Five time deferment Cheney in his new book knocks Colin Powell, and John McCain, who actually served in war time and were true American hero's. This guy has no shame and next to Robert McNamara is one of the all time America's worst. Headed up Haliburton and did not even know what they sold, and one of the most corrupt corporations in the United States.
Macho Dick served up Condaleeza as " crying" in his office, even if true it is not what a gentleman should say or worst write.
Dick Cheney book should be taken as a "supermarket tabloid" not a book written by a Vice President of the United States but what else would you expect from this a--h---.
OH! and by the way this brave American asked for and got an extension on his secret service protection after office, the only Vice President in History to do so.
Are you Afraid Dick? Oh I forgot 5 deferment Cheney your not afraid of anything. Torture, lying, and blaming everyone else is your legacy Dickie boy.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Scandal! (or how I bankrupted our country with a multiplier)
The current administration has set a relative record for the absence of a scandal, until now, due primarily to the....Republicans! Usually the opposition party finds something to puff about, but the American people figure it, and it's irrelevance out (White water and Iran Contra come to mind).
This time, the opposition has focused laser like on the issue of our day, debt and the size and scope of government, and clearly drawn a distinction. We want reduced government, reduced government spending, self reliance, self responsibility, and low taxes.
They want, and their is no real controversy about our respective differences, government control, central planning, an ever enlarging safety net increased debt and higher taxes, mostly on the higher earners.
We want Capitalism, they want Socialism.
Which brings us to Solyndra, the $500,000,000 boondoggle. When we arrived at our economic peril, this administration, supported by a "progressive" Congress, decided to spend a vast amount of money to stimulate the economy. The opposition argued that the money would be better spent on broad based tax cuts, however this was dismissed because of the supposed "multiplier" effect of government spending.
The theory was that to resolve our economic mess, we needed a huge infusion of money (money we did and do not have) spent at the direction of our central government, which would be done so efficiently, it would (it is hard to write this without giggling) multiply its efficiency. "Studies" were cited showing its effectiveness. (funny, "studies" are used as a reason to propose reorganization of our life to prevent global warming...I mean climate change...(it never did warm, darn it).
Well how is that hope and change and multiplier effect working so far?
Our glorious leader decides to revive our country via...green energy jobs and taxes on the high earners. He/They are just so smart, they know what needs to be done, put money into bridges and clean energy jobs, except...there have been a minuscule number or green jobs created and....we still have "145" dangerous bridges which need to be fixed (according to our President) and if we love him we will pass his jobs bill.
However one might ask, um....Mr. President, why didn't we fix these bridges with the first stimulus bill? (and why do you so need to be loved?, but that is for another post.) Could it be, because central planning never works and it always leads to corruption? Wonder how many bridges we could have fixed for $500,000,000?
***********************
The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s Big Idea. It was the president’s intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.
To what end? Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.
No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance. Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. This is what crony capitalism is really all about: politicians enriching favored businesses, who then return the favor. Or maybe it’s the other way around, Who cares, really. It’s an endless, profitable loop for both.
And Obama almost pulled it off. The Great Recession conveniently allowed the president to start the spendathon under the guise of economic stimulus. As it turns out, the $38.6 billion loan program for clean energy firms that Solyndra benefited from has created just 3,545 permanent new jobs after parceling out half its dough. That works out to around $5 million a job.
It’s very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars. Those numbers don’t generally work. You don’t want to lose three dollars for every unit you make.
Unless, of course, American taxpayers make up the difference — though in the case of Solyndra, even government’s thumb on the scale wasn’t enough to save it. And it often isn’t enough when an investment’s goals are a fat political reward rather than a financial one.
“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”
That’s not how the private sector makes investment decision. But it’s routine for government where the stakeholders are politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and favored constituencies. The takers, not the makers. That’s whose side Obamanomics is on.
This time, the opposition has focused laser like on the issue of our day, debt and the size and scope of government, and clearly drawn a distinction. We want reduced government, reduced government spending, self reliance, self responsibility, and low taxes.
They want, and their is no real controversy about our respective differences, government control, central planning, an ever enlarging safety net increased debt and higher taxes, mostly on the higher earners.
We want Capitalism, they want Socialism.
