Soylent Green Snake

Hillary Clinton has a new economic plan. In essence, government should get actively involved to make everyone’s wages higher.

Government control of the means of production…hmmm…I’ve heard that somewhere before… 🙂

Paul Krugman, writing in The New York Times, endorses the idea. There was a time when Krugman dismissed rhetoric like Clinton’s as economic quackery. These days he’s trying to sell the same snake oil as the politicians.

The Agenda is The Agenda. And Class Warfare is one of the great succors or The Left. They can’t conceive of life without it.

Here is what economists know and it’s backed by mountains of research. Employees tend to get paid their marginal product – the value they add to final output.

In a competitive market this is almost a truism. Wages are not a gift. They are not at one level, but could have been substantially higher or lower. They are what they are because of the employees’ skills and the market value of what they produce.

Now suppose that were not the case. Suppose there was a firm that paid employees more than their marginal product. That would mean the firm is collecting less from customers at the margin than it is paying out in wages. The firm can try to raise prices to cover the deficit, but then it would lose sales to rivals whose costs are lower and it would eventually go out of business. Or it could cover the deficit with lower profits. But then the investors would fire the manager and hire someone who gets the wages right and provides a market rate of return.

Suppose that there was a firm that paid employees less than their marginal product. In that case, rival firms would hire the employees away – since they are worth more than what they are being paid.

To summarize: A firm that pays workers more than they are worth cannot survive because it cannot match the prices and the rate of return to investors of its rivals. A firm that pays workers less than what they are worth, cannot survive because it will not be able to retain its employees. Competition in the marketplace tends to determine wages; there is a definite logic to what people are paid; and it has nothing to do with miserliness or generosity.

Therefore, Liberals want to eliminate competition thus everyone is equal and their are no winner and no losers. Just like the liberal version of youth sports where no one actually loses.

Competition is evil. So it must be destroyed. Competition is “unfair” and full of nothing but “inequality”.

Also, economists know there is no free lunch.

Unless, they are Liberal adherents to The Agenda, then they are all about the perception of “the free lunch” or the “greedy” capitalist who is a Scrooge and miserly old white privilege asshole.

If one person has a gain – in the absence of any increased production — someone else must endure a loss.

And since that is “unfair” Liberals demand everyone to be equal which holy unrealistic, but then again so are Liberals.

And we know a lot about those losses. For example, when government forces employers to pay higher wages, employers react by reducing other types of spending on their employees – less training and fewer fringe benefits, such as health insurance.

Close down and move to Mexico…Offer less hours of work at that higher pay, say 29. 🙂

On balance it appears that employees are left worse off. After a survey of the literature, economist Richard McKenzie wrote:

[I]f the minimum wage were raised to $10.10 an hour, for example, the estimated 16.5 million workers earning between $7.25 and $10.10 could lose non-monetary compensation more valuable than the $31 billion in additional wages they are expected to receive.

But Liberal work on perception, not reality. So that shiny new toy in the window look good from the outside, but once you own it and start playing with it, you find out just how cheaply made it was and it begins to fall about.

But don’t worry, The Liberal has that covered to! It’s called “victimization” where you are the victim of the evil, greedy capitalists! It’s not your fault you fell for their dog crap hook-line-and-sinker, it’s their fault!

How amazing is that. You took a bite of the apple of socialism and it the snake bit you, but it’s still the snake’s fault! And all you need is for the Liberal to come in and tell you that it was the snake fault and that if you take another bite it will STILL be the snake’s fault so why not go ahead…

In defense of Hillary, Krugman writes:

[E]mployers always face a trade-off between low-wage and higher-wage strategies — between, say, the traditional Walmart model of paying as little as possible and accepting high turnover and low morale, and the Costco model of higher pay and benefits leading to a more stable work force. And there’s every reason to believe that public policy can, in a variety of ways — including making it easier for workers to organize — encourage more firms to choose the good-wage strategy.

Liberalism a snake charmer, not a snake oil salesman, says the snake oil salesman.

But here’s the thing. What works for Costco workers may not work for Walmart workers. And in any event does any rational person think that government should make decisions about these tradeoffs rather than competitors in the marketplace?

Yes, Liberals. 🙂

The other day The New York Times had two contrasting editorials on its op ed page. One, by Paul Krugman, called for a higher minimum wage and other labor market interventions. The other, by the chairman of Starbucks and his wife, Howard and Sheri Schultz, noted that:

[There are] 5.6 million people ages 16 to 24 in America who are not employed or in school. While some have lost hope in this population … we believe these young people represent a significant untapped resource of productivity and talent. With the right support and training, they can benefit our businesses and our communities.

