Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Political Games ... Stop It Already President Obama!!!

Republicans have had the second presidential candidate debate scheduled for some time to happen on September 7th at the Reagan Library. So, what day/time did President Obama just pick for his national address to congress to present his jobs plan? Yep, same day, nearly the same time. He wants congress convened at that time and wants air time on national television and radio.

The Reagan Library complex has been making appropriate plans. Lots of people have made travel reservations to be there. Some of the Republican candidates are sitting congressmen and women so what are they to do? And how can The Media cover both? So, why would a president do that?

A president would do it for political theater for one thing. A power trip for another. If you don't like the Republicans stealing the spotlight so much as the candidates have been doing, steal it back by effectively cancelling one of their debates. When Republicans spend a lot of time criticizing your administration, you can find ways to remind them who's the boss and who really holds the power. After all, we can expect Obama to criticize Republicans, especially Bush, yet again. And scheduling a national event on top of Republicans' debates interferes with one of the most energetic and effective Republican campaigns in memory. And it forces Boehner to appear either submissive to or uncooperative with The President. It's a loose-loose deal for Boehner and Republicans. And it's a win-win for Obama, Democrats and The Media.

What's particularly sad about this is that there can be no doubt whatsoever that the president and his administration is finding this enjoyable and amusing. It's kinda sick how they find this kind of behavior amusing or appropriate. They keep forgetting that Obama is the president of ALL the people and OWES citizens respect for the processes we use to choose who's to be our president for the next term.

A pretty relevant question answers any questions about whether he's being nasty in this. If this were the end of Obama's second term which meant that both parties would be having debates, would Obama choose to make a national address smack on the date of a known Democratic candidate debate? The obvious answer to that tells you all you need to know about his motives and his lack of respect for half of our country's citizens.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

$288,000 Per Year Pay Package For A School Superintendent!?!?

I heartily commend this guy for forgoing his salary for the next three years. He and his wife have a wonderful benevolent and supportive attitude. However, there's an interesting aspect of this story that's worth considering. $288,000/year for a school superintendent is a bit steep don't you think? In fact, the Obama administration considers him one of those evil rich people. Here's the story fyi:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44305388/ns/us_news-giving/

It begs the question, just how many people ARE getting rich working in our education bureaucracy? AND retiring with mind-blowing generous retirement benefits that average Americans can't afford for themselves?

While I'm flabbergasted over such pay packages ... for anyone in government where additional benefits abound ... I would be less flabbergasted if our education system didn't produce, on average, the dumbest kids among developed countries. Can you honestly say this makes any sense whatsoever?

The private sector age-discriminates against regular folks (who pay the salary of such bureaucrats) and provides paltry if any retirement packages. Government workers are protected on the the basis of age and earn more in pay and benefits than those who pay for it can only dream about. Regular folks in the private sector are summarily fired for such lack of results while the jobs of government employees are protected even when their results stink. There's something very wrong with this folks. When are we going to have the gumption to fix it?

Saturday, August 27, 2011

This Is Simply SICK!

For about two decades drug companies have been ripping us off in multiple ways. Now it's getting not only ridiculous but purposely(!) inhumane. Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44280296/ns/health-health_care/

I'm not a fan of government control but something needs to be done about drug companies' shenanigans. What would satisfy me is the simplest possible clampdown on practices that purposely drive prices up (to increase profits), especially on drugs that hospitals need.

One of the benefits of Bush's prescription drug program for seniors was supposed to be affordable drugs. Drive the prices of drugs down by driving up the use of them. Which, in turn, would also keep people healthier and reduce the more expensive medical care deriving from people who couldn't afford the drugs needed to keep them healthier. The cost reduction didn't happen. Why didn't it happen? Two reasons.

First, Wall Street greed. Second, government turning a blind eye to what's been going on. Drug companies promised this wouldn't happen. They promised it when Bush implemented Medicare Part D. They promised it again in return for benefits from ObamaCare. Drug companies and distributors lied both times and that should be held criminal. ObamaCare was supposed to fix this!!!