Which brings us to Solyndra, the $500,000,000 boondoggle. When we arrived at our economic peril, this administration, supported by a "progressive" Congress, decided to spend a vast amount of money to stimulate the economy. The opposition argued that the money would be better spent on broad based tax cuts, however this was dismissed because of the supposed "multiplier" effect of government spending.
The theory was that to resolve our economic mess, we needed a huge infusion of money (money we did and do not have) spent at the direction of our central government, which would be done so efficiently, it would (it is hard to write this without giggling) multiply its efficiency. "Studies" were cited showing its effectiveness. (funny, "studies" are used as a reason to propose reorganization of our life to prevent global warming...I mean climate change...(it never did warm, darn it).
Well how is that hope and change and multiplier effect working so far?
Our glorious leader decides to revive our country via...green energy jobs and taxes on the high earners. He/They are just so smart, they know what needs to be done, put money into bridges and clean energy jobs, except...there have been a minuscule number or green jobs created and....we still have "145" dangerous bridges which need to be fixed (according to our President) and if we love him we will pass his jobs bill.
However one might ask, um....Mr. President, why didn't we fix these bridges with the first stimulus bill? (and why do you so need to be loved?, but that is for another post.) Could it be, because central planning never works and it always leads to corruption? Wonder how many bridges we could have fixed for $500,000,000?
***********************
The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s Big Idea. It was the president’s intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.
To what end? Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.
No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance. Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. This is what crony capitalism is really all about: politicians enriching favored businesses, who then return the favor. Or maybe it’s the other way around, Who cares, really. It’s an endless, profitable loop for both.
And Obama almost pulled it off. The Great Recession conveniently allowed the president to start the spendathon under the guise of economic stimulus. As it turns out, the $38.6 billion loan program for clean energy firms that Solyndra benefited from has created just 3,545 permanent new jobs after parceling out half its dough. That works out to around $5 million a job.
It’s very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars. Those numbers don’t generally work. You don’t want to lose three dollars for every unit you make.
Unless, of course, American taxpayers make up the difference — though in the case of Solyndra, even government’s thumb on the scale wasn’t enough to save it. And it often isn’t enough when an investment’s goals are a fat political reward rather than a financial one.
“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”
That’s not how the private sector makes investment decision. But it’s routine for government where the stakeholders are politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and favored constituencies. The takers, not the makers. That’s whose side Obamanomics is on.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Turns out Mark was right
Imagine you’re in the Obama White House, and this is what you face. Democrats lose a special election in a congressional district they have controlled since the 1920s and which was framed as a referendum on the president. There’s a possible scandal brewing over the White House’s effort to rush federal reviewers for a decision on a nearly half-billion dollar loan to a solar-panel manufacturer, Solyndra. The most recent Census Report shows median household earnings fell for the third consecutive year, back to 1996 levels. A record number of Americans are in poverty. In Afghanistan, the Taliban mounted a fierce assault on the U.S. embassy and NATO military headquarters in Kabul. A new CNN/ORC poll shows Obama’s disapproval rating has reached a new high while the number of Americans who think he is a strong leader has dropped to a new low. And that’s just today.
On a human level, one can sympathize with what the president, his advisers, and his supporters are going through right now. But there is a cautionary tale in this as well. When Obama was running for president, he was dismissive of those who came before him. The problems we faced, at home and abroad, would be fixed by signing this executive order and passing that piece of legislation. Hope and change were on the way. “I’m LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game,” Obama is reported to have said back in 2004.
Being president seemed so easy before he actually was president. At the point he took the oath of office, the problems became harder to manage, more difficult, more intractable. “When I said, ‘Change we can believe in,’ I didn’t say, ‘Change we can believe in tomorrow,’ ” Obama told an audience last month. “Not, ‘Change we can believe in next week.’ We knew this was going to take time, because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy.”
Every person who runs for president, it’s fair to say, has a healthy ego. But Obama was different; the self-assurance, the arrogance, the sense that he viewed himself as a world-historical figure was almost palpable. “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” Obama told congressional Democrats during the 2008 campaign. A convention speech wasn’t enough; Greek columns needed to be added. “Generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment,” Obama said – a moment when, among other achievements, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” And during the campaign, while still a one-term senator, Obama decided he wanted to give a speech in Germany– and he wanted to deliver it at the Brandenburg Gate.
