Posts Tagged ‘space aliens’

Brilliant Obama Geniuses More Stuck On Stupid Than Ever

August 28, 2011

Obama is giving Spanish-owned companies “shovel-ready jobs.  But they’re GREEN shovel-ready jobs.  So apparently it’s okay if those jobs only cost the American taxpayers – well, make that the Obama administration and his massive government bureaucracy borrowing from China so that American taxpayers have to pay principal plus interest – more than two million dollars per job.

John Ransom  
Palin Thumps Harvard
August 22, 2011

If you drew a straight line between the Obama White House, Harvard and Martha’s Vineyard, you’d apparently find no real economists judging by the effluvia created through progressive economics in this country.

But would it be too much to ask if we could have a few people who could just add, subtract, multiply and divide? What exactly is an Ivy League degree worth if you can’t do lower mathematics?

I guess a lot less than Sarah Palin and a University of Idaho bachelor’s degree is worth.

Go Uof I Vandals!

In a quest for a few more “green” jobs that the administration can brag about, the Department of Energy recently announced that they have awarded a Spanish company, Abegnoa Bioenergy, $134 million in loan guarantees for an experimental biomass plant that will create- count ‘em- only 65 “permanent” jobs in Kansas.

Say what you want but Palin’s career shows she knows how to divide 65 jobs into $134 million. That skill apparently is beyond the ken of the Hallowed-Halls-of-Harvard-and-Princeton crowd. But it certainly seems like a valuable skill for a president to have.

$134,000,000 /65= $2,061,538.46 per job.

With these kinds of economies of scale, it would make more sense for the administration to make 65 people multimillionaires outright with that money. Just think: 65 more people they could tax at a higher rate.

What’s more fair than that? I mean besides not taxing everyone out of business. But, since that’s not an option….

Oh, I forgot. That makes too much sense for a liberal. They don’t like millionaires.

They only like Brazilian, Spanish and progressive billionaires.

“This project is part of the Administration’s commitment to expand our advanced domestic biofuels industry,” said Energy Secretary Chu according to BrightEnergy.org. “Investments like these will create jobs and decrease the nation’s dependency on oil by using a sustainable, home-grown transportation fuel that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Not likely.

What it will do is help a company with $5.5 billion dollars cash in the bank, owned by Spanish millionaires and billionaires, keep $134 million in the bank. Abegnoa can then use that money in real projects that require, um, what’s technically known as a “return on investment” (ROI) to be successful. ROI is generally considered to be a good thing in the investment business if you’d like to prevent criminal proceedings. Or alternately, if you can’t produce return on investment, you can try for a government guarantee.

Obama likes to talk about investing in education, infrastructure, whatever, but if Obama were in charge of your 401k, at retirement you’d not only be broke, but you’d owe a few million. Oops, looks like Mr. Investment put some money into education and infrastructure development that wasn’t just quite as shovel ready as he thought.

That will go down so well at the retirement home when it’s time to take your medicine and eat your peas.

The problem is that Washington types have been making promises about biomass biofuels for decades now without any real progress- biomass is not shovel ready in other words, unlike the real energy projects proposed by outside Washington types, like- oh, I don’t know- Sarah Palin.

In short, biomass takes feedstock like corn leaves, wood pulp or municipal waste and turns it into a liquid fuel like ethanol or a gas, like hydrogen. It’s kind of a way of speeding up the millions-of-years process that made fossil fuels.

The clean energy crowd in DC has promised for two decades that biofuels will help break dependence on foreign sources of oil, but they always have to dial back their predictions, says Gigaom.com, a technology website and consultancy that produces green IT research.

“Originally in 2010,” writes Gigaom “the EPA estimated the industry could produce 100 million gallons, but basically it turned out to be zero. For 2011, five companies were estimated to be able to produce about 6 million cellulosic ethanol-equivalent gallons and it’s unclear if they are going to make that estimate.”

Oh, but wait, it’s worse.

“For 2012,” says Gigaom, “the EPA previously estimated that the cellulosic ethanol industry would have a capacity to be able to produce 500 million gallons. But in June the EPA quietly proposed to reduce that volume estimate to 3.5 million to 15.7 million.”

Sounds like the same government guys who estimate jobs creation for the Bureau of Labor Statistics moonlight at the EPA.

So much for the DOE’s investment in Abegnoa, a publicly-traded company with almost $9 billion dollars in sales and 26,128 employees not counting the 65 soon-to-be-hirelings in Kansas.

So much for 65 permanent jobs in Kansas. In the meantime 20,000 real energy jobs Palin created with the Nat Gas pipeline in Alaska are being held hostage to a presidential permit that Obama hasn’t signed in two-and-a-half years.

If the biomass plant made any sense at all economically the company would be able to get a loan on the strength of its balance sheet, rather than having to rely on guarantees from the Department of Energy. Because in the end, this plant won’t make money, won’t make the rent and certainly won’t make enough “green” fuel to power Kyle Orton’s Prius for a week.

Go Tebow!

Not only can’t they produce fuel from biomass economically, everyone seems to be unable to produce commercial quantities of fuel from biomass at any price.

Say what you want about the GOP’s desire to drill in ANWR and Palin’s support of it. But at least it’s bankable, as is the Palin’s Alaska-Canadian natural gas pipeline.

I know this much for sure: On day one any energy plan Palin puts forth will thump the plan the genius from Harvard has followed.

Let’s just call biomass what it is: the sub-prime market of Obama’s sub-prime “green” energy business.

And let’s call the taxpayers in this scheme what Wall Street and Washington want them to be: Shovel Ready.

Oh, and how about this little bit of brilliance from Team Obama:

GE’s Immelt Advises President on Jobs and Competiveness, Exports Jobs and Technology to China
Under Immelt, GE Cuts one-fifth of U.S. Work Force; Sells China Advanced Aerospace Tech NASA Originated

WASHINGTON – August 24 – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today called upon General Electric’s Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt to resign from his position as head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Kucinich’s statement came in response to news reports that, in exchange for short-term profit, GE is sending advanced technology to China that was originally created by NASA.

“If he does not resign, the White House should remove him,” Kucinich said.

As 14 million Americans struggle with unemployment, General Electric, under Mr. Immelt’s leadership, is exporting highly-sophisticated technology to the Chinese in order to book short-term profits for GE. GE strives mightily to avoid paying federal income taxes, but goes ‘all in’ on a deal to transfer U.S. government-subsidized technology to the Chinese. Jeffrey Immelt has a conflict of interest. He cannot ethically advise the President on how to create American jobs and promote American competiveness, while at the same time leading a company that is exporting American technology and, along with it, American jobs,” said Kucinich.

A report in Monday’s Washington Post described the transfer of a virtual reality display system for airplane cockpits that GE is transferring to the Chinese as part of its joint venture with a Chinese state-owned company. The display system GE is transferring was originally developed using Synthetic Vision technology created by NASA in partnership with private industry. NASA has committed millions of dollars to pursue development of synthetic vision systems.

Kucinich added, “American taxpayers subsidized the development of this advanced technology, but U.S. taxpayers’ investment will end up creating jobs in China. In the short term, GE is selling products to the Chinese, which will help GE’s bottom line. In the long term, the Chinese will end up manufacturing and selling products using the same technologies that were made in America.”

“The United States has long been the leader in aerospace development and manufacturing. We have the best-trained, most skilled workers which give American-made aerospace products a natural competitive advantage. How can Mr. Immelt be the head of the President’s ‘Jobs and Competiveness Council’ while undermining the United State’s advantage in aerospace?” asked Kucinich. “In light of these revelations, Mr. Immelt should save the President the embarrassment of asking him to step down and voluntarily resign.”

GE has aggressively sought to cut the percentage of its American profits paid to the I.R.S., paying just a third of the average taxes paid by other American multinational companies. In 2000, 54% of General Electric’s employees worked in the U.S. That number dropped to 46% in 2010. Since Mr. Immelt assumed office on September 7, 2001, GE has cut one-fifth of its U.S. work force while increasing overseas employment.

“Obviously he is more qualified to be head of ‘Jobs and Competitiveness’ for a country other than the United States,” Kucinich concluded.

That’s right.  The same Obama who constantly demagogues that corporations should “pay their fair share” blah blah blah has as his top guy a CEO who paid ZERO in income taxes as his company used every single crony capitalist loophole under the sun.

That kind of hypocrisy and stupidity counts as “genius” in Obama’s America.

Apparently, Obama isn’t up to the challenge of actually creating any shovel ready jobs in America (and see also here).  So he’s creating them in China with American money instead.

Hey, I’ve got an idea.  Obama could listen to Paul Krugman and lie to the American people about a space alien invasion to fearmonger them into even MORE useless Keynesian spending.  That would be just plain brilliant.  At least if you are an utterly clueless liberal who is utterly blind to reality.

Advertisements

Liberal Paul Krugman Says Government Should Lie To American People About Space Aliens To Impose Liberal ‘Solutions’

August 20, 2011

Paul Krugman – former Enron advisor, liberal ideologue, Nobel Prize Laureate, New York Times writer, liberal ideologue and former Enron adviser – has a solution to America’s economic problems.

It involves fascism – I mean forcing – Americans to do what liberals want by lying to the American people to create a false crisis.

And, yes, it actually involves space aliens:

Paul Krugman Calls for Space Aliens to Attack Earth Requiring Massive Defense Buildup to Stimulate Economy
By Noel Sheppard | August 14, 2011 | 10:29

Oh those whacky liberals.

On Sunday’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” New York Times columnist – and, ahem, Nobel laureate – Paul Krugman actually advocated space aliens attack earth thereby requiring a massive defense buildup by the United States that would stimulate the economy (video follows with transcript and commentary):

See Newsbusters for video

KENNETH ROGOFF, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Infrastructure spending, if it were well-spent, that’s great. I’m all for that. I’d borrow for that, assuming we’re not paying Boston Big Dig kind of prices for the infrastructure.

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: But even if you were, wouldn’t John Maynard Keynes say that if you could employ people to dig a ditch and then fill it up again, that’s fine, they’re being productively employed, they’d pay taxes, so maybe Boston’s Big Dig was just fine after all.

Oh those whacky liberals.

So in Zakaria’s view, the government employing people to do absolutely nothing of value would fix the economy.

If this is the case, why doesn’t the government just give money to everyone? The economy, in Zakaria’s opinion, would therefore grow at a record pace.

Of course, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of arithmetic could figure out that the amount received in tax receipts would be far less than what was distributed thereby exploding the nation’s debt level in a never-ending spiral that would eventually lead to default.

Surely, the credit rating agencies wouldn’t be pleased with this.

On the other hand, isn’t it fascinating that a man that is always opposed to tax cuts – which is government allowing people to keep more of THEIR money – and doesn’t think that stimulates the economy believes it would be economically stimulative to give people someone else’s money to do absolutely nothing?

Only a liberal could think this way.

But hold on to your seats, because a man possessing a Nobel prize in economics was cued up to say something even more absurd:

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.

I mean, probably because you want to put these things together, if we say, “Look, we could use some inflation.” Ken and I are both saying that, which is, of course, anathema to a lot of people in Washington but is, in fact, what fhe basic logic says.

It’s very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy. But if you had a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. So, if you think about using all of these things together, you could accomplish, you know, a great deal.

If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better –

ROGOFF: And we need Orson Welles, is what you’re saying.

KRUGMAN: No, there was a “Twilight Zone” episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time, we don’t need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.

Oh those whacky liberals.

There’s so much in this that it’s tough to know where to begin, so let’s start with this being another admission by Krugman that it wasn’t Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s massive New Deal spending that ended the Depression.

Much as he did on ABC’s “This Week” in November 2008, the Nobel laureate once again dispelled that liberal myth.

I wonder if the Keynes-loving Zakaria was paying attention.

But more importantly, let’s look at the numbers involved to really get a sense of what Krugman advocated here.

The money unsuccessfully thrown at the Depression prior to World War II was staggering. From 1929 to 1939, government spending tripled from $3 billion a year to $9 billion.

And yet unemployment at the end of 1939 was still 17.2 percent.

Not a very good advertisement for Keynesian economics, is it?

Now imagine that kind of “stimulus” today. That would mean the current $3.8 trillion budget would have to rise to $11.4 trillion which would generate about $9 trillion of debt a year.

What do you think would happen to our credit rating and our dollar then? Wouldn’t be pretty, would it?

Yet that didn’t work in the ’30s – a fact that most liberals other than Krugman still contest – so the Nobel laureate is advocating that we spend like we’re being attacked by space aliens in order to get to the level of outlays during World War II.

Total federal spending in 1940 was $9.5 billion. By 1945, this had risen almost tenfold to $93 billion.

Such an increase in today’s budget would create a deficit greater than $30 trillion per year making our dollar and our Treasuries totally worthless.

Did I mention Krugman once won a Nobel prize in economics?

Consider too that the lasting stimulative quality of even the World War II spending is up for debate.

The National Bureau of Economic lists a recession that began in February 1945 that lasted until October of that year. This recession happened despite the federal government spending almost tens times as much as it had only five years prior and 30 times more than in 1929.

Once again, not a very good advertisement for Keynesian economics.

But let’s take this a step further, for NBER’s recession numbers might be too conservative. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product shrank by 1.1 percent in 1945, a staggering 10.9 percent in 1946, and 0.9 percent in 1947.

Again, this was after the largest explosion in federal spending in our nation’s history, and this is what Krugman is advocating we repeat.

Makes you wonder if space aliens have already arrived and they’re residing inside this liberal Nobel laureate’s head.

I’m reminded of a book quote:

“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis.  Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation.  Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency” — Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, page 42

Fascists love creating crises.  And liberals are fascists to the cores of their shriveled little cockroach souls.

Before I respond to Paul Krugman and his pimping of lies and false crises to force the people to do what liberals want (which isn’t different from what Democrats have been doing for fifty years, fwiw), let me make a couple of points.

First, the New Deal was a complete and total failure.  Don’t believe me, listen to FDR’s own Treasury Secretary:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

And for the record, in April 1939, the unemployment rate was 20.7%. Anybody who thinks that FDR’s policies did anything but dig us deeper into depression are morons.

The New Deal was a complete and utter failure.  But don’t believe me, listen to Barack Obama’s former top economic adