Thursday, August 25, 2011

We’ve all been waiting with pregnant anticipation for Dear Ruler to return from his vacation and explain to us his grand jobs plan … right? Oh yeah! We’re saved! Barack Obama, the smartest man ever to become president, has a plan! Finally, after more than two and one-half years in office, Our “sort of a God” president who had to “step down” into the office of the presidency is going to step forward and part the unemployment waters so that his people can march across a red-carpeted seabed to the wonderful world of employment!

I feel this strange tingly thing going up and down my leg!

Now since Obama is going to present us with his “plan,” we can imagine that it will be in the form of a comprehensive business plan, right? After all, that’s where we need to create the jobs. So I’m guessing Obama is going to present us with some goals for American Business and a detailed plan on how we will achieve those goals.
This is going to be just swell!

But, alas! Something has happened! After Obama left for his oh-so-well-deserved vacation and his handlers immediately started to downgrade expectations for his jobs plan. Now we are all saddened to learn that it isn’t actually going to be a plan any more. Drat! Not a plan? Now we’ve learned that suddenly it became an outline. Oh, okay .. so screw the specifics on how to achieve our goals. Now we are just going to get an outline. Fantastic. I’m sure it is still going to be a fantastic outline – something worthy of the Great and Powerful Obama.

Uh oh .. hold on. Now we’re hearing that perhaps an outline became too much for us to expect of Dear Ruler. Now, according to deputy spokesman Josh Earnest, we can anticipate “some reasonable ideas that can have a tangible impact,” Left in the lurch again. Now we’ve been downgraded to some “reasonable ideas.” Well, I’m sure that with all of his experience in business and finance, and considering his understanding of the dynamics of private sector business growth and hiring, Obama will come roaring in the game with “reasonable ideas” that are sure to empty the unemployment lines in no time flat.

Who the hell am I kidding here? The American people feel more negatively about our economy than they’ve felt in decades … and that’s because the American people know that we have a man in the White House that has no clue in the world what he is doing. He’s a freaking community organizer and leftist activist, for Gawd’s sake – not a brilliant economic mind. This man doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to run a sandwich shop, yet there he sits on his godly throne telling us that he is going to save our economy with some “reasonable ideas” that will be written on two stone tablets when he comes down from The Mount of Martha’s Vineyard. What a load of purified horse shit.

So at this point, what sort of “reasonable ideas” can we expect from Obama? They damned sure won’t be ideas that will encourage private businessmen to start spending some of their money to expand and hire. Remember … to Obama, the private sector is “the enemy.” His words, not mine. We did, however, have two more have surfaced as of yesterday. These ideas, by the way, would be able to be accomplished without any legislation or need to battle with Republicans in Congress. They would be:
#1: Increase the number of college graduates in engineering and give companies incentives to hire them.

Really? How many small business owners do you know out there who are sitting on their hands right now because they’re concerned that there’s just not enough engineering graduates to go around? And incentives? What kind of incentives? Know what this sounds like to me? Do something to artificially boost the number of engineering students in colleges and then use taxpayer money to entice businesses into hiring them when the graduate. Yeah, that ought to work. I can see the Dow going through the roof right now.

#2: Employ construction workers to retrofit commercial buildings to make them more energy efficient.

Oh yeah. Weatherization II. Oh … and green jobs. Gotta love those green jobs.
Roll the tape: “The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one.”

Then there’s that weatherization program in Seattle. You remember that one, don’t you? And that’s what we’re talking about here in Obama’s “reasonable idea.” Weatherizing commercial buildings. In April of 2010 Bite Me Biden and Mike McGinn, the mayor of Seattle, had a little soiree to announce a $20 million federal grant (borrowed funds your children will have to pay back) for weatherizing Seattle homes. Oh yeah .. what a big deal THIS was going to be. Think about it! It was going to create 2000 jobs! Amazing! So fast forward to now, and what do we have? A total of three homes have been weatherized and 14 jobs have been created; most of them administrative and temporary.

But wait! There’s more! Here’s a peak at how that is working out for California:
Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.

The weatherization program was initially delayed for seven months while the federal Department of Labor determined prevailing wage standards for the industry. Even after that issue was resolved, the program never really caught on.

Look, folks .. these ideas are all well-and-good but they are not based on any semblance of reality. This is nothing more than government picking the economic winners and losers: The government wants green jobs and construction workers to succeed, therefore it will create and fund a program to do something that otherwise would not be done in the private marketplace.

