Monday, January 30, 2012

Economy: The latest economic data make it clear that President Obama's policies aren't helping the country get stronger. Rather, they're smothering what should have been a solid recovery.
Real GDP climbed a less-than-expected 2.8% in final quarter of 2011, and just 1.7% for the entire year, down from 3% in 2010. The trend of subpar growth under Obama continues.
To get a better sense of how bad Obama's recovery is, consider this: Under Obama, real GDP has climbed a total of just 6% in the two-and-a-half years since the recession ended in June 2009.
By comparison, real GDP had grown 16% by this point in the Reagan recovery, after the very deep and painful 1981-82 recession.
Had Obama's recovery been as powerful as Reagan's, the economic pie would be $1.2 trillion bigger today.
And had job growth under Obama kept pace with job growth during the Reagan recovery, there would be 10 million — yes 10 million — more people with jobs today.
So what explains the difference between these two recoveries? Obama and his legion of liberal defenders claim the last recession was so deep that we're just now getting back on our feet.
Plus, they claim that a financial crisis invariably causes a slow recovery.
Neither excuse holds water. First, the 1981-82 recession was almost as long (16 months vs. 18 months), and as deep (unemployment was actually higher, peaking at 10.8% in that earlier recession).
But even that didn't stop a rip-roaring comeback.
Second, a recent Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta report found: "U.S. history provides no support for linking low employment and high unemployment in the current recovery with the financial crisis of 2007-2008."
Plus, nobody at the time expected the Reagan recovery to be as fast and as powerful as it was. So what's different? The presidents' policies.Reagan enacted sweeping and permanent tax cuts, aggressively eliminated or reduced regulations, reined in domestic spending, and championed the private sector.
Obama's approach has been the opposite — a huge increase in regulations; meager, targeted and temporary tax cuts; a massive increase in size and scope of the federal government; and a barrage of invective against businessmen and the wealthy. Obama has bashed Reagan's approach, saying that cutting taxes and regulations "has never worked" to spur growth.
Obama might think the U.S. is "getting stronger," as he put it in his State of the Union speech, and maybe it is, a little. But if he keeps choking it with his misguided policies, it will never be as strong as it could be, or should be.

State of the Union

The president certainly had facts and figures at his disposal. He boasted that his regulatory reforms "will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years." Wow. Ten billion smackeroos! That's some savings — and in a mere half a decade! Why, it's equivalent to what the government of the United States borrows every 53 hours.
So by midnight Thursday, Obama had already reborrowed all those hard-fought savings from 2017. "In the last 22 months," said the president, "businesses have created more than three million jobs." Impressive. But 125,000 new foreign workers arrive every month (officially). So we would have to have created 2,750,000 jobs in that period just to stand still.
 An honest leader would feel he owed it to the citizenry to impress upon them one central truth — that we can't have any new programs because we've spent all the money. It's gone. The cupboard is bare. What's Obama's plan to restock it?
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of those surveyed in this month's IBD/TIPP Poll believe the vote in November is indeed the "most important presidential election ever," while 35% do not. "Importance" is a proxy for "intensity," which in turn influences voter turnout.
Those who consider this to be the most important election ever can be seen as having "high intensity" and the others to have "low intensity." Eighty-two percent of Republicans, 56% of Democrats and 54% of independents belong to the high-intensity segment.
What are the differences between the two segments of the electorate?
First, 68% of high-intensity people are generally dissatisfied with the country's direction compared with 51% of low-intensity people.
Second, government's employment statistics fail to fully communicate the pain that is likely to reverberate in the November outcome. We estimate that more than 30 million Americans are seeking full-time work.
Twenty-nine percent of high-intensity households have at least one person looking for full-time work vs. 23% of low-intensity households.
Third, the high-intensity segment lacks confidence in President Obama. Only 36% of them approve of the job he's doing compared with 60% of low-intensity people.
Fourth, high-intensity Americans blame Obama for what they see as a lack of sufficient improvement in the economy and yearn for a new president who might produce better results. By 61% to 35%, they believe someone new deserves a chance. Low-intensity people, on the other hand, think Obama deserves re-election by a 62% to 28% margin.

Sunday, January 29, 2012


Any attempt to predict next fall is just futile.  Yes a sitting President will be hard, incredibly hard, to dethrone.  But just examining the daily up and down of the Republican candidates, two long term, well known politicians, shows how fragile political support can be. 

The economy seems to be mending a little...or perhaps not.  Depends which party you ask. 

Does the incredible repudiation of Obama's policies by the 2010 voters extend into a Presidential cycle?

There is clearly a strong conservative desire to beat Obama, a desire that will motivate turn out, which, I think, will be lacking for the President this cycle (at least not as strong as his first go around), especially-and you heard it here first, with black voters-who I think will return to there normal, historic turnout.