The Schultz’s have formed a foundation and with the aid of other foundations and high profile companies their goal is to “provide jobs, internships and apprenticeships to 100,000 young people over the next three years.”

Although they don’t say so, their editorial clearly implies that the wage that is paid to these youths doesn’t really matter. What matters is they learn the life skills of showing up for work on time, following orders, conducting themselves in appropriate ways, etc. If they learn those skills, their wages will rise through time without any help from government.

Krugman, Clinton and others on the left say there is no economic harm in raising the minimum wage and in adopting other polices that close off job opportunities for those at the bottom of the income ladder. In making this statement they are ignoring the social costs. The Schultz’s write:

[T]he cost of youth disconnection — including health care, public assistance and incarceration — was $26.8 billion in 2013 alone. Quite literally, we can’t afford to do nothing.

And then there are the personal costs, which do not easily lend themselves to calculation in terms of dollars and cents.

I suspect these costs are not of much interest to either Krugman or Clinton. (John C Goodman)

Snake Oil is how much a barrel?

Let’s not forget that those who have their wage increased suddenly find themselves no longer “qualified” to receive governmental benefits and pay higher taxes out of that higher wage.

We’ve already seen that where the “newly waged” want fewer hours so that they don’t lose their benefits.

Which probably explains why they don’t understand the reasoning behind how a wage gets set.

Secondarily, many unions tie their wages to the minimum wage level by some multiplier or other offset. Which means that costs will be going up in those businesses as well.

Krugman and others are dishonest for continuing to promote wage pandering.
But Liberals are never about the truth, but about what gains them power. And keeping people ignorant and jealous plays right into that.
(Townhall)

Keep them stupid, mad, and needy, that’s the Liberal plan. It keeps the Liberals pundits, advocates, and Politicians on their own gravy train.

Liberal version of Soylent Green, just grind them up and feed them back to themselves and make them happy for you and made at everyone else.

Going all WoodWard & Bernstein

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

“Dangerously close to advocacy”?  That’s how CBS News apparently views the work of a reporter who is doggedly seeking truth about an issue of enormous importance that many of her colleagues have scrupulously ignored.

So going all “Woodward and Bernstein” and relentless pursuing a story is now a bad thing and it gets you the shiv at work if you’re doing it wrong.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.

Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

So going all “Woodward and Bernstein” on Big Brother is not politically correct and can get you branded as an “extreme partisan”. 🙂

[The media establishment and liberals] can’t stop conservative media from existing, but they can ghettoize it as illegitimate and “partisan” in a way that their own partisan garbage isn’t….Skepticism about Benghazi is fine for the wingnuts at Fox, but bringing such unhelpful nonsense into an “impartial,” i.e. pro-Obama, outlet like CBS risks lending credence to the GOP’s accusations. The proper line to take on Benghazi is to dismiss the new hearings with a sneer, a la Joe Klein, or, in the case of “impartial” news coverage, to dismiss them more lightly by referencing Hillary’s long-ago whining about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to discredit the Clintons. “Going where the story leads” is unhelpful to liberalism in this case, ergo it’s advocacy by definition.

Attkisson’s reporting makes Benghazi harder to pigeonhole as a right-wing conspiratorial obsession.  CBS News owns a(n unjustified) platinum reputation in lefty media circles, rendering one of their correspondent’s tireless work on an unhelpful subject doubly unhelpful.  Thus, the suits are marginalizing her and questioning her integrity, accusing her of walking dangerously close to the activism line.  Shameful.

See BS News, the home of Big Brother, not Winstons.

Who’s tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers…

So would there be so much coverage of this Benghazi hearing if John Kerry had been SecState at the time?

Message one: Only out-of-touch old white guys and nutty conservatives care about this story.  The Chick-fil-A reference was a dead giveaway, just in case the other descriptors were a little too subtle.  Message two: Republicans are only beating the drum on Benghazi (you know, that unresolved terrorist attack that killed a sitting ambassador and three other Americans) to damage Hillary Clinton ahead of 2016.  In other words, this is just another political food fight, America.  Feel free to move along.  

The mainstream media is corrupt. (Guy Benson)

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Testimony given Wednesday on Capitol Hill by Greg Hicks, Benghazi whistleblower and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, exposed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a liar.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya.”  This simple statement of fact explicitly and forcefully contradicts the White House’s dishonest “online video” spin, which was repeated ad nauseam

Hicks, who was on the ground in Libya on September 11, 2012, said Clinton called him around 2 a.m. from Washington to ask “what was going on.” Hicks responded by saying the consulate was under attack. He never told her about a protest outside the consulate because there wasn’t one.

“The only report that our mission made through every channel was that this was an attack,” Hicks said. “No protest.”

