FILM THIN: Hollywood's Top Power Women Aren't Yet Excited about Hillary Clinton

MIA: Hollywood's Power Women for Hillary - Hollywood Reporter

Says one female executive (anonymous):

"Every woman I know who hasn't given to her feels guilty about it," says the industry dealmaker. "We all want a woman to be president — some of us just wish it were someone else."

Lara Bergthold, a campaign strategist at a group called RALLY, says:

The "fear factor" of the Republican field will drive donations from the notoriously liberal-leaning Hollywood. She says it is hard to imagine a Republican presidential candidate more likely to ignite anxiety in Hollywood than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. 

"The stakes are so high given the candidates on the other side," she says. "They're scary."

Not asked in the article: ARE YOU WAITING TILL THE OUTCOME OF FBI INVESTIGATION INTO HER MISUSE OF SECRET COMMUNICATIONS? Err, not even likely many of them are aware of the facts behind the email investigation, nor do they want to accept it. They're elitists just like Hillary. They probably still suspect Benghazi was actually due to a crappy video from a whack-job pastor. Or, they just don't care about such distractions since they have no direct or apparent impact on their lives.



 - jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

WHAT'S FAIR: Minimum Skills Earning Minimum Wages

Are you worth $30,000 a year?

For those fast food employees, and their nannies in public office, thinking they deserve $15 an hour, or more, let's do some math.

> At $15 an hour, someone slinging burgers would make $31,200 annually.
> An E1 (Private) in the military makes $18,378.
> An E5 (Sergeant) with 8 years of service only makes $35,067 annually.

So you're telling me, Woody Likefrieswithat , that you deserve as much as those kids getting shot at, deploying for months in hostile environments, and putting their collective asses on the line every day protecting the rights of YOUR unskilled butt!?

Here's the deal, Frank Andbeans: you are working in a job designed for a teenager in high school or working his way through trade school or college. It's a job for someone who is learning how to work. Have you thoroughly learned how to work? These jobs are designed for those looking to earn enough for shared rent, beer, and some food and gas, and hanging out with their equally goofy young pals.

If you have CHOSEN this basic means of making a living as your lifelong profession, you have not planned very well. Time to accept the consequences or to firm up, work your way out of the lower rungs, and rely on yourself, not count on foul promises of a few rise from low wages to high with little or no stops to learn skills that deserve a higher wage. It is a tough lesson, but you either learn it, or you stay where you are. The ones misleading you into believing you deserve higher pay for the same minimum role in life might sound like your hero, but they are only your big talking "better." They are fooling you. Wake up!

Here's what is fair to everyone: If you don't want minimum wage, don't settle on your minimum skills,  don't put forward minimum effort, be the example of a great employee that can move past the minimum job. And please don't expect someone else to pave your way, without you advancing your skills, for a smooth ride to $30k and better in earnings. That's how it might work in your dreams, but in real life, a solid person seeks rewards for effort, not for whining.

I revised this considerably. A version of this, no doubt a chain email, was sent to me by a retired person. He understands what working means. No one promised him a cake walk to a better life.

- J Ruse

LEFTIST RACISTS: Herman Cain, America were violated by stereotyping

The lies about criminal behavior of HERMAN CAIN hurt him, and America, in 2011, in the 2012 election cycle. This educated guy, this business leader, this free thinker, this open book, this conservative American, is owed more than an apology (which has yet to be given) from the attention-craving Gloria Allred and the two lying women who made headlines claiming that Cain sexually harassed them (link: http://ow.ly/qF0QX).

Americans are owed better than this lowest of political tactics in the age of social media and in-the-moment news reporting. If leading Democrats had any lack of cynicism among them, they'd have discouraged the effect of these unfounded claims during the campaign. I know some pundits on either side were frustrated by this bad showing, but I heard not a leader among Democrats say a thing against it certainly not the first black in the White House.

This was, in a way, the tale of two black men: the Conservative Black Man and the Liberal Black Man. It allows a comparison of the behavior of media and the supposed spokespeople for black people -- Democrats and black "liberal" pundits. The way they treat Cain, and other non-leftist thinkers such as Ben Carson, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, is not compatible with their pandering habits toward blacks and other "special label" groups (minorities of whatever kind) in general. Yet, they give extra room to Barack Obama and ninnies such as former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (with a federal indictment on corruption charges and soon to be in court for it) and former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (convicted to 26 years for his office's bribery practices). Democrats and most of the mainstream media looked the other way in the midst of corruption by these last two fellows, until the story was essentially over.

Ruining the campaign of Herman Cain bolstered the left's authority and dominion over blacks in America. The great majority of our black community, it seems, were fine with it, too. Or, they simply didn't speak out against it. Too many are too happy to resent those who have known success to the extent of cheering even unreasonable attacks on the successful, black or not. Sadly, that's another thing that the rhetoric of the Democrats feeds.

Today's "liberals" (modern American leftists, really, sparsely liberals in any true sense) need some of those who are successful on their side, but can only win elections, as I see it, by pandering to the less-informed unsuccessful with promises of... ease without effort. The rhetoric of Barack Obama, especially during 2008 and since his presidency, have only made this cynical tactic of the Democrats more familiar. Not less. Not less, as Obama pledged the divisiveness would be. (He pledged a lot of things that proved to be nothing, didn't he?)

The minority pandering, low-information voter wholesaling, diversity rejecting (they accept diversity only on their terms, after all), status quo adoring, big government, control-addicted Democrats and their media pledges want to keep minority conservatives down, and that hurts America.

Their habit to passionately reject traditionalist, Constitutionalist, limited government, conservative thinkers, and especially those who think this way who are not old white men, hurt America's ability to get beyond the wrongs of racism and social and economic ruts that plague groups of people, black or not. Democrats claim to be the party of caring. Yet they have been proven to be the party of lies, spying, control, monetary abuse, budgetary disregard, growth in bureaucracy, and intolerance toward individualism.

Democrats and others of such thinking are, intentionally or not, pigeonholing people in certain special groups - race, sexuality, sex, regions, etc. - into easy stereotypes that suit them. In an official way. Everyone deserves the sense of liberty that America was founded upon. That's inconvenient for relativist leftists.

They are convinced it is their duty, as folks such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, prove again and again, to be the spokespeople for these groups, to take from others and give to those groups, to coddle them for the sake of the great statist plan. That's not American. That's utopian. It's absurd. It's anti-American.

Black conservatives have for a long time felt they needed to be quiet because Borg-like neighbors who are long entrenched in the pandering, Democratic race machine would think they were betraying race for their affinity for traditional American ideals. So much misinformation about conservatism persists that it's as if being a conservative was equivalent to being a slave salesman in Africa in the 1700s.