Except...there is a campaign to run...and negative advertisements to show, and motivation to generate, by both sides. 

But this is it, it has come to our time of reconing.  Are we going down the pathway to an entitlement, Socialistic, Greece country or will we return to free market capitalizm, self responsibility and freedom.

We shall see, the left (with the assistance of the dim witted right) has suscessfully landed over 50% of the country on government largess...and now that we have more takers than givers than everyone votes equally....oops.

It may come down to which camp has the better October surprise.

We are in dire economic times

And all you idiots can talk about is taxing the rich.  Do you honestly think that we can tax our way out of this mess.  Yelling about the 1% benefits no one.  Can you no see how the green energy debacle is a perfect example of how government cannot pick winners and losers?

Honestly, I have been absent because your drivel is...drivel.

Some things never change

Saturday, January 28, 2012


Gingrich is not the first prominent Republican to talk about going to the moon. In fact, George W. Bush made a little-known promise in 2004 to try to send a manned expedition back to the moon.
According to Bush, part of the appeal of going there was that lunar “soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air.” Needless to say, not much progress has since been made on humans being able to breathe moon dirt, and it did not come up as a significant issue afterward in Bush’s reelection campaign.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Romney Investing in America at 13.9%

Tonight, Romney called his enormous personal wealth 'an asset to help America.' But there's just one complication: he's not investing in America. He has had millions in investments and accounts in infamous offshore tax havens -- including the Cayman Islands and a Swiss bank account that his advisor closed down for fear it would be politically embarrassing.

Those tax havens cost American taxpayers about $100 billion a year.

Well at least George paid 14% more taxes than General Electric.

Can someone also explain to me why we need to pass an insider trading law for Congess, don't we already have a law against insider trading?

Oh I forgot the laws passed by Congress only apply to us. Is that right?

Arizona Redistricting - 2012

The smoke has cleared and we now have nine newly formed congressional districts, subject DOJ approval. We will actually have some competitive races, probably three, I expect all to go Democratic in 2012.

David Schweikert and Ben Quayle both covet the 6th District (NE Phoenix, PV, Scottsdale), which will be safe for the GOP and an almost certain five terms. The 9th District (Ahwatukee, Tempe, North Central Phoenix) will be competitive, with a slight advantage for the Democrat (hopefully, Kyrsten Sinema). Quayle lives in D9, but most of his current district is in D6. Right now he has to decide if he will challenge Schweikert in the D6 primary or take his chances in D9. I hope he goes for the latter. Either way, I doubt he will serve in the next Congress.

Paul Gosar (R) is going to move west so that he'll reside in the new D4 (Prescott, Havasu, rural west), which should be a safe seat. D1 (Flagstaff, rural north and east) will be competitive and likely will end up being served by Ann Kirkpatrick (D).

Gabby's D2 will be competitive but should remain in Democratic hands. Grijalva (D) will keep his seat in the new D3, as will Pastor (D) in D7. The GOP will keep Flake's seat in D5 and Franks (R) will cruise to re-election in D8.

Even though Democratic winds will be blowing, I expect the Senate seat to remain Republican as Jeff Flake will be an excellent candidate. The guy should be able to unite the establishment and Tea Party and was principled before it was cool. So far, the potential Democratic candidates are wanting. If not for the intervention of Jared Loughner, Gabby Giffords would probably give Flake quite a race.

Can Obama win the state? Absolutely. In fact, he may well have won in 2008 had a favorite son not appeared on the ticket. Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado were all blue in '08. Obama would not have been here yesterday if he didn't feel the state was in play. What are his chances? Against Romney, probably 40%. Against Gingrich, 80%.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012


Romney made 45 million in two years without a job, this is a man who knows how to make money and not work. Of course he was "taxed" on that money before as he says corporate tax is 30% but of course they have both sides of that argument corporate tax is passed on to the consumer so let's lower it for the consumer's benefit, but when they see it as their tax then let's lower it for them. I'm confused! And I have said many times the corporate tax is always lower than advertised because of loopholes and attorneys finding "ways".
What bothers me the most is Romney's statements "And Not A Penny More" really!( I would like a President who would donate his salary to the deficit, but hey thats just me). and" I will release when I am ready in April" and then somehow has it ready the next day. You talk about Obama's arrogance! Romney has it in spades.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Quiet Rooms

Is there no fair question about distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, socialism, communism or whatever? Romney's answer "It needs to be talked about in quiet rooms. " I guess we the 99% are not worthy or smart enough to discuss with the great Romney.
Let's leave it to the upper class.

Class warfare by Obama or Romney you answer.