Yet now we see the Obama presidency coming apart, piece by piece, day by day. Democratic lawmakers are attacking the president on the record. The unhappiness in Obama’s own party toward the president might soon evolve into an open revolt. Those who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 are saying, with some degree of self-satisfaction, “I told you so.” And the words of Solomon will be proven right again. “Pride goes before destruction,” he wrote in Proverbs, “a haughty spirit before a fall.”
If you dig beneath the rationalizations and the excuses, the field of strawmen, and the barrage of attacks on the motives of his opponents, one can only wonder: In his quiet moments, during times of self-reflection, has Obama –an educated and literate man — learned much of anything from all this?
On a human level, one can sympathize with what the president, his advisers, and his supporters are going through right now. But there is a cautionary tale in this as well. When Obama was running for president, he was dismissive of those who came before him. The problems we faced, at home and abroad, would be fixed by signing this executive order and passing that piece of legislation. Hope and change were on the way. “I’m LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game,” Obama is reported to have said back in 2004.
Being president seemed so easy before he actually was president. At the point he took the oath of office, the problems became harder to manage, more difficult, more intractable. “When I said, ‘Change we can believe in,’ I didn’t say, ‘Change we can believe in tomorrow,’ ” Obama told an audience last month. “Not, ‘Change we can believe in next week.’ We knew this was going to take time, because we’ve got this big, messy, tough democracy.”
Every person who runs for president, it’s fair to say, has a healthy ego. But Obama was different; the self-assurance, the arrogance, the sense that he viewed himself as a world-historical figure was almost palpable. “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” Obama told congressional Democrats during the 2008 campaign. A convention speech wasn’t enough; Greek columns needed to be added. “Generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment,” Obama said – a moment when, among other achievements, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” And during the campaign, while still a one-term senator, Obama decided he wanted to give a speech in Germany– and he wanted to deliver it at the Brandenburg Gate.
Yet now we see the Obama presidency coming apart, piece by piece, day by day. Democratic lawmakers are attacking the president on the record. The unhappiness in Obama’s own party toward the president might soon evolve into an open revolt. Those who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 are saying, with some degree of self-satisfaction, “I told you so.” And the words of Solomon will be proven right again. “Pride goes before destruction,” he wrote in Proverbs, “a haughty spirit before a fall.”
If you dig beneath the rationalizations and the excuses, the field of strawmen, and the barrage of attacks on the motives of his opponents, one can only wonder: In his quiet moments, during times of self-reflection, has Obama –an educated and literate man — learned much of anything from all this?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Republicans have scored an upset victory in a House race that became a referendum on President Barack Obama's economic policies.
"We've been asked by the people of this district to send a message to Washington," Turner told supporters after the landmark win. "I hope they hear it loud and clear. We've been told this is a referendum. Mr. President, we are on the wrong track. We have had it with an irresponsible fiscal policy which endangers the entire economy." NO KIDDING!
Weprin did not immediately concede. No KIDDING!!
The heavily Democratic district, which spans parts of Queens and Brooklyn, had never sent a Republican to the House. But frustration with the continued weak national economy gave Republicans the edge.
The race was supposed to be an easy win for Democrats, who have a 3-1 ratio registration advantage in the district.
"We've been asked by the people of this district to send a message to Washington," Turner told supporters after the landmark win. "I hope they hear it loud and clear. We've been told this is a referendum. Mr. President, we are on the wrong track. We have had it with an irresponsible fiscal policy which endangers the entire economy." NO KIDDING!
Weprin did not immediately concede. No KIDDING!!
The heavily Democratic district, which spans parts of Queens and Brooklyn, had never sent a Republican to the House. But frustration with the continued weak national economy gave Republicans the edge.
The race was supposed to be an easy win for Democrats, who have a 3-1 ratio registration advantage in the district.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Gosh, I wonder if the Tea Party had anything to do with these?
Both Parties Show Willingness To Reform Entitlement Programs.
The New York Times reports in a front-page story, "In a significant shift driven by bipartisan concern about the looming long-term debt, Republicans and Democrats are no longer fighting over whether to tackle the popular entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- but over how to do it." Members of both parties "expressed a willingness to wring savings from the long-untouchable programs during the first meeting of the special committee that is charged with recommending $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions over the decade. Then President Obama, in his address to a joint session of Congress on spurring job creation, reiterated his call for a plan reducing long-term debt with both changes in entitlement programs and taxes from the wealthy."