In his recollection of events the night of September 11, 2012, Hicks stated that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens called him and said, “We are under attack,” just before he was brutally murdered and dragged through the streets. Again, no mention of a protest.

“The video was not instigative of anything that was going on in Libya,” Hicks said. “We saw no demonstrations related to the video anywhere in Libya.”

Hicks also noted that Twitter feeds were being monitored and showed Ansar al-Sharia took credit for the terrorist attack and had control of the hospital where Ambassador Stevens was taken.

Despite knowing Benghazi was a terrorist attack from the very beginning, after all she was briefed by Hicks who was on the ground, Clinton shamelessly stood in front of the flag draped caskets of dead Americans and blamed a YouTube video anyway.

“We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless and totally unacceptable.”

Shortly after, when violence in the Middle East was raging, President Obama in partnership with Hillary Clinton spent $70,000 in taxpayer money on a commercial that aired on Pakistani television apologizing for the “video.”

The American Embassy in Islamabad, in a bid to tamp down public rage over the anti-Islam film produced in the U.S., is spending $70,000 to air an ad on Pakistani television that features President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denouncing the video.

The State Department said Thursday the embassy had compiled brief clips of Obama and Clinton rejecting the contents of the movie and extolling American tolerance for all religions into a 30-second public service announcement that is running on seven Pakistani networks. Obama and Clinton’s comments, which are from previous public events in Washington, are in English but subtitled in Urdu, the main Pakistani language.

Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the aim was to get the messages to the widest possible audience in Pakistan, where tens of thousands of protestors angry about the film tried to reach the U.S. embassy before being turned back by Pakistani police. She said embassy staffers had decided the ads were the best way to spread the word. The seven networks have a potential audience of 90 million people, she added.

“It is in response to a video.” -Jay Carney September 14, 2012.

Ambassador Rice on 5 Talk Shows blamed it on a Video.

President Barack Obama blamed the irrelevant video in front of the world at the United Nations. Not to mention, Obama  described the man who made the video, who is still in jail after being dragged out of his house and arrested in the middle of the night, a “shadowy character.

“It was a crude and disgusting video. I have made it clear the United States government had nothing to do with this video.”

Hillary Clinton lied, Rice lied, Barack Obama lied, Jay Carney lied, the Obama administration lied. The men in Libya were left to die as military forces were told to stand down.

Then the most infamous comment, by Hilary, “What difference does it make?”

To the left, the cover-up and the whitewashing and the marginalizing of it means everything!

Especially to Big Brother Heir-Apparent President Hilary Clinton.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/08/hillary-clintons-big-benghazi-lie-n1591097

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html

So, the lesson here is that the prized “Woodward and Bernstein” crusading “journalism” has been turned on it;s head it order to protect it’s Big Brother’s own ass instead. And anyone who does anything different is an extremist partisan and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Don’t Believe Him, he’s an Extreme Partisan!

Much Like “Vote for me, the other guy’s an asshole!”.

It says nothing about the speakers extreme partisanship, nor are you supposed to ask. For asking, is a thoughtcrime citizen. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 

3 Rules

“You know, he left out some facts. His speech was more like a cowpie of distortion,” Obama said to hoots of laughter from a crowd of 2,500 inside the Knapp Center at the Iowa State Fairgrounds.

Very Mature. Very Presidential.

Politics Rule #1: Get Elected.

Rule #2: Get Re-elected.

Rule #3: Everything else must work for rule #1 and 2.

“Five trillion in new tax cuts? That is like trying to put out a prairie fire with some gasoline,” the president said.

Yeah, $6 Trillion in spending and millions out of work has worked out very well for all of us so far.

“What happens is the Republicans run up the tab, and then we’re sitting there, and they’ve left the restaurant and then they point, ‘Why’d you order all those steaks and martinis?’ ” he said. “What he did not also tell you was that after inheriting a trillion-dollar deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law, so now I want to finish the job.”-Obama

See yesterday’s blog to discover how dishonest this line of attack is. But it’s not like they care.

“But what my opponent didn’t tell you is that federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” he said.

Again, see yesterday’s blog to see just how dishonest this truly is.

But since it’s the only “economic” meme he can run on because the honest truth is not something he or the liberal media will talk about it’s all he’s got.

And he’s praying you are stupid enough to believe him.

Like in 2008 if he tells the same lies over and over again the Liberal Media will make it the truth.

In his 1995 memoir “Dreams of My Father,” Obama writes about smoking pot almost like Dr. Seuss wrote about eating green eggs and ham. As a high school kid, Obama wrote, he would smoke “in a white classmate’s sparkling new van,” he would smoke “in the dorm room of some brother” and he would smoke “on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids.”

He would smoke it here and there. He would smoke it anywhere.

