Street Journal Story: U.S. Must Sell GM Shares at $133.78 to Break Even). Since coming public at around $30 a share, General Motor's stock price has done nothing but fall. This week saw an all-time low of $21.18; with the final closing price for the week at $22.87. Obviously, this is one pig that not even lipstick can help.
With the most recent profits being almost double that of the previous year, you would think that GM stock would have gone higher; but, it fell instead. You see, the investment community knows that, at some point in time, the U.S. Treasury is going to have to sell that one-third interest and, when they do, they will flood the stock market with huge sell orders against GM stock; dramatically driving the share price down. So, in an odd way, it's the bailout money and the Treasury Department's ownership of stock that are actually killing GM's stock price and preventing the U.S. taxpayer from recouping its cost to bailout the company.
Obviously, this is just another example of why governments should stay out of the business of trying to fix something that is broken. Think of it as a takeoff on the old saying of the "blind leading the blind." Except, in this case, it was the "broken leading the broken." Clearly, General Motors should have gone through a normal, non-governmental aided bankruptcy. Instead Obama got involved. Never once do the academic technocrats of a bureaucracy ever understand the long-term implications of their actions because they just don't have any real-world experience. All they ever have is untested, academic theory. The Obama Administration -- mostly populated with academics -- clearly didn't see this not-so-little complication coming when they decided to bailout GM in a government-assisted bankruptcy; an effort that was solely and ideologically intended to benefit and protect Obama's election and reelection benefactors, the United Auto Workers (UAW) labor union. As a result, you and I, the taxpayers, are going to eventually take the pipe on what Obama seems to think was such a great success.
But, in order for the taxpayers to recoup its "investment" in GM, the stock price has to soar to nearly $134 per share (Click here to See the Wall Street Journal Story: U.S. Must Sell GM Shares at $133.78 to Break Even). Since coming public at around $30 a share, General Motor's stock price has done nothing but fall. This week saw an all-time low of $21.18; with the final closing price for the week at $22.87. Obviously, this is one pig that not even lipstick can help.
With the most recent profits being almost double that of the previous year, you would think that GM stock would have gone higher; but, it fell instead. You see, the investment community knows that, at some point in time, the U.S. Treasury is going to have to sell that one-third interest and, when they do, they will flood the stock market with huge sell orders against GM stock; dramatically driving the share price down. So, in an odd way, it's the bailout money and the Treasury Department's ownership of stock that are actually killing GM's stock price and preventing the U.S. taxpayer from recouping its cost to bailout the company.
Obviously, this is just another example of why governments should stay out of the business of trying to fix something that is broken. Think of it as a takeoff on the old saying of the "blind leading the blind." Except, in this case, it was the "broken leading the broken." Clearly, General Motors should have gone through a normal, non-governmental aided bankruptcy. Instead Obama got involved. Never once do the academic technocrats of a bureaucracy ever understand the long-term implications of their actions because they just don't have any real-world experience. All they ever have is untested, academic theory. The Obama Administration -- mostly populated with academics -- clearly didn't see this not-so-little complication coming when they decided to bailout GM in a government-assisted bankruptcy; an effort that was solely and ideologically intended to benefit and protect Obama's election and reelection benefactors, the United Auto Workers (UAW) labor union. As a result, you and I, the taxpayers, are going to eventually take the pipe on what Obama seems to think was such a great success.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Verizon Strike Blamed For Jump In Jobless Claims?
This morning, the jobless claims number for the week rose to 417,000. This was substantially higher than the consensus projection of only 400,000.
Now, if you read all the "media" reports with regard to this "unexpected" jump, you would get the impression that it was "all" due to striking Verizon workers filing for unemployment; even though those workers are ineligible for any unemployment benefits (Click here to See the CNN Story: Verizon workers filed thousands of unemployment claims). Similarly, CNBC's headline for the job's story stated: "Weekly Claims Above Key Mark Thanks to Verizon Strike". Then, USA Today captioned their version of the story: "Verizon strikers inflate weekly unemployment numbers".
The Verizon story is a clear deception being floated by the Obama Administration and all too happily carried forth by the mainstream media. Even if you back out the supposed 8,500 striking workers who erroneously filed for jobless benefits, the adjusted number would still be 8,500 claims higher than the consensus estimate of 400,000; and, that's the story that the "Verizon headlines" are intentionally trying to hide. Once again, the mainstream media comes to the aid of Obama. They know that many Americans are simply headline readers and not interested in digging down into the weeds to figure out what's really going on.
Now, if you read all the "media" reports with regard to this "unexpected" jump, you would get the impression that it was "all" due to striking Verizon workers filing for unemployment; even though those workers are ineligible for any unemployment benefits (Click here to See the CNN Story: Verizon workers filed thousands of unemployment claims). Similarly, CNBC's headline for the job's story stated: "Weekly Claims Above Key Mark Thanks to Verizon Strike". Then, USA Today captioned their version of the story: "Verizon strikers inflate weekly unemployment numbers".
The Verizon story is a clear deception being floated by the Obama Administration and all too happily carried forth by the mainstream media. Even if you back out the supposed 8,500 striking workers who erroneously filed for jobless benefits, the adjusted number would still be 8,500 claims higher than the consensus estimate of 400,000; and, that's the story that the "Verizon headlines" are intentionally trying to hide. Once again, the mainstream media comes to the aid of Obama. They know that many Americans are simply headline readers and not interested in digging down into the weeds to figure out what's really going on.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Juan Williams' Polling Defense of Obama: Shattered!
I guess I've heard it dozens of times. Whenever Fox News Contributor, Juan Williams, is asked about the chances that Obama may lose the 2012 election, he always counters by pointing to the fact that Obama wins in any heads up poll against a Republican. Williams even furthers his argument by stating that Obama always wins against the so-called, no-name, generic Republican. (Click to See the Video).
Well, this week has been a really bad one for Juan. That's because, in a variety of polls, Obama falls short of both individually named Republicans and, you guessed it, against his favorite boogeyman: the generic Republican.
Juan's first bad news came this week when, in a Rasmussen poll, Obama loses to the fictional generic Republican by 5 points; 48% to 43%. That's well beyond the 2 point, plus/minus margin of error. (Click here to See Story: Election 2012: Generic Republican 48%, Obama 43%)
Then, in a Gallup poll, Romney beats Obama by 2 percentage points and Perry hangs close with a tie. (Click here to See Story: Obama in Close Race Against Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul) However, there is some solace for Mr. Williams because, in both cases, the results are within the margin of error. But, even so, the margin of error might not necessarily be in Obama's favor.
