August 15, 2011

You Really Have to Wonder …

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:51 pm

… if the relatively disengaged 80%-85% of the American people are figuring out that this President is the emptiest suit since, yes, Jimmy Carter, who happens to be the last Democrat who failed to win a second term.

In Minnesota today, on his Magical Misery Tour (Mitt Romney’s peeps are occasionally clever, but their man remains unfit; Update: Sorry Mitt, a FReeper came up with the name on August 8), we heard nothing but excuses:

  • His economic “plan,” an attempt to spend us to prosperity, got us out of the recession (no, it didn’t, conditions were there for a recovery a month before he took office). Then it’s been nothing but “bad luck”: the Arab Spring (which has nothing to do with anything), the Japanese tsunami (a problem, but fairly narrow), and the European debt crisis (if we weren’t “leading from behind,” maybe it wouldn’t be a problem).
  • Oh, and it’s the Republicans’ recent “spending cuts” which have more recently led to a “debacle.” He must be referring to the $65 billion reduction in projected spending during the next two fiscal years, which haven’t even begun. Even then, there are no cuts as normal people define them, i.e., actual reductions in year-over-year spending.

Later, he decided to lecture automakers on how to run their businesses:

The country’s automakers should ditch their focus on SUVs and trucks in favor of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, President Obama said Monday.

“You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks,” Obama said during a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn. “There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money.”

First off, SUVs and trucks are far more efficient now than they were even five years ago (and no, it’s not because the government forced them to be). Second, well, even with gas at $3.50, it’s clear that buyers still want trucks and SUVs. What in the bleep is wrong with that?

If there’s a tangible idea from this bunch other than “keep spending like we’ve spent already, and even though it’s been a clear failure, hope it somehow works out differently” (while of course, keeping the petal to the metal with oppressive overregulation), I haven’t heard it.

Can we really survive another 17-plus months of this punk?

Obamacare and Illegal Immigrants: Obama Lied, and Joe Wilson (R-SC) Told the Truth

Filed under: Economy,Health Care,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 12:00 pm

From the overwhelming stack of unposted stuff (until now) is this item from Matt Cover at CNS News last Wednesday:

HHS: Obamacare-Funded Health Centers for ‘Migrants’ Won’t Check Immigration Status

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law.

Of that $28.8 million, “approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers,” Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told HRSA is a part of HHS.

Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.

… These Obamacare disbursements seem to contradict a claim President Obama famously made in a nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009.

“The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Obama said then.

When Obama said these words, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted out from the House floor: “You lie!”

Joe Wilson was right. Barack Obama was lying.

When Obamacare was being considered in Congress, the President insisted that the individual mandate wasn’t a tax. He even chided normal lapdog George Stephanopoulos for having the nerve to consult a dictionary for the meaning of “tax.”

Now that Obamacare is in litigation, the government’s core argument has been that it has the power to impose the individual mandate because it is just another tax.

Obama lied again. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Night follows day. The Pope is Catholic.

17 months and five days. Can we make it?

Monday Morning Reagan vs. Obama Charts: The Last 25 Months Have Been the Lost 25 Months

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:56 am

The “must have charts” crowd gets a double helping this morning with separate creations comparing the post-recession jobs performance of the U.S. economy under Ronald Reagan during its first 25 months in the 1980s to the post-recession jobs results seen under Barack Obama since the recession as normal people define it ended 25 months ago.

The first chart shows all jobs:


In the first 25 months after the 1980s recession, the economy created 6.44 million jobs. To replicate that performance in the current era’s workforce, which was 52% larger at the end of the most recent recession than the workforce at the end of the 1980s recession, the economy would have had to have generated 9.789 million jobs by now. Instead, we’ve only seen 697,000 jobs added, a number which is 5.743 million less than the Reagan economy’s actual performance, and 9.092 million less than its workforce-adjusted performance.

The second chart addresses private sector jobs:


In the first 25 months after the 1980s recession, the economy created 6.089 million private-sector jobs. To replicate that performance in the current era’s workforce, the economy would have had to have generated 9.255 million jobs by now. Instead we’ve seen 1.22 million jobs added, a number which is 4.869 million less than the Reagan economy’s actual performance, and 8.035 million less than its workforce-adjusted performance.

Given the establishment press’s built-in pro-Obama favoritism, if his administration’s performance would have been one-half or even one-third as good as Reagan’s, he’d more than likely be cruising at 55% or so approval and considered a near cinch for reelection. The trouble is, on a workforce-adjusted basis, Obama’s post-recession economy has only created about 7% and 13% of the overall and private-sector jobs, respectively, that Reagan’s did.

“Unacceptable” doesn’t even begin to describe what we’ve seen during the past 25 months. The last 25 months have truly been a lost 25 months.

“Disgraceful” doesn’t even begin to describe the only two strategy alternatives the administration is considering for dealing with the intolerable mess it has created. As described in the New York Times yesterday:

As the economy worsens, President Obama and his senior aides are considering whether to adopt a more combative approach on economic issues, seeking to highlight substantive differences with Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail rather than continuing to pursue elusive compromises, advisers to the president say.

The fact that looking at policy solutions which have actually worked in the past — like the ones employed by Reagan involving tax cuts and regulatory relief — isn’t even on the radar demonstrates how intellectually bankrupt this bunch really is. In the current situation, the things that work would involve at a minimum repealing Obamacare and its related taxes rather than waiting for the Supreme Court to do it, opening up all feasible areas for oil and gas drilling and exploration, and calling off the EPA’s attack dogs. An additional and possibly more beneficial step would involve a regulatory freeze: No new regulations for the next 18 months, period — including with the rarest of exceptions ones that are scheduled for implementation.

But Team Obama won’t do any of this. We can debate all day and night whether they really care if the economy legitimately recovers, but the practical effect of their failure to even consider options which have historically worked is that we aren’t going to see a full-bore recovery for at least 18 months. Their willingness to sit around and watch the suffering continue all around them shows that Obama and his party really are the “Party of Compassion My A**.”

Positivity: Beckhams’ baby defended as benefit to humanity

Filed under: Economy,Life-Based News,Positivity,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:56 am

To prolifers, human beings are assets (they can deliberately turn themselves into liabilities, but that’s a discussion for another time). To proaborts and statists, human beings are liabilities, additional consumers of supposedly limited resources, net carbon emitters, etc.

Prolifers are correct. Proaborts and statists are wrong. It’s good to see someone who gets it speak out so publicly.

From London:

Aug 10, 2011 / 03:44 pm

The recent birth of David and Victoria Beckham’s baby daughter, Harper Seven, is good news for the future of humanity, according to a population expert who teaches at the London School of Economics.

“Congratulations to David and Victoria! The arrival of a fourth Beckham baby is certainly great news for them – but it’s also good news for the economy and the future of the planet,” said Dr. Dermot Grenham in an Aug. 10 interview with CNA.

Dr. Grenham was responding to several leading figures in the population control movement who condemned the Beckhams for having another child.

“No sooner does a celebrity have three or four children than the doomsayers start complaining that they are giving a very bad example to the rest of us who might all start having more children.

“If only this were true,” lamented Dr. Grenham, whose latest book “On Population” will be released in January.

“Birth rates in richer countries are already below replacement level, in some countries well below, which means that sooner or later there will be a dwindling number of workers to support the elderly. What sort of society will that leave to our children?”

His comments contrast sharply with those from the likes of Simon Ross, chief executive of the U.K.-based Optimum Population Trust, who last month criticized the Beckhams as “very bad role models.” Ross added, “there’s no point in people trying to reduce their carbon emissions and then increasing them by 100% by having another child.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.