As the stock market tanked at the end of last week, streams of venom were cast toward the White House and President Obama, who had just come down very hard and very publicly on bankers and those who run financial institutions. Obama promised to start hitting recipients of big bonuses with a big new tax.
It was an interesting tact by Obama. And not just because he's tended, when the heat starts to rise just a little, to start threatening (and, of course, blaming George Bush).
But it was strange considering the federal government has essentially allowed these institutions to make 8 kajillion tons of money during the last year and, therefore, want to reward its top people.
More on that later. That wasn't the reason for the rabid sellout on Wall Street, though.
In a sense, it was the anti-Obama administration voices who caused the drop.
That's right. And no, I'm not crazy.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke isn't the most popular guy in Washington these days. He's increasingly unpopular on the right, and talk the past month or so that he was a virtual slam dunk to be reconfirmed for another term caused many heads to spin.
Well, what else happened around the middle of last week? A monumental upset in a Massachusetts Senate election essentially turned Washington on its ear.
Suddenly, the prospects for health care reform didn't look so great. In fact, nothing much on Obama's agenda did.
Including Bernanke's confirmation.
This sent investors into a panic. The key here is understanding who those investors are.
The very bankers and financial guys Obama went off on.
As I've said repeatedly, all this talk of a recovery is nonsense. Yes, the media can pull a number here and a number there, quote some "leading economist" (usually code language for "White House advisor") and announce with aplomb that THIS is a sure sign we're recovering.
Well, there's certainly no recovery where employment is concerned. Foreclosures and credit card defaults continue upward. Demand for energy is the lowest of our lifetime as evidenced by U.S. refineries operating now at only 76 percent capacity. Sales tax receipts are off by double digits every month in even the states least affected by these hard times.
What's been good? Well, Wall Street has been. The DOW made an upward climb most of the year. Commodity prices were up, as well. Everyone knows how volatile the price of oil has been the last 12 months. $60 per barrel one week, $70 the next. Back down to $60. Up to $75.
That's not demand or world events. That's someone monkeying with the market.
Now think about this, folks. Joe Citizen is hurting and hurting bad. He's losing his job, his house. He's not buying much.
So where's all this money in the stock market coming from?
The banks and financial institutions. How, you might ask, especially considering the fact that well more than 100 banks have gone belly-up the last 13 months?
Stimulus. Quantitative stimulus. Or, what I see most people erroneously refer to as the government "printing money."
In a nutshell, banks lost their shirts in 2008. Along came TARP to cover all that bad paper banks were holding. The government basically bought those bad loans, allowing the biggest banks (that were "too big to fail") to survive.
Only the rules changed a bit when Obama stepped into the White House.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wound up with a lot of bad paper, as intended. But they could only take so much, considering they already were drowning in red ink.
So rules were further relaxed on what constituted a "holding company" ... the lines became blurred between your average bank and various types of financial institutions.
And the fed opened its window to all these companies and has been lending money -- LOTS of money -- at zero percent interest.
The banks had to get well, after all. They'd taken a beating like none had ever experienced. Several of the big ones went down.
But here's the rub. It wasn't business as usual. They didn't start lending again ... not to Joe Citizen, not to small businesses (who weren't really in a position to borrow anyway, given the recession, unemployment and falling demand for most everything).
Instead, they took that money ... with Bernanke's and the federal government's blessings ... and gobbled up T-bills by the 10s of billions. Why not?
If the government offered to loan you $1 million tomorrow at zero percent interest, then held a bond sale the next day with a "special" rate, you'd be a fool to turn it down.
Well, add four or five zeros to that $1 million, and yes, banks got well in a hurry. They also played the markets, and along with your Warren Buffets, kept them on an upward trend. Same with commodities, which were a slam dunk investment with the dollar in the toilet for most of the year. With the rules relaxed, anyone and everyone could set up "hedge funds" (Obama went off on those, too, remember?) ... and they did. Now you see $60 oil. Now you don't.
A lot of these companies got so well, they were able to start paying back large chunks of TARP money ... too fast, in fact, for Washington's liking if you'll remember.