Then, in the all important and high electoral vote, swing-state of Florida comes even more disturbing news. In a Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies poll of Floridians, Obama loses to Romney by 10 percentage points; 49% to 39%. Against Perry, Obama loses by 7 percentage points; 46% to 39%. And, even Michele Bachmann scores a win; albeit, by only 1 point. But, even more disconcerting for Williams must be the fact that Hispanic voters only give Obama a 23% nod against Romney's at 62%. Against Perry, Obama see's a meager 25% of the Hispanic vote. Finally, against Bachmann, Obama can only muster 30%. This has to be very disturbing because in 2008, Hispanics voted in droves for Obama; 62% nationwide and 57% in Florida. (Click here to See Polling data -- go to page 3 for data specific to this blog entry)
So, poor Juan might just have lost his last, favorite argument on behalf of Obama's reelection. What then? My guess is he'll join the rest of the Democrats in simply attacking the Republicans in an effort to make Obama look better. Ya think?
Well, this week has been a really bad one for Juan. That's because, in a variety of polls, Obama falls short of both individually named Republicans and, you guessed it, against his favorite boogeyman: the generic Republican.
Juan's first bad news came this week when, in a Rasmussen poll, Obama loses to the fictional generic Republican by 5 points; 48% to 43%. That's well beyond the 2 point, plus/minus margin of error. (Click here to See Story: Election 2012: Generic Republican 48%, Obama 43%)
Then, in a Gallup poll, Romney beats Obama by 2 percentage points and Perry hangs close with a tie. (Click here to See Story: Obama in Close Race Against Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul) However, there is some solace for Mr. Williams because, in both cases, the results are within the margin of error. But, even so, the margin of error might not necessarily be in Obama's favor.
Then, in the all important and high electoral vote, swing-state of Florida comes even more disturbing news. In a Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies poll of Floridians, Obama loses to Romney by 10 percentage points; 49% to 39%. Against Perry, Obama loses by 7 percentage points; 46% to 39%. And, even Michele Bachmann scores a win; albeit, by only 1 point. But, even more disconcerting for Williams must be the fact that Hispanic voters only give Obama a 23% nod against Romney's at 62%. Against Perry, Obama see's a meager 25% of the Hispanic vote. Finally, against Bachmann, Obama can only muster 30%. This has to be very disturbing because in 2008, Hispanics voted in droves for Obama; 62% nationwide and 57% in Florida. (Click here to See Polling data -- go to page 3 for data specific to this blog entry)
So, poor Juan might just have lost his last, favorite argument on behalf of Obama's reelection. What then? My guess is he'll join the rest of the Democrats in simply attacking the Republicans in an effort to make Obama look better. Ya think?
ObamaCare Supporters and the Life Expectancy Argument
It infuriates me when I hear people -- primarily those on the left -- argue that the U.S. "doesn't" have one of the best health care systems in the world. They always point to the fact that we have a lower life expectancy in this country than in Western Europe; proving, of course, that Europe's nationalized health care systems are superior to our insurance-based system.
But, in typical left-wing fashion, they cherry-pick a "single" number in support of their argument. Further, completely ignored are some significant reasons as to why our "average" life expectancy is a year to a year-and-a-half lower than than many of the individual countries in Western Europe.
First, much of our lower life expectancy has to do with the fact that, in the U.S., doctor's are better able to deliver nearly twice as many "live" premature babies (on a per capita basis) than in Europe. But, premature babies are at a high risk of death after being born. As a consequence, the U.S. has nearly 3 times the amount of infant deaths than Europe. (Click here to See Story: Premature Births Are Fueling Higher Rates of Infant Mortality in U.S., Report Says ). Additionally, our life expectancy is lower in this country due to the high number of violent deaths; especially for those dying under 30 years of age which greatly skews the statistics. And, lastly, we have an obesity problem in America which leads to many health problems and an increase in premature deaths.
In my opinion, there is only "one" true statistic that proves we have better health care in this country than in Europe; and, that statistic is the cancer survivability rate. For example, in Europe, the overall cancer survival rate for men is 47.3%. But, in the U.S. that rate is 40% higher with a survivability rate of 66.3%. Woman also have higher survivability rates for cancer; but not as significantly. In the U.S., the average woman will survive 62.9% versus only 55.8% in Europe. (Click here to See Story: Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States)
For years, people who could afford it have left their nationalized health care systems behind to come to this country for major medical treatment. Surely, they didn't come here because they sought out a lower life expectancy. They come here because our doctors and our technology could "better" cure them. Still, the left persists in their frenzied and irrational belief that any nationalized health care system is superior to what we have in this country. Perhaps they're not aware that, in England, it could take up to 48 hours to see a doctor and up to 18 weeks to have tests and treatments administered; following a doctor's referral. Is that what liberals want for America? I don't think so!
But, in typical left-wing fashion, they cherry-pick a "single" number in support of their argument. Further, completely ignored are some significant reasons as to why our "average" life expectancy is a year to a year-and-a-half lower than than many of the individual countries in Western Europe.
First, much of our lower life expectancy has to do with the fact that, in the U.S., doctor's are better able to deliver nearly twice as many "live" premature babies (on a per capita basis) than in Europe. But, premature babies are at a high risk of death after being born. As a consequence, the U.S. has nearly 3 times the amount of infant deaths than Europe. (Click here to See Story: Premature Births Are Fueling Higher Rates of Infant Mortality in U.S., Report Says ). Additionally, our life expectancy is lower in this country due to the high number of violent deaths; especially for those dying under 30 years of age which greatly skews the statistics. And, lastly, we have an obesity problem in America which leads to many health problems and an increase in premature deaths.
In my opinion, there is only "one" true statistic that proves we have better health care in this country than in Europe; and, that statistic is the cancer survivability rate. For example, in Europe, the overall cancer survival rate for men is 47.3%. But, in the U.S. that rate is 40% higher with a survivability rate of 66.3%. Woman also have higher survivability rates for cancer; but not as significantly. In the U.S., the average woman will survive 62.9% versus only 55.8% in Europe. (Click here to See Story: Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States)
For years, people who could afford it have left their nationalized health care systems behind to come to this country for major medical treatment. Surely, they didn't come here because they sought out a lower life expectancy. They come here because our doctors and our technology could "better" cure them. Still, the left persists in their frenzied and irrational belief that any nationalized health care system is superior to what we have in this country. Perhaps they're not aware that, in England, it could take up to 48 hours to see a doctor and up to 18 weeks to have tests and treatments administered; following a doctor's referral. Is that what liberals want for America? I don't think so!
Monday, August 22, 2011
Liberals Love Europe's Parliamentary Form Of Governing
Recently, CNN's Fareed Zakaria gave an on-air opinion piece (Click here to See Story) where he argued that our system of government, a presidential republic, is inferior to all of those European parliamentary-style governments. Further, he argued that America's credit downgrade would never have happened if we just had a parliament and not had all the partisan bickering associated with our system of separate and balanced powers.
But, what Zakaria is really expressing is his total disdain for our Constitution. A constitution which has made the U.S. the longest running and the most economically powerful Democracy in the world. He, like most liberals, love parliaments because the ruling party has complete control of government. That's because the ruling party of parliament elects the Prime Minister of that country; not the people. Further, any ruling-party legislation, no matter how obscenely bad, just glides through the system to approval. That's a big problem and it's the primary reason why so many European countries are so "socialized" and, consequently, so deep in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy. But, for a liberal, a parliamentary form of government means big-government policies can flourish.