Friday, August 26, 2011

Not So Smart After All

"We are the ones we have been waiting for!" Obama said that on February 19, 2008 in Chicago).

While campaigning and for about six months after he took office, President Obama said he knew better than anyone WHAT was wrong and HOW to fix it. After 2 1/2 years of not accomplishing anything remotely close to what he promised he's saying the problem was worse than he thought.

So, which is it exactly ... they're so smart that fixing this problem would be mere child's play OR they didn't understand it after all? Either they're smart as they claim or, based on results, they're not.

Remember Obama's response when asked, "how can you handle everything you say you want to do and a president's usual responsibilities?" He said, with that smirk he loves to use, "I can multi-task!" Over-the-top smug, arrogant and dismissive I'd say. One can get away with it if the results are good. But what if the results stink as they do? I wonder what he'd say to someone reminding him about his quote and asking him, "Mr. President, if the problem is that easy to understand and fix why isn't it fixed?"

His excuses are myriad:
  1. The problem was worse than we thought (ie, we weren't as smart as we thought!).
  2. All things bad are still(!) Bush's fault (although most of what he says about the Bush tax cuts are outright fabrications manufactured to fit a liberal agenda rather than represent factual truth).
  3. Earthquakes. R U Kidding Me?
  4. Arab Spring. R U Kidding Me?
  5. + Anything else that deflects blame from his administration.  R U Kidding Me?
So, none of the lack of results are his fault. But doesn't his admitted failure to understand how bad the problem was make the bad results his fault? Not only was it his responsibility to understand it and fix it but he said both were mere child's play for a real multi-tasker such as himself.

The utter failure of his policies factually demonstrates his administration's utter failure to understand WHAT was wrong. And demonstrates their collective(!) utter UNsmartness.

Remember the justification for bringing in Geitner to lead the effort to fix what was causing the problem? They believed Wall Street caused the problem and still do. Who better to bring into the administration to fix it than someone working smack dab in the middle of it who was the darling of Wall Street? Obama said there was no one better able to understand and fix the problem. After all, Geitner is smart ... too. Did Geitner fail because he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted? Hardly. He and Obama had totally free hands to do everything they wanted the first two years with the blessings of a Democrat-controlled congress. They could have done anything they wanted. And they did!!!

Geitner's key solution: pass legislation targeting Wall Street. Remember the derivatives reform bill? Maybe, since that didn't fix the problem, it wasn't really the root cause cratering our economy after all?!?! They've had a free hand to use every liberal fiscal tool they wanted to. For two years we 'let' them do everything, literally everything, they wanted to do to fix the economy. What are the results? Light years short of what they said they would accomplish if we elected them and let them do whatever they wanted.

Obama was elected principly based on his declaration of smartness and promises to fix this mess. Obviously he hasn't come close to meeting ANY of his promises to fix the economy. What does that say about how smart his 'elegant' understanding and methods have been? If you're allowed to do ANYTHING you want for four years to fix a company's problem and you don't fix it, what will YOUR employer say and do? Guarantee you another four years to continue doing whatever you want? I don't think so!

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

We're Killing Small Businesses With Mindless And Burdensome Regulations (ie, Government Control)

The opponents of capitalism are getting their way. Does it matter? Well, that depends on how much you value living in a democracy (a republic actually).

The anti-capitalist socialist-progressive agenda is driving up the cost of running a business. Small business owners and people wanting to open small businesses are learning that federal, state and local regulations are driving them away from business ownership and destroying all desire to try it any more. The cost, time and effort required to keep up with all the regulation nonsense makes business ownership beyond undesirable.

Here are some links describing how ridiculous it's becoming:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273586/lemonade-crackdown-iain-murray
http://www.mofreedom.org/2011/07/the-government-war-on-kid-run-concession-stands/

Monetary cost to businesses is $1.75 Trillion?!?! It costs businesses $10,000 per employee to ensure they're in compliance with regulations?!?! And we wonder why businesses don't hire more people, why our unemployment rate is getting so difficult to reduce and why employees don't get raises that keep up with inflation?