But he was never arrested.  He got into Ivy League Schools and everything. And it’s not supposed to be spoken of, except by partisan “racists”.

But bring up an alleged “bullying” 50 years ago that even the relatives of the now-deceased “victim” says is crap is very,very newsworthy.

So once again, a Liberal can get away with anything and say anything and if you object that’s YOUR fault.

“When they were chooming (smoking weed) in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”“When they were chooming in a car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

The Liberals can go on for days about Romney as a “bully” and a “cultist” and a corporate raider but if you go here, in Obama’s own words and from people who knew him then and watch a Liberals blood pressure explode into apoplectic fits.

BAIN Bane

Much like the silly episode with Bill Maher where Obama and liberal started a “War on Women” over calling Sandra Fluke a slut and then taking $1,000,000 from a guy (Maher) who has said vastly worse things and poo-pooed any hypocrisy, Obama is at it again.

As mentioned yesterday, BAIN Capital the new Boogeyman of the Left for 2012, gave more in campaign donations previously to Democrats over Republicans.

Well, they’ve also given to Obama.

Though the Obama campaign has repeatedly attacked Mitt Romney for his career at Bain Capital, President Obama still accepted $7,500 in campaign contributions from two Bain executives. His campaign press secretary, Ben LaBolt told The Politicker the president has no intention of giving the money back.

“No one aside from Mitt Romney is running for President highlighting their tenure as a corporate buyout specialist as one of job creation, when in fact, his goal was profit maximization,” said Mr. LaBolt.  ”The President has support from business leaders across industries who have seen him pull the economy back from the brink of another depression, manufacturing and the auto industry revived, and support his agenda to build an economy that lasts where America outinnovates and outeducates the rest of the world and economic security for the middle class is restored.” (Solyndra, his tireless tirades against fossil fuels, $6 Trillion Dollars, and Pro-Union kickbacks, and other things like them being a great example).

Don’t so as I do, do as I say. I can do anything I want, you can’t.

“But that’s not what my job is as president. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some.”– Obama

As long as you do it my way and pay homage to my greatness or it’s the highway for you. I pick the winners and losers.

You are either an Apparatchik or you’re not.

Speaking at TPI Composites, which manufactures wind blades for wind turbines and employs 700 people, the president told the crowd that extending the tax credit is “a big deal.”

“This industry — thanks in large part to some very important tax credits — has now taken off,” the president told the crowd largely made up of TPI workers. …

However, he said “that progress is in jeopardy. If Congress doesn’t act, those tax credits I mentioned – the ones that helped to build up the wind industry and bring it here to Newton – will expire. If Congress doesn’t act, companies like this one will take a hit. Jobs will be lost.”(townhall)

Just Solyndra, Light Squared and all the other “green” boondoggles….Ooops! Can’t mention that to a liberal without getting attacked by the pit bull of  inconvenient truths.

I did a bit on wind turbines awhile back and how farcical they are. But it makes Liberals “feel” good so it must be better than nasty, evil fossil fuels. 🙂

And if, as the President claims, the wind industry has really “taken off,” why for pity’s sake does it need more subsidies? Because it hasn’t taken off, and the industry needs these subsidies to stay healthy. Ergo, The American Taxpayer is paying for unproductive jobs in a politically-favored industry, at the opportunity cost of actual economic growth and the creation of real, productive jobs. (townhall)

But you won’t here that from the Liberal Media.

After all, after every Solar plant goes under that got massive taxpayer subsides, it’s always the Chinese Government’s fault.

Liberals are never to blame for ANYTHING. It’s ALWAYS some one else’s fault.

The American Wind Energy Association’s 2011 annual report and related documents were quietly posted on the Internet last week by a wind power opponent upset by windmills’ negative impact on birds. The documents show the lobby’s efforts to frame its opponents as tax hikers, and to use opposition research against subsidy critics, some of whom it classifies as “libertarian free-market fundamentalists.” …

“AWEA’s message and champions have largely resided on the left,” the Revolution Agency stated in a strategy memo included in AWEA’s 2011 annual report. So the 2010 elections required AWEA to “pivot” from “green energy and Obama to jobs, manufacturing, business investment, and Conservative Republicans,” while still “taking care not to erode base support from the left.”

One core problem, the memo explained: The “debt-strapped, partisan, and Tea Party-infused Congress is reflexively skeptical of subsidies and many outside the windy red states have an inherently negative sentiment toward renewable energy.” …

AWEA plans “continued deployment of opposition research through third parties to cause critics to have to respond,” the battle plan states. In other words: When people attack AWEA’s subsidies, AWEA might feed an unflattering story on that person to some ideological or partisan media outlet or activist group.