Hospital Group Urging Congress To Raise Medicare Eligibility Age.
Politico reports, "The American Hospital Association has a strategy for heading off any more Medicare payment cuts: Tell Congress to get the money from Medicare beneficiaries instead." The AHA "is urging its nearly 5,000 members to lobby Congress to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, in addition to other money-saving alternatives, according to spokeswoman Marie Watteau."
The New York Times reports in a front-page story, "In a significant shift driven by bipartisan concern about the looming long-term debt, Republicans and Democrats are no longer fighting over whether to tackle the popular entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- but over how to do it." Members of both parties "expressed a willingness to wring savings from the long-untouchable programs during the first meeting of the special committee that is charged with recommending $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions over the decade. Then President Obama, in his address to a joint session of Congress on spurring job creation, reiterated his call for a plan reducing long-term debt with both changes in entitlement programs and taxes from the wealthy."
Hospital Group Urging Congress To Raise Medicare Eligibility Age.
Politico reports, "The American Hospital Association has a strategy for heading off any more Medicare payment cuts: Tell Congress to get the money from Medicare beneficiaries instead." The AHA "is urging its nearly 5,000 members to lobby Congress to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, in addition to other money-saving alternatives, according to spokeswoman Marie Watteau."
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Every time the federal government goes to the markets to borrow money to pay for deficits in Medicare, this is money that will not be producing a cash benefit. Every time we fulfill our national obligation to help out our fellow citizens who are hurt by natural disasters, this is money that is not going to flow into U.S. coffers.
And yet, these are expenditures we must make. Medicare is a hugely important obligation to which millions of people have contributed in the belief that it will be there for them when they reach 65 years of age. The federal government has an obligation to insure that these people get the benefit of this arrangement. Similarly, we cannot turn our back on Americans ravaged by hurricanes and earthquakes who are suffering through no fault of their own. To do so would just be wrong. The federal government must therefore make investments that will produce the revenues needed to pay for our societal safety net.
Yet, in our current environment, this is never going to happen. So successful are the Republicans at selling the story that all debt is bad, and so weak have the Democrats been in their response to this false narrative, that we now find that Democrats are actually treating the Republican pitch as if it were gospel.
Why?
Because you liberal dickhead, we are broke and can't afford all this crap anymore. We don't have the money...we don't have the money...we can't pay for healthcare for everyone over 65, we can't and should never have promised to, we can't let people live near the sea, in storm paths and pay when their homes are wrecked as if that is not predicitable.
We can't afford all this crap anymore...don't you get it?
There is no bad debt, there is no good debt, you idiot, there is debt and we are spending our childrens, childrens money. We are broke.
And yet, these are expenditures we must make. Medicare is a hugely important obligation to which millions of people have contributed in the belief that it will be there for them when they reach 65 years of age. The federal government has an obligation to insure that these people get the benefit of this arrangement. Similarly, we cannot turn our back on Americans ravaged by hurricanes and earthquakes who are suffering through no fault of their own. To do so would just be wrong. The federal government must therefore make investments that will produce the revenues needed to pay for our societal safety net.
Yet, in our current environment, this is never going to happen. So successful are the Republicans at selling the story that all debt is bad, and so weak have the Democrats been in their response to this false narrative, that we now find that Democrats are actually treating the Republican pitch as if it were gospel.
Why?
Because you liberal dickhead, we are broke and can't afford all this crap anymore. We don't have the money...we don't have the money...we can't pay for healthcare for everyone over 65, we can't and should never have promised to, we can't let people live near the sea, in storm paths and pay when their homes are wrecked as if that is not predicitable.
We can't afford all this crap anymore...don't you get it?
There is no bad debt, there is no good debt, you idiot, there is debt and we are spending our childrens, childrens money. We are broke.
U.S. stocks closed sharply lower amid fresh worries of a Greek default, the surprise resignation of a European Central Bank executive-board member and concerns about President Barack Obama's jobs plan.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 303.68 points, or 2.69%, to 10992.13, its fifth drop out of the last six sessions. All 30 Dow components closed in the red. The blue-chip Dow finished the holiday-shortened week down 2.2%, its sixth weekly decline out of the past seven. Markets were closed Monday in observance of Labor Day.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 303.68 points, or 2.69%, to 10992.13, its fifth drop out of the last six sessions. All 30 Dow components closed in the red. The blue-chip Dow finished the holiday-shortened week down 2.2%, its sixth weekly decline out of the past seven. Markets were closed Monday in observance of Labor Day.