The happy days hit a big ol' pothole last week, though. Bernanke's tenure suddenly fell into question. A change easily could whip things in a new direction, because what the government was doing economically clearly and obviously was helping no one but the very banks liberals love to demonize.
Buffett himself told CNBC last week that if he had two votes, he'd give them both to Bernanke. "If he's not reconfirmed," Buffett said, "tell me a day ahead of time so I can sell stocks."
So there's a big part of the problem with the markets. And it will continue to be this week. So long as Bernanke's future is on the line.
I'm no fan of the man. And the direction we're headed isn't a good one.
Thing is, I don't see that changing given the current makeup in Washington. At least not for the better.
I've joked about it with Twitter friends, but it really isn't all that funny. Bernanke might be bad. But his replacement? Probably not a whole lot better. And very possibly, if not likely, a whole lot worse.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Viva Keith Olbermann
Growing number of folks out there are calling even more loudly for Keith Obermann to be taken off MSNBC after his repugnant rant Monday night about Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown.
Please stop this silliness.
I'm not defending Olbermann by any stretch. And this isn't even about the First Amendment.
But we spent eight years listening to liberals and the media (redundant, yes I know) claim that it was George W. Bush and conservatives who were "devisive" and at fault for this country being divided more than at any other point.
Yes, the same people who every day for eight years spewed the most vile filth about Bush and anyone who supported him.
And Olbermann? Yes, he's about as despicable as they come. But I want him on the air, every night at the same time. I even want more people to watch ... just enough to keep him relevent enough to the folks who put him there.
That way, he can serve as a constant reminder, and as a lesson to those on the fence, of just how venomous and detached from reality liberals really are.
Please stop this silliness.
I'm not defending Olbermann by any stretch. And this isn't even about the First Amendment.
But we spent eight years listening to liberals and the media (redundant, yes I know) claim that it was George W. Bush and conservatives who were "devisive" and at fault for this country being divided more than at any other point.
Yes, the same people who every day for eight years spewed the most vile filth about Bush and anyone who supported him.
And Olbermann? Yes, he's about as despicable as they come. But I want him on the air, every night at the same time. I even want more people to watch ... just enough to keep him relevent enough to the folks who put him there.
That way, he can serve as a constant reminder, and as a lesson to those on the fence, of just how venomous and detached from reality liberals really are.
Monday, January 18, 2010
A Brownout one way or the other
Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts already has been eye-opening in so many ways. I would have no more thought a Republican would stand a chance in such a liberal stronghold than I would bet San Francisco would toss Nancy Pelosi out on her ear.
But here we are on Election Eve, and Republican Scott Brown has emerged from Ron Paul For President-like depths in the polls to leading Martha (Don't Call Me Marsha) Coakley by anywhere from 5 to 11 points.
Will he win, though? Yes, that's the $40K question, isn't it?
As eye-opening as Brown's meteoric rise has been, Tuesday's result largely will determine this country's direction. And I'm not talking health care, Cap & Trade or open borders.
Democrats can not lose this election. The reasons are numerous.
First, imagine the shock waves throughout the party if a Republican wins a Senate seat occupied for nearly half a century by a Kennedy in such a liberal mecca. The media's collective "this has no national significance" claims would become the very definition of vacuous.
Then there's the pending health care legislation that Democrats desperately need their 60-vote super majority to force down America's throat.
The repercussions of a Brown victory would be immensely negative for Democrats, President Obama in particular, on both fronts.
This is why SEIU and ACORN have been pouring people and resources into Massachusetts for at least a month. Obama and the uber liberal machine backing him cannot leave anything to chance. The stakes are too high.
So this election will offer Republicans (well, conservatives anyway) a sneak peek at what they can expect going forward.
What is the magic number for a Republican to overcome fraud? Is it 5 percent? Six? Or is it to the extent already that no lead is sufficient and the concept of a legitimate election of consequence has passed?
And what will be the reaction if that is so? Will America simply bend over as it did in Minnesota last fall and again in New York District 23 and accept the outcome?
We'll soon find out. Either Brown will represent the beginning of a political tidal wave or we'll be left to wallow in brown of quite another sort.
