OMG Senator Kyl, you CANNOT be serious! You, a member of our legislature, are upset with Obama playing politics with border security? Whether he did or not, who exactly are you to criticize someone else on this subject?
You’re a member of the same branch of government that, FOR 30 YEARS(!), HAS REFUSED to do immigration reform the way a large majority of Americans want (ie, seal the border … NOW). You all have refused for 30 years to carry out one of your most important constitutional duties and keep our borders secure. You’ve refused to do reform because we citizens won’t let you do it the way YOU want. YOU ALL have been playing political games with sealing the border for all this time and you have the unmitigated gall to complain about someone else doing it too?
I strongly recommend you close your hypocritical pie-hole, roll up your OWN sleeves and help get the senate going on securing the border. THAT, sir, is not only your constitutional duty but is what we The People want as well.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
It's Better For "The People" If The Money's In The Government's Hands. HUH?
I Just heard one of the liberal commentators on the Fox News Channel say that having that $20 Billion put into a fund is much better for gulf coast folks who will suffer because of the spill. Because, otherwise, it would have to sorted out via lawsuits in the courts! OMG! Please read my previous blog, especially the quote from "The Daily Reckoning" and consider why we're supposed to believe we're better off with the government in charge of such a fund!
First of all, having it in a fund will NOT keep the funds distribution out of the hands of lawyers and courts. It didn't for the tobacco fund. It won't for this spill fund. Actual history proves that claim is a flat lie.
If money to redress the damage done by tobacco had gone through the courts isn't it rational to think that we would have been better off? If it had been completely handled in courts, isn't it logical that the only people getting it would be those harmed and lawyers ... with lawyers getting their usual cut of 40% or so? That means those harmed by tobacco would have gotten 60% of the fund's money, not the 5% they actually got with it being handled via a 'fund' set up for it.
To hear anyone try to claim that money to redress the spill's damage is better off in the hands of our government makes me laugh. It makes NO sense whatsoever. When was the last time the government handled money well? Good Grief folks!
First of all, having it in a fund will NOT keep the funds distribution out of the hands of lawyers and courts. It didn't for the tobacco fund. It won't for this spill fund. Actual history proves that claim is a flat lie.
If money to redress the damage done by tobacco had gone through the courts isn't it rational to think that we would have been better off? If it had been completely handled in courts, isn't it logical that the only people getting it would be those harmed and lawyers ... with lawyers getting their usual cut of 40% or so? That means those harmed by tobacco would have gotten 60% of the fund's money, not the 5% they actually got with it being handled via a 'fund' set up for it.
To hear anyone try to claim that money to redress the spill's damage is better off in the hands of our government makes me laugh. It makes NO sense whatsoever. When was the last time the government handled money well? Good Grief folks!
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Who's REALLY Going To Get The $20 Billion?
C'mon folks do you really think that the people who are being hurt by this oil spill will be the ones getting most of the compensation from BP's $20 Billion fund that will be in the hands of our government? History and common sense say no.
Here's what'll actually happen to the fund:
1. Our government will 'borrow' or outright steal much of that money before it is spent and
2. Lawyers and special interests will get most of what's actually paid out.
Don't believe me? Consider the following quote from The Daily Reckoning:
"Remember the giant tobacco settlement? In 1998, the tobacco companies lay down and opened their veins. A quarter of a trillion dollars [$250 Billion ... ten times what's being allocated for this oil spill!] was paid out in a huge class action settlement. The money was supposed to go to redress the damage done by smoking. But $19 out of every $20 found its way, instead, into the pockets of the lawyers, the activists, and the bureaucrats. That is to say - the zombies got it."
If approximately the same thing happens to this fund (and do we have any reason based on actual history to think it won't?), the amount that goes to redress damage done will be in the neighborhood of 5% of that or $1 Billion. Guess who'll get the other $19 Billion?
Just imagine for a minute what's been going on in legal firms in DC and in the gulf states since word of the fund began leaking (no pun intended) out. Who thinks they have NOT made it their top priority to get as much legal fees income out of this fund as possible? Who thinks that, in fact, it won't happen? $20 Trillion of relief? No way! At best, no more than half will find its way to those directly impacted by the spill and be spent on anything one could rationally call 'relief'.