While the examples above are not about incorporated businesses, examples for those are no less common and no less insane. That some Democrats and federal agencies were recently seriously considering reclassifying all farm machinery as commercial vehicles is testamony to how regulation-crazed these people are. Here's a couple of links about that kind of control:
http://www.gazettevirginian.com/index.php/news/34-news/3739-proposed-rule-on-farms-called-absurd
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275044/call-department-agriculture-jonah-goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275054/freedom-dies-each-paper-cut-jonah-goldberg

Don't you ask yourself, what nature of person would think any of that is a good idea? In a word, socialist. To socialists control is everything. After all, all forms of socialism including Marxism and communism have as their key feature control or ownership of production and delivery of goods and services. And boiled down to two words, central planning. Today's socialists deny they're socialists; they 'only' want to control (centrally plan) production and services as much as possible for the good of the people. Pardon me?

Do any of these areas I'm covering in this blog sound like steps in a socialist direction? Consider that we have a rapidly increasing amount of regulations so completely lacking in logic that they can only be explained as blind adherence to an objective/agenda regardless whether it actually makes sense for a democracy. The regulations are 'necessary', regardless whether the regulations might destroy entrepreneurship in this country. What are we teaching our lemonade stand entrepreneurs anyway? What have they learned from their brush with big brother? What have they learned about daring to do something useful without government approval?

Comply or else. Heavy-handed, mindless and inane regulations are a key tool of socialists. While we're not a socialist country (yet), there can be no doubt that the progressive agenda is taking us down the path in exactly that direction. Check these out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273350/change-you-can-believe-jonah-goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257302/socialism-back-kevin-d-williamson

I'll have more to say about our socialist direction in future blogs.

In The Federal Debt/Spending Debate/Legislation Democrats Are The Reasonable Ones, Not Republicans. Republicans Are Bad For Not Compromising. Huh?

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in some kind of alternate universe. Democrats and The Media keep complaining about Republicans' intransigence in the recent debt/spending debate/legislation. They're all saying Obama and congressional Democrats practically live to compromise and Republicans are crazy for saying no.

Look back just 2 1/2 years ago when Democrats took control of congress and the White House. Then, ALL Democratic leaders SAID(!), "we won so we get to do it our way". And they proceeded to do exactly that! Do you remember that's EXACTLY what they did in closed meetings without involving Republicans AT ALL? Do you remember President Obama told Tea Party people to "sit down and be quiet"? Do you remember that Democratic compromise was so completely absent that stimulus programs and the health care legislation got zero Republican votes? Republicans were completely shut out of debates and the drafting of some of the most important legislation in memory. Where were the great Democratic compromisers then?

For all of 2009 and 2010, congressional Republicans were allowed almost no voice in legislation, some of it very important to our future.

Now Democrats are receiving resistance to their juggernaut and Republicans are the uncompromising ones? Good grief people! Maybe they should consider that old adage, 'what goes around comes around', stop whining and just do their job in support of ALL the people for a change rather than just the progressive agenda.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Becoming Educated (And, Therefore, Making A Decent Life For You And Your Family) Is A CHOICE!

American kids have three options regarding their high school education:
  1. Not take their education seriously and basically refuse to do the work teachers assign and refuse to attend class.
  2. Be willing to do the work required by teachers and 'get by' with mostly C's and a few B's.
  3. Take personal responsibility to do homework/assignments, learn and become educated.
The best part about choice #3 is that it is 100% free! 'All' it requires is one's personal commitment to do it to the best of one's ability.

These are ALL PERSONAL CHOICES people! Not choices by the parents, teachers, taxpayers, elected officials, or others but PERSONAL CHOICES by the kids themselves. No one can 'make' a child educated if he/she doesn't want to be or isn't at least willing to be. Society cannot GIVE an education to someone who refuses to invest personal effort into it. Only personal commitment to study and learn will accomplish it.