Guess the 2010 landslide was just a...blip.
Panicked Democrats are releasing a barrage of negative television advertising, turning to the national party for a cash infusion and pleading with President Obamas’s network of supporters for help as they confront what seemed impossible two months ago: defeat in the heavily Democratic House district last represented by Anthony Weiner.
Supporters of Mr. Weprin, many of them teachers, were gathered at Strawberry's Sports Grill in Douglaston, Queens, to make calls to fellow union members on behalf of the campaign.
Party leaders say the president’s flagging popularity and defections among Jewish voters have left them facing the embarrassing possibility that their candidate, Assemblyman David Weprin, could lose New York’s Ninth Congressional District to a little-known Republican businessman who has never held elected office.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
I WOULD BE ASHAMED
I would be ashamed to be a member of the Republican party after watching that debate, after hearing the wild cheering crowd like the Romans, at executions in Texas it's pretty obvious Jon Huntsman is just too grounded and rational for that party.
Clearly the tea baggers are not the voice of America they are the shame of America.
When did Newt get so growly by the way!
As they sat in Ronald Reagan, hall, under his million dollar Air Force One Jet, which I am sure he paid the government for his Museum, I realize he could not get the nomination today of this crowd.
Really! Really! is this the best the party of Lincoln has? Jon Huntsman, clearly is the most rational and grounded candidate of the group.
And one other thing did I hear bring the troops home, what happened to the mantra of the Right Wing never tell the enemy your departure date?
Rick Perry Social Security is a "Ponzi Scheme", he doesn't even understand politics #101
We have seen one too many Texas boys in the White House!
Clearly the tea baggers are not the voice of America they are the shame of America.
When did Newt get so growly by the way!
As they sat in Ronald Reagan, hall, under his million dollar Air Force One Jet, which I am sure he paid the government for his Museum, I realize he could not get the nomination today of this crowd.
Really! Really! is this the best the party of Lincoln has? Jon Huntsman, clearly is the most rational and grounded candidate of the group.
And one other thing did I hear bring the troops home, what happened to the mantra of the Right Wing never tell the enemy your departure date?
Rick Perry Social Security is a "Ponzi Scheme", he doesn't even understand politics #101
We have seen one too many Texas boys in the White House!
Monday, September 5, 2011
2 Questions
Dear Bloggers (those who Baxter has not scared off)
Is our country bankrupt?
If not then how come?
Will Obama propose anything in his upcoming speech that will help our country needs?
Will spending money we do not have, to build roads and bridges do anything of long term signficiance?
Will spending more money on green energy, to produce a tiny amount of jobs help?
Will taxing the most suscessful sginificantly reduce our deficit?
Will he propose anything except the above?
Is our country bankrupt?
If not then how come?
Will Obama propose anything in his upcoming speech that will help our country needs?
Will spending money we do not have, to build roads and bridges do anything of long term signficiance?
Will spending more money on green energy, to produce a tiny amount of jobs help?
Will taxing the most suscessful sginificantly reduce our deficit?
Will he propose anything except the above?
The Fatal DistractionBy PAUL KRUGMAN
Friday brought two numbers that should have everyone in Washington saying, “My God, what have we done?” No Paul, you stupid Socialist idiot, you and yours have done. You had your chance, you had your stimulus, you had both houses of Congress, you had your Messiah.
One of these numbers was zero — the number of jobs created in August. The other was two — the interest rate on 10-year U.S. bonds, almost as low as this rate has ever gone. Taken together, these numbers almost scream that the inside-the-Beltway crowd has been worrying about the wrong things, and inflicting grievous harm as a result. So we don't need to worry about borrowing 40% more than we take in, everyday?! And we are not talking about small numbers Paul, you dipstick, we are talking about generational bankruptcy.