But here we are on Election Eve, and Republican Scott Brown has emerged from Ron Paul For President-like depths in the polls to leading Martha (Don't Call Me Marsha) Coakley by anywhere from 5 to 11 points.
Will he win, though? Yes, that's the $40K question, isn't it?
As eye-opening as Brown's meteoric rise has been, Tuesday's result largely will determine this country's direction. And I'm not talking health care, Cap & Trade or open borders.
Democrats can not lose this election. The reasons are numerous.
First, imagine the shock waves throughout the party if a Republican wins a Senate seat occupied for nearly half a century by a Kennedy in such a liberal mecca. The media's collective "this has no national significance" claims would become the very definition of vacuous.
Then there's the pending health care legislation that Democrats desperately need their 60-vote super majority to force down America's throat.
The repercussions of a Brown victory would be immensely negative for Democrats, President Obama in particular, on both fronts.
This is why SEIU and ACORN have been pouring people and resources into Massachusetts for at least a month. Obama and the uber liberal machine backing him cannot leave anything to chance. The stakes are too high.
So this election will offer Republicans (well, conservatives anyway) a sneak peek at what they can expect going forward.
What is the magic number for a Republican to overcome fraud? Is it 5 percent? Six? Or is it to the extent already that no lead is sufficient and the concept of a legitimate election of consequence has passed?
And what will be the reaction if that is so? Will America simply bend over as it did in Minnesota last fall and again in New York District 23 and accept the outcome?
We'll soon find out. Either Brown will represent the beginning of a political tidal wave or we'll be left to wallow in brown of quite another sort.
Monday, December 21, 2009
12 Days of Christmas (Redux)
Wrote this last year. Let's see a year later what's accurate:
On the first day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
The Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the second day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the third day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fourth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fifth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the sixth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the seventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eighth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the ninth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the tenth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eleventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twelve million new citizens
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the first day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
The Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the second day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the third day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fourth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fifth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the sixth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the seventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eighth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the ninth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the tenth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eleventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twelve million new citizens
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Jobs and the economy (Part 1)
Barack Obama announced before his Asia trip that he would convene a jobs summit at the White House next month.
The media treated this in its customary, dutiful fashion, largely cooing about "how presidential he is!"
Serious question, though, people. Actually, two serious questions.
First, why are we almost a year into this administration, with unemployment worsening throughout, and only now the president's focus is on jobs?
And second, how seriously can we take this? I mean, Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have spent the last 10 months in rabid pursuit of anti-jobs legislation such as Card Check, Health Care and Cap & Trade.
Perhaps the better question is whether anyone honestly believes that liberals know how to create jobs.
And save it on the stimulus nonsense, OK? For one thing, if the stimulus was about job creation, as Democrats have claimed for nine months, why has only 14 percent of the $787 billion been spent? I mean, libs are all about looking good politically, and double-digit unemployment is about seven shades of ugly.
Those jobs saved/created that Obama keeps talking about?
Besides serving as a multi-billion-dollar goody bag for liberal causes, the stimulus bill only provided struggling states with cash for extended unemployment benefits and to save teaching and other government jobs.
Temporarily. At least a dozen of those states that slurped up that stimulus already have figured out they're in deep financial trouble as they begin attempting to craft their 2010 budgets.
And by deep financial trouble, we're talking 10- and 11-figure shortfalls.
One of two things will have to happen. There will be massive layoffs among teachers and state workers. Or the fed will have to provide another injection of billions of dollars.
Tax dollars, of course.
I suspect a good amount will come from the unspent 86 percent of the stimulus money, because several Democrats floated the "Second Stimulus" idea a couple of weeks ago, and the tremors of immediate anger from the population at large registered on the Richter Scale.
That $787 billion won't last forever, though. And that, boys and girls, is precisely what's wrong when the government's idea of job creation equates to more government.
Somebody's got to pay for it.
And in this case and in this environment, with more people out of work week after week after week and the government's source of revenue steadily diminishing, it's simply an unsustainable course.