Ahh, the seedy underbelly of the DC lobbying-scene. It’s kinda’ cute that greenie-hippie types think that by abiding by the dictates of environmental trendiness, they think they’re somehow ‘fighting the man’ and thwarting corporate/establishment interests. ‘Cause in reality, the environmental movement boasts one of the most intractable lobbies around.

Ever tried to get an Environmentalist to “compromise”. They don’t even understand the concept and their lobbyists are hard core. But they are Gods Chosen compared to evil Oil, Coal and Gas Lobbyists. So watch out and shut up!

If a form of renewable energy can start up its own ventures in the private sector and make a product that people willingly buy, then great! But as for the federal government ostensibly “making an investment” on behalf of public welfare, what incentives do bureaucrats have to be judicious in their “investments” when they’re gambling with other people’s money?

And losing repeatedly.

Government’s job shouldn’t be to tilt the field for one team or another, but to guarantee a level playing for everyone. (Hot air)

But liberals will continue to tilt at windmills because it makes them feel “good” and like any good Choomer it’s all about that next high.

Obama and Company will still take their money though.

Remember, there are only 3 rules. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The DNA of Dishonesty

Another great example of the Left’s Orwellian love affair with doublespeak occurred yesterday on America Live on Fox.

The Topic same sex/gay marriage. Our little cherub of Orwell said that 80% of Americas were for “marriage” so he didn’t see the problem.

When pressed he said same sex/gay/straight, it’s all marriage so he didn’t see any distinction and neither should you.

Much like “migrant” for illegal aliens the language is dishonest and manipulative.

Did you know that the “improving” jobs figures the Media touts are dishonest at best?

Simple, really, you announce the figures have gone down on Thursday when they come out. Then before the next Thursday when the figures are revised UPWARDS you just don’t mention that and when they go down again on the next Thursday you have “growth” and “improvement”.

The fact that it has been revised UPWARDS the last 47 weeks  (59/60 weeks total) straight is totally unimportant to you if you’re liberal or Obama.

And the love fest on the Mainstream Media can continue.

Sen. Patrick Leahy: I trust that he will be Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch. It is the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Supreme Court of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, not the Supreme Court of liberals or conservatives. It’s the Supreme Court of the United States and the Chief Justice is the Chief Justice of the United States, all 320 million of us.

Leahy suggesting that a justice voting based on their personal beliefs, against Obamacare, would be committing conservative judicial activism (aka voting against ObamaCare is “activism”).

“The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.”-Sen Leahy.

Mind you this is the same guy who after the Citizens United case decision didn’t go the Unions way:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, ripped the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to buy political ads attacking candidates, calling it the “most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore.”(politico).

And we all know THAT was partisan decision and the Liberals obsess about to this day. It’s an open would that the Democrats are constantly pouring salt in.

The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not, to override the law and constitutional legal understandings that have been settled since the Great Depression, and to overturn the actions of the people’s elected representatives in the Congress.  I was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress, and of how dismissive they were of the months of work in hearings and Committee actions and debate of amendments and motions and points of order on the Senate and House floors before the measure was enacted. (Leahy’s own website)

You mean the partisan “summits”, the legal maneuvering,The bribes and horse trading, the distortions, the “pass the bill to find out what’s in it”, the exclusion of opposition and the most partisan vote in US History???

Oh that’s right, when Liberals do it it’s “fair”. 🙂

  They are supposed to begin their inquiry by respecting the will of the people…

You mean the 60% that has been against Obamacare since it was born?

No, he doesn’t.

According a recent poll, half of all Americans expect the justices to decide the challenge to the Affordable Care Act mainly based on their “partisan political views,” while only 40 percent expect them to decide the case “on the basis of the law.” (also from his website)

This, of course comes from the Washington Post, a very “fair” and “unbiased” member of the “journalist” community.

The actual Poll: Notice the difference in the Democrats (political) – of which their are two categories and the Republicans (law)- 1 category and then you average them together and you skew the poll in your favor and proclaim it as if you weren’t manipulating people dishonestly.

The health care case: Politics and the Supreme Court

That is until Obama gets the chance to appoint more leftists to the court and tip the balance in their favor, then it will be “fair” when they can just run over the conservatives like a steam roller… 🙂

But that wouldn’t be activism though… 🙂

SPENDING

Ann Coulter: It’s been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: “Federal spending under Obama at historic lows … It’s clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.”

To be Precise- “I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law,” he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. “My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.”–Obama in Denver (gatewaypundit)

Obama: I’ve “Cleaned Up” GOP’s “Wild Debts”–My Spending Is Lowest In 60 Years.

There’s even a chart!  (See Below) I’ll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on … This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC.

As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed “the big myth” about Obama’s spending: “This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly.” And the truth was, the “growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.”