Modern Democrats, this current, bureaucracy-loving, conceited, elitist leadership of theirs, seek a  wholesale plan to buy votes to take more and more liberties away from Americans in the name of helping everyone reach an equal playing field, with welfare politics, driving the poor to their side in a cynical effort to hold power by mob, rather than by principle or love of the citizen and the individual. They love the idea of the state being the leader of society in every way, it seems, not the servant of a free people.

People like Herman Cain certainly get in the way of that.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

ObamaCare: best of intentions, awful law, let's make that awfully clear

Patience is a virtue. For government, patients would be a gold mine. 

Via someone I follow on Twitter (and stupidly forgot who it was), I found this essential guide to the health care law.

(Revised Sep 26, 2013) What else do you need to know but how many initial claims about ObamaCare have been proven WRONG? With the best of intentions (or not, if you're totally skeptical about them), Democrats took a terrible approach to reform the United States' health system, in the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. Intentions aren't worth a damn if you ignore everyone affected by a law. The supporters of ACA all but ignored whole groups of people affected by the law, including: independent professionals, medical professionals and other small business owners, and many employees. It's one thing to try and help the needy, or to try and give the poor better health care, but it's another to spit in the face of those who would, effectively, pay for it. It is not good to effectively hurt employees through the resulting cuts in hours. ACA, like other government medical reimbursement plans, ignores the legitimate work of medical professionals, who will do the services, as they would get bargain basement returns from government plans that appear to be not at all interested in reasonable compensation for services rendered. 

ObamaCare is not a bible for a health care cure, it is a bible for centralized medical decision-making, whether by intent or not. Solzhenitsyn wrote of the failures of large-scale centralized health care in the former superpower, the Soviet Union, and while ACA is only a step in the same direction, Obama is on record as supporting a "one-payer" health care system (which means government health care for all). 

The U.S. government started out in the spirit of doing exactly the opposite of what ObamaCare wants. The American Experiment is going in reverse, thanks to ObamaCare (it is in addition to the impacts of Homeland Security measures and other big government expansions of recent years). 

The Democrats appear to have been quite wrong about ObamaCare. Or, cynically, they were intentionally misleading us about what was in it. Yet they are still convinced, or at least trying to convince us, that this gigantic addition to the cost of government and health care is a good thing for the country. How? I don't know. I can't see anything that's good about it any longer. The good intention to fix the system no longer exists in the enforcement. It is not fixing the system, it is making it worse, it seems to me. 

I applauded Obama for bringing health reform to the forefront of national discussion in 2008-09. To broach the subject was laudable, but it was only a start. Yes, the intent to fix health care was noble. But the approach? It was not just bad, but to me it was, and is, disturbing. It is the way Democrats handled it from the beginning, all but cutting out Republicans and others (maybe they included socialists and the Green Party), and the resulting law, that has been calamitous. Three years later it is being trashed by some once-convinced Democrats, leaders of unions and businesses. 

In light of national spending negotiations (Sept. 2013), ObamaCare is being defended, breathlessly, by Obama and some other Democratic politicians and sycophantic pundits, as if it's the only thing that'll assure a decent life for millions. Alternately, they claim that the (pick your cowardly labels given by leftists:) racist, poor-hating, greedy, selfish, angry, ignorant, dumb redneck conservatives are trying to destroy the country by way of refusing to fund ObamaCare. 

Democrats are accusing GOP House of trying to close government, of ruining the country out of political greed, by defunding the Affordable (not) Care Act. The House is not preventing the funding of anything else, really, but yet the supposedly (self-appointed) "more reasonable" White House and Democrats are accusing House Republicans of horrible political maneuverings. The political selfishness seems truly to be driven, hard, from the left. The far left. The few remaining supporters of ObamaCare on the left. 

Meanwhile, even some union leaders, and many employers, rail about how it'll hurt families, because it'll hurt jobs. That, because it will force companies to make cuts to retain their profitability (which doesn't matter to liberals, because many are too dumb to realize that profits should even matter at all to regular Americans). 

The briefly all-controlling Democrats -- in early 2010 having the WH, Senate and House they barely passed ACA -- cannot today force us all to follow their bidding. So, the most power-drunk among the Democrats still turn to absurd, desperate rhetoric defending a tragically, pro-socialist, anti-liberty law that would force most employers and employees and the medical industries into a corner, in the long run. They fight for ACA out of ego, not leadership: it is they who will lose if ACA loses funding, therefore loses its place in government. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and more, will all be seen, by more people, as failed leaders when it fails. So as Obama said recently, the argument isn't about the American people. He's leaving one of his biggest concerns out of his discussion of the matter, though. Who's name is on the bill, and who is okay with that? Obama. He is desperate to have a legacy, and Obamacare may be his only big domestic "success." The argument from his side is about retaining greater government control over health care, not about saving the middle class, as he claims it is. His goals may seem to be about American people, but if so, it is a very different America where the government rules with a bureaucratic supremacy. Some citizens foolishly support that. But with such a foolishness, the American Experiment is dying. Liberty is fading. The control of government over greater parts of everyone's lives is succeeding. That's not the America that a freedom pursuing populating wants. So I have to conclude that too many Americans have been lulled into believing government is the solution to their problems. Which, of course, is a pathetic fantasy. But when such fantasies are believed, even partially, we see government expanding its control. People are dreaming that government is a caretaker. I am not asleep with that dream, nor are many others. It's a tough effort to wake others to it. Gotta keep at it.

What else do you need to know but how many initial claims have been proven WRONG? There were the best of intentions, but a terrible approach, in ObamaCare. And the promises have been proven to be a lie. I don't see why it should be funded, and I don't see a reason to even recognize the ridiculous language from the chief architects (and posers) behind ObamaCare. They've lost the war of reason, because all their claims are shown to be lies. Don't fund the damned thing!


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Elite-led media resents a hero they don't understand: Ben Carson and the real world

Dr. Ben Carson dared to suggest that gay couples deserve to be treated equally, but to stop short of giving that the word "marriage." He mentioned NAMBLA and beastiality in the same sentence as gays, upsetting some folks. He apologized and clarified what he meant. More than once. On televison. But that's not good enough for the bigotos of the left, in this drippy, no-detractors echo chamber pep rally that is most of the mainstream media.

From the article, NBC News on Dr. Ben Carson: 'Blinded by the White', on Breitbart.com:

Carson ... said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage. 

NBC News obviously wants to destroy the threat of any independent-thinking black man as quickly as possible. So it should come as no surprise that, by the time Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart filled in for MSNBC's Martin Bashir, Carson's apology was treated as far from sufficient. In short, Capehart and his guests, Toure' and Krystal Ball, treated the apology as a lie.