The best teacher in the world can't get his/her students to learn if the kids don't want to learn. Being willing to learn is better. Taking personal responsibility to become as highly educated as possible is best.

What's more, a strong personal commitment to become better educated WILL overcome nearly all of the obstacles and circumstances used by progressives as excuses why poor kids fail in school. Personal commitment WILL overcome poor teachers, old falling apart textbooks, poor parents, hostile peer influence, and family poverty. And it can even overcome learning disabilities (see previous blog).

Those who cannot for whatever reason handle the challenges of public school can at least achieve a GED education. Personal commitment to a GED can overcome even ADD, ADHD and dyslexia. It's been proven time and again. I have personal experience that verifies that's true.

We must put less effort into 'support systems' and teachers unions and put more effort into real accountability on the part of the students themselves. That begins at home by the way. That includes responsibilities (at home and at school), boundaries, rules, consequences, and honestly tough love. We must love our kids enough to do what they need in life, not what they (or progressives) want.

We've tried the progressive approach for 30 years since they created the federal department of education and our education system has stagnated since that very day. Isn't the fact that our kids' test scores have gone from best to worst among developed nations in math and science sufficient proof it hasn't worked? Aren't 30 years of experimenting and utter failure enough to prove we need to reboot our educational system along the lines of kids' personal responsibility? Although, maybe because we no longer exel at math, such reasoning and logic and analysis are now just too difficult to comprehend?

So, stop with the excuses already. The kids and their future family, their parents, their community, and our country will be better off if the kids simply make the responsible choice to become educated. We need to stop giving these kids, their parents and 'the system' excuses for kids' failure. By doing so, we're actually setting them up for the very failure the more progressive among us claim they're trying to prevent. How responsible is that?

Friday, August 19, 2011

The Big Lie: The Poor Simply Need More Things To Be Free Or Highly Subsidized In Order For Disadvantaged Kids To Rise From Poverty

NONSENSE!!!

There can be no doubt that education is absolutely key to staying out of poverty or rising from it in this increasingly technological world. An education is more important than ever and will only become more so.

Progressives claim that the poor simply need the rest of us to subsidize or provide for free the basics of life to famlies of poor kids and it's useful in helping them become better off. If the poor believed that and we provided it, you'd think they'd take the fullest possible advantage of it if the progressives' claims are correct. After all, is a life lived on welfare and handouts and little to no education better lived than one based on at least a high school education? It's a rhetorical question because the answer is unequivocal and obvious.

If giving stuff to poor kids' families is what's best for them, how come they don't take advantage of the best subsidized freebie we have to offer ... a high school education? Nearly half of state budgets now go to pay for education. What do poor families tend to do (more than other groups of people) with this free thing that they need more than most anything else? They have a ridiculously high dropout rate and too many who do graduate didn't take much responsibility to learn their subjects. They're inadequately prepared for life and it is not because K-12 education wasn't free enough ... or that the teachers weren't competent!

An education is THE MOST important change poor families MUST make and the rest of us provide it for free. So why don't poor families really want it? Why don't parents establish priorities, boundaries and consequences that help ensure kids do well in school! If they really don't like poverty they ought to take the fullest advantage possible of the thing their kids need most and which is provided entirely free!

Another very important need is a good diet. Most poor kids can get that for free too ... if they stay in school. Lunches and, in many cases, breakfasts are provided free of charge. In some cases dinner too. In some cases all year round even when schools are on summer break.

Progressives keep saying the poorest among us need more help but poor families/kids take grossly and irresponsibly inadequate advantage of something we spend nearly half our state tax dollars on so that it's free to them.

Doesn't that strongly suggest that free stuff and paternalistic/nanny-state attitudes aren't really the answer? The real answer is taking personal responsibility for one's life, including one's own education. Don't tell me they need even more free stuff when they won't take FULL advantage of the most fundamental free thing they need perhaps the most.