Ever since the acute phase of the financial crisis ended, policy discussion in Washington has been dominated not by unemployment, but by the alleged dangers posed by budget deficits. Pundits and media organizations insisted that the biggest risk facing America was the threat that investors would pull the plug on U.S. debt. For example, in May 2009 The Wall Street Journal declared that the “bond vigilantes” were “returning with a vengeance,” telling readers that the Obama administration’s “epic spending spree” would send interest rates soaring. OK Paul, you idiot, interest rates remain low because there is no economic activity, because... people and business are scared that idiots like you might remain in charge. Hey Paul! Got a better explanation? Oh, that is right, we just need to spend more money we don't have building roads and bridges, that is the cutting edge economic management we need!
I don’t mean to dismiss concerns about the long-run U.S. budget picture. If you look at fiscal prospects over, say, the next 20 years, they are indeed deeply worrying, largely because of rising health-care costs. Here is the kicker, the Liberal/Socialist Judo that allows them to sleep at night after imposing a repeatedly failed economic model (see Germany, USSR, heck even England) on our country. See how Paul, the idiot, slips in rising health care costs, implying that we need to implement health care reform, but what Paul conveniently omits (OK, lies about) is that it is not health care, it is the coming, and all the world can see it is coming, explosion in entitlement programs, any reform of which his party vehemently protests, that are the reason for our gargantuan present and more importantly upcoming deficits. That and the wasted spending of the current administration. The experience of the past two years has overwhelmingly confirmed what some of us tried to argue from the beginning: The deficits we’re running right now — deficits we should be running, because deficit spending helps support a depressed economy — are no threat at all.
One of these numbers was zero — the number of jobs created in August. The other was two — the interest rate on 10-year U.S. bonds, almost as low as this rate has ever gone. Taken together, these numbers almost scream that the inside-the-Beltway crowd has been worrying about the wrong things, and inflicting grievous harm as a result. So we don't need to worry about borrowing 40% more than we take in, everyday?! And we are not talking about small numbers Paul, you dipstick, we are talking about generational bankruptcy.
Ever since the acute phase of the financial crisis ended, policy discussion in Washington has been dominated not by unemployment, but by the alleged dangers posed by budget deficits. Pundits and media organizations insisted that the biggest risk facing America was the threat that investors would pull the plug on U.S. debt. For example, in May 2009 The Wall Street Journal declared that the “bond vigilantes” were “returning with a vengeance,” telling readers that the Obama administration’s “epic spending spree” would send interest rates soaring. OK Paul, you idiot, interest rates remain low because there is no economic activity, because... people and business are scared that idiots like you might remain in charge. Hey Paul! Got a better explanation? Oh, that is right, we just need to spend more money we don't have building roads and bridges, that is the cutting edge economic management we need!
I don’t mean to dismiss concerns about the long-run U.S. budget picture. If you look at fiscal prospects over, say, the next 20 years, they are indeed deeply worrying, largely because of rising health-care costs. Here is the kicker, the Liberal/Socialist Judo that allows them to sleep at night after imposing a repeatedly failed economic model (see Germany, USSR, heck even England) on our country. See how Paul, the idiot, slips in rising health care costs, implying that we need to implement health care reform, but what Paul conveniently omits (OK, lies about) is that it is not health care, it is the coming, and all the world can see it is coming, explosion in entitlement programs, any reform of which his party vehemently protests, that are the reason for our gargantuan present and more importantly upcoming deficits. That and the wasted spending of the current administration. The experience of the past two years has overwhelmingly confirmed what some of us tried to argue from the beginning: The deficits we’re running right now — deficits we should be running, because deficit spending helps support a depressed economy — are no threat at all.
Friday, September 2, 2011
It will never work
And it is not just a small thing. During Obama's first press conference, at the beginning of his presidency, he placed his bets' (outlined his strategy) for economic recovery on having the rich-who has benefited (unfairly?) pay their fair share and green energy.
Well it has been 3 years, we had a massive stimulus (the only significant Obama administration economic activity/program besides Obamacare and the reluctant extension of the Bush tax cuts).
Billions have been invested in wind turbines, billions in solar, yet they make minuscule contributions to our energy needs. At the same time there has been a drilling moratorium and nuclear antagonism. Gas prices have remained high, essentially a carbon tax.....and what do we have to show for this government interference in the free market? We spend/wasted A LOT of money for negligible effect. As I have previously posted, beyond nuclear, there are no significant contributions from alternative sources, especially in the developing world.
Don't you guys ever get tired for being wrong?
Marginal tax cuts, broaden the tax base so everyone is invested in lowering government spending...we are out of this mess in 4 months.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We have seen the future, and it went bankrupt.