What's ahead, in the likely event this administration continues to ignore pro-growth policies, is even worse unemployment, much higher debt and a monstrous tax burden on every American who's lucky enough to still have a job.
The media treated this in its customary, dutiful fashion, largely cooing about "how presidential he is!"
Serious question, though, people. Actually, two serious questions.
First, why are we almost a year into this administration, with unemployment worsening throughout, and only now the president's focus is on jobs?
And second, how seriously can we take this? I mean, Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have spent the last 10 months in rabid pursuit of anti-jobs legislation such as Card Check, Health Care and Cap & Trade.
Perhaps the better question is whether anyone honestly believes that liberals know how to create jobs.
And save it on the stimulus nonsense, OK? For one thing, if the stimulus was about job creation, as Democrats have claimed for nine months, why has only 14 percent of the $787 billion been spent? I mean, libs are all about looking good politically, and double-digit unemployment is about seven shades of ugly.
Those jobs saved/created that Obama keeps talking about?
Besides serving as a multi-billion-dollar goody bag for liberal causes, the stimulus bill only provided struggling states with cash for extended unemployment benefits and to save teaching and other government jobs.
Temporarily. At least a dozen of those states that slurped up that stimulus already have figured out they're in deep financial trouble as they begin attempting to craft their 2010 budgets.
And by deep financial trouble, we're talking 10- and 11-figure shortfalls.
One of two things will have to happen. There will be massive layoffs among teachers and state workers. Or the fed will have to provide another injection of billions of dollars.
Tax dollars, of course.
I suspect a good amount will come from the unspent 86 percent of the stimulus money, because several Democrats floated the "Second Stimulus" idea a couple of weeks ago, and the tremors of immediate anger from the population at large registered on the Richter Scale.
That $787 billion won't last forever, though. And that, boys and girls, is precisely what's wrong when the government's idea of job creation equates to more government.
Somebody's got to pay for it.
And in this case and in this environment, with more people out of work week after week after week and the government's source of revenue steadily diminishing, it's simply an unsustainable course.
What's ahead, in the likely event this administration continues to ignore pro-growth policies, is even worse unemployment, much higher debt and a monstrous tax burden on every American who's lucky enough to still have a job.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Election returns
"Spin" can be a funny thing. What people say and what they do often are misaligned. The mouth may say "I'm not afraid" of that large, ferocious dog chained in a neighbor's front yard, but the feet nevertheless tend to use a path at least one foot beyond that chain's length.
Good sense, after all, often outweighs good spin.
We'll see if that applies to the post-election weeks and months ahead. On a number of fronts.
That liberals dismiss the ideological swings of 20-plus points from last fall's presidential election in Tuesday's Virginia and New Jersey governor races isn't all that surprising.
And I hold out little hope (OK, none at all) that Democrat Party leaders will reverse course on the reprehensible direction they're taking this country.
But there are a lot of Democrats in both houses of Congress who face elections next year and know they aren't as "bullet-proof" as Nancy Pelosi is in her ultra-liberal San Francisco district.
I assume a good number of those "blue-dog" Democrats would like to keep their jobs and, at the very least, are calculating the length of that large, ferocious dog's chain.
Good sense would dictate doing so.
Similar calculations should be going on across the aisle, though. At least at the highest levels of the GOP.
Just as Ronald Reagan "took back" the Republican Party for conservatives almost 30 years ago, those who hold his tenants, as well as The Constitution, sacred are moving in that direction again.
Yes, liberals spin this as right-wing extremism and charge that there's no room for moderate thought in the Republican Party.
Well, first of all, look at the pictures and video of this summer's tea parties and then the 9/12 march on Washington.
Extremists? More like a mix of veterans, retirees, young parents, everyday middle class folks who had never been part of any kind of political activism but were simply fed up with Washington's unprecedented power grab and gross mismanagement.
And moderate thought? Since when is supporting and voting for liberal idealism "moderate"?
It strikes me that in this decade, particularly, we hear all about how conservatives need to "move more to the center" and be more "big-tent" inclusive and so forth, yet I haven't heard once how Democrats should do anything similar.
My position is that Republicans have, and that precisely has been their problem.