Note that Schultz also said that the “part of the chart representing President Obama’s term includes a stimulus package, too.”

As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie. Schultz’s guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: “And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president.”

Everybody’s keyboard OK?

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: “Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama.”

In response, three writers from “The Daily Show” said, “We’ll never top that line,” and quit.

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation’s premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: “Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.”

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.That’s not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column. (And if we attribute all of Bush’s spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn’t spend much either.)

Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending.

And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”
Nutting acts as if it’s the height of magnanimity to “attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush …” On what possible theory would that be Bush’s spending?

Hey — we just found out that ObamaCare’s going to cost triple the estimate. Let’s blame it on Calvin Coolidge!

Nutting’s “and not to Bush” line is just sleight of hand. He’s hoping you won’t notice that he said “$140 billion” and not “$825 billion,” and will be fooled into thinking that he’s counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama’s spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush.

This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009.

Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Bros. collapsed.

By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money.

That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president — such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. This, too, is called Bush’s spending.

Frustrated that he can’t shift all of Obama’s spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House’s numbers, the White House’s estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting’s counting Obama’s nine-month spending binge as Bush’s spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won’t they do?

American Enterprise Institute: Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:

– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

So what you do is raise the baseline AFTER you’ve spend the money, blame it on your predecessor, then proclaim how little you’ve spent since then with a straight face.

Now that’s “honest” and “transparent” isn’t it.

So the fact that the Debt was 10 trillion in 2009 when you took over and now it’s approaching rapidly 16 trillion isn’t his fault because he’s been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans have! 🙂

Mr Nutting: Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond. (AEI)

<<Barf bag overload>>

So we end today’s listen in Liberal dishonesty with a bit of comedy:

Chris Matthews (MSNBC) on CSPAN:

“Is the thrill still there?” asked Scully.

Matthews wasn’t thrilled with the question.

“I hope that you feel satisfied that you’ve used the most obvious question that is raised by every horse’s ass right-winger I ever bump into,” Matthews responded, after defending the comment.

“Perhaps I shouldn’t have said so because I’ve given a lot of jackasses the chance to talk about it,” Matthews continued.

“And usually they say ‘tingle’ which says something about their orientation, but that’s alright,” he added. Later he interjected, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. I have to throw that in.”

Yeah he wouldn’t want to be “homophobic” or “bigoted” now would he! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Relations

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Race Hussling Capitalism?

President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign announced and subsequently canceled a sale of collegiate hooded sweatshirts after eliciting the ire of many conservatives, including radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, reports Yahoo News.

On Tuesday, Limbaugh said he believes the 2012 re-election campaign was looking to exploit the death of shooting victim Trayvon Martin.

“The Barack Obama reelection effort is exploiting the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, in order to secure votes from African-Americans,” Limbaugh said on his talk-radio show.

“That’s just tasteless.”

The Obama campaign announced via Twitter on Monday that the sweatshirts would be discounted to $40 from its regular $50 listing. As of Tuesday evening, the sale had been cancelled.

Gee, I thought Socialists hated Capitalist exploitation… 🙂

And now for more “creepy”:

Peggy Noonan: Something’s happening to President Obama’s relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, “Nothing new there,” but actually I think there is. I’m referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

It’s not due to the election, and it’s not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn’t happening.

What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who’s not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it’s his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it’s a big fault.

The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? “You’re kidding me. That’s not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it’s not even constitutional!” Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church’s religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.

Divide and Conquer! Tell a Lie often enough and want it to be considered the Truth.

What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who’d been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.

Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for “space” and said he will have “more flexibility” in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he’d been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.

Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president’s response were, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.” At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: “Hey buddy, we don’t need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it’s not about you.”

But everything is about him. It’s all about Him. The greatness of Him. (at least to Him).

Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn’t notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?

He didn’t care. Liberals didn’t care. They just wanted it passed by hook or by crook regardless. By any means necessary, the end justifies the means.

Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history’s time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste! 🙂

The high court’s hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.

Like they care. Like he cares. The End justifies the means.

All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.

I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I’m only saying he’s made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.

Like he cares….As long as the base, the stupid, the gullible, the dead, the fraudulent and the Illegal vote for him he figures he can win so screw everyone else!

And if he does when with them, he’ll be “more flexible” to want to unless the Full Obama on you, Comrade.

In terms of the broad electorate, I’m not sure he really has a relationship. A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.

Never Let a Crisis go to Waste. And if you have to invent on, so much the better.

From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures. These issues came within a context of some overarching questions: Can America survive its spending, its taxing, its regulating, is America over, can we turn it around?

That’s what the American people were thinking about.

