Here we go again. Jack Cafferty writes for CNN:
Now, I only have one problem with this. It’s the same problem I’ve always had. People do stupid things when they’re drunk, they do much more violent things when they’re cranked up:
On and on and on it goes. That research wasn’t even hard to do. It’s headlines from THE LAST WEEK. It’s not even all of the headlines, I got tired of cutting and pasting what Jack Cafferty probably has already seen. So, the problem isn’t so much people sitting around peacefully, popping their favorite drug of choice, and watching The History Channel. It’s the problem that these people lose their mind and do crazy violent things. Simply enabling them won’t solve the problem if the local five and dime is closed and they run out of cocaine or meth. If anything, it will just make the problem worse as they’ll be able to work up that addiction as bad as they want it to get. So, until people like Jack Cafferty can tell me how we can deal with the effects of addiction, he’s not going to win his argument with me.
30
Mar
OK, here’s the scenario. GM runs into problems, asks for a bailout. At first, the feds just hand them a bunch, stating they’re too important to fail since they saved us during WWII and all. Then, they came back. This time the new feds said, well, not so fast. We need to know what you’re going to do to right your ship. GM said they would get some union and employee concessions. Obama said that sounds good, do it and we’ll talk.
Then, the unions said no way. They’d just as soon see GM go belly up rather than give up one red cent.
So, Obama basically fired the GM president.
Then, he announced he wasn’t running GM.
Question I’ve got here is, I would hope, obvious. If the problem for GM was good enough to merit a few billion taxpayor dollars, then if that problem refused to cooperate, wouldn’t you address the problem? Without UAW concessions, most people think there is no way GM will ever be able to compete. However, the UAW is refusing to cooperate at this point. So, it would seem to me that firing Rick Wagoner at GM is not solving anything. Since the UAW and other unions refusing to cooperate is what has led to the no-confidence vote from Obama, it would seem to me that Obama would be demanding Ron Gettelfinger‘s resignation as well.
However, I just don’t see that happening any time soon.
Net result, the Dow is down another 330 points.
A socialist would care less.
People like me see it as the financial sectors see the writing on the wall.
This is just nuts, literally:
Now, the beef I have here is the US government needs to take all factors into consideration regarding “cost” rather than applying 3rd grade accounting. Sure, it may cost 5 cents as opposed to 2 cents, but our government serves a bigger role than simply providing a product for consumption ala Walmat. What is the cost in lost wages? What is the cost of lost tax revenues on all levels, federal, state, and local? And for what it’s worth, in my opinion, the company does have standing as they pay the taxes that supports the USAID program in the first place. The people who do NOT have standing are South Korea and China.
Obama needs to get all over this ASAP. The reason this economy is in the shape it’s in is because of trade deficits and jobs lost to countries that do not have the workforce protections and expenses the US government imposes on US employers. If South Korea and China were expected to provide the same protections to their employees that we do, their condoms would be every bit as expensive as ours.
The bugaboo that caused this problem is however, Barack Obama:
CHARLES GIBSON: What’s in there now? Do you think that does that? Do you want it out?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think we need to make sure that any provisions that are in there are not going to trigger a trade war.
I don’t get this fear of a trade war. Russia and China at this time are calling on a currency war. By creating a world currency, it would offset the influence of the US as an economic super-power. How can Obama, as President of the United States of America, be so afraid of a trade war that he is gutting the US economy in order to appease those that desire to gut the US economy? Yeah, that’s right, the company he wants to send these jobs to is calling on the world to unite economically against the US. If a trade war does break out between the US and China, the US wins. China just does not have the resources to compete, yet. We would most likely be forced to by our stuff from, well, US manufacturers who are more than willing to fill the void, create jobs, and contribute to our economy.
Wake up Obama! Whether he likes it or not, there is, and always will be, a trade war for every single thing any person on this planet can sell. The only question is whether he wants the US to prosper or some other country. That’s it.
Blame this one on Nancy Pelosi as well. She put the legislation out there without the “Buy American” requirements. We could nail every single legislator that voted for the stimulus, but the stimulus was pushed through without allowing any review of the package and the media was telling the country it had to be passed right now with no questions asked.