This is all par for the course at NBC News.

Sadly, so is the chryron pictured above -- "Blinded by the White" --  which was used as the clip of Dr. Carson played during the segment.

NBC News is notorious for using this kind of race-baiting to further its left-wing agenda, including fraud

Indeed.

While it's easy to pass it off as a given that media is left-leaning, that's not enough to indict the media. And it doesn't have to be. 

The leaders of our media are part of the most insular, closed-quarter, often the most highfalutin, parts of this country and the world. If they aren't humble enough to recognize that, and if they don't instill such humility in writers (not opinion writers, journalists!) and demand that they work against their own biases, then these media leaders and their writers are part of the problem. As it happens, these leaders are dragging newbies panting and eager to please, every year, into that same highrise with a limited perspective. Arrogance begets arrogance. 
It encourages an ignorance of the great outside: the real world. The world in which Dr. Ben Carson grew up. 

There's NBC, The Washington Post (often, not decisively), TIME, Huffinton Post (madhouse filled with nut-job leftist commenters, to boot), GQ, CBS, CNN, etc., etc., all seeming to be trying to be the big man on the left. It's a tone deafness of those who live in certain quarters believing they have the answers for the whole. 

And they will treat those who aren't on their side not with curiosity or even cynicism, but snide disregard and putrid insults, like MSNBC treats Dr. Carson.  

They need some humility. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne

Florida's Crist puts essential need over politics and conservatism

Florida Governor Charlie Crist | 2009 State of the State Address

There is no doubt, that for our economy to recover, we must get people back to work. In the past several weeks I have visited with Floridians at seven unemployment offices across our state. I have looked into their eyes and I saw worry. I saw good, honest people who desperately want the opportunity to help themselves. Some argue the politics of the federal stimulus plan. My friends, while our people worry, we cannot put politics over their needs – the needs of our students and teachers, the sick and the infirm, or those out of work. We should not ask what it means to be Republican nor should we ask what it means to be Democrat; but rather what a good human being is supposed to do. In each and every one of us is the hope of the millions who sent us here. We must honor that sacred trust, to put them first.

Above is a part of Crist's State of the State address from March 3, 2009 (as written, perhaps not as it was delivered). Crist, a Republican, is not one of the governors who tried to refuse stimulus money. He has thus become a target by conservatives. That is understandable, but only so far as as is his acceptance of the money, as he outlines above. Call me anti-capitalist, but I agree with Gov. Crist, in the comment above, at least. As fate would have it, so do all our governors, as of very recently (SC's guv caved this week). Stimulus stinks, indeed, and so does how steeply off track had gone our regulations, laws and practices. Shame.

If this stimulus results in future increased taxation burdens for states, to pay for unemployment -- and welfare of a more permanent nature -- into the future, I will be thoroughly miffed. If that's the deal, then that law needs to be trounced and "un-billed" (so to speak; that is, passing a bill to remove a prior bill). Right now, today, Florida is a state that needs this money for a real crisis. Millions would have lost their unemployment -- professionals who are not being hired by the occasional retail or other company that has an opening -- without this. Is this is good thing? Define "good thing". Do I love getting unemployment, ever? No. Would most anyone getting unemployment be happy they are getting it? I seriously doubt it! I would be much happier being EMPLOYED, and I am pretty sure most people who just got on welfare rolls feels the same way.

Do I like using tax dollars for unemployment, education and to help the needy? Yes, far more than I think tax money should be used to bail out companies such as GM, AIG and to cover bad mortgages -- all inspired by cowardly attitudes, stupid laws and bad regulation. I don't want government to be any bigger, any more taxing (literally) than it is, and I vehemently want it to be less so. Screwing people out of unemployment is not the answer, however. Getting rid of the disgustingly pandering attitudes of people such as Nancy Pelosi, where Americans feel pain for basics while she calls illegals patriotic Americans, and whines about getting her own jet for trips, THAT is where the real battle lines are, not where we help -- and minimally so -- underemployed or unemployed American families.

Do I like any of this stimulus money, knowing just what it and this absurd federal budget seem to be promising? No. But reality, to me, dictates caring about the jobless and the needy Americans, not throwing the baby out with the bath water. As for the budget, well, one can only pray that plenty of people get their common sense -- and butts -- in gear and working boots on, and move Barack Obama into a nice speaking tour in November 2012. However, that seems a very far-fetched concept to me right now, seeing the adorable little mess that 2007-08 brought in and how well it was played by the Democrats (even though it was their upside-down finance markets ideals that helped everything along, too).

Meanwhile, 2010 is not very far away, and there's some Congress and gubernatorial work to do, to get rid of wacky liberals and get in some moderates and conservatives.


- jR aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Treasury Sec fills in reporters on toxic loans plan... aide tries to embargo all that

What stunt is that, then? An embargo was attempted on a chat, which was with reporters in closed quarters, by the Treasury Sec AFTER the chat was finished. Plausible deniability of some sort? Or was it just some dumb bureaucrat trying too hard to shove people around -- not the Sec, but the press aide? Political theater, or just stupidity?

Balance of Power - Geithner Fills In Blanks of Latest Bailout . . . Off Camera - CQ Politics

[Treasury Secretary] Geithner stayed on message and appeared Obamaesque in his cool, confident demeanor. His staff was a bit more antsy, though. As the hour-long briefing concluded, a press aide tried to retroactively put an embargo on the remarks, meaning journos would have to observe a delay before reporting Geithner's comments. Many in the crowd -- a bustantial number of whom had been live-blogging or Twittering -- simply laughed.

"Too late," said one attendee. "It is?" the flustered aide replied.

I guess that's because this current Administration is so attuned to current technology. Unlike Mr. McCain, who if you haven't heard, was not enamored with using keyboards or email (damaged bones from POW torture make it hard to use a PC, perhaps). Or, maybe they are not so aware of current technology. (After all, the Obama Twitter account has not been touched since Jan. 21, 2009, for instance. I guess that cool for a campaigner to attract the young, pliable ones, but not for a Campaigner-in-Chief.)

This, below, is essence of what Treas Sec said, as far as I'm concerned.

Geithner sat at an unadorned conference table in an upstairs conference room with a bottle of mineral water and explained to about 100 reporters how the administration hopes to reinvigorate the financial system without actually taking over any financial institutions. The key is offering private investors low-cost loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve. A fact sheet distributed by Treasury aides showed how a private investor could acquire $100 worth of bad assets by ponying up as little as $6. The government would match that initial investment, and the the FDIC would cover the remaining value.

Geithner predicted a wide array of investors -- including pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and even individual investors -- will flock to the program. He ruled out more dramatic steps, such as turning the government into an owner of the troubled institutions. "We are the United States of America. We are not Sweden," Geithner declared, referring to that country's response to its early 1990s banking crisis.