Tuesday's other election that brought national attention, the House race in New York's very moderate 23rd District, bears that out.
The GOP saw fit to push a liberal "Republican" in Dede Scozzafava. The backlash from conservatives, already fed up with RINOs such Arlen Specter (before he jumped parties), Olympia Snowe, et al, resulted in the rapid ascent of a little-known conservative, Doug Hoffman, as a third-party candidate.
While Hoffman's support skyrocketed in the weeks leading up to the election, Scozzafava's dropped lower than whale dung, and she dropped out of the race (and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, by the way).
Regardless of Owens' four-point win, a message was sent to the GOP hierarchy.
Question is, are they also now measuring chains?
Their future, like that of those "blue-dog" Democrats, almost certainly depends on it.
Good sense, after all, often outweighs good spin.
We'll see if that applies to the post-election weeks and months ahead. On a number of fronts.
That liberals dismiss the ideological swings of 20-plus points from last fall's presidential election in Tuesday's Virginia and New Jersey governor races isn't all that surprising.
And I hold out little hope (OK, none at all) that Democrat Party leaders will reverse course on the reprehensible direction they're taking this country.
But there are a lot of Democrats in both houses of Congress who face elections next year and know they aren't as "bullet-proof" as Nancy Pelosi is in her ultra-liberal San Francisco district.
I assume a good number of those "blue-dog" Democrats would like to keep their jobs and, at the very least, are calculating the length of that large, ferocious dog's chain.
Good sense would dictate doing so.
Similar calculations should be going on across the aisle, though. At least at the highest levels of the GOP.
Just as Ronald Reagan "took back" the Republican Party for conservatives almost 30 years ago, those who hold his tenants, as well as The Constitution, sacred are moving in that direction again.
Yes, liberals spin this as right-wing extremism and charge that there's no room for moderate thought in the Republican Party.
Well, first of all, look at the pictures and video of this summer's tea parties and then the 9/12 march on Washington.
Extremists? More like a mix of veterans, retirees, young parents, everyday middle class folks who had never been part of any kind of political activism but were simply fed up with Washington's unprecedented power grab and gross mismanagement.
And moderate thought? Since when is supporting and voting for liberal idealism "moderate"?
It strikes me that in this decade, particularly, we hear all about how conservatives need to "move more to the center" and be more "big-tent" inclusive and so forth, yet I haven't heard once how Democrats should do anything similar.
My position is that Republicans have, and that precisely has been their problem.
Tuesday's other election that brought national attention, the House race in New York's very moderate 23rd District, bears that out.
The GOP saw fit to push a liberal "Republican" in Dede Scozzafava. The backlash from conservatives, already fed up with RINOs such Arlen Specter (before he jumped parties), Olympia Snowe, et al, resulted in the rapid ascent of a little-known conservative, Doug Hoffman, as a third-party candidate.
While Hoffman's support skyrocketed in the weeks leading up to the election, Scozzafava's dropped lower than whale dung, and she dropped out of the race (and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens, by the way).
Regardless of Owens' four-point win, a message was sent to the GOP hierarchy.
Question is, are they also now measuring chains?
Their future, like that of those "blue-dog" Democrats, almost certainly depends on it.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Just wondering
From the Just Wondering File:
Seems that with each bit of bad economic news we've seen the past six months, our media throws the word "unexpected" into its headlines or, at least, fairly high in the story.
On what planet do these editors/writers reside?
Here's an idea. Try reporting the news every day as it is, as opposed to what will make Barack Obama look best, and you'll be less surprised that we're circling the drain faster every day.
Oh, and please stop quoting Joe Biden. The man is a certifiable loon and makes you look worse than usual when you take him seriously.
*****
Along those same lines, it seems just about every story recently that has to do with unemployment, we're cheering the fact that we've lost 10,000 or 19,000 fewer jobs than we did in the last reporting period.
See? We're coming out of the recession!
Wonder if it will ever dawn on people that with millions already out of a job, there are fewer and fewer workers to lose theirs.