You've heard the expression used to describe what progressives think of problems like this: "Let no emergency go to waste (regarding advancing an agenda as a higher priority than dealing with the emergency)!" It's the unspoken motto of legal firms as well.
Cap and Trade must be passed because THAT is the solution to problems like this? Huh? Who believes that Cap and Trade, if FULLY implemented already would have prevented this spill? C'mon now, how can a TAX prevent a technical and competence problem like this? What WOULD have prevented this spill is BP running its business better and our own federal government NOT allowing them to get away with hundreds(!) of safety violations! Now, like most emergencies, it's just turning into another justification for grabbing more money and redistributing it (the golden ring of progressivism) ... mostly to lawyers, unfortunately!
Here's what'll actually happen to the fund:
1. Our government will 'borrow' or outright steal much of that money before it is spent and
2. Lawyers and special interests will get most of what's actually paid out.
Don't believe me? Consider the following quote from The Daily Reckoning:
"Remember the giant tobacco settlement? In 1998, the tobacco companies lay down and opened their veins. A quarter of a trillion dollars [$250 Billion ... ten times what's being allocated for this oil spill!] was paid out in a huge class action settlement. The money was supposed to go to redress the damage done by smoking. But $19 out of every $20 found its way, instead, into the pockets of the lawyers, the activists, and the bureaucrats. That is to say - the zombies got it."
If approximately the same thing happens to this fund (and do we have any reason based on actual history to think it won't?), the amount that goes to redress damage done will be in the neighborhood of 5% of that or $1 Billion. Guess who'll get the other $19 Billion?
Just imagine for a minute what's been going on in legal firms in DC and in the gulf states since word of the fund began leaking (no pun intended) out. Who thinks they have NOT made it their top priority to get as much legal fees income out of this fund as possible? Who thinks that, in fact, it won't happen? $20 Trillion of relief? No way! At best, no more than half will find its way to those directly impacted by the spill and be spent on anything one could rationally call 'relief'.
You've heard the expression used to describe what progressives think of problems like this: "Let no emergency go to waste (regarding advancing an agenda as a higher priority than dealing with the emergency)!" It's the unspoken motto of legal firms as well.
Cap and Trade must be passed because THAT is the solution to problems like this? Huh? Who believes that Cap and Trade, if FULLY implemented already would have prevented this spill? C'mon now, how can a TAX prevent a technical and competence problem like this? What WOULD have prevented this spill is BP running its business better and our own federal government NOT allowing them to get away with hundreds(!) of safety violations! Now, like most emergencies, it's just turning into another justification for grabbing more money and redistributing it (the golden ring of progressivism) ... mostly to lawyers, unfortunately!
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Economic Recovery Has Hit A Wall? What Economic Recovery; Realistic Economic Considerations
The AP reported an economist saying today that rising unemployment claims last week shows that "We've definitely seen the economic recovery hit a wall". I suppose that IS a surprise for Kool-Aid drinkers who have actually been believing the nonsense that we've been in a recovery.
If you take government hiring out of the picture (which does NOTHING to build up the production of goods and services in the private sector which undergirds a healthy economy), the economy has been going nowhere for 1 1/2 years and has aruably gotten worse, not better.
State and local governments and, therefore, government spending have grown steadily throughout this current worst economy in our lifetimes. And their spending of OUR money has grown at a rate far, FAR beyond anything we've ever experienced in our history. The state and national debt that's been created (and continues to be expanded!) has sucked the life out of the patient.
Fannie, Freddy and the banking industry are still holding all those toxic sub-prime mortgages but in collusion with the US Congress have found clever ways of hiding it so it doesn't LOOK so bad any more. Did you think it just magically evaporated because you don't hear about it? It's still there and is still sucking life out of our economy. GM and other industries now owned by the government will not be able to contribute REAL growth now that they're owned by the Democrats so what economic good have we done by owning them? Unions have benefitted but not our economy. Which really matters more in the long run? C'mon, be realistic!
Realistically now, when has ANY big thing the federal government was responsible for done well? I'm open to proof they've done anything big well. How has Social Security done? Medicare? Medicaid, food stamp program, education? Democrats, mostly progressives, created all of them, expanded all of them beyond reason and proceeded to mismanage ALL of them. They're ALL(!) about to bankrupt the country! Doesn't that tell you ANYTHING? Now they own GM, other companies and the entire health care industry.
All together our government has control over half of our economic engine. How can a rational person honestly say that's not a formula for failure when every big program they've run for the past hundred years is going bankrupt? We're collectively insane to believe this is good and healthy for our country ... economically or with respect to our freedom and way of life our founders gave to us.
The Progressives that are currently running our country and gaining a stanglehold control over the economy and our lives in general are steering us down the EXACT same road that the EU is now try to find an exit from. Do you actually think that's not where we're headed now under this 'regime'? You'd better wake up to actual reality before your inattention has contributed to selling us down the socialistic rathole completely.
American Exceptionalism has created the most successful and generous country in history. While we've created some unfortunate pockets of exceptional wealth, we've done so much good around the world that no one else has come close to. And why have we? Because we were a strongly socialist country? Stop the focus on a few things wrong with our culture before you destroy all the good we've done and could yet do.
The current Progressive leadership in our country is steering us head-on into a "one world government", "one world economy", "one world judicial system", and "one world culture". With the FEW arguably good things that can do it WILL destroy the entreprenurial spirit and zeal that's been at the heart of this American economic engine which has, in turn, pulled our planet's countries through many hard times. NONE of the growing countries that are complaining about us would be enjoying such economic success if America hadn't the economic strength to buy their products. Think about that realistically. Where would they be if our economy had been toast (ie, socialistic) the past 30 years?
Good grief America! How can you live with this progressive, one-world course we're on? How can you accept that? In my lifetime, we're never settled for anything in this country but trying to be the best we can be at the level of the individual citizen. No other country has had the positive can-do spirit that we have. Do you really want to lose that? I guarantee you WILL when this one-world un-exceptional spirit takes firm hold here. There is much, MUCH more at stake here than you realize.
If you take government hiring out of the picture (which does NOTHING to build up the production of goods and services in the private sector which undergirds a healthy economy), the economy has been going nowhere for 1 1/2 years and has aruably gotten worse, not better.
State and local governments and, therefore, government spending have grown steadily throughout this current worst economy in our lifetimes. And their spending of OUR money has grown at a rate far, FAR beyond anything we've ever experienced in our history. The state and national debt that's been created (and continues to be expanded!) has sucked the life out of the patient.
Fannie, Freddy and the banking industry are still holding all those toxic sub-prime mortgages but in collusion with the US Congress have found clever ways of hiding it so it doesn't LOOK so bad any more. Did you think it just magically evaporated because you don't hear about it? It's still there and is still sucking life out of our economy. GM and other industries now owned by the government will not be able to contribute REAL growth now that they're owned by the Democrats so what economic good have we done by owning them? Unions have benefitted but not our economy. Which really matters more in the long run? C'mon, be realistic!
Realistically now, when has ANY big thing the federal government was responsible for done well? I'm open to proof they've done anything big well. How has Social Security done? Medicare? Medicaid, food stamp program, education? Democrats, mostly progressives, created all of them, expanded all of them beyond reason and proceeded to mismanage ALL of them. They're ALL(!) about to bankrupt the country! Doesn't that tell you ANYTHING? Now they own GM, other companies and the entire health care industry.
All together our government has control over half of our economic engine. How can a rational person honestly say that's not a formula for failure when every big program they've run for the past hundred years is going bankrupt? We're collectively insane to believe this is good and healthy for our country ... economically or with respect to our freedom and way of life our founders gave to us.
The Progressives that are currently running our country and gaining a stanglehold control over the economy and our lives in general are steering us down the EXACT same road that the EU is now try to find an exit from. Do you actually think that's not where we're headed now under this 'regime'? You'd better wake up to actual reality before your inattention has contributed to selling us down the socialistic rathole completely.
American Exceptionalism has created the most successful and generous country in history. While we've created some unfortunate pockets of exceptional wealth, we've done so much good around the world that no one else has come close to. And why have we? Because we were a strongly socialist country? Stop the focus on a few things wrong with our culture before you destroy all the good we've done and could yet do.
The current Progressive leadership in our country is steering us head-on into a "one world government", "one world economy", "one world judicial system", and "one world culture". With the FEW arguably good things that can do it WILL destroy the entreprenurial spirit and zeal that's been at the heart of this American economic engine which has, in turn, pulled our planet's countries through many hard times. NONE of the growing countries that are complaining about us would be enjoying such economic success if America hadn't the economic strength to buy their products. Think about that realistically. Where would they be if our economy had been toast (ie, socialistic) the past 30 years?
Good grief America! How can you live with this progressive, one-world course we're on? How can you accept that? In my lifetime, we're never settled for anything in this country but trying to be the best we can be at the level of the individual citizen. No other country has had the positive can-do spirit that we have. Do you really want to lose that? I guarantee you WILL when this one-world un-exceptional spirit takes firm hold here. There is much, MUCH more at stake here than you realize.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Democrats Admit To Wearing Themselves Out Spending Our Money!
Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (June 12th Washington Post): "I think there is spending fatigue" in both houses of Congress. Yes indeed, Americans, we wore ourselves out spending your money. You citizens should be grateful for all that hard work and personal sacrifice and cut us some slack if we have no energy left to work on another state government bailout.
(Ref: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37665192/ns/politics-washington_post/ )
Yep, Mr. Hoyer, all we citizens had to do the past couple of years was figure out a way to get by in this economy that you created (your sub-prime mortgage mess caused this, remember?) and can't fix. The economy is no better off but at least you found a way to spend mountains of money WE DON'T HAVE. Hard work for sure but someone's gotta do it ... and who better, eh? Good job sir. Of course you deserve a break from that. Go for it. In fact, please DO take a break because we won't survive any more of your hard work.
We understand now why you don't want to waste time on a (constitutionally required!) budget and why being the first Congress within memory to punt on that pesky little task is no big deal. Too worn out to bother with a triviality like that, eh? We understand sir. We really have no interest in seeing what all that spending actually did to our national budget. I'm sure you didn't do anything fiscally irresponsible. After all, sir, spending money is more important than understanding whether we can actually afford it. That's how we citizens are supposed to live, right? You ARE modelling how you think we should live, right?
(Ref: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37665192/ns/politics-washington_post/ )
Yep, Mr. Hoyer, all we citizens had to do the past couple of years was figure out a way to get by in this economy that you created (your sub-prime mortgage mess caused this, remember?) and can't fix. The economy is no better off but at least you found a way to spend mountains of money WE DON'T HAVE. Hard work for sure but someone's gotta do it ... and who better, eh? Good job sir. Of course you deserve a break from that. Go for it. In fact, please DO take a break because we won't survive any more of your hard work.
We understand now why you don't want to waste time on a (constitutionally required!) budget and why being the first Congress within memory to punt on that pesky little task is no big deal. Too worn out to bother with a triviality like that, eh? We understand sir. We really have no interest in seeing what all that spending actually did to our national budget. I'm sure you didn't do anything fiscally irresponsible. After all, sir, spending money is more important than understanding whether we can actually afford it. That's how we citizens are supposed to live, right? You ARE modelling how you think we should live, right?
Funny Headline
AP Headline in today's paper: "Congress defeats health help for jobless"
If Republicans had been the ones stopping the health benefits subsidy extension for unemployed people there can be no doubt The Media would make sure we knew it was those bad, evil, thoroughly heartless GOPers. But when Democrats do something like this, the headline makes no mention of the party. Hmmmm.
The reason for Democrats' reluctance to spend more money on this is 'interesting' and is the subject of my next blog.
If Republicans had been the ones stopping the health benefits subsidy extension for unemployed people there can be no doubt The Media would make sure we knew it was those bad, evil, thoroughly heartless GOPers. But when Democrats do something like this, the headline makes no mention of the party. Hmmmm.