If the praises of high-ranking Obama-administration officials were a viable business plan, the solar-panel maker Solyndra would be an industrial juggernaut. Vice President Biden insisted that the jobs created by the California-based firm would “allow America to compete and to lead like we did in the 20th century.”
In a visit to Solyndra in May 2010, President Obama called it “a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism.” He all but redefined the traditional statement of Americanness to encompass motherhood, apple pie, and the conversion of sunlight into electricity through cylindrical thin-film solar cells, the specialty of Solyndra.
Obama and Biden were literally invested Solyndra’s success. The company got a half-billion-dollar federal loan guarantee, the first in a highly vaunted Department of Energy green-jobs program, as part of the stimulus. This was supposed to be the new economic model: government and its favored industries cooperating to lead the country into a green, politically approved recovery. The showcase firm is now filing for Chapter 11 in an embarrassing blow to the premises of Obamanomics. At least the Obama administration can’t be accused of practicing industrial policy the old-fashioned way and picking winners. It is evidently quite ready to pick losers, too.
A Department of Energy spokesman explained wanly, “The company was considered extraordinarily innovative as recently as 2010.” Innovative, maybe; profitable, no. It had never turned a profit since its founding in 2005. In the still “extraordinarily innovative” year of 2010, it canceled an attempted IPO and axed its CEO.
Plenty of venture capitalists made foolish bets on Solyndra, but the federal government was the most reckless. The Obama administration wanted to throw money at the likes of Solyndra without due diligence, or much diligence at all. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office warned that the Energy Department loan program — created in a 2005 energy bill — had inadequate safeguards.
Nonetheless, within 60 days of becoming energy secretary, Steven Chu put Uncle Sam on the hook for Solyndra. According to the Wall Street Journal, $527 million of the $535 million federal loan has been drawn down, with a bankruptcy court set to determine how much the feds will recover. Chu is fortunate that taxpayers can’t bring shareholder lawsuits against the federal government.
President Bush was flayed for the Enron bankruptcy, based on his tenuous ties to the firm. If the same media rules applied, Solyndra would be Obama’s Enron, given his active promotion of the company and his lavish funding of it. A prodigious Obama-Biden fundraiser is a major backer of the failed concern.
Solyndra’s crash comes during a wave of solar bankruptcies. The government’s enthusiasm for solar power far outstripped that of consumers. Spain provided something of a precursor. It massively subsidized a solar-power industry that collapsed when the government realized its generosity was unsustainable and cut back. One Spanish newspaper had a headline, “Spain admits that the green economy sold to Obama is a ruin.”
Well it has been 3 years, we had a massive stimulus (the only significant Obama administration economic activity/program besides Obamacare and the reluctant extension of the Bush tax cuts).
Billions have been invested in wind turbines, billions in solar, yet they make minuscule contributions to our energy needs. At the same time there has been a drilling moratorium and nuclear antagonism. Gas prices have remained high, essentially a carbon tax.....and what do we have to show for this government interference in the free market? We spend/wasted A LOT of money for negligible effect. As I have previously posted, beyond nuclear, there are no significant contributions from alternative sources, especially in the developing world.
Don't you guys ever get tired for being wrong?
Marginal tax cuts, broaden the tax base so everyone is invested in lowering government spending...we are out of this mess in 4 months.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We have seen the future, and it went bankrupt.
If the praises of high-ranking Obama-administration officials were a viable business plan, the solar-panel maker Solyndra would be an industrial juggernaut. Vice President Biden insisted that the jobs created by the California-based firm would “allow America to compete and to lead like we did in the 20th century.”
Obama and Biden were literally invested Solyndra’s success. The company got a half-billion-dollar federal loan guarantee, the first in a highly vaunted Department of Energy green-jobs program, as part of the stimulus. This was supposed to be the new economic model: government and its favored industries cooperating to lead the country into a green, politically approved recovery. The showcase firm is now filing for Chapter 11 in an embarrassing blow to the premises of Obamanomics. At least the Obama administration can’t be accused of practicing industrial policy the old-fashioned way and picking winners. It is evidently quite ready to pick losers, too.
A Department of Energy spokesman explained wanly, “The company was considered extraordinarily innovative as recently as 2010.” Innovative, maybe; profitable, no. It had never turned a profit since its founding in 2005. In the still “extraordinarily innovative” year of 2010, it canceled an attempted IPO and axed its CEO.