Well, all my respect to the good people and country of Sweden, but thank God for that piece of real hope from the Obama Administration. I think there is a lot of noise going on, people accusing Obama, across the board, of socialist tendancies. The fact remains that we have, by definition but not governmental model, socialized companies. Gov'ts owning companies equals socialism. That's kinda one huge part of it. That does not mean we are joining Sean Penn's friends in Cuba and Venezuela (but don't tell Penn that, he is liable to punch someone).

They tried to embargo the chat after the fact, so what the heck might that preempt? A bit paranoid, perhaps, to think the "ObamAdmin" might try to eject any words spoken, since they attempted to "post-embargo" the chat, but this is the group that keeps reminding us -- and less offensive from them but Congress tries to claim it, too -- that they inherited this mess.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Crist no likee gogo juice wastee, say Sun-Sentinel

Charlie Crist is not being up front about spending for private flights, in full. He is also being tight-lipped about it. Unfortunately, while my guv jetting around on my tax dollars (everyone's, whatever) I find foul, I suspect we're simply going to discover that it is GOPers funding these quick trips, thus making this a bit of a distraction, and a bit of a NON-STORY. Time will tell!

Who pays the bill when Florida Governor Charlie Crist flies? -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Crist's office would not reveal who paid for specific flights or answer questions about them, despite the governor's vow of transparency when he took office. "Our constitution requires that our government be open and transparent," Crist said in his January 2007 inaugural address. "And under my administration it will be like never before."

Years ago, as a state senator, Crist took aim at then-Gov. Lawton Chiles for accepting about 30 flights on private jets to watch football games or go turkey hunting. Chiles later reimbursed the planes' owners more than $7,000. "The whole thing smells," Crist said at the time, calling for elected officials to fully disclose private flights.

Now, as governor, Crist is mum about his own extensive use of private planes.

The Sun-Sentinel is, of course, quite good at their jobs, so this must mean something. This related story, however, means one thing while the headline, well, I don't know what it means....

Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

What kind of headline is "Gov. Crist promotes polices to curb gases but trips leave big carbon footprint," the headline I found for the second article as part of the "print edition" version of the article? Was that translated, poorly, from the Spanish or something? Was this originally an El Sentinel article? Perhaps they meant any of the following:

• Gov. Crist promotes police who curb gases from trips that leave big carbon footprint
• Gov. Crist promotes police's curbing of gases, then trips leaving a big imprint
• Gov. Crist promotes police, is to curb gases, trips and has to leave, offers big carbon footprint

I don't know understand how governor promotes polices to curb gases, but I am sure it for to mean somethings!

"We cannot afford to ignore that carbon emissions are contributing to global climate change that may put Florida's residents and 1,200 miles of coastline at risk," Crist said that day.While Crist has promoted policies to curb global warming, his own air travel has left a considerable carbon footprint. The governor has flown extensively on state and private planes since he took office two years ago.

Oh, so it was meant to be "policies" not "polices". I understands nows. Except for "gases". What did they mean there? Should that be "emissions", perhaps?

The Sun-Sentinel is not exactly a company that one can be proud of. The Sun-Sentinel Company refused, in a practice that they apparently were never castigated for -- for quite some time, according to people I know -- to pay underpaid salaried employees overtime. They did something so, foul, so greedily elitist, yet insist on accusing the governor of anything untoward regarding mere travel? That's rich!

The media hacks and that swath of willing managerial crooks at Tribune care about as much about anything but their own bottom line as Pelosi cares about getting average Americans jobs (if it costs her her precious "patriotic" illegals). Still, I want to know what Crist has to say about these expenses. And, historically, just how much tax money that could be going to schools, for instance, is spent on jet-setting by him and other state officials.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wondering how well things are going? Just look nearby

I live in Central Florida, and stumbled across this via an Orlando networking site fro entrepreneurs. Of course, we all know that entrepreneurs know NOTHING about how money works. That's why they're small business people -- not greedy enough to be big business. A-ha. Ha. Ha.

UCF Economist: Obama's Stimulus Makes Me LOL - UCF Newsroom

So far, says [UCF economist] Sean Snaith, too much money is being spent in the wrong places, and Americans are tired of footing the bill.

“There is a growing public sentiment that you might call ‘bailout fatigue,’” Snaith says in his U.S. quarterly forecast released this morning.

“Millions of people who did the right things and yet still have watched their assets plummet are getting more angry that their tax dollars and their children’s tax dollars will be used to bail out those most responsible for our current problems.”

Snaith, director of UCF’s Institute for Economic Competitiveness, says some types of stimulus and financial rescue packages are needed -- such as investing in more infrastructure projects and a expanded, fast-acting version of the TARP program. But he fears that the new plans to hand out money are “woefully lacking in detail.”

“The devil, as they say, is truly in the details,” Snaith says. “Nobody knows exactly the total bill the U.S. government -- really, American taxpayers -- will run up before this whole shameful debacle comes to an end.”

Oh those damnable anti-Keynesians!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Obama omnivorous budget: CNBC goes contrary to evil sisters NBC News and MSNBC

Omnivorous, oops! In the headline I meant to say omnibus. Or maybe I didn't. We'll have to see just how much the Federal 2009 budget EATS away from our economic hope and change (spare change and otherwise) before I reach a conclusion.

CNBC, the business-minded and fun-loving sister of evil twins NBC News and MSNBC, offers this...

Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More - Money and Politics Blog - CNBC.com

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

What happened?!! Was that a bus that hit me, or just reality of living under a President Obama economic policy?

I hope all you voters are proud of yourselves, putting an unproven, professional candidate in charge of the end of capitalism as the driving force of the biggest economy on the planet.

At least, temporarily.


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Dumb butts win: Many who played by rules see unfairness in economic recovery tactics

Bailout lament: What about me? - The Boston Globe

"What about people like me who are playing by the rules, who got a mortgage we could afford?" said [Brian] Carpenter, 52, who programs building management systems for MIT Lincoln Laboratory. "Maybe I'm too old school, but you sign on the bottom line, and you're responsible for it."

Carpenter is among the vast majority of Americans who work, pay mort gages, borrow responsibly, and now find themselves facing the bill to bail out those who didn't. Over the years they lived within their means. Now they're asking: What for?

He sees the federal committing $1 trillion to bail out banks and struggling homeowners, and nearly $800 billion to offset economic damage caused by reckless lending and borrowing. What's in it for him?