Fareed Zakaria is just expressing his frustration that the Democrats no longer have complete control of our Government. He, like most other liberals, were living high on all the power they had when the Democrats had control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency. Actually, when you think about it, within our American form of government, nothing could have been closer to a parliamentary system than when the Democrats had complete control in 2009 and 2010. But, even then, they were still frustrated in not passing anything and everything "liberal" because of a little two-third's majority filibuster-proof rule in the Senate. A rule that deprived them of the all the power needed to fully socialize America. That's why they long for the parliamentary system.
ObamaCare, that ridiculously expensive and horribly bad legislation, would have been even more expensive and more controlling if passed into law by a parliament. That's why almost all of Europe has socialized, government-controlled health care. And, that's what Zakaria is really all about. Our system might look messy to many; but, it works quite well in restraining the over-expansion of government. Something, that all those deeply troubled European parliamentary countries are now desperately trying to reverse. It never ceases to amaze me how liberals always want to break something that has worked so well.
But, what Zakaria is really expressing is his total disdain for our Constitution. A constitution which has made the U.S. the longest running and the most economically powerful Democracy in the world. He, like most liberals, love parliaments because the ruling party has complete control of government. That's because the ruling party of parliament elects the Prime Minister of that country; not the people. Further, any ruling-party legislation, no matter how obscenely bad, just glides through the system to approval. That's a big problem and it's the primary reason why so many European countries are so "socialized" and, consequently, so deep in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy. But, for a liberal, a parliamentary form of government means big-government policies can flourish.
Fareed Zakaria is just expressing his frustration that the Democrats no longer have complete control of our Government. He, like most other liberals, were living high on all the power they had when the Democrats had control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency. Actually, when you think about it, within our American form of government, nothing could have been closer to a parliamentary system than when the Democrats had complete control in 2009 and 2010. But, even then, they were still frustrated in not passing anything and everything "liberal" because of a little two-third's majority filibuster-proof rule in the Senate. A rule that deprived them of the all the power needed to fully socialize America. That's why they long for the parliamentary system.
ObamaCare, that ridiculously expensive and horribly bad legislation, would have been even more expensive and more controlling if passed into law by a parliament. That's why almost all of Europe has socialized, government-controlled health care. And, that's what Zakaria is really all about. Our system might look messy to many; but, it works quite well in restraining the over-expansion of government. Something, that all those deeply troubled European parliamentary countries are now desperately trying to reverse. It never ceases to amaze me how liberals always want to break something that has worked so well.
Obama's Rich and Warren Buffett's Rich Are Two Different Animals
For years, the liberal mantra has always been to tax the rich. But, ever since Obama began running for the Presidency in 2007, he and his fellow Democrats have started defining the "rich" as those "millionaires and billionaires" making more than $200,000 a year and those married couples with incomes above $250,000. In support of their liberal "tax the rich" beliefs, the Democrats have always been able to point to Warren Buffett, a true multi-billionaire, who has, over and over again, publicly complained that the rich aren't pulling their true share of the tax load.
However, what everyone seems to miss in the Democrat's "use" of Buffett as an argument in support of raising taxes on the rich, is how different Buffet's definition of the rich is in comparison to theirs. When Buffett talks of raising taxes on the rich, he's talking about the super-rich and the mega-rich; those making a million dollars or more a year. In fact, the title of his last op-ed piece on the subject was: "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" (Click here to See Story). Warren Buffett isn't at all talking about taxing people who make more than $200,000 a year. If you read that op-ed closely, you would see he complains that the people in his office are being taxed an average of 36 percent; when he only pays 17%. But, to put that 36% tax rate into context, our current tax laws say that you have to make at least $379,150, after all deductions, to even be taxed at a rate of 35%; let alone a 36% rate.
What Buffett is really complaining about is how, he, and the other super-rich can "game" the tax codes through income offsets and deferments, tax deductions, and tax-sheltering techniques. Buffet pays a lower tax rate because he chooses not to take a true salary; but, instead, relies heavily on capital gains as a good chunk of his income. That keeps his tax rate low. What Buffet is simply saying in that op-ed is that, if the tax laws were streamlined without all the benefits for different types of incomes and for incomes from certain types of operations, the system would be fairer and the tax revenues would be higher.
Lastly, if the Democrats simply let the so-called Bush "tax cuts for the rich" expire, all of Buffett's office people would see a tax hike because they would all fall within the Democrat's definition of the "rich". All those "36% tax-bracketed" people would then see their average tax bills rise to 40%. And as for Mr. Buffett? I'll bet anything that his own tax rate would remain the same because many of the tax breaks he now affords himself of would still be in place. So much for the Democrat's B.S. of taxing the rich! After all, they do need Buffett's money whenever elections roll around.
However, what everyone seems to miss in the Democrat's "use" of Buffett as an argument in support of raising taxes on the rich, is how different Buffet's definition of the rich is in comparison to theirs. When Buffett talks of raising taxes on the rich, he's talking about the super-rich and the mega-rich; those making a million dollars or more a year. In fact, the title of his last op-ed piece on the subject was: "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" (Click here to See Story). Warren Buffett isn't at all talking about taxing people who make more than $200,000 a year. If you read that op-ed closely, you would see he complains that the people in his office are being taxed an average of 36 percent; when he only pays 17%. But, to put that 36% tax rate into context, our current tax laws say that you have to make at least $379,150, after all deductions, to even be taxed at a rate of 35%; let alone a 36% rate.
What Buffett is really complaining about is how, he, and the other super-rich can "game" the tax codes through income offsets and deferments, tax deductions, and tax-sheltering techniques. Buffet pays a lower tax rate because he chooses not to take a true salary; but, instead, relies heavily on capital gains as a good chunk of his income. That keeps his tax rate low. What Buffet is simply saying in that op-ed is that, if the tax laws were streamlined without all the benefits for different types of incomes and for incomes from certain types of operations, the system would be fairer and the tax revenues would be higher.
Lastly, if the Democrats simply let the so-called Bush "tax cuts for the rich" expire, all of Buffett's office people would see a tax hike because they would all fall within the Democrat's definition of the "rich". All those "36% tax-bracketed" people would then see their average tax bills rise to 40%. And as for Mr. Buffett? I'll bet anything that his own tax rate would remain the same because many of the tax breaks he now affords himself of would still be in place. So much for the Democrat's B.S. of taxing the rich! After all, they do need Buffett's money whenever elections roll around.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Another One Of Gore's "Convenient Lies"
One of the much talked about elements of Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", is the plight of the world's polar bear population as the arctic ice continues to melt. However, the whole "polar bear" segment in Al's movie was entirely based on a single researcher's observation of four dead polar bears. We now know that this observation was just that; and, what followed that observation was an "assumption" that those bears died swimming to exhaustion in a futile attempt to find an ice flow to climb onto. Further, that "assumption" has resulted in the polar bear population being placed on the protected species list.
But, the researchers who made that "assumption", biologists Charles Monnett and Jeffrey Gleason, never conducted or even ordered an autopsy to determine how, exactly, those bears died; as they should have. That's because other researchers have disputed this claim by indicating that the bears may have drowned in high, stormy seas that were occurring around the time they were found. Only an autopsy would have clearly determined if the bears simply died of drowning or, in fact, they died of physical exhaustion; just as Monnett and Gleason claimed. Instead they went ahead and published their assumptions in the journal "Polar Biology" which then, miraculously, became a widely accepted truth; totally without question by the global climate change science community. Further, their claims were in direct contradiction to hundreds of claims by most arctic natives that the polar bear population has been increasing; not dying off.
Now, Monnett and Gleason are under Federal investigation for the integrity of their research and, once again, another falsehood contained within Al Gore's movie is on the verge of being exposed. From bogus hockey stick temperature rises, from massive sea level rises, to the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, Gore's movie continues to prove that it was riddled with several exaggerations, if not, just a bunch of "Convenient Lies".
(Click here to See Story Behind My Comments Above: Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe)
But, the researchers who made that "assumption", biologists Charles Monnett and Jeffrey Gleason, never conducted or even ordered an autopsy to determine how, exactly, those bears died; as they should have. That's because other researchers have disputed this claim by indicating that the bears may have drowned in high, stormy seas that were occurring around the time they were found. Only an autopsy would have clearly determined if the bears simply died of drowning or, in fact, they died of physical exhaustion; just as Monnett and Gleason claimed. Instead they went ahead and published their assumptions in the journal "Polar Biology" which then, miraculously, became a widely accepted truth; totally without question by the global climate change science community. Further, their claims were in direct contradiction to hundreds of claims by most arctic natives that the polar bear population has been increasing; not dying off.
Now, Monnett and Gleason are under Federal investigation for the integrity of their research and, once again, another falsehood contained within Al Gore's movie is on the verge of being exposed. From bogus hockey stick temperature rises, from massive sea level rises, to the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, Gore's movie continues to prove that it was riddled with several exaggerations, if not, just a bunch of "Convenient Lies".
(Click here to See Story Behind My Comments Above: Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe)
Friday, August 19, 2011
It Seems Those Little Green Men Are Also Environmentally Green
Just when you think you've heard every possible reason in the world as to why we should control the overproduction of greenhouse gases, now comes an other-worldly reason.
According to the UK Guardian, NASA scientists fear that aliens may descend upon the earth and eradicate humanity in an effort to save the planet from climate change and global warming (Click here to See Story: Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists). Who'd have thought that all those little green men visiting us in their shinny flying saucers would "also" be so environmentally "green". But, when you really think about it, Al Gore does seem to be quite "alien" at times.
So, this is the kind of research we can expect to get out of NASA; now that President Obama has killed the manned space program? But, for NASA to talk "green" anything is a joke. Every time, they launch a rocket into space, tons of greenhouse and toxic gases are thrown up into the atmosphere. And, even if their rockets burn more environmentally friendly hydrogen fuel, the production of that fuel, just for one rocket, can result in up to 672 tons of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. That's more CO2 than what 17,500 automobiles would produce in a full year of operation.
To me, the release of this story/study by NASA just exposes another lame attempt by the Obama Administration to push their politically-motivated "green" agenda. How can anyone take this kind of thing seriously from a government agency that "had" always been so scientifically "pure". This is the kind of thing that you'd expect to get from a "B" sci-fi movie. In fact, the whole assumption is just laughable. Americans are becoming increasingly more skeptical of man-made global warming and a "joke" pronouncement, like this, isn't going to help the climate change/global warming cause regain any creditably.
So, the next time you see a pie tin being dangled from a string, it just might be the start of an alien invasion to cleanse the earth of its evil horde of carbon-spewing humans. On the other hand, NASA might just have it all wrong. Any alien society that is so advanced as to have achieved interstellar travel and is also able to wipe out humanity, might also come in peace and hand us the science needed to save the planet. Or, perhaps, they could just be out there chuckling over our naivety in thinking that humans can actually create or control global temperatures.
According to the UK Guardian, NASA scientists fear that aliens may descend upon the earth and eradicate humanity in an effort to save the planet from climate change and global warming (Click here to See Story: Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists). Who'd have thought that all those little green men visiting us in their shinny flying saucers would "also" be so environmentally "green". But, when you really think about it, Al Gore does seem to be quite "alien" at times.
So, this is the kind of research we can expect to get out of NASA; now that President Obama has killed the manned space program? But, for NASA to talk "green" anything is a joke. Every time, they launch a rocket into space, tons of greenhouse and toxic gases are thrown up into the atmosphere. And, even if their rockets burn more environmentally friendly hydrogen fuel, the production of that fuel, just for one rocket, can result in up to 672 tons of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. That's more CO2 than what 17,500 automobiles would produce in a full year of operation.
To me, the release of this story/study by NASA just exposes another lame attempt by the Obama Administration to push their politically-motivated "green" agenda. How can anyone take this kind of thing seriously from a government agency that "had" always been so scientifically "pure". This is the kind of thing that you'd expect to get from a "B" sci-fi movie. In fact, the whole assumption is just laughable. Americans are becoming increasingly more skeptical of man-made global warming and a "joke" pronouncement, like this, isn't going to help the climate change/global warming cause regain any creditably.
So, the next time you see a pie tin being dangled from a string, it just might be the start of an alien invasion to cleanse the earth of its evil horde of carbon-spewing humans. On the other hand, NASA might just have it all wrong. Any alien society that is so advanced as to have achieved interstellar travel and is also able to wipe out humanity, might also come in peace and hand us the science needed to save the planet. Or, perhaps, they could just be out there chuckling over our naivety in thinking that humans can actually create or control global temperatures.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Obama On Jobs, Again!
Even before Obama got into office, his mantra has always been: Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! We've been told "by him" that, since he took office, he wakes each morning and goes to bed each night thinking about ways to create "jobs".
But, now, with nearly 1000 days in office under his belt, unemployment has climbed much higher than it was when he moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With continued high unemployment, falling poll numbers, and increasing prospects of a one-term presidency, he's going to announce another jobs initiative; acting as if unemployment is now, somehow, something suddenly new.
One would think that, after spending nearly 1000 waking mornings thinking about ways to create jobs, a jobs plan would just roll off his tongue. But, no. Instead we have to wait another half month or more for him to unveil his latest -- let me guess -- spending and debt-ridden big-government masterpiece. In the meantime, another 400,000 plus Americans will continue to hit the unemployment lines each month with 15 million out of work already and with another 11 million out of work and totally discouraged from even looking for work.
In typical Obama fashion, the unveiling will be done through a "major economic speech" to be delivered sometime in September. Is there ever a speech given by this guy that isn't labelled as a "major speech"? I, for one, am tired of all his speeches without any real, documented plans; and, the polls show that most Americans are too!
But, now, with nearly 1000 days in office under his belt, unemployment has climbed much higher than it was when he moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With continued high unemployment, falling poll numbers, and increasing prospects of a one-term presidency, he's going to announce another jobs initiative; acting as if unemployment is now, somehow, something suddenly new.
One would think that, after spending nearly 1000 waking mornings thinking about ways to create jobs, a jobs plan would just roll off his tongue. But, no. Instead we have to wait another half month or more for him to unveil his latest -- let me guess -- spending and debt-ridden big-government masterpiece. In the meantime, another 400,000 plus Americans will continue to hit the unemployment lines each month with 15 million out of work already and with another 11 million out of work and totally discouraged from even looking for work.
In typical Obama fashion, the unveiling will be done through a "major economic speech" to be delivered sometime in September. Is there ever a speech given by this guy that isn't labelled as a "major speech"? I, for one, am tired of all his speeches without any real, documented plans; and, the polls show that most Americans are too!
Monday, August 15, 2011
Once Again, Obama Doesn't Understand Capitalism
Today, at a Town Hall meeting associated with his so-called listening (bus) tour, Obama took a lot of time out from listening and, instead, spent much of his time lecturing, blaming, and complaining. One of his "lectures" was to admonish the auto industry for focusing too much on trucks and SUVs. Chiding the auto companies, he said: “You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks. There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money.”
Well, gee, Mr. President! Once again you don't seem to understand either capitalism or business. In capitalism, the consumer decides what "they" want to buy and the businesses will respond in kind. If a consumer wants small (dangerous) cars that are fuel efficient, they will buy them in droves and the automakers will shift their production to those kinds of vehicles.
You see, Mr. President, the people of this country like their freedom of choice; and, right now, they like trucks and SUVs. It is not normal in our society to have some crap rammed down our throats; like the mandates of ObamaCare or, even, smaller cars. Telling auto companies to only build small cars might work in some authoritarian communist societies, but not in ours!
Well, gee, Mr. President! Once again you don't seem to understand either capitalism or business. In capitalism, the consumer decides what "they" want to buy and the businesses will respond in kind. If a consumer wants small (dangerous) cars that are fuel efficient, they will buy them in droves and the automakers will shift their production to those kinds of vehicles.
You see, Mr. President, the people of this country like their freedom of choice; and, right now, they like trucks and SUVs. It is not normal in our society to have some crap rammed down our throats; like the mandates of ObamaCare or, even, smaller cars. Telling auto companies to only build small cars might work in some authoritarian communist societies, but not in ours!
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Obama's Idiot Economics: Extending Unemployment Insurance Creates Jobs
On the 8th of this month, Obama gave a speech whereby he claimed that extending unemployment insurance would create jobs, (Click to See the Video). Then, today, the President's spokesperson, Jay Carney, reiterated that claim by saying that extending unemployment benefits would actually create a million new jobs (Click here to See that Video). But, this is not a new idea for any Democrat. Just last year, that wizard of economics, Nancy Pelosi, said exactly the same thing (Click to See that Video).
By implication, Pelosi, Carney, and the President seem to be saying that unemployment is a good thing. In fact, one could deduce that if every American lost their job, millions of new jobs would be created; simply thanks to unemployment insurance. That's not Keynesian economics. In fact, it's not even Voodoo economics. It's just plain "Idiot" economics.
Our economy is 70% driven by consumer spending. When someone loses their job and goes on unemployment insurance, at the very minimum, half their previous income is just completely gone from any consumer spending activity. If anything, this loss of consumer spending will have a ripple effect in causing even more job losses. It certainly doesn't create any new jobs (except, of course, more and more government "union" jobs to handle all the new and continued unemployment claims). The only real benefit that unemployment insurance has to the "overall" economy is that it slows down the ripple effect so that unemployment doesn't completely spiral out of control by feeding on itself.
With that, you can now understand why this President and the Democrats can't get this economy growing again!
By implication, Pelosi, Carney, and the President seem to be saying that unemployment is a good thing. In fact, one could deduce that if every American lost their job, millions of new jobs would be created; simply thanks to unemployment insurance. That's not Keynesian economics. In fact, it's not even Voodoo economics. It's just plain "Idiot" economics.
Our economy is 70% driven by consumer spending. When someone loses their job and goes on unemployment insurance, at the very minimum, half their previous income is just completely gone from any consumer spending activity. If anything, this loss of consumer spending will have a ripple effect in causing even more job losses. It certainly doesn't create any new jobs (except, of course, more and more government "union" jobs to handle all the new and continued unemployment claims). The only real benefit that unemployment insurance has to the "overall" economy is that it slows down the ripple effect so that unemployment doesn't completely spiral out of control by feeding on itself.
With that, you can now understand why this President and the Democrats can't get this economy growing again!
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
A Rudderless America
Yesterday, in the face of an already disastrous stock market, Obama stepped up to the podium to finally give his first comments regarding the S&P downgrade of last Friday night; nearly three full days after the fact. But, as he spoke, the stock market responded by falling even farther and faster. Why? Because there was absolutely nothing in this President's speech that we hadn't heard before. It was just another iteration of Obama's typical, blame-game, campaign speeches. There were no reassurances and no formulated plans. Further, there was no sense of urgency. Instead, we heard him say: "I intend to present my own recommendations over the coming weeks on how we should proceed.." Coming weeks?
If we had a real leader in the White House, we would have never gotten to the state that we now find ourselves in. A real leader would have spent three days formulating a plan and then presented it in yesterday's speech. But, not this guy. Real leaders are those who can bring widely differing people together to solve a problem. Obama has never done that. Obama is simply "Mr. Divisive" and, from which, no harmony or solutions can ever arise. In essence, Obama is no leader, and America, under his presidency, has become a rudderless ship.
If we had a real leader in the White House, we would have never gotten to the state that we now find ourselves in. A real leader would have spent three days formulating a plan and then presented it in yesterday's speech. But, not this guy. Real leaders are those who can bring widely differing people together to solve a problem. Obama has never done that. Obama is simply "Mr. Divisive" and, from which, no harmony or solutions can ever arise. In essence, Obama is no leader, and America, under his presidency, has become a rudderless ship.
Monday, August 8, 2011
A Tea Party Downgrade? Not Hardly!
Once again, this President and his groupies have decided to use the S&P downgrade as a political tool for the 2012 elections instead of accepting what has happened and, then, stepping up into a leadership role to regain our triple "A" credit rating.
All weekend, the likes of David Axelrod, John Kerry, MoveOn.org, and a variety of other Democrat bloggers have all "parroted" the current Democrat "theme" of "It was a Tea Party Downgrade". As usual, the Dems want you and I to believe that they were completely blameless in the downgrade.
Here's the facts:
S&P warned of a downgrade if a $4 trillion reduction in the national debt was not achieved as a result of the debt ceiling negotiations. The final debt ceiling deal fell well short of that goal. We had been well warned and the downgrade should never have come as a surprise. Actually, it was the Tea Party who proposed "Cut, Cap, and Balance" which would have achieved that $4 trillion goal. But, Harry Reid wouldn't even allow the Senate to vote on it; instead, he "tabled" it.
Meanwhile, there was never any on-paper proposals from either Harry Reid or any other Democrats or from this President to achieve a $4 trillion debt reduction. Instead, we just got a bunch of "conceptual" and "political" speeches. In fact, back in mid-April, the House Democrats submitted legislation that was intended to meet the President's goal of a "clean" debt ceiling increase with zero cuts in spending or any increases in taxes. If that legislation would have passed, my guess is that it wouldn't have just been S&P who downgraded our credit worthiness.
The truth is that we can thank the Tea Party's persistence in finally getting this government to make some spending cuts. If it weren't for the Tea Party, the Democrats and this President would have let the Bush tax cuts expire last December and they would have automatically raised the debt ceiling without a single spending decrease. If that were true, I believe that we certainly would now be in the throws of a double-dip recession and, most likely, would have been downgraded by all the ratings agencies.
All weekend, the likes of David Axelrod, John Kerry, MoveOn.org, and a variety of other Democrat bloggers have all "parroted" the current Democrat "theme" of "It was a Tea Party Downgrade". As usual, the Dems want you and I to believe that they were completely blameless in the downgrade.
Here's the facts:
S&P warned of a downgrade if a $4 trillion reduction in the national debt was not achieved as a result of the debt ceiling negotiations. The final debt ceiling deal fell well short of that goal. We had been well warned and the downgrade should never have come as a surprise. Actually, it was the Tea Party who proposed "Cut, Cap, and Balance" which would have achieved that $4 trillion goal. But, Harry Reid wouldn't even allow the Senate to vote on it; instead, he "tabled" it.
Meanwhile, there was never any on-paper proposals from either Harry Reid or any other Democrats or from this President to achieve a $4 trillion debt reduction. Instead, we just got a bunch of "conceptual" and "political" speeches. In fact, back in mid-April, the House Democrats submitted legislation that was intended to meet the President's goal of a "clean" debt ceiling increase with zero cuts in spending or any increases in taxes. If that legislation would have passed, my guess is that it wouldn't have just been S&P who downgraded our credit worthiness.
The truth is that we can thank the Tea Party's persistence in finally getting this government to make some spending cuts. If it weren't for the Tea Party, the Democrats and this President would have let the Bush tax cuts expire last December and they would have automatically raised the debt ceiling without a single spending decrease. If that were true, I believe that we certainly would now be in the throws of a double-dip recession and, most likely, would have been downgraded by all the ratings agencies.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Dems Blame America's Downgrade On Not Raising Taxes
It wasn't even 15 minutes past the time that S&P announced the downgrade of our creditworthiness that the Democrats were immediately popping up on TV screens and calling for tax increases. Of course, there were no real or specific calls for spending cuts; just more taxes and, especially, on those billionaires (making more than $200K a year), the corporate jet owners, and the oil companies. Then, too, they blame the Republicans for getting us into this credit rating mess by blocking any increased taxes in the credit ceiling negotiations.
However, what the Dems don't want to talk about is how they were able to increase our national debt by a whopping 35% in just 2-1/2 years; a feat unmatched in our history. You think, maybe, that might have had a lot to do with our downgrade in creditworthiness? After all, the Democrats had both houses of Congress and the Presidency and, while they were busy spending, they could have easily raised taxes at any time during that period. But, they didn't because they were afraid of losing the 2010 elections. If I recall, it was the Obama Stimulus Package that extended those tax breaks on corporate jet owners. And, I'm pretty sure that there were millionaires and billionaires and oil companies around in 2009 and 2010. Weren't there? Or, did the millionaires and billionaires and oil companies just arrive on the scene after the Republicans won the House of Representatives? Lastly, reaching an epitome of ignorance, there were 114 House Democrats who signed a letter urging a "clean" debt limit increase without any cuts in spending or increases in taxes. If their wish had come true, we wouldn't just have one rating agency downgrading us; we'd have all three.
The fact is that it will be the Democrats and Obama who will get the blame for the S&P downgrade. It was their spending with massive increases in our debt that got us here without any offsetting and measurable increases in revenues. Obama will be forever known as the first President to have ever presided over a loss in our pristine credit rating. This is just more proof of Obama's incompetency as President in a long series of failures since taking office. Jimmy Carter must be feeling pretty good right now. It's looking more and more likely that that idiot will be replaced by the current idiot as our "worst president ever"!
However, what the Dems don't want to talk about is how they were able to increase our national debt by a whopping 35% in just 2-1/2 years; a feat unmatched in our history. You think, maybe, that might have had a lot to do with our downgrade in creditworthiness? After all, the Democrats had both houses of Congress and the Presidency and, while they were busy spending, they could have easily raised taxes at any time during that period. But, they didn't because they were afraid of losing the 2010 elections. If I recall, it was the Obama Stimulus Package that extended those tax breaks on corporate jet owners. And, I'm pretty sure that there were millionaires and billionaires and oil companies around in 2009 and 2010. Weren't there? Or, did the millionaires and billionaires and oil companies just arrive on the scene after the Republicans won the House of Representatives? Lastly, reaching an epitome of ignorance, there were 114 House Democrats who signed a letter urging a "clean" debt limit increase without any cuts in spending or increases in taxes. If their wish had come true, we wouldn't just have one rating agency downgrading us; we'd have all three.
The fact is that it will be the Democrats and Obama who will get the blame for the S&P downgrade. It was their spending with massive increases in our debt that got us here without any offsetting and measurable increases in revenues. Obama will be forever known as the first President to have ever presided over a loss in our pristine credit rating. This is just more proof of Obama's incompetency as President in a long series of failures since taking office. Jimmy Carter must be feeling pretty good right now. It's looking more and more likely that that idiot will be replaced by the current idiot as our "worst president ever"!
Friday, August 5, 2011
Going Forward, The Unemployment Rate Should Rise
Following this morning's reported gain of 116,000 workers in the labor force for July, a few too many on the political left were popping the champagne corks and declaring the trend is now positive for job growth. But, what most seem to be forgetting (probably, intentionally) was the Mass Layoffs report that was just issued a couple of days ago. That report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics indicated that "announced" layoffs in the private sector rose to a 16-month high (Click here to See Story: U.S. Layoffs Soar to 16-Month High in July).
The reality is that the amount of announced layoffs seems to be accelerating and that doesn't bode well for any future unemployment reports.
The reality is that the amount of announced layoffs seems to be accelerating and that doesn't bode well for any future unemployment reports.
Behind This Morning's Unemployment Number
Later on today, the President will have another one of his speeches/pressers to talk about this morning's unemployment report. Expect him to tout his job creation record but don't be fooled by his spin.
According to the headline numbers, the workforce added 116,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate fell from 9.2% to 9.1%.
However, you should understand that our workforce grows -- based on normal population growth -- by 1.3% annually. This means that we add about 2 million new workers to the labor force each year. Therefore, on a monthly basis, we need to add at least 166,000 jobs in order to keep up with that growth. By only adding 116,000 jobs, we actually fell short of our growing workforce by 50,000 jobs; making the "true" number a "negative" number for the month.
On top of that, the only reason that the unemployment rate fell to 9.1% is because 193,000 unemployed (discouraged) workers, who were "not" actively looking for a job, were completely "dropped" from the total labor market. By decreasing the size of the workforce and, at the same time, adding a few jobs, the unemployment rate is being artificially distorted.
Actually, if you add the miss on the job market growth to the amount of discouraged workers who were being dropped from the workforce, we really had a loss of 243,000 jobs in the month and not some bogus growth number of 116,000. At the very least, the unemployment rate should have remained the same.
According to the headline numbers, the workforce added 116,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate fell from 9.2% to 9.1%.
However, you should understand that our workforce grows -- based on normal population growth -- by 1.3% annually. This means that we add about 2 million new workers to the labor force each year. Therefore, on a monthly basis, we need to add at least 166,000 jobs in order to keep up with that growth. By only adding 116,000 jobs, we actually fell short of our growing workforce by 50,000 jobs; making the "true" number a "negative" number for the month.
On top of that, the only reason that the unemployment rate fell to 9.1% is because 193,000 unemployed (discouraged) workers, who were "not" actively looking for a job, were completely "dropped" from the total labor market. By decreasing the size of the workforce and, at the same time, adding a few jobs, the unemployment rate is being artificially distorted.
Actually, if you add the miss on the job market growth to the amount of discouraged workers who were being dropped from the workforce, we really had a loss of 243,000 jobs in the month and not some bogus growth number of 116,000. At the very least, the unemployment rate should have remained the same.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Obama's Electric Car Fantasy
Just 4 months ago, President Obama predicted that there will be 1 million electric cars on the American roads "by" 2015 and that this will help to significantly reduce our dependence on imported oil. Of course, this comes from the same person who said his Stimulus Package would keep unemployment below 8%; and, who said his Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP) would keep 9 million families from losing their homes to foreclosure when only 600,000 have been saved so far; and, who declared last summer as the "Summer of Recovery" when, in fact, things only seemed to get worse. Also, let's not forget his comment that closing Gitmo was "easy."
But, what's really laughable about the President's electric car prediction is that it doesn't track with the facts on the ground. So, here's a message from earth to Obama.
First, there are really only two major manufacturers who are selling any mass-produced EV's (electric vehicles) in this country: Chevy, with its Volt, and Nissan, with the Leaf. Noticeably missing is the Toyota brand and they probably won't introduce an EV until late 2012 or 2013 and that car is expected to be based on their microcar, the "IQ" model, which they are currently selling in Japan. Aside from that, Toyota's lateness to the EV game speaks volumes as to how they view the future of the electric car. Obviously, their plan to intro a micro/commuter car says that they only see a niche market for electrics as short hop vehicles. Further, my guess is that Toyota EV sales won't actually be additive to the overall EV market. Instead, Toyota will probably eat into existing Chevy/Nissan sales. We'll just have to see.
Secondly, the current vehicles are just not selling. Last month, the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf saw the lowest sales since either car began selling in earnest. In the first half of 2011, only 2745 Volts had been sold and, for Nissan and their Leaf, the total was somewhat better at 3875 units. However, if you combine those sales numbers and, then, annualize them, it means that fewer than 14,000 total Chevy/Nissan EV's will be sold this year. At that rate, it will take a total of 71 years to reach Obama's million cars on the road. Even if EV sales could be tripled immediately, it would still take another 23 years to reach that magic million car number. I really can't see that happening in any foreseeable future with the current sales now slumping (Click here to See Story: "Chevy Volt Sales Plummet as the Electric Car Market Slumps").
As with everything about Obama, he doesn't know what he's talking about; and, he proves that time and time again. He's the consummate man of false promises. No one in their right mind is going to pay $41,000 for a glorified golf cart or a commuter car like the Volt; unless, of course, you're a screaming greenie and you just want to prove to all your friends how green (and stupid!) you are. In terms of making a dent in our imported oil, we are a country of more than 250 million vehicles on our roads; with that number growing by another 3.69 million vehicles per year as new drivers and added vehicles hit the roads. So, having one million EV's in use within the next 3-1/2 years barely matches the number of vehicles we will add to our roads in just the next 3 short months. As I have said many times, the gasoline powered vehicle will be around for a very long time. Despite higher gasoline prices, hybrids, today, are still only 3% of new car sales and electric sales are barely negligible. Even in Europe, where gasoline prices are double ours, hybrids only make up 6% of new car sales.
The only real way to make a dent in imported oil is to drill for our own oil. However, this President has done nothing but block any new oil production.
But, what's really laughable about the President's electric car prediction is that it doesn't track with the facts on the ground. So, here's a message from earth to Obama.
First, there are really only two major manufacturers who are selling any mass-produced EV's (electric vehicles) in this country: Chevy, with its Volt, and Nissan, with the Leaf. Noticeably missing is the Toyota brand and they probably won't introduce an EV until late 2012 or 2013 and that car is expected to be based on their microcar, the "IQ" model, which they are currently selling in Japan. Aside from that, Toyota's lateness to the EV game speaks volumes as to how they view the future of the electric car. Obviously, their plan to intro a micro/commuter car says that they only see a niche market for electrics as short hop vehicles. Further, my guess is that Toyota EV sales won't actually be additive to the overall EV market. Instead, Toyota will probably eat into existing Chevy/Nissan sales. We'll just have to see.
Secondly, the current vehicles are just not selling. Last month, the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf saw the lowest sales since either car began selling in earnest. In the first half of 2011, only 2745 Volts had been sold and, for Nissan and their Leaf, the total was somewhat better at 3875 units. However, if you combine those sales numbers and, then, annualize them, it means that fewer than 14,000 total Chevy/Nissan EV's will be sold this year. At that rate, it will take a total of 71 years to reach Obama's million cars on the road. Even if EV sales could be tripled immediately, it would still take another 23 years to reach that magic million car number. I really can't see that happening in any foreseeable future with the current sales now slumping (Click here to See Story: "Chevy Volt Sales Plummet as the Electric Car Market Slumps").
As with everything about Obama, he doesn't know what he's talking about; and, he proves that time and time again. He's the consummate man of false promises. No one in their right mind is going to pay $41,000 for a glorified golf cart or a commuter car like the Volt; unless, of course, you're a screaming greenie and you just want to prove to all your friends how green (and stupid!) you are. In terms of making a dent in our imported oil, we are a country of more than 250 million vehicles on our roads; with that number growing by another 3.69 million vehicles per year as new drivers and added vehicles hit the roads. So, having one million EV's in use within the next 3-1/2 years barely matches the number of vehicles we will add to our roads in just the next 3 short months. As I have said many times, the gasoline powered vehicle will be around for a very long time. Despite higher gasoline prices, hybrids, today, are still only 3% of new car sales and electric sales are barely negligible. Even in Europe, where gasoline prices are double ours, hybrids only make up 6% of new car sales.