And don't tell me they can't learn because of their environment or life's challenges. I've been in the education system and I've seen young adults get high school equivalency diplomas who came from broken homes, had drug/alcohol problems, had been in jail, were single parents, and had learning disabilities such as ADD, ADHD and even severe dyslexia. The only thing they had that high school dropouts don't have was a personal commitment to become educated. Most of them, including those with ADD and ADHD even went on to two year colleges!

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Media Views World Through A Liberal Lens: Governor Perry Versus President Clinton

The New York Times article carried by MSNBC today regarding whether Perry is nothing more than a benefactor of something (booming Texas economy) that he didn't make happen is funny. Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44154553/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

It's funny because, to the extent it's true, the exact(!) same can be said of President Clinton. The economy Clinton presided over was the result of record revenues resulting from the high tech boom, not Clinton's economic policies. The fiscal record of anyone who had been president then would have looked at least as good. In fact, the high tech boom which Clinton didn't have any hand whatsoever in creating brought in revenue that was absolutely key in allowing congress to balance the budget. And that is the main reason Clinton left office with a balanced budget (unless you're one of those 'insane' people who subtract the social security receipts from that balancing act because they have SS recipient IOU's claiming them in which case his budget was in the red).

The New York Times doesn't think that it's fair for Perry to run on a fiscal record not of his doing but they've had no problem praising Clinton for the past 20 years for also only being in the right place at the right time to benefit from an economic boom not of his doing at all. How many times have we heard about Clinton leaving office with a surplus in his budget? But you won't hear that the high tech boom created it, not Clinton. You also won't hear that Clinton left office with the economy headed into a recession that began in March 2000 while he was still in office and was definitely the result of his fiscal policies (interest rate increases). He handed Bush a recession that, to this day, the New York Times irrationally gives Bush credit for.

I can't make up my mind whether this story is very funny or very sad.

Monday, August 15, 2011

The Truth About Entitlement Reform And Lies About Real Reform

Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274363/obamas-entitlement-promises-andrew-stiles

Two things worthy of noting. First, President Obama's own statement that no amount of tax increases will fix the problem. So, why aren't reforms and spending reductions getting more attention by Democrats?

Second, Democrats only talk about entitlement reform that actually reduces cost. And they only do that most reluctantly. Republicans have been presenting real reform in such legislation as the Ryan budget proposed earlier this year. Of course Democrats always vote against it.

By the way, one entitlement reform that is never mentioned is the sub-prime mortgage mess. The 'wall street' aspect of this was 'fixed' by the Dodd-Frank bill but serious economists have torn it apart as not only ineffective but counter-productive. 2,400 pages of nonsense basically. But the 'mortgage mess' resulting from Democrats' sub-prime mortgage gluttony is still out there helping to drag our economy down. (Yes, a government-backed mortgage given to people who can't afford and who think they 'deserve' it is the very definition of 'entitlement'.)

Sunday, August 14, 2011

As Goes Not-So-Great Britain, So Go We!!! :-(

Mark Steyn described the point in my previous blog really, really well:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274492/new-britannia-mark-steyn

Before you yawn over what's happening in Britain regarding the riots, please understand it matters to us! Consider for a rational moment whether we're headed down the same socialist path and whether you really are okay with going where they are now.

There's no substitute in a civil society for personal responsibility. Responsibility for one's life and livelihood. Toward one's family. Toward one's community. Toward one's country. Together citizens can do what needs to be done better, faster, cheaper than what government is proving more and more they're incapable of doing without causing more problems than they fix.

I get SO TIRED of our so-called representatives' claims about "unintended consequences" resulting from their increasingly over-reaching socialistic endeavors. They say they're doing it all for The People when in fact they're only trying to buy votes in the next election rather than doing what will keep our country economically healthy. They implement programs that do half as much as they promised and cost twice as much. Then, after the costs spiral out of control, they tell us, "We know it costs way more than we said but you don't understand, you have to pay for it now"! Do you really think all those entitlement programs that are bankrupting our country are good for us? What our government is doing (and how so many Americans eat it up!) is simply SICK! And seriously damaging to our culture just as is playing out in Britain.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

C'Mon Folks! The Rioters' Own Actions In England Prove It Has Nothing To Do With 'The Rich' OR Cuts In Welfare

All you have to do to understand where the England rioters are coming from is watch their actions. What matters in things like this is what people DO, not what they SAY.