Well, clearly, this "Carpenter" guy -- if that is his real name -- is part of the problem. He contributed to the reason why the global economy is in a slump. He probably voted for John McCain in Nov. 2008. No doubt, he supported GW Bush, the worst president this nation has ever had, ever. He was happy about that needless spending on Homeland Security, the Middle East empire-building, waterboarding a million innocent small boys with brown skin in Iraq and secret prisons all over the world, depriving everyone but Dick Cheney their civil rights. Surely, this self-thinking, self-responsible jerk thought all that war mongering was totally awesome! He's probably in that camp that is angry that more Iraqis haven't died!

Had "Carpenter" been like the regulators, the high-risk banks, the investment managers, hedge fund managers, mortgage companies, the Congressional financial leadership, FMA, FHA, subprime mortgage holders, etc., over the years, he wouldn't be in this spot! He'd be getting money, not losing it! If he played along maybe he'd be getting a piece of the pie!

I hope this stimulus teaches you, Mr. Carpenter! Your RESPONSIBILITY created the mess you're in. Maybe next time you'll go along with the greedy, self-centered, politically motivated, and irresponsible flow and stop being so rational about things! If you get more progressive, as defined by MoveOn.org, Think Progress, ACORN, ACLU, and the top Democratic congressional leadership, you wouldn't have such as hard time about having to think so much, you could just agree a lot, like all those satisfied subprime mortgage customers. After all, you're not important! You're just one man. Let others handle all the thinking for you next time. They know better -- bankers, politicians, secretaries of dead Nigerian government ministers who contact you by email. Trust them all and you'll feel better!

I hope this teaches ALL of you overly individualistic, self-thinking people who refuse to ignore basic logic and accept what others tell you what makes sense. I hope you will pay attention next time someone tells you that living beyond your means is the only way to live, that pop musicians and actors are the most logical people on earth, and we ought to have only one party in this country that runs things. I hope you will, now that you've been shown how dumb it is to be RESPONSIBLE, that you will listen when someone tells you something like "I'm your mortgage advisor, I'm only here to help you."

I mean, what fool wouldn't listen to advice based on government laws built on illogical economic reasoning and greedy financial dealings? What fool would ignore the fact that once you vote people into office, it is their God-given right to tell you what to do?

I just wish you RESPONSIBLE people would snap out of it and let the government tell you how to do everything! If you would just trust government -- and by government I mean Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and their flying monkeys, not those irritating governors or Republicans -- you would be so much more better off!


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

CFIF.org: Spending is illegitimate way to motivate economy

Why Massive Government Spending Is Ineffective “Stimulus” – A Primer

Barack Obama, economically uninformed and obviously confusing his temporary personal approval rating with some sort of permanent mandate to do whatever he pleases, crudely justified his unprecedented spending proposal by grunting, “I won.” Shortly thereafter, Obama rationalized his agenda to House Democrats attending their retreat last week with the following irrational and simplistic attempt at humor:

“So then you get the argument, ‘well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.’ What do you think a stimulus is?! (Laughter and applause.) That’s the whole point! (More laughter and applause.) No, seriously! That’s the point! (More laughter and applause.)”

Clearly unable to defend the indefensible, Obama instead retreats to sarcasm and juvenile humor as if his premise is self-evident.

Tossing aside that Obama's comments goofily ignore 1/3 of the bill, that minority which is tax cuts, this strikes me as a core argument against Democrats who argue that spending is the only way to go. That Obama, even in front of his own party, ducks the issue, suggests he does not get it. Democrats, mostly, seem to think that more government control is the solution to an economy problem created by government not doing its existing tasks of responsibly regulating fields where greed runs rampant.

The comments in the quote are from CFIF.org, a group I am personally not very informed about, but which is interested in individual freedoms, thus smaller government, above all else. Apparently, these days, that automatically makes you a conservative, probably an extreme conservative, to liberals.

I think the above quote defines the faltered argument behind rushing to spend with the stimulus. In this age of wireless, computers and a widely educated American populace, I think the stimulus ought to FOCUS on four things:

1. lower taxes for consumers and businesses,
2. relief for the unemployed and otherwise impoverished,
3. freeing of the frozen banking and finance industry, and
4. adapting to the crunch to open up free enterprise, such as making credit available.

Instead, billions are being spent on -- not wrong but wrongly involved in the stimulus -- infrastructure programs that ought to be a part of a real budget or other bill. Some of those programs, such as bridges, have indeed been put off too long since government is not the answer, but part of the problem.

Bridges and roads are failing because government has avoided offering bills to get spending for them, too focused on pet agendas to do the business of the nation responsibly. Just as the gov't ignored subprime mortgages since they felt good about letting the poor and real estate prospectors (oops!) get mortgages on the upside down financial concepts behind those bad ideas. Just as gov't ignored rampant abuses of the financial markets, derivatives and hedge funds and Madoff-style ripoffs. Just as they ignored runaway deficit spending.

Have you noticed that subprimes promoted the use of those nasty derivatives, so people could keep the madness going, handing off the bad mortgages, like financial musical chairs. It alone proves that governmental liberal, short-sighted ideas to give people things they cannot afford are BAD! They will fail us, and today, they have led us into a bigger failure than they alone could give!

Gov't ignored regulation in areas of money and investing, and offered illogical programs for mortgages, the best places for greed to swell for the ethically abstract among us, and it ignored infrastructure. Two kinda obvious things gov't ought to always be dealing with, and overtly. And yet, gov't says now that they ought to be able to be in complete control, according to Democrats. How rich!

Caution against big government of all cautions, when we're all sweating to begin with, the government slips in the programs that they are too chicken to pass in good times. How does that get me a job, exactly, unless I am in those fields or can do -- physically can manage to do -- those jobs? I am sure lots of unemployed folks over 40 will be thrilled to know they can help build bridges out in the summer sun for ten-hour days when they've been living in a cubicle for 15 years or more.

Isn't it ironic, and eery, that a belief the small, regulatory role of government in trade is viewed as old-fashioned and part of a "failed" economic model by the Democratic leadership? What's the option, in their view? Isn't our government TOO BIG now?!! They blame GW Bush for making it larger, through the creation of Homeland Security, leaving out that the motivation was the greatest attack on our shores in 60 years. But they want to make government control of things greater, not just in what they have failed to do and should have regulated in finance and banking, but overall.

Where will they stop? Hugo Chavez' and Castro's model? China's model? Sweden or France's model? How long has it been since either of those last two states "wore the pants" anywhere in the world? The American liberals seem to forget that, on top of being in an economic down trend, we are also the only thing keeping Russia, China and other big, not very nice nations from running the whole show. I guess they'd want to stop just short of that. And, Sen. Kerry and fellow wealthy liberals who think government is the answer, where exactly would you stop? Do you have a specific thing in mind, or would you simply guess where we ought to stop?