The only real way to make a dent in imported oil is to drill for our own oil. However, this President has done nothing but block any new oil production.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Why Obama, "The Community Organizer", Can't Negotiate Anything
In the debt ceiling mess, Obama clearly revived his past-life as the consummate community organizer; and, that was hardly a positive thing.
A community organizer's primary aim is to try and "force" change; always using the "or else" clause. Typically, the "or else" is some kind of bullying tactic like picketing or boycotting or a sit-in. And, whenever picketing, negative words are always on those signs as a means of shaming or badgering the targeted business or government entity into concession.
In the effort to get what he wanted in the debt crisis negotiations, Obama's "or else" was his constant use of the bully pulpit by having incessant and repetitious news conferences where he completely went negative on the Tea Party and the Republicans. In essence, it was a form of picketing with negative words and not the signs. He also played the bullying technique of "call your congressman or senator". After that tactic failed, he tried the social networking route by asking those who follow him on "Twitter" to tweet the Republicans into submission.
I think it was this President's constant negativity that dragged these negotiations out to the very end. Negativity is always the basis of any community organizing effort, but, in trying to arbitrate a deal, going negative does more harm than good because it causes one party to recoil from the negotiations. That's why, ultimately, Boehner decided to bypass the President completely and work directly with Harry Reid. As a result, the prize that Obama wanted, increased taxes on the rich and corporate jet owners, was completely left out of the final, agreed upon deal.
In many ways, he's done the same thing in trying to negotiate a settlement between Israel and Palestine. His treatment of Netanyahu in the process, has been nothing but negative. In fact, the last time he came to visit, Obama, just a day before the meeting, went negative on Israel by calling for Israel to return to its 1967 borders. Never once was Netanyahu advised that this "stance" would be called for by this President.
Lastly, when the Stimulus Package and Obamacare were being crafted, the Republicans were completely cut out of the process. There was no attempt to negotiate a bipartisan agreement. That's because this President really doesn't know how to or want to negotiate anything. Instead, like the community organizer that he is, he prefers to bully and bad mouth to get his own way.
A community organizer's primary aim is to try and "force" change; always using the "or else" clause. Typically, the "or else" is some kind of bullying tactic like picketing or boycotting or a sit-in. And, whenever picketing, negative words are always on those signs as a means of shaming or badgering the targeted business or government entity into concession.
In the effort to get what he wanted in the debt crisis negotiations, Obama's "or else" was his constant use of the bully pulpit by having incessant and repetitious news conferences where he completely went negative on the Tea Party and the Republicans. In essence, it was a form of picketing with negative words and not the signs. He also played the bullying technique of "call your congressman or senator". After that tactic failed, he tried the social networking route by asking those who follow him on "Twitter" to tweet the Republicans into submission.
I think it was this President's constant negativity that dragged these negotiations out to the very end. Negativity is always the basis of any community organizing effort, but, in trying to arbitrate a deal, going negative does more harm than good because it causes one party to recoil from the negotiations. That's why, ultimately, Boehner decided to bypass the President completely and work directly with Harry Reid. As a result, the prize that Obama wanted, increased taxes on the rich and corporate jet owners, was completely left out of the final, agreed upon deal.
In many ways, he's done the same thing in trying to negotiate a settlement between Israel and Palestine. His treatment of Netanyahu in the process, has been nothing but negative. In fact, the last time he came to visit, Obama, just a day before the meeting, went negative on Israel by calling for Israel to return to its 1967 borders. Never once was Netanyahu advised that this "stance" would be called for by this President.
Lastly, when the Stimulus Package and Obamacare were being crafted, the Republicans were completely cut out of the process. There was no attempt to negotiate a bipartisan agreement. That's because this President really doesn't know how to or want to negotiate anything. Instead, like the community organizer that he is, he prefers to bully and bad mouth to get his own way.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Beaten. The Left Lashes Out At The Tea Party
As the debt ceiling debate progressed, the left-wing media and left-wing politicians became increasingly angry and vocal as they began to realize that there wouldn't be any tax increases and, instead (horror or horrors) tax increases would be replaced with actual cuts in spending as a means of lowering the debt. This very possibility was like a red hot, smoldering metal stake being driven into the heart of any self-respecting tax-and-spend liberal. I mean, the left went completely berserk.
So, in the last week, we saw the Dems strikeout at, primarily, the Tea Party; like a bunch of school kids crying and name calling after having been severely beaten in a fight on the playground. They referred to the Tea Party as terrorists. In fact, our idiot V.P., Joe Biden, weighed in with that very declaration when he remarked that they "have acted like terrorists"; which, I guess, makes our Vice President the biggest cry baby in a gaggle of cry babies. Certainly, that comment by Biden speaks volumes about a man who is, God help us, first in line to become president should anything happen to Obama.
Then, in speeches and interviews, the left continually claimed the nation was being "held hostage" by the "extreme" members of the GOP: the Tea Party. Other comments were that they were anti-American, anti-democratic and, even, Nazis.
What really rubs the left wrong is the fact that they keep getting beaten by the Tea Party. They trounced them in the last election with Democrats completely losing the House and, at the same time, losing their comfy super-majority in the Senate. Now, the left has been beaten again in the debt ceiling debate. What next? Losing the Senate majority and the Presidency? My guess is that this very real possibility will drive the Democrats to become even more rabid in the months running up to the 2012 election. It will be like watching Charlie Sheen's meltdown; but, this time, in spades.
Lastly, I think its funny that the Tea Party was able to turn the tables on Obama by never letting a good crisis go to waste!
So, in the last week, we saw the Dems strikeout at, primarily, the Tea Party; like a bunch of school kids crying and name calling after having been severely beaten in a fight on the playground. They referred to the Tea Party as terrorists. In fact, our idiot V.P., Joe Biden, weighed in with that very declaration when he remarked that they "have acted like terrorists"; which, I guess, makes our Vice President the biggest cry baby in a gaggle of cry babies. Certainly, that comment by Biden speaks volumes about a man who is, God help us, first in line to become president should anything happen to Obama.
Then, in speeches and interviews, the left continually claimed the nation was being "held hostage" by the "extreme" members of the GOP: the Tea Party. Other comments were that they were anti-American, anti-democratic and, even, Nazis.
What really rubs the left wrong is the fact that they keep getting beaten by the Tea Party. They trounced them in the last election with Democrats completely losing the House and, at the same time, losing their comfy super-majority in the Senate. Now, the left has been beaten again in the debt ceiling debate. What next? Losing the Senate majority and the Presidency? My guess is that this very real possibility will drive the Democrats to become even more rabid in the months running up to the 2012 election. It will be like watching Charlie Sheen's meltdown; but, this time, in spades.
Lastly, I think its funny that the Tea Party was able to turn the tables on Obama by never letting a good crisis go to waste!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