If they're upset, as most of them say, at 'the rich' then why are they going after middle class small businesses rather than the truly rich? Few of those small business owners whose lives the rioters are ruining are among the rich against whom the rioters rail. Those small business owners and their ancestors built their businesses the honest way. Hard work and personal sacrifice. Young people ought to have as a goal, letting their skills and hard work make a better life for themselves rather than living off the largess of taxpayers.

The rioters completely don't understand or, more likely, don't care(!) who created the debt and welfare problems. It was those in government who created unsustainable programs and who spent themselves senselessly into national debt. Members of Parliament did this, not ANY small business owner whose livelihood they are destroying.

Above all, one only has to watch videos of what they're doing to understand it's anarchy at work among the rioters, not protesting or making a point. Protesting and fighting the police is one thing (a more accurately delivered message) but what does breaking into small businesses and stealing the owners' inventory have to do with telling the government or the truly rich that they're mad at them?

The rioters are clearly using Britain's economic problems as an excuse to behave badly and fulfill their desire to have big screen TV's without having to work for them like responsible adults do. If they actually worked for all that 'stuff' and, by that, contribute to Britain's economy in a positive way like mature, responsible adults, the country would be better off. Trying to destroy the middle class's ability to contribute to the national economy is counterproductive to making things better because it's ONLY a successful middle class that can produce the welfare they desire more of.

Stupid, senseless, immature, irresponsible, and completely ignorant behavior. Anarchy doesn't work to make things better. Never has. Never will. Anarchy does the opposite of what the rioters claim they want to achieve. Their actions are in direct opposition to correcting what they claim is wrong with the country. They're not attacking the people who created the problem. They're attacking the ONLY people who make things better, without whom Parliament can't fix anything wrong with their economy.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

The REAL ROOT CAUSE Of Our Recession And Why Dems' Fix Doesn't Do Anything Good About It

Democrats are still in denial what caused this recession (sub-prime mortgage push by Democrats). Worse, their 'fix' for it doesn't address the root cause and mostly adds to our problems by way of excessive regulation and mindless growth of our federal government. Here is one of the most intelligent analyses I've seen to date in case you're interested in facts and truth for a change:

The challenge for Americans: will congress and our president come to their senses and do what MUST be done instead of what their special interests tell them to do?

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Why Doesn't 'The Media' Understand The DOW Has Nothing To Do With Average Americans' Economic Reality?

The DOW has been on a general upward course since this recession hit. It is now about 50% higher than just before the recession began. The Media in general seems to think the current fairly high DOW number represents a healthy economy. They clearly don't get it.

The stock market represents what investors are doing. Those people are making money off rises and dips in the market all the time. In general they've done very, VERY well for the past 3 years while most average Americans' finances and job situations are not good at all. Unemployment remains above 9%. Retired Amercians have lost huge amounts of retirement funds and net worth (much of which is tied up in their home which is now worth approximately 40% less than it was three years ago).

The stock market is NOT reality for us peons!!! What does or does not happen to the stock market as a consequence of our country's rating being lowered from AAA to AA+ doesn't matter to me much. What DOES matter is that our wonderful(?) leaders have decided to keep interest rates at historical lows for the NEXT 2 YEARS! That means that my investments will continue returning less than I need to live on.

Retired people tend to keep investments in secure things. Most of such secure investments depend heavily on the prime rate which we now hear will be stuck at historical lows. We did little to cause the recession but we're paying a big price in loss of income and loss of net worth. Our savings are significantly responsible for keeping this economy from going totally under and are now responsible for keeping it afloat. The thanks we get? Basically the proverbial middle finger.