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Forbes: Paul Krugman let out to pee on NY Times

Help! The crazy economist is after me! OK, Krugman takes a wild pitch at supply-siders, that's all. But it is a wild throw! Read the piece in the NY Times, you'll notice the rest of it is not even cohesive with the first paragraph. I assume this means he is now forging ahead full steam with a "hate Republicans" career (even though he was an economist affiliated with a pretty big one, once). I guess the getting's easy now, huh?

Forbes' writer Karlgaard blogs his defense of supply-siders and business, and damns -- rightfully, I say -- the immoral capitalists. We could use more of that!

Failure Of Morality, Not Of Capitalism - Forbes.com: Digital Rules By Rich Karlgaard

“Old-fashioned voodoo economics--the belief in tax-cut magic--has been banished from civilized discourse. The supply-side cult has shrunk to the point that it contains only cranks, charlatans, and Republicans.”

Take a guess. Who wrote this?

If you said "one of those anonymous twerps posting on Daily Kos," you are forgiven. Had I not cut and pasted this crazed quote myself, I might have guessed it came from a reedy tenor in the Huffington Greek Chorus.

It was actually Paul Krugman, writing in today’s New York Times.

...supply-side capitalism is just a simple and benign idea. It posits: Only suppliers can supply us with goods and services. The demand side can’t will a product or service
into existence. Society therefore advances economically when it reduces tax and regulatory barriers to the creation of goods and services.

Hardly a cultish idea. One can unpack this simple idea into entire books, and many of Krugman’s betters have. The reputations of Smith, Say, Schumpeter and Hayek surpass that of the dyspeptic economist writing for The New York Times.

In fairness, Krugman is not alone. Many people do blame capitalism for bringing us to this low moment in the economy. Do they have a point?

They do if capitalism, as they define it, is devoid of any underlying morality. True enough, it is hard to see any underlying morality when one surveys the present carnage caused by liar loans, shady banks, duplicitous politicians, Ponzi schemers and regulators angling for Wall Street jobs.

The author continues by reflecting on the title of his piece, and I think perfectly, rightly, so in his suggestions on how to get back on track. Lest we ultimately FAIL (!!!), I should note.

This weekend, I caught a BBC radio program on the meltdown in “The City”--London’s financial district. The program quoted many young Brit bankers who said morality was a barrier to personal success in The City. Better to have the sociopath gene if one wants to become a billionaire.

What we are hearing and seeing, in other words, is a failure of morality, not of capitalism.

How do we get back to the old Adam Smith/Benjamin Franklin idea of free enterprise based on a moral foundation? It won’t be easy, but I think we need to start with these:

Please read the piece to review his kernels of good old American business... goodness, and keep going.

Krugman, a Nobel-winning economist (that was the old days, while today some suggest he's merely a political pundit who hates the GOP and favors state-heavy economics) will have NOTHING to do with that remotely unpartisan, working together thing. He wants to blame it all on the same people that 18-year-old video game addicts who don't read want to blame it on: the bloody Republicans.

Oh, please, will someone please out him as a slimy little socialist -- and uncover some sickly thing he likes doing in his free time or something -- so we can move past this kook?!! Geez -- where's Noam Chomsky when you need him!!! (Gaaag!)


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

All hail the Mexican billionaire: news media to plummet farther, NY Times goes first

The Times to get their own bailout. From Mexico. Is this a Peter Sellers film I've not yet seen, or what? 

New York Times may find benefactor in Slim | Reuters

The New York Times Co has heard more than its share of opinions on what it must do to survive. Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim appears ready to let his cash do the talking.

The 68-year-old telecom tycoon, ranked by Forbes magazine as the world's second-richest man with $60 billion, may pump hundreds of millions of those dollars into the Times Co.

I SUPPOSE this is because his money, and plenty more of it, is not needed in Mexico, where everyone is wealthy and enjoys a good economy, reasonably safe neighborhood. Who knew? Well, I guess those stories of Mexico plummeting into a nether-world of battles of police versus drug gangs, especially near the U.S. border, were just propaganda. 

Slim is the second richest man on earth - ON EARTH! Indeed.  Glad to see his own country doesn't need the awesome usefulness of his huge bags of money. I had no idea how well the infrastructure improved in Mexico in the last week, and how economically stable Mexico was! On the other hand, I guess he's already applied his wealth where it is needed: keeping the impoverished where they belong, like a good crooked capitalist in a grandly crooked political system that poses -- far more laughably than most -- as a "democratic system."

Here's a fundamental question: how exactly would someone become the SECOND WEALTHIEST MAN in the WORLD in Mexico? Seriously, how? Mule sales? Earthquake insurance? Drugs? There's a lot of world out there, and this guy pulled off second place on the richer scale (grin) from creepy, dangerous, unkempt, corrupt little Mexico.

Go ahead, look the other way, NY Times. You're good at seeing one side of a story! Take that cash in one hand and proclaim appreciation for "progressive" policies on your pages. You get Slim's money to hang on like a bloated U.S. auto company, and the U.S. at-large gets Mexico's troubled citizens, for any reason, like a painfully trickling Mariel boatlift. 

Illegals are like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're going to get. Once the plans are complete, the "progressive" plans, the U.S. will appreciate how crooked Mexico is, since for the lower and middle classes it will be in the same condition as Mexico by the end of Obama's first administration, if the far left has anything to do with it (such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi). You go, NY Times! Let's hear it for the master of so-called "progressive" journalism.

This is the NY Times -- please turn off the irony -- which ran front page stories about a non-affair by John McCain back in 2008 which was based on totally unfounded rumors. Meanwhile, it buried news of completely strange and questionable issues about Obama as much as they could manage it. Regularly. Repetitively. Often!

This paper, once held at the top of journalistic high regard, not just a place for highly intelligent, nonobjective writers, and for politically wrongly categorized commentators such as David Brooks, is going to be bailed out by a proclaimed telecom tycoon? 

Wow. That just ... that really ... that simply underlines how sad news media is today. Sad. Very, very sad. We've gone from conscientious and overt, to TV reporting and the selective nonobjectiveness of Ed Murrow, to the knee-jerk, one-sided reporting that is pervasive in much media, to being bailed out by Mexican business cretins. What's next? Reporters simply shooting the people who disagree with their editorializing? 

What a waste of paper. 


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Chavez not dropping oil program, but the way to pay was questionable

Chavez says US heating oil program never suspended - Americas AP - MiamiHerald.com

At a news conference, however, Kennedy said Citgo made it clear the decision was not a cancellation of the program. "But at the end of the day, the tankers are not going to be in front of this building," he said.

Citgo Chief Executive Alejandro Granado later said in Boston that the company had found a way to continue paying for oil shipments.