Exactly what does " It needs to be talked about in Quiet rooms" means, really?

Here is something Mr. Romney you need to learn Nobody in this country got rich "On Their Own"
Here is also a word to the wise release your income tax like every other candidate in this country has. Oh I forgot your special, only discussed in quiet rooms.

Casting every one at the bottom as lazy or jealous without acknowledging that accident of birth is just plain stupid.

I don't know what the policies were that created this disparity in wealth right now but I know we must learn from our mistakes if we are ever going to correct them.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012


Warren Buffett is ready to call Republicans’ tax bluff. Last fall, Senator Mitch McConnell said that if Buffett were feeling “guilty” about paying too little in taxes, he should “send in a check.” The jab was in response to Buffett’s August 2011 New York Times op-ed, which made hay of the fact that our tax system is so unbalanced, Buffett (worth about $45 billion) pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Senator John Thune promptly introduced the “Buffett Rule Act,” an option on tax forms that would allow the rich to donate more in taxes to help pay down the national debt. It was, as Buffett told me for this week’s TIME cover story, “a tax policy only a Republican could come up with.”
Still, he’s willing to take them up on it. “It restores my faith in human nature to think that there are people who have been around Washington all this time and are not yet so cynical as to think that [the deficit] can’t be solved by voluntary contributions,” he says with a chuckle. So Buffett has pledged to match 1 for 1 all such voluntary contributions made by Republican members of Congress. “And I’ll even go 3 for 1 for McConnell,” he says. That could be quite a bill if McConnell takes the challenge; after all, the Senator is worth at least $10 million. As Buffett put it to me, “I’m not worried.”

Monday, January 9, 2012

Our debt has now eclipsed our GDP.

And the Progressive explanation?  The reason?  The rich.

Why yes....the reason we are so broke is because of the rich...despite the FACT that taking ALL of their money would not make a wit of a rich must be the cause.

Not runaway entitlement spending, not irrational environmental disruption of business, no...the rich.

If only we could screw the rich, take more of their money, PUNISH THEM.   Our GPD would be greater than our debt.

Let's have an election on that idea....hopefully the idiots stay home.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Romney's electability

Newt Gingrich isn’t right about much. But he’s onto something about Mitt Romney’s weaknesses as the GOP candidate. Gingrich has been saying that the idea that Romney is electable is “just silly”: “I find it amazing the news media continues to say he is the most electable Republican when he can't even break out in his own party. But the fact is that Gov. Romney in the end has a very limited appeal in a conservative party.” There are ways in which Romney is the least electable of the remaining plausible candidates. These issues, all having to do with economics (the country’s and Romney’s own), surfaced this week, and assuming he is the nominee, they’ll get plenty of air time between now and November.

Thursday, January 5, 2012


As many of you who follow the blog know, I have been a supporter of Obama. But while many of you may think that my support of him is without reservation, think again.

Having listened to many very smart BUSINESS MEN, who believe his policy's are harmful to our economy I have to question my support. Can I be so sure of my position or am I using my liberal position on social issues ( abortion and gay marriage), and BLINDLY missing the big picture on economic issues (jobs) and which is really more important?

So here is my problem, see if those on the blog can help me with.

I BELIEVE-- If Obama veto's the pipeline-- that's not good for America, and is pandering to get votes from environmentalists, and would lead me to vote for a Republican.

I BELIEVE--Obama is speaking class warfare, (raise taxes on all of us not just the rich,) and leads me to vote Republican.

I BELIEVE--We need to cut government size, too much waste unarguable. Vote Republican

I BELIEVE-- Republicans use fear as a weapon to get people to vote for them. Vote Democrat

I BELIEVE-- Republicans want to go to war with Iran, don't want to cut defense. Vote Democrat.

Remember Reagan dropped bombs and invaded Granada a country smaller that Martha's Vineyard, and Bush invaded a country that did not attack us for the first time in our history.

Hundreds of thousands real people who had nothing to do with the twin tower's collapse lost their lives simply because they lived in a country who got in our way. Granada why?

So my problem is simple elect a Republican who will not cut defense, start another war or elect a Democrat who simply is in over his head on how to grow the economy!

Where is the candidate who does not want us to be a warrior nation and helps the middle class gain dignity with a good paying job and does not believe in trickle down economics?

Ron Paul is making more sense every time I hear him. But he has no chance.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

So do I

"I think president Obama wants to make us a European style welfare state, where instead of being a merit society, we're an entitlement society, where government's role is to take from some and give to others. What I know is if they do that, they'll substitute envy for ambition, and they'll poison the very spirit of America and keep us from being one nation under God," Romney said."I want to see America united. I watch a president who has become the great divider, the great complainer, the great excuse giver, the great blamer."