He wasn’t. He was thinking about Socialism with it’s centerpiece, Government controlled Single Payer Health Care. The Government (his government) gets to decided who lives and who dies. What more could you ask for?

Keynesian Economics! This time it’ll work! 🙂

But the new president wasn’t thinking about that. All the books written about the creation of economic policy within his administration make clear the president and his aides didn’t know it was so bad, didn’t understand the depth of the crisis, didn’t have a sense of how long it would last. They didn’t have their mind on what the American people had their mind on.

They The Disunited Socialist States of The America on their minds. And Never waste a Crisis…

The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the “Is America over?” part.

I had to be “over” for Obama to succeed. The American Dream was a socialist’s nightmare. You can’t do anything without the Government’s blessing, encouragement or help! How dare you!

And so the relationship the president wanted never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they’ve read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.

If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying “Obama Loses,” do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It’s hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, “If only Obama were president!” Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn’t seem to like his job that much. As a former president he’d be quiet, detached, aloof. He’d make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans’ fault. They didn’t want to work with him.

I’d like to see that book. Very soon! 🙂

He will likely not see even then that an American president has to make the other side work with him. You think Tip O’Neill liked Ronald Reagan? You think he wanted to give him the gift of compromise? He was a mean, tough partisan who went to work every day to defeat Ronald Reagan. But forced by facts and numbers to deal, he dealt. So did Reagan.

An American president has to make cooperation happen.

But this President is incapable of making anyone who isn’t already a “yes” man do anything that he wants them to do for any other perceptive that pure force.

He is a poor Emperor Palpatine.

But we’ve strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.

Really, he cannot win the coming election. But the Republicans, still, can lose it. At this point in the column we usually sigh.

I agree. The Republicans are desperate to lose.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/mark-steyn-observes-a-very-unattractive-descent-into-tribalism-with-trayvon-martin-case/

OBAMACARE: ANOTHER $17 TRILLION 🙂

Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 health care reform law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap.

“The more we learn about the bill, the more we learn it is even more unaffordable than was suspected,” said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republicans’ budget chief in the Senate.

“The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” he said.

The hidden shortfall between new spending and new taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court justices grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the Constitution’s limits on government activity. If the court doesn’t strike down the law, it will force taxpayers to find another $17 trillion to pay for the increased spending.

The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leave taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion in health care obligations over the next 75 years.

The federal government has an additional $17 trillion unfunded gap in other obligations, including Social Security, bringing the total shortfall to $99 trillion.

That shortfall is different from existing debt. The federal government already owes $15 trillion in debt, including $5 trillion in funds borrowed during Obama’s term in office so far.

That $99 trillion in unfunded future expenses is more more than five years of wealth generated by the United States, which now produces just over $15 trillion of value per year.

The $99 trillion funding gap is equal to almost 30 years of the the current federal budget, which was $3.36 trillion for 2011.

Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 75 years, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Also, Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.

The extra $17 trillion gap was discovered by applying standard federal estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.

For example, Session’s examination of the health care law’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.

The same review also showed the law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.

“President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt… this health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy,” Sessions said in a floor speech.

“We don’t have the money… We have to reduce the [obligations] that we have.” (DC)

But it “feels” good. You don’t want to “mean”, “heartless”, “racist” and discriminate against the poor now do you? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The Democrat A-Bomb

The Largest Job-killing, family killing, economy-killing Tax increases are looming.

1/1/11.

But the Democrats are frozen with fear. If they vote to keep the tax cuts they can’t play their Class Warfare envy card,It’s worked for them for decades and gotten them a lot of power, and their base of mindless sheep will sheer them if they do.

They have whole generations of people that are  slaves to to their will.

They like that. They want more of that.

But they know it will hurt them politically if they let them them expire.

They know, intrinsically, how much damage it will do.

So they try to mitigate it by trying to have their cake and eat it too.

We’ll only raise them on “the rich”. After all, the class envy weapon is one of their favourites.

Fear, jealousy, envy,greed, dependence. They love them all.

Problem is, that isn’t working either.

So, let’s do absolutely nothing before the election. Then we can give everyone Lame Duck Poisoning.

And it won’t matter. At least to them.

Now, that’s REAL Leadership!

YES WE CAN! DO NOTHING!

FEAR IS HOPE

With just weeks to go before the midterm elections, Americans have made it clear they don’t want their taxes raised. So what do congressional Democrats do? Nothing — at least until the elections are over.

For months, Democrats have hammered Republicans for trying to keep President Bush’s tax cuts in place for everyone, not just the middle class and those who no longer pay taxes. That would be a “giveaway to the rich,” they contend. But guess what? Most Americans don’t see it that way.