At one point in his presidency, Obama pledged to create five million green jobs over the next ten years. Five million green jobs. Instead, we have 2.5 million fewer people working today than the day he was inaugurated. From the looks of things, pushing green initiatives seems to be a jobs killer, not an economic boost: “A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.”

All Obama needs to do is unleash the private sector. Unshackle businesses from the binds of burdensome regulations and stifling taxes. Let the marketplace determine whether or not it needs energy efficient buildings or more engineers in the office place. Trying to create artificial demand will only hinder true demand and therefore true economic growth.

Here's an idea---Stay in Martha's Vineyard, let Joe Biden stay in Mongolia, send Pelosi and Reid to Libya to organize the new government and just stay the hell out of the way.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Fool me 1,238,451 times shame on me

President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature.
It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

A. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 236 years to get it right and it is broke.

B. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 76 years to get it right and it is broke.

C. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 73 years to get it right and it is broke.

D. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 47 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

E. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 46 years to get it right and they are broke.

F. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 41 years to get it right and it is broke.

G. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 34 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.


Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Real World DC

Imagine that Barack Obama was voted to become CEO of a large corporation. At the time he assumed leadership, the company was headed downhill. Fast. The first thing he did was fire anyone who actually had any business experience, either with that company or another in a similar field. After three years at the helm, all that Obama managed to do as CEO of that company was increase its spending by 25%, lose 2.5 million workers and grow the company by less than 2%. Do you think that he would still be the CEO of that company or do think that the board of directors would have yanked him out of there?

Monday, August 08, 2011

It's not Obozo's fault.

Libs, Progs, Dems .. all of them are upset that their guy Barack Obama is a tragic failure, so they are going to try and blame these failures on something else. I cited two main sources of blame for Obama’s failures: The Tea Party and George Bush.

The downgrade of our credit rating has validated this theory. Unable to cope with the idea that their guy, Barack Obama, royally screwed up and is now responsible for the first credit downgrade in U.S. history … they are pointing fingers. Big time.
So the #1 scapegoat over the weekend was … the Tea Party! Let’s take a look at some of the highlights:

Obama’s 2012 campaign strategist/chief dogwasher David Axelrod says that this “a tea party downgrade.” He says that we would never have been in this position if the tea party hadn’t put up a fight in debate over raising our debt ceiling. Axelrod said, “It was the wrong thing to do to push the country to that point. It was something that should never have happened that clearly is on the backs of those who were willing the see the country default: those very strident voices in the tea party.”

John Kerry echoed Axelrod’s comments about this being “a tea party downgrade.” He said on “Meet the Press”: “This is the Tea Party downgrade because a minority of people in the House of Representatives countered even the will of many Republicans in the United States Senate who were prepared to do a bigger deal.” Remember that this is the same man who said that the tea party should not be given equal air time. On Friday’s “Morning Joe” he said, “The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual … It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do.”

Howard Dean also chimed in to blame the tea party’s influence on the debt ceiling debate for the recent U.S. credit downgrade. He said on CBS's "Face the Nation”: "This is a tea party problem … They are totally unreasonable and doctrinaire and not founded in reality. I think they've been smoking some of that tea, not just drinking it."

The progs at are upset with Dear Ruler for being too soft on the Tea Party, which is ultimately to blame for this mess. The executive director Justin Ruben said over the weekend, “It’s hard to see how we avoid a Tea-Party recession if the president who has the biggest megaphone in the country is not willing to speak clearly on the issue.”

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman blogged over the weekend: “On one hand, there is a case to be made that the madness of the right has made America a fundamentally unsound nation. And yes, it is the madness of the right: if not for the extremism of anti-tax Republicans, we would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency.”

The next victim of the Lib, Prog, Dem blame game was the Bush tax cuts or our failure to increase taxes on the evil, filthy, disgusting rich.
Daniel Gross is the Yahoo Finance economics editor. He wrote over the weekend that it was our failure to increase taxes that led to this downgrade, which was intentional sabotage by the GOP: “Recent events have sapped the agency's confidence that the government can and will do what is necessary to align revenues with spending commitments. And it's difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans … It has long been obvious to all observers -- to economists, to politicians, to anti-deficit groups, to the ratings agencies -- that closing fiscal gaps will require tax increases, or the closure of big tax loopholes, or significant tax reform that will raise significantly larger sums of tax revenue than the system does now.”