On Saturday, Chavez poked fun at analysts who said he was cutting the assistance to make relations difficult with President-elect Barack Obama, saying they made him laugh.

"They build this analysis on a lie," he said.

I still hold to my anger that a U.S. oil company, and a nonprofit, and our country, cannot buck up and cover this and tell Chavez "thanks, but no thanks." As I wrote a few days ago in this post: Like, Totally Political, Dude!: Chavez dropping oil program for U.S. poor, who's to blame?

It seems rather unbelievable that the same thing was not possible through anyone else, that this was even an option for Chavez to use -- ironically, it did some good. I don't like the power-happy guy, as he's religiously self-lauding and stunningly arrogant, but I cannot dislike his doing as he did.

You should recognize that the oil for poor program is a perfect, and self-serving, way for Chavez to appear to be a benefactor to U.S. poor. It is only honorable on the face of it. If I rna everyone's lives, this is the least I would do. But I do not, fundamentally and wholeheartedly, believe in any system where one-party, one dictator rule serves the greater good. On the whole, it does not. It is a simple truth. Those who wish to live in such a system are welcome to. Don't even address it in this country -- this country is and God-willing will always be about ridding the world of stupid people with stupid ideas like dictatorships, fascism, communism, and socialism. People will still try, and it might make for insteresting reading (Karl Marx did well with it) but it isn't a system that can properly fix itself. Our is dangerously close to being an elitist-ruled country that cheats the poor for the good fo the rich, we can't fix that with socialism. Not the answer.

There has never been any good consistently carried through in a country that was ruled over by one person or one party. The USSR was a disaster. China is still, more than not, a screwy, impoverished backwater. Europe is full of nations that are struggling under the weight of their too-generous welfare-type programs, leaving not enough room for helping when a crisis hits. Why do we want more of that in the world?

One ruler nations run the great risk that individuals are limited throughout. Ass-kissers excel in dictatorships. I hate ass-kissers. We have lots of little dictatorships -- companies -- in America. I don't like that kind of company, or even one office of any company, and I don't like that kind of nation. Such systems are effective for killing inventiveness -- thus why many sectors in the U.S. lack ingenuity these days. It is that simple.

As for nations, any socialist leaders ever came to power through manipulation and exploitation of the poor. They pulled down the educated and many highly effective people, ultimately making the country, on the whole, less than it would be under a free society sort of leadership. Look at Cuba, for crying out loud.


Chavez is an ultimate arrogant politician. That is a simple fact. I am glad he is not the ever-loving-the-killing Pinochet or similar autocratic South American socialist-communist. He's only politically dangerous to a free, liberty-loving, democratic society. For now, at least.

But this shows the gritting teeth underneath the smile of the supposedly concerned oil and other wealthy leaderships of the U.S. They all ought to be put to task for leaving such a basic and obvious hole opened for Chavez to serve our poor.

I can't fault Chavez for this -- I fault us for being to uncreative to squash his ability to do this BY DOING IT OURSELVES.

Shame on the rhetorically wealthy oilmen in the U.S. who, along with their snob friends, choose to argue that the poor, uneducated, struggling and fundamentally overlooked in this country ought to just get off their duff or they deserve to freeze throughout the winter. Social conservatism fails completely when it enters the realm of choosing to not create a clever way to afford to help the tragically poor to get through the cold winters that half the nation faces


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Chavez dropping oil program for U.S. poor, who's to blame?

Hugo Chávez shuts off discounted heating oil to U.S. poor - MiamiHerald.com

Chávez instituted the low-income heating oil assistance program in 2005 through the help of Joseph P. Kennedy II, a former congressman and a son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy heads Citizens Energy.

Chávez won cheers when he announced during a 2006 visit to a Harlem church that he planned to expand the program.

Critics have lambasted Kennedy for taking Chávez's oil. However, he has always been unrepentant.

''Some people say it's bad politics to do this,'' Kennedy says in a video on Citizens Energy's Web page. "I say it's a crime against humanity not to. Because no one, no one should be left out in the cold.''

Cannot argue with the logic of Joe Kennedy's comments, because, dammit, it's not right to let folks freeze. It seems rather unbelievable that the same thing was not possible through anyone else, that this was even an option for Chavez to use -- ironically, it did some good. I don't like the power-happy guy, as he's religiously self-lauding and stunningly arrogant, but I cannot dislike his doing as he did. That makes every other oil provider, including the U.S. ones, culpable for low ethical standards. If Chavez can do this, what the hell, other oil men? Get off your bloated asses and provide some act of good, however cynical it may be, to the world.

Chavez? He's simply bad news for anyone who even suspects that capitalism, when properly and ethically dealt, works, especially in the U.S.

But the bottom line is, the rest of the industry is to blame for Chavez using this to his very political advantage. Using the poor. Ahh, what a common theme among politicians. Disgusting. Who's going to help now? Not Exxon Mobil, huh? You are all a bunch of "oil-holes." You know what I mean.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Relax! The government is here to help us.

Watch this. Unless you know nothing at all about economics, and you want to know nothing, and you want to ignore everything about economics.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) on fixing the economy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKc4XFK0iVY

Ouch.

If you think he's coming off as a bit smug, then consider that he's trying to keep his disgust with the stupid approach to this disaster in check.

If you think he's a bit cynical, then you get the point. We should all be cynical about how the government led us to economic ruin and are now guiding us out.

The crux of our problems aren't, as some believe and would lead you to believe, inherent to the system in which we live. Oooo, capitalism is bad, it is all about greed and selfishness. Yeah, unlike Soviet communism, which was about individuality. C'mon! The breakdown is that some people have the power and others don't. This is still a free society and the media -- real news is getting harder to find, but it is out there -- is still free.

The CRA mortgage lunacy -- the mortgages that were pegged to a policy of housing prices never, ever going down -- were not just part of this, but the lead-in to this mess, plus they were only ONE sign of the lack of insight of government into being the finance and economy's watchdogs. So there's subprime (the mortgages), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, derivatives, hedge funds, and that's the short list of things they let ride with little control: the White House and Legislature. Mostly, our legislature -- they are the ones influencing regulation directly. The White House can only send bills to the legislature, and wait to approve it once Congress does. It's simple.

These big boys and girls in Washington DC ought to have very few responsibilities, unless you believe we ought to be a socialist country and most people in the country ought to work directly for the government. They ought to run the military, be a watchdog of unethical capitalist behavior and watch the people with the money. Instead, we have people who directly colluded with the companies who brought us here running the show and using more and more money to bolster CEOs and companies that sat on their butts and watched things fail.

No, I am not happy. But am I wrong? I think I am correct. See here. Or, go through all of this.

-jR

[via email]

Organizer: check. Money-spender: check. Who's entering office?