For those fearing the “New World Order”, you couldn’t have asked for a better combo than Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
I probably should just end the post here, but this attitude reminds me too much of what happened during the last Democrat ( with socialist tendencies ) did:
| Year | Deficit | YtoY | Term | GDP | YtoY | Term |
| 1992 | -39,212 | 6337.7 | ||||
| 1993 | -70,311 | 79% | 6657.4 | 5% | ||
| 1994 | -98,493 | 40% | 7072.2 | 6% | ||
| 1995 | -96,384 | -2% | 7397.7 | 5% | ||
| 1996 | -104,065 | 8% | 7816.9 | 6% | ||
| 1997 | -108,273 | 4% | 8304.3 | 6% | ||
| 1998 | -166,140 | 53% | 8747 | 5% | ||
| 1999 | -265,090 | 60% | 9268.4 | 6% | ||
| 2000 | -379,835 | 43% | 869% | 9817 | 6% | 55% |
| 2001 | -365,126 | -4% | 10128 | 3% | ||
| 2002 | -423,725 | 16% | 10469.6 | 3% | ||
| 2003 | -496,915 | 17% | 10960.8 | 5% | ||
| 2004 | -607,730 | 22% | 11685.9 | 7% | ||
| 2005 | -711,567 | 17% | 12421.9 | 6% | ||
| 2006 | -753,283 | 6% | 13178.4 | 6% | ||
| 2007 | -700,258 | -7% | 13807.5 | 5% | ||
| 2008 | -681,130 | -3% | 87% | 14264.6 | 3% | 41% |
Under Clinton, the GDP grew 55%. Pretty good huh? However, our trade deficits grew 869%. Under Bush, the GDP grew 41%, however, the trade deficits grew “only” 87%. A large part of the lower deficit gains were due in large part to the “Buy American” clauses enacted after 9/11. No trade wars broke out then, and they won’t now. They have too much invested in the United States to risk it. If Obama is doing away with those Buy American clauses, which he stated he intended to do, expect that trade deficit number to explode once again.
There is no logical reason at all, other than the very obvious unit price, for USAID to be buying products from other countries that could be made in the US.
In December 2006 I wrote about Mumia Abu-Jamal. He shot a cop in the back and face in 1981 and killed him. That part is not in dispute. Now, in March 2009, it’s still in court. He has been found guilty a few times. However, for some reason, his case keeps getting appealed and keeps going up to a higher court based on one single fact: the jury that found him guilty due to over-whelming evidence was mostly white. The simple fact that white people looked at the overwhelming evidence and convicted him means, according to his defense, that the murder itself is not the point. For some inexplicable reason, the court system seems to be going along with this racist farce.
The fact is there were people who saw him do it, there is physical evidence directly linking jim to the murder, and he has confessed to it.
He killed someone based purely on racial reasons, and now expects his cries of racism to save him.
Talk about hypocritical.
There are a lot of people supporting him. I feel about the same way about them as I do him directly. They say they want justice, but I think this sign sums up exactly what they do want:
They want this hypocritical racist cop-killer to walk free.
He’s had 28 years now to make his case and has failed. When is enough enough?
But Obama added that the bigger problem is the culture that allowed traders to claim them.
He said that has to change if the economy is to recover.
Obama also said his embattled treasury chief, Timothy Geithner, is doing an “outstanding job.”
That was last night. Earlier yesterday we had another revelation:
So, Obama was stunned when he learned of the bonuses that Geithner apparently insisted they be able to receive. However, he still thinks Geithner is doing an “oustanding job” even though he’s “stunned” with the result.
In my line of work, when I am “stunned” with someone’s actions, I fire them.
Obama is amassing a huge liability of contradicting himself. If he is truly “stunned” when he heard of the bonuses, then he can not possibly be happy with the person that approved them. By removing the bonus clause from the TARP legislation in January, Geithner became the person responsible for them. Additionally, the “culture” Obama referred to was enacted January 21, 2009, when Chris Dodd sent the legislation to be voted on that Timothy Geithner stripped the bonus clause from.
Additionally, it bothers me that Obama was “stunned” in the first place. If he is telling the truth that he was “stunned”, that means he had no clue what Geithner was doing. That doesn’t sound good at all. And, quite frankly, that doesn’t sound like the Obama that had such a tight grip over his campaign.
Something’s definitely amiss here. I”m sure Nancy Pelosi will get to the bottom of it.