The reason for Democrats' reluctance to spend more money on this is 'interesting' and is the subject of my next blog.
Getting Tired Of The "Bush Left Me A $1.3T Debt His Last Year" Lie
Yes, Bush created $1.3T in debt his last year in office ... technically but not actually. Over half of that was for the TARP bailout which was short-term debt, most of which has already been repaid. A couple of points worth mentioning about that:
Fact #1: Bush didn't create the $700B TARP bailout debt ... the Democratic(!) Congress did. Yes, Bush signed the bill but he would have had nothing to sign if the =>Democratic<= Congress hadn't decided to create it. Fact is, Bush couldn't have stopped it if he wanted to so it's irrational (as well as factually incorrect) to call it a debt he created.
Fact #2: It wasn't really debt in the usual sense that our federal government creates debt because the money Congress came up with was A LOAN to credit-worthy companies. It wasn't just 'spent' on infrastructure or other government program. Contrary to most government spending, this money was to be repaid so it was NOT a burden put on Obama that he would have to suffer from.
Fact #3: Not only was it a self-correcting 'debt problem' because it was to be repaid, it's being repaid with interest! So, Obama's budget actually BENEFITS from that loan, not only by getting it repaid automatically(!) but Obama gets the profit from it, not Bush! Do you think we'll ever hear from Obama that he's grateful to Bush for TARP because he (Obama) gets to benefit from the profit? Don't think so! ;-)
Aren't actual facts pesky things? Yeah, they tend to get in the way of a good time when people who like to live in the real world keep pointing them out. The reality is, Democrats have turned $700B of that so-called Bush debt into their debt. It's no longer Bush's debt because his debt has mostly been repaid by those it was LOANED to. Democrats have turned the repaid bailout money into their personal $700B slush fund and think they get to call it Bush's debt! NOT while I'm watching them they don't!
Fact #1: Bush didn't create the $700B TARP bailout debt ... the Democratic(!) Congress did. Yes, Bush signed the bill but he would have had nothing to sign if the =>Democratic<= Congress hadn't decided to create it. Fact is, Bush couldn't have stopped it if he wanted to so it's irrational (as well as factually incorrect) to call it a debt he created.
Fact #2: It wasn't really debt in the usual sense that our federal government creates debt because the money Congress came up with was A LOAN to credit-worthy companies. It wasn't just 'spent' on infrastructure or other government program. Contrary to most government spending, this money was to be repaid so it was NOT a burden put on Obama that he would have to suffer from.
Fact #3: Not only was it a self-correcting 'debt problem' because it was to be repaid, it's being repaid with interest! So, Obama's budget actually BENEFITS from that loan, not only by getting it repaid automatically(!) but Obama gets the profit from it, not Bush! Do you think we'll ever hear from Obama that he's grateful to Bush for TARP because he (Obama) gets to benefit from the profit? Don't think so! ;-)
Aren't actual facts pesky things? Yeah, they tend to get in the way of a good time when people who like to live in the real world keep pointing them out. The reality is, Democrats have turned $700B of that so-called Bush debt into their debt. It's no longer Bush's debt because his debt has mostly been repaid by those it was LOANED to. Democrats have turned the repaid bailout money into their personal $700B slush fund and think they get to call it Bush's debt! NOT while I'm watching them they don't!
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Not Going To Keep Your Current Health Plan After All! What A Surprise!
Many, many Americans are happy with their current health care plans and expressed MUCH concern over losing them under the new government health care program. Do you remember Republican leaders telling us that most of us would lose our coverage? Do you remember President Obama and Democratic legislators claiming that Republicans were lying and only wanted to whip up hysteria over the Plan? Do you remember Democrats in general, the president spefically, PROMISING over and over again that "You can keep your current plan if you want to."?
Guess what folks? Like most of the other claims about cost increase, debt increase, loss of coverage, loss of doctors, and decreased care being Republican scare tactics, the 'promise' you could keep your current plan if you wanted was nothing more than hot air too, according to information trying to be controlled by the White House. Check it out at:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537208/201006111932/Keep-Your-Health-Plan-Under-Overhaul-Probably-Not-Govt-Analysis-Concludes.aspx
At what point do we admit that these people currently in charge of our country don't know the harm they're doing? Or do they know the truth but they're just not willing to tell us?