Follow me here. You have 100 employees. You have to cut 20 percent of them to stay in business, which leaves you with 80. A little while later, you have to lay off 20 percent more to remain viable. This time, though, you only have to send 16 employees packing. Yay! Right? Next time, it's only 12 or 13. Nirvana! Right?
Or are you figuring out yet that you're still running out of employees and your business is headed quickly for the shitter?
*****
As expected, a number of Libs blamed the International Olympic Committee's decision last week on George Bush.
Not surprising, since few liberals can string five words together without blaming Bush for something.
A question, though: If Bush, who hasn't been president for nine months, prevented Chicago from getting the bid, how was it Chicago became a finalist while he was in the White House?
*****
If the definition of insanity truly is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, when are we going to slap white jackets on voters in the most destitute cities in America for repeatedly putting Liberals in charge?
Are you listening, Detroit?
*****
Wonder why Congress types don't have time to read the health care reform bill?
*****
Help, help, my liberal friends! I keep hearing from you that "media bias" doesn't exist. Please 'splain to me then why an alleged news organization like CNN would feel the need to "fact check" a comedy skit about Barack Obama on Saturday Night Live.
Try as I might, I just can't seem to remember similar attempts to get to the "truth" after the show's lampoons of George Bush, Sarah Palin, etc.
*****
All those states that readily slurped up all those millions of federal stimulus dollars earlier this year for things like education and extended umemployment benefits are now facing the hard reality that with those stimulus dollars came a mandate to replace them with their own in next year's budget.
Many, if not most, of those states already were facing multi-million dollar deficits.
Guess what? More mandates will be coming down the pike with health care reform and Cap & Trade, just to name two.
Just wondering. Whatcha gonna do?
Seems that with each bit of bad economic news we've seen the past six months, our media throws the word "unexpected" into its headlines or, at least, fairly high in the story.
On what planet do these editors/writers reside?
Here's an idea. Try reporting the news every day as it is, as opposed to what will make Barack Obama look best, and you'll be less surprised that we're circling the drain faster every day.
Oh, and please stop quoting Joe Biden. The man is a certifiable loon and makes you look worse than usual when you take him seriously.
*****
Along those same lines, it seems just about every story recently that has to do with unemployment, we're cheering the fact that we've lost 10,000 or 19,000 fewer jobs than we did in the last reporting period.
See? We're coming out of the recession!
Wonder if it will ever dawn on people that with millions already out of a job, there are fewer and fewer workers to lose theirs.
Follow me here. You have 100 employees. You have to cut 20 percent of them to stay in business, which leaves you with 80. A little while later, you have to lay off 20 percent more to remain viable. This time, though, you only have to send 16 employees packing. Yay! Right? Next time, it's only 12 or 13. Nirvana! Right?
Or are you figuring out yet that you're still running out of employees and your business is headed quickly for the shitter?
*****
As expected, a number of Libs blamed the International Olympic Committee's decision last week on George Bush.
Not surprising, since few liberals can string five words together without blaming Bush for something.
A question, though: If Bush, who hasn't been president for nine months, prevented Chicago from getting the bid, how was it Chicago became a finalist while he was in the White House?
*****
If the definition of insanity truly is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, when are we going to slap white jackets on voters in the most destitute cities in America for repeatedly putting Liberals in charge?
Are you listening, Detroit?
*****
Wonder why Congress types don't have time to read the health care reform bill?
*****
Help, help, my liberal friends! I keep hearing from you that "media bias" doesn't exist. Please 'splain to me then why an alleged news organization like CNN would feel the need to "fact check" a comedy skit about Barack Obama on Saturday Night Live.
Try as I might, I just can't seem to remember similar attempts to get to the "truth" after the show's lampoons of George Bush, Sarah Palin, etc.
*****
All those states that readily slurped up all those millions of federal stimulus dollars earlier this year for things like education and extended umemployment benefits are now facing the hard reality that with those stimulus dollars came a mandate to replace them with their own in next year's budget.
Many, if not most, of those states already were facing multi-million dollar deficits.
Guess what? More mandates will be coming down the pike with health care reform and Cap & Trade, just to name two.
Just wondering. Whatcha gonna do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)