Former Obama administration car czar Steven Rattner recently called Tea Partiers economic terrorists. In light of the credit downgrade, he took to the airwaves to blame our deficit crisis to begin with on … the Bush tax cuts! He said on Sunday’s “This Week”: “But you do have one group of people who are saying no tax increases, never, no how, when in fact the tax decreases under President Bush partly got us in this problem. If you take today’s one and a half trillion dollar deficit, a trillion of it is from excess spending. 400 billion of it is from the Bush tax cuts.”

The Obama administration itself is seizing on one portion of the S&P’s report to try and convince the American people that if we had agreed to Obama’s plan, which included tax increases, that our credit rating would never have been downgraded. But as I pointed out above, tax increases are not what forced the S&P’s hand … it was our massive spending and the inability of the S&P to feel confident in our future ability to cut spending that ultimately led to this downgrade. Increasing taxes on the evil rich will have no bearing on that.

Perhaps the most asinine of all these excuses over the weekend was this one from ABC's Cokie Roberts. She manages to blame this all on … our Constitution!
In a discussion on “This Week,” Cokie Roberts said the following: 'The problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives.”
The Constitution is the problem?

What sort of yak squeeze is this woman sniffing?

Prog Speak

A little lesson in ProgSpeak. This is where liberals take common words or phrases that have become tainted in public discourse, and assign new words that will pass public scrutiny but which, to the left, means exactly the same thing.

One of the first things the left had to do was to get rid of the word “liberal.” People instinctively (and with good reason) don’t like the word “liberal.” So … now the word among the enlightened is “progressive.” I just shorten it to “Prog.” Sounds nicer, and reminds me of the frog in the frying pan routine. Then you remember “spending” of course. Well the people aren’t all that comfortable with government spending right now, so the new word for the left is “investing.” Yup! The government does “spend” on projects anymore; it “invests” in them.

Here’s the latest. Liberals have figured out that the term “tax increase” doesn’t exactly send a tingle down our collective legs. So … now “tax increases” have become “revenues.” Who, after all, can object to the government increasing revenues in the middle of a debt crisis? Don’t we need revenues to pay off our debts and to cover the costs of government’s essential services? Well of course! But there are at least two ways the government can increase revenues. One, the method preferred by Progs, is to raise taxes. The other, favored by the right, is to grow the private sector economy.

You might remember the last time we even came close to a balanced budget. The Republicans were in control of the House and Clinton was president. There was also something happening in the private sector called the “Dot-com revolution.” Sure, that later became the Dot-com bust and erased projections of budget surpluses – but the point is that it was growth in the private sector that brought the revenues that almost led to a balanced budget.

I did a lot of reading over the weekend about this credit rating downgrade. A common theme in these articles and opinion pieces was that the United States needed to cut spending AND increase revenues. But … when you read these pieces you will see that the only type of revenue increase they recognize is raising taxes! Where is the discussion about growing our economy? A growing economy means increased government revenues --- but you would never know that listening to the Obamatrons and the ObamaMedia! It’s all about tax increases.

Bottom line --- these people think that dollars spent by the private sector carry not near the economic impact that a dollar spent by government does. It’s all about government – and political power.


How about that credit downgrade to round out an immense week for Obama and our political elite in Washington?

Let me give you a brief look at how it all went …

April 2011: There is “no risk” of a downgrade to our AAA credit rating – Treasury Secretary tax cheat Timothy Geithner.

August 2, 2011: After months of debate, Obama signs a debt ceiling increase, which potentially includes $2 trillion in spending cuts.

August 5, 2011: Standard & Poor downgrades the U.S. credit rating to AA+ from AAA for the first time in our history.

August 7, 2011: A Standard & Poor's official says there is a 1 in 3 chance that the U.S. credit rating could be downgraded another notch if conditions erode over the next six to 24 months.

August 8, 2011: We waiting for the Treasury Secretary/tax cheat to tell us that there is “no risk” of a downgrade to our AA+ credit rating.

After all that, how did we get here? According to the S&P, they were dissatisfied with how politicians in Washington handled the haggling over budget cuts.

Additionally, S&P is not at all confident that we will be able to follow through on the proposed cuts. The head of sovereign ratings at S&P is a guy by the name of David Beers. He says that the S&P was worried about the "degree of uncertainty around the political policy process. The nature of the debate and the difficulty in framing a political consensus ... that was the key consideration." The key to maintaining our current rating, not slipping further, and hopefully bumping back up to our AAA rating will be spending cuts. Period. End of story.

While the S&P says that tax increases would be nice, that is not the key for any future downgrade. The key will be spending cuts.