Guess what folks? Like most of the other claims about cost increase, debt increase, loss of coverage, loss of doctors, and decreased care being Republican scare tactics, the 'promise' you could keep your current plan if you wanted was nothing more than hot air too, according to information trying to be controlled by the White House. Check it out at:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537208/201006111932/Keep-Your-Health-Plan-Under-Overhaul-Probably-Not-Govt-Analysis-Concludes.aspx
At what point do we admit that these people currently in charge of our country don't know the harm they're doing? Or do they know the truth but they're just not willing to tell us?
Friday, June 11, 2010
I'll Go With Data
Latest retail sales info not only shows continuing sales decline, but the biggest decline in 8 months! I thought the president just said the economy is improving. Isn't he the one who just said just a couple of days ago, "The economy is getting stronger by the day"? In fact, yes he is! But he thinks it is because the government is still hiring like crazy and apparently doesn't understand that it's private sector hiring that makes for a good economy.
The liberal media is trying to paint a rosy picture of the economy using the measure of "public sentiment" about (ie, confidence in) the economy which just increased. Well, folks, that's just their 'opinion' isn't it? Based on what? Maybe based on the president just saying everything is fine when it isn't? I think public sentiment is improving because the president and his administration are telling us the economy is just fine now, not because it is improving in fact. Pardon me. Mr. President and the Kool-Aid creating media, but I'll go with actual data over what the Kool-Aid drinking public thinks. Also over what a president says who doesn't appear to understand basic economics.
Pardon me Mr. President, but we need a leader who understands what's really going on, is truthful with us, knows what to do that'll actually work, and is willing to do it. We don't need a cheerleader right now, sir. We need action and positive results.
The liberal media is trying to paint a rosy picture of the economy using the measure of "public sentiment" about (ie, confidence in) the economy which just increased. Well, folks, that's just their 'opinion' isn't it? Based on what? Maybe based on the president just saying everything is fine when it isn't? I think public sentiment is improving because the president and his administration are telling us the economy is just fine now, not because it is improving in fact. Pardon me. Mr. President and the Kool-Aid creating media, but I'll go with actual data over what the Kool-Aid drinking public thinks. Also over what a president says who doesn't appear to understand basic economics.
Pardon me Mr. President, but we need a leader who understands what's really going on, is truthful with us, knows what to do that'll actually work, and is willing to do it. We don't need a cheerleader right now, sir. We need action and positive results.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Playing Games With Employment Numbers and Recession TRUTHS
The Obama administration made much of the latest jobs numbers but it's another example how one can play games with statistics.
431,000 non-farm jobs were added in May. Sounds like a signal that the economy is picking up, eh? Not so fast though! 412,000(!) are temporary(!) government(!) jobs for the 2010 census whose layoff in the fall will send unemployment rates back up.
The administration also bragged about the unemployment rate dropping from 9.9% to 9.7%. Sounds good too. Until you know that 322,000 Americans dropped completely out of the job market which means they're no longer counted as unemployed. They gave up looking for work because there are no jobs available.
The president's quote about the numbers: "The economy's getting stronger by the day ... an indication that our policies are working". HUH? Either he really knows what the numbers mean and is consciously being dishonest or he refuses to recognize the reality of a stagnant economy. At some point he's going to have to face the reality that most of us understand ... adding scads and scads of government jobs doesn't fix a broken economy. In fact, in the absence of help for small businesses, it'll make things worse.
To put the jobs numbers in perspective, consider this. it'll take approximately 292,000 new jobs every month until 2015(!) just to get back to 5% employment that we had before the recession. 125,000 new jobs per month is needed just to keep it at its current stagnant level and keep it from getting worse.