Our leaders want people to borrow more (to spur the economy based on the insane reasoning that more(!) debt is the solution to our problem) so they're keeping the prime lending rate extra low. They're doing the exact wrong thing for everyone, especially for retirees.

To those in congress and the White House we say thanks for nothing!

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Building On Previous Blog ... What Do Obama's Move And Nods Toward The Center Tell Us About Progressivism?

Did anyone notice that Obama dropped his appeal for more spending to fix our economic woes? Don't you remember that the budget he sent to congress about three months ago failed to get a single democratic vote because, in it he wanted to double down on spending that he'd been doing for 2+ years?

Did you notice he's now talking actual spending cuts as if he knew and had been promoting that all along when in fact (and until barely more than a month ago) he had been pushing hard not for a little more spending but a lot more spending?

So, he got elected running as a far-left progressive and he's moving to the center on government spending as time for his second term approaches. Why is he doing that? He has been, if nothing else, a very partisan progressive to the core all his life. He's no doubt doing it to save his presidency, not because he believes it'll help the economy. And it's what progressive presidents do. Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273429/obama-out-options-jonah-goldberg

Why do strongly progressive presidents run toward the center just before their second term? Because they've just spent the better part of their first term proving once again(!) that progressive economic policies don't make for a healthy economy and they most certainly don't fix one that's ailing. How many times do we need to see the same results before we understand it doesn't work no matter how charismatic and 'smart' the president is?

"We are the ones we have been waiting for!"? Are you kidding me? How's that working out?

Even An Obama Advisor Understands FDR's New Deal Approach Wasn't Working Very Well

Progressives have been trying to convince us for 2 1/2 years under Obama's presidency that government-created job programs fix an ailing economy. A job is a job is a job to them. Not so fast.

How has it worked out so far for Obama? Stimulus after stimulus, spending on top of record spending has gotten us where exactly in the 2 1/2 years his policies have been pursued? 9.2% unemployment 2 years after full implementation of his economic policies and an economy that's no better off than it was 2 1/2 years ago.

By this time after full implementation of the Bush approach on May 28, 2003, unemployment was back down to 4.4% and federal revenue was a record(!) $2.5 Trillion. How can a rational person say these differences don't matter and that Bush's economic policies failed? To do so defies logic and denies factual truth.

Obama's approach is completely in line with FDR's. Remember the New Deal and government 'works' programs? Before you regurgitate the progressive history-twisting line that FDR's progressive programs worked, check out a quote from one of Obama's own advisors, Larry Summers: "Never forget that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15% and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed."

Of course, conservatives, especially Tea Party types have been saying that for years but when a key advisor to Obama, the most progressive president in America's history, says FDR's highly-touted New Deal government-created jobs progressivism didn't work, it deserves some consideration by Americans, including supporters of Obama's approach doesn't it? After all, Obama has been hard at work proving all over again that it doesn't work.

At what point do we seriously consider that incentives to spur on private sector employment instead of government jobs work best, not by a little bit but by far? Bush and FDR ... and now Obama(!) ... have proved that's true. Or do you irrationally think that historical fact is irrelevant?

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Environmentalism and Police State Lunacy

Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43986826/ns/us_news-weird_news/

The 'authorities' who inflicted this nonsense on those people are wrong. It wasn't just a 'mistake'. It was a STUPID error in judgement and a total failure to apply common sense. This is what happens when government takes it upon itself to control things too much. Common sense goes right out the window and they blindly 'regulate' what people do. It's just the tip of the iceberg in big brother government and environmentalism running amok.

As government continues getting bigger and regulation (especially environmental regulation) continues getting more encompassing and complicated we'll see far worse lunacy than this.

Monday, August 1, 2011

Maybe Ms. Pelosi's Statement Is Not So Unusual After All

Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's statement (ref. immediately preceding blog) isn't all that unusual for today's progressives. I just recalled that President-Elect Obama told Europeans on his tour there prior to his election, "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" which is, indeed, messianic too. So, I guess Ms. Pelosi is just being consistent, eh?