Yesterday Congress voted to tax the bonuses the AIG employees received. A lot of people are mad at them gettign the bonuses, Michelle Malkin among others is mad that Congress is doing anything about it.
You can find the full roll call vote on HR 1586, tax cheat Charlie Rangel’s ass-covering, after-the-fact AIG bonus tax here. I have broken out the 85 Republicans (led by GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor) who voted with Rangel and the Democrat demagogues.
Now, in Michelle’s world ( and most of her commentors ), anything the Republicans do that cooperates with the Democrats is bad. Because Charlie Rangel sponsored it, it’s ass-covering, after-the-fact, stuff.
I see it a lot differently. Some of these Congressmen might be blithering idiots, but most are not. The ones that are not I am sure see this as largely symbolic to the next bail-out recipient who thinks they can get away with what AIG did. They know that law strictly forbids them from passing punitive legislation that voids pre-existing contractual obligations. So, once it gets to court, if it does, it will be voided quickly. But, what it will do, regardless of the courts, is send a very clear message to the public that this type of behavior will not be tolerated in the future. So, I’m not quite so down on this statement by Congress. Now, if she wants to point fingers at the Republicans that helped create this situation, then she needs to keep reminding people whenever she attacks Republicans who vote for anything attempting to remedy this mess of legislation, then she, and others, need to go back and call out those that did indeed create the mess in the first place. In my opinion, that would still be the TARP reform act of January 21, 2009. On the Republican side, that list is a lot shorter:
- Vern Buchanon
- David Camp
- John Campbell
- Michael Castle
- Lincoln Diaz-Balart
- Mario Diaz-Balart
- Vernon Ehlers
- Peter Hoekstra
- Leonard Lance
- Steven LaTourette
- Thaddeus McCotter
- Candice Miller
- Dave Reichert
- Michael Rogers
- Aaron Schock
- Mark Souder
- Michael Turner
- Fredrick Upton
And of course, the ultimate blame falls on Chris Dodd for taking out the restriction in the first place. I think he needs to be sitting beside the AIG director during this inquisition explaining why he took out the restriction that compelled AIG to make the bonuses in the first place.
However, I’m sure Nancy Pelosi will have none of that.
That leaves people like me to come to my own conclusions. Here’s one:
| Contributor | Total |
|---|---|
| Citigroup Inc | $316,494 |
| United Technologies | $264,400 |
| SAC Capital Partners | $248,500 |
| American International Group | $223,478 |
| Royal Bank of Scotland | $218,500 |
| Bear Stearns | $201,000 |
| Goldman Sachs | $180,200 |
| Credit Suisse Group | $157,050 |
| Morgan Stanley | $156,600 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $134,050 |
| Merrill Lynch | $132,950 |
| Lehman Brothers | $122,300 |
| Hartford Financial Services | $117,150 |
It seems to me that Chris Dodd should never have had a position to make that call in the first place. He’s got a massive conflict of interest going here that needs to be explained both to Congress and to the public. I mean, it seems it would have cut dramatically into his contributions if those donating to him relied on those bonuses to make their campaign contributions dontcha think?
And, we don’t know who those getting the bonuses are.
So, if the public, and some Congressmen, feel that those working at AIG should pay their bonuses back after the fact, then I think it only fair that the person that enabled those bonuses in the first place pay back to the taxpayors the $200,000 he received to eliminate that perceived conflict of interest that led to this fiasco in the first place.
But, it’s so much easier to blame the here and now for this mess than it is to keep focusing on the root of the problem and hold the Democrats accountable for the mess that is here and now that puts Republicans in such a jam that they can not even vote for a symbolic gesture without big-name commentors thrashing them publicly.
18
Mar
This video has been sent to me about a dozen times now. I still enjoy it. There is some question as to whether Bill’s snubbing Hillary, or Hillary’s snubbing Bill. Me? I think it’s obvious Hillary can’t wait to get her some, well, you know, better paying job ( yeah, that’s it ). Decide for yourself:
Hillary throwing her husband under the bus for the highest bidder at the time just doesnt’ surprise me. So, there really is nothing suspenseful here. Until, you look, a little closer…
What is that on Obama’s back?
Now, I’ve heard he’s big on teleprompting, but somehow sticking it on his back just doesn’t seem to help much. Unless, of course, it’s for whoever is behind him. I dunno who’s behind him tho. So, I’m still left clueless.
Anyone got any idea what that is?
( The “Kiss me, I’m with stupid” idea is mine alone, ok? )
( Also, the “Obama is a robot controlled by Dick Cheney” idea is mine as well. )
A lot is being made on the inexplicable poll CBS took of Rush Limbaugh’s approval rating. It’s not terribly good. The uber-liberal CBS has Rush at about 19% approval. I have several thoughts on this, of course.
- This was an open poll. If that’s the case, 19% liking him is pretty astonishing. I am fiscally conservative Republican. I don’t even like him that much. I just don’t like bluster in general. For a crowd that is most likely a Democrat majority, for only 19% not to like him is a pretty powerful number.
- He’s not an elected official. This is meaningless in the big picture. The more CBS tries to make him look bad, it just makes them look jealous since I’m sure no one on CBS could get higher than 19%, and it makes them look petty comparing a commentator to an elected official vis a vis an approval poll.
- What CBS isn’t telling anyone is other people were rated as well. If Rush were to drop one more point, he’d be tied with Nancy Pelosi. Nancy is an elected official. Approval ratings do mean something to her. Scoring 18% from a group that frequents CBS strikes me as a lot bigger headline than Rush scoring 19% from a group mostly antagonistic to what he is in the first place ( not liberal, not Democrat ). Where’s the Pelosi headline?
- The poll has many flaws in their math and some conclusions look like they’ve written on the fly. This is a horrid poll. Now, I’ve done enough polling that you stick a bunch of stuff around the main issue you want explored to make it look unbiased. But, considering the way they ignored all the other issues and ran the one headline, it served one purpose only. They don’t want you to really read it. It paints a rather bad image of Obama and Pelosi in particular. For instance, on the question of bailouts, which do you think most people preferred, giving it to the banks ( someone else ), automakers ( someone else ), or homeowners ( ME! )? Would you believe most people would rather have the money for themselves than giving it to someone else? They come to this profound conclusion: “More than half of Americans (55%) are relieved that President Barack Obama’s polices might help homeowners avoid foreclosure, but more Americans are resentful of giving assistance to financial institutions and U.S. automakers……. Most do not think additional assistance to U.S. carmakers is necessary: 58% of Americans think these companies could probably stay in business without additional government money. The public is more divided on whether bailing out financial institutions is necessary to help get the economy out of this recession. On the other hand, 57% think providing government money to struggling homeowners is necessary to help improve the housing market. Just 36% think the housing market could improve without government money.” Give me a break. This is just stupid, inane, drivel. It goes on and on coming to conclusions that ignore the obvious. So, when they conclude 19% approve of Rush’s “job”, that means about as much as knowing 58% of the people polled would prefer to money in their pocket as opposed to giving it to someone else.
18
Mar
This is one of those things that is so wrong it just makes me chuckle. The group that counted people in their voter registration drives multiple times is now being given money to help count the 2010 census. They would have been investigated for fraud but Obama won. So, rather than facing voter fraud charges for being so incapable of simple documentation, they get rewarded with a federal contract to do what it is they do absolutely worst and are were being investigated for not being able to do in the first place.
ACORN’s defense is they have not been convicted of any felonies yet of not being able to count very well. And, there are lots of people doing this.
My guess is, when this is all said and done, 1/3 of all US citizens will be Democrat minorities living on the streets of Chicago.
And no one will question that.
14
Mar
Just to prove Nancy Pelosi has a sense of humor, she said this today:
That reminds me of her other very funny thing she said recently, that no Democrat ever had anything to do with the economic mess we’re in. Anyone remember her trying to explain that one? There were so many angles to that single statement I really couldn’t write enough to do it justice. So now, the woman who demanded bipartisanship while blaming all the world’s problems on the Republican Party, is now saying she’s not partisan. And, if you read the article futher, if you claim she IS partisan, it’s simply a personality smear because you didn’t get what you wanted because you were a Republican.
Go figure that one huh?
Is she a joke or what?
Now, I’d blame Charlie Rose for not calling her out on the obvious when she said it, but, her logic is so pretzeled I’m sure even Charlie was dumb-founded when she said it.
I hope she gives lots more interviews and fully illustrates to the country why they need desperately to vote Republican ( or anything but Democrat )in 2010.