Plenty of venture capitalists made foolish bets on Solyndra, but the federal government was the most reckless. The Obama administration wanted to throw money at the likes of Solyndra without due diligence, or much diligence at all. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office warned that the Energy Department loan program — created in a 2005 energy bill — had inadequate safeguards.
Nonetheless, within 60 days of becoming energy secretary, Steven Chu put Uncle Sam on the hook for Solyndra. According to the Wall Street Journal, $527 million of the $535 million federal loan has been drawn down, with a bankruptcy court set to determine how much the feds will recover. Chu is fortunate that taxpayers can’t bring shareholder lawsuits against the federal government.
President Bush was flayed for the Enron bankruptcy, based on his tenuous ties to the firm. If the same media rules applied, Solyndra would be Obama’s Enron, given his active promotion of the company and his lavish funding of it. A prodigious Obama-Biden fundraiser is a major backer of the failed concern.
Solyndra’s crash comes during a wave of solar bankruptcies. The government’s enthusiasm for solar power far outstripped that of consumers. Spain provided something of a precursor. It massively subsidized a solar-power industry that collapsed when the government realized its generosity was unsustainable and cut back. One Spanish newspaper had a headline, “Spain admits that the green economy sold to Obama is a ruin.”
The U.S. economy failed to add jobs for the first time in almost a year, while the unemployment rate was stuck at 9.1%, sending stocks down and putting more pressure on policymakers to revive a moribund labor market. Nonfarm payrolls were unchanged last month—the worst result since a small decline in September 2010—as the government sector continued to shed jobs, the Labor Department said Friday. The private sector added only 17,000 jobs.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
A top Goldman Sachs Group Inc. strategist has provided the firm's hedge-fund clients with a particularly gloomy economic outlook and suggestions for how these traders can take advantage of the financial crisis in Europe.
In a 54-page report sent to hundreds of Goldman's institutional clients dated Aug. 16, Alan Brazil—a Goldman strategist who sits on the firm's trading desk—argued that as much as $1 trillion in capital may be needed to shore up European banks; that small businesses in the U.S., a past driver of job production, are still languishing; and that China's growth may not be sustainable.
“Here we go again…solving a debt problem with more debt has not solved the underlying problem. ...Can the US continue to depreciate the world's base currency?”
^^^^^^^^^
Manufacturing activity stalled across much of the world in August, increasing fears of another downturn for the global economy.
Factory output throughout Asia continued to slow last month, offering more evidence that weaker demand in the developed world is weighing on Asia's export-driven economies.
Meanwhile, manufacturing in the euro zone fell back into contraction in August, ending a near two-year run of growth as activity shrank in France and Italy. U.K. factory activity slumped to the weakest level in more than two years, with production falling for the first time since May 2009. U.S. manufacturing data is set to be released later Thursday morning.
The slower growth in Asia comes as inflation remains elevated across much of the continent, posing a dilemma for policymakers caught between a desire for low interest rates to spur their economies and a growing need to tighten monetary policy to keep prices under control.
In a 54-page report sent to hundreds of Goldman's institutional clients dated Aug. 16, Alan Brazil—a Goldman strategist who sits on the firm's trading desk—argued that as much as $1 trillion in capital may be needed to shore up European banks; that small businesses in the U.S., a past driver of job production, are still languishing; and that China's growth may not be sustainable.
“Here we go again…solving a debt problem with more debt has not solved the underlying problem. ...Can the US continue to depreciate the world's base currency?”
^^^^^^^^^
Manufacturing activity stalled across much of the world in August, increasing fears of another downturn for the global economy.
Factory output throughout Asia continued to slow last month, offering more evidence that weaker demand in the developed world is weighing on Asia's export-driven economies.
Meanwhile, manufacturing in the euro zone fell back into contraction in August, ending a near two-year run of growth as activity shrank in France and Italy. U.K. factory activity slumped to the weakest level in more than two years, with production falling for the first time since May 2009. U.S. manufacturing data is set to be released later Thursday morning.
The slower growth in Asia comes as inflation remains elevated across much of the continent, posing a dilemma for policymakers caught between a desire for low interest rates to spur their economies and a growing need to tighten monetary policy to keep prices under control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)