The two things that are clear now that the election is over are (one) that Obama spent a lot lot lot more money toward the cause of winning and still barely took the win and (two) the Obama campaign was a damned well-run organization. My hope is that the community organizer turned campaign organizer turned country organizer -- I mean he became the country's president, Skippy -- is what predominates in the White House, and not the vigorous money-spender. After all, only taxes can fund his spending now. And many millions cannot even get a job at this point, let alone pay more taxes.

I hope the organizer is who shows up for the economic recovery work and for keeping the world's militant terrorists and other cretins at bay. We don't have money, not any longer, and if Obama expects to raise taxes as expertly as he raised campaign cash, we're all in deep doo-doo. Exclamation point.

America: wake up and start thinking like a businessman, not a welfare or "bailout" proponent. Capitalism is about selfishness, you say? So socialism is the opposite of selfishness? Please! In a perfect world, perhaps no one would work and all our problems would be solved. If you live in that world, let me in! Otherwise, let's talk about making the real world function.

Here's the problem: a socialist country with lots of power is dangerous, far more dangerous than we could be -- really -- and all the examples of extremely socialistic powers ought to be proof of it. The USSR, for instance, in WW II and afterward, under Premier Stalin. Supposely a nation rules by the common man. As if. Enough said.

Socialism is akin to communism (the real world thing, not the idealistic thing that Marx supposed could work but has been proven a failed idea, because people cannot stick to it, seeing as they are diverse humans and not simple-minded widgets) and they are akin to totalitarianism and fascism. They are not safe models of a national structure for countries with power. Look at what the USSR did for the world: not much. Killed millions upon millions for the will of one leader. That's a wrong idea. Capitalism and republicanism and democracy are far safer, since in our case at least, they are also propped up by ideas and a rule of law (not a rule of man).

We have far too much power, still, in this darker time, than most nations can dream of. We are not Sweden. So, snap the heck out of it, folks. We need to stay at least modestly individualist-minded. That way, losers can learn to win, or they remain losers. The bitter can learn to solve problems, or continue to have them. I have loads of problems. My life will always suck unless I solve them. Simple. That is not a bad system. One where Joe Stalin can rise to the top is a bad system, not one where Obama, or GW Bush, can rise. They are not inhuman, madly paranoid, or otherwise unseemly, no matter how badly you want to believe it. They are not Blagojovichs, for instance. Or even silly, unethical Ted Stevenses.

There is a very clear line to be drawn, and that is going to determine if this economic problem turns out to continue far too long (allegedly) as did the American Great Depression and the Japanese deep recession of the 1990s. Mind you, there are fair arguments that it was not Roosevelt's socialistic ideas that pulled us out of depression, but extended it. It was the efforts to get people back to work, quite simply, that got us out of depression. Social programs don't solve money woes, they exacerbate them. Work and commerce solve money woes. We can only print money so long until it weakens the dollar so much that it is worthless, too, so don't count on that solving the woes, either.

See this post ("In the end, did money win the White House?") for more about money, winning, and what spending tons of cash versus the election outcome means in a fairly rational sense, as opposed to what Obama's fanatics want it to mean. In short, call this a landslide, and what will come eventually is a blow back -- a very painful one for Obama, Democrats, and the government leaders who seem to never learn how to govern.

- jR

Crazed 'Blago' got tough against the Tribune, got FBI visit in return

Was it simply "kill or be killed" for the Chi Trib against this crazed Democratic governor? CNN and others are getting further into the story -- more will surely come. How Obama fits into this ugly picture is yet to be made comfortable for the fresh prince of the Beltway. Stories do suggest that Obama is tied to this "Blago" kook through his buddy Tony Rezko. That's not good. Not good at all. What a year 2009 is going to be -- gag.

U.S. attorney: Blagojevich has taken us to 'new low' - CNN.com

The Obama transition team is aware that Blagojevich is in federal custody, but has no comment, according to a senior Democratic source.

The government also accuses Blagojevich and Harris of threatening to withhold state assistance to the Tribune Company -- the company that owns the Chicago Tribune -- in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field baseball stadium. The company also owns the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field.

In exchange for assistance, the governor and his chief of staff wanted the newspaper to fire Chicago Tribune editorial board members who were sharply critical of the governor, the government said.

I guess the Tribune won that one. Will they win the business operations war? Bankruptcy was a second shoe dropping. Only time, and lots of turnover in management, will tell.

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

Recession, recovery, or other: Word definitions and other confusing things

Forbes, as I've noted before, tends to report against the predominant ignorance of mainstream (middling educated) media, popular opinion and political convenience. The magazine's pieces tend to follow some sort of logic -- imagine that.

In early December 2008, it was announced that the U.S. had been in a recession for roughly a year, to the surprise of anyone who actually knows that a recession is. I mistakenly assumed that this meant the quarterly GDP reports for that period were to be officially adjusted. I was wrong. But did the mainstream media grab onto this? No, they didn't. However, Forbes actually looked at the numbers and filled in the holes that I found in the government's assertion.

Congratulations, It's A Recession - Forbes.com

They pointed out that a "popular yardstick for recession -- two successive quarters of GDP decline, has not yet been reached. The economy dipped (-.2% GDP) in the fourth quarter of 2007. But in the first quarter of 2008 it grew .9%, and in the second quarter, it grew 2.8%.

The economy tends to be well on the road to recovery before unemployment starts to fall. In 1990-91, it was 15 months after the bottom of the recession that unemployment peaked. After the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2001, unemployment peaked 19 months later. That means the unemployment rate of 6.5% is likely to get worse for some months before it gets better.

Minding the maxim on investment prospectuses, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. The NBER puts it tersely: "The committee does not forecast." The amount of time until recovery depends largely on what happens to falling home prices and troubled credit markets.

But at least it's nice to be talking about "recovery" instead of tip-toeing around "recession."

Surprise! We've had a recession for a year already! Even though GDP has not been in the negative consistently, we have been in a recession. The definition is changed, it would appear. That's fine -- I would rather see economists err on the side of caution than -- it sounds pale just thinking it, seeing it is how we got here -- to approach things with too much (bloated) confidence.

What kills me is these folks who have been stammering around proclaiming we were in a recession, a deep recession, a depression, without even actually comprehending outside of the self-centered little universe they live in, what any of that actually is, will now think they are brilliant for having been proclaiming recession since they lost their CRA-mortgaged house when their unemployment ran out. Or something.

Those folks, though, will never learn. They don't want to learn, they just want to complain. That's what they do. Perhaps under Obama, they will hold their tongue for a while longer at least, since the great Prince of Darkness will no longer be (a) the president, (b) the vice-president, (c) the Treasury secretary, (d) host of the Tonight Show...

- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.