Remember what got us here. It was not Bush policies that caused the recession although his policies made it tougher to recover because of the debt he created. The cause was unequivocally the sub-prime mortgage mess and that was the doing of Democratic meddling in the mortgage business going back to the Clinton years when he, by executive order, forced Fannie and Freddie to make HALF(!) of their mortgages be the toxic(!) sub-prime type. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. both leading democrats, made it worse by pushing sub-prime mortgages even more and denying that they were causing a problem when it was clear to everyone with half a brain (even Bush!) that they were trouble with a capital T. Bush tried to stop sub-prime mortgages but democrats shut his proposals down.
It's at the same time funny and sad that democrats have continuously gotten away with claiming the recession is Bush's and Republican's fault. Never mind that everyone agrees it was the Democrats' own sub-prime mortgage ideas and policies that caused it. Never mind that democrats were in power in Congress (the body responsible for fixing such messes, not the president!) for two years(!) before the recession started. They had two years to fix it and could have if they had wanted to. How they can get away with calling it Bush's fault just amazes me!
Now that the recession is worse than Obama expected and lasting longer than he expected he's still blaming Bush even though democrats were not only responsible for most of it but had two years to do something to fix it before it happened. Politics is interesting, eh? That so many Americans still swallow that nonsense is nothing short of astounding!
So, I think it's time once again to ask President Obama, so how is that government bailout thing working out for you ... and for us? You know, that bailout we agreed to that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%. His lame excuse of "it's Bush's fault" is wearing a bit thin, is it not?
Pardon me, but I've got to say, I told you so my friends.
431,000 non-farm jobs were added in May. Sounds like a signal that the economy is picking up, eh? Not so fast though! 412,000(!) are temporary(!) government(!) jobs for the 2010 census whose layoff in the fall will send unemployment rates back up.
The administration also bragged about the unemployment rate dropping from 9.9% to 9.7%. Sounds good too. Until you know that 322,000 Americans dropped completely out of the job market which means they're no longer counted as unemployed. They gave up looking for work because there are no jobs available.
The president's quote about the numbers: "The economy's getting stronger by the day ... an indication that our policies are working". HUH? Either he really knows what the numbers mean and is consciously being dishonest or he refuses to recognize the reality of a stagnant economy. At some point he's going to have to face the reality that most of us understand ... adding scads and scads of government jobs doesn't fix a broken economy. In fact, in the absence of help for small businesses, it'll make things worse.
To put the jobs numbers in perspective, consider this. it'll take approximately 292,000 new jobs every month until 2015(!) just to get back to 5% employment that we had before the recession. 125,000 new jobs per month is needed just to keep it at its current stagnant level and keep it from getting worse.
Remember what got us here. It was not Bush policies that caused the recession although his policies made it tougher to recover because of the debt he created. The cause was unequivocally the sub-prime mortgage mess and that was the doing of Democratic meddling in the mortgage business going back to the Clinton years when he, by executive order, forced Fannie and Freddie to make HALF(!) of their mortgages be the toxic(!) sub-prime type. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. both leading democrats, made it worse by pushing sub-prime mortgages even more and denying that they were causing a problem when it was clear to everyone with half a brain (even Bush!) that they were trouble with a capital T. Bush tried to stop sub-prime mortgages but democrats shut his proposals down.
It's at the same time funny and sad that democrats have continuously gotten away with claiming the recession is Bush's and Republican's fault. Never mind that everyone agrees it was the Democrats' own sub-prime mortgage ideas and policies that caused it. Never mind that democrats were in power in Congress (the body responsible for fixing such messes, not the president!) for two years(!) before the recession started. They had two years to fix it and could have if they had wanted to. How they can get away with calling it Bush's fault just amazes me!
Now that the recession is worse than Obama expected and lasting longer than he expected he's still blaming Bush even though democrats were not only responsible for most of it but had two years to do something to fix it before it happened. Politics is interesting, eh? That so many Americans still swallow that nonsense is nothing short of astounding!
So, I think it's time once again to ask President Obama, so how is that government bailout thing working out for you ... and for us? You know, that bailout we agreed to that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%. His lame excuse of "it's Bush's fault" is wearing a bit thin, is it not?
Pardon me, but I've got to say, I told you so my friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)