In a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 63% want the Bush-era tax cuts — now set to expire at year-end — to remain in place. In the latest IBD/TIPP Poll, 48% favor making the cuts permanent vs. 30% opposed. And as for taxes on the rich, an AP-GfK Poll found that 39% support letting taxes go up only on those earning over $250,000, but 44% oppose the idea.

Hence, the Democrats’ dilemma: Either way they vote, they’ll anger a large chunk of the electorate — at a time when they need all the votes they can get to keep from being swept out of power.

So rather than hold an up-or-down vote on a tax bill that reflects their true beliefs, Democrats are postponing any action until after the elections. Obviously they know that what they really want to do will be wildly unpopular, and perhaps cost them seats.

But Americans know what they want, too, and they’ll see through the politics Democrats are playing with the economy at a time we can least afford it.

If they’ve decided to hike taxes during a lame-duck session of Congress after the election, they sure shouldn’t keep it secret. If people feel lied to during the election, they won’t be very happy. Democrats need to let their intentions be known — or face the wrath of the voters later.

If they think they can raise taxes on everyone or slap the “rich” with higher taxes and get away with it, they might be surprised. Ultimately, this will be a politically self-defeating strategy, making their far-left voter base happy but sacrificing middle-of-the-road Democrats who want to see the economy create jobs again.

Taxing the rich sounds good on paper or as a sound-bite in the left-dominated mainstream media, but it’s the rich who create businesses and do most of the hiring in this country. Tax these entrepreneurs and you tax jobs — the last thing we need after losing 8 million in three years.

As economist Curtis Dubay of the Heritage Foundation has noted, tax hikes on the rich “will slow down economic growth and job creation while the economy struggles to recover from a steep recession . .. (and) will hurt Americans at all income levels.”

Running a standard econometric model, Dubay estimates that letting taxes rise just on the rich, as President Obama and Senate Democrats propose, will cost the economy 7 million jobs over the next decade — and nearly $720 billion, or $6,000 per household, in income.

That’s an awful price to pay for envy. Before voting this fall, Americans should pin down their representatives on where they stand on tax cuts. Republicans have put out their Pledge to America, so you know what they stand for. What about the Democrats? (IBD)

And As if that wasn’t enough, The Democrats have decided on an Armageddon strategy as well, poisoning the well.

Leave nothing behind.

Unleash The Democrat A-Bomb.

The Ad-Hominem Bomb.

NewYork Times- WASHINGTON — Democratic candidates across the country are opening a fierce offensive of negative advertisements against Republicans, using lawsuits, tax filings, reports from the Better Business Bureau and even divorce proceedings to try to discredit their opponents and save their congressional majority.

Opposition research and attack advertising are deployed in almost every election, but these biting ads are coming far earlier than ever before, according to party strategists. The campaign has intensified in the past two weeks as early voting begins in several states and as vulnerable incumbents try to fight off an onslaught of influences by outside groups.

Metaphorically and politically, KILL EVERYONE!

If we can’t rule, no one can!

Say Anything, but do nothing.

Now’s that’s real leadership!

And when that doesn’t work, just LIE.

LAS VEGAS – Rep. Dina Titus has been a loyal soldier in pushing the Democrats’ ambitious agenda, voting for health care legislation, extended unemployment benefits, new energy taxes and a repeal of the military’s ban on gays serving openly.

Her campaign signs, however, proclaim Titus an “independent voice” for Nevadans.

Aware that their stock has taken the same tumble as home values, Congress’ most vulnerable Democrats are declaring their independence from their party’s agenda in Facebook profiles, television advertisements, news interviews and campaign websites leading up to the Nov. 2 election. That’s when Republicans hope to retake control of the House they lost four years ago.

Titus and others have raised eyebrows for carrying water for Obama in vote after vote, only to pivot and say they are not beholden to a party.

“I’m an independent”. I voted for every single piece of the radical leftist socialism, but I’m an “independent”.

As an actual, independent I should sue them for defamation of character. The grand fraud they hope to perpetrate with the help of the Ministry of Truth is truly mind-blowing.

So, now,  you’re now too stupid to recognize the fraud, and the lies.

So what was the President’s response to the Republican’s Ideas (remembering that they are the “party of no” and “have no ideas” according to The President, The Liberal Media, and The Democrats) about cutting spending and less government?

“It is grounded in the same worn-out philosophy: cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; cut the rules for Wall Street and the special interests; and cut the middle class loose to fend for itself,” Obama said.

“That’s not a prescription for a better future. It’s an echo of a disastrous decade we can’t afford to relive.”

I could have written it myself and it would have sounded the same. It’s the same old hackneyed class warfare talking points.  Bush’s fault. Nothing of substance.

Yadda Yadda Yadda….

What we can’t afford to relive Mr. President is your last 20 months!

Political Cartoon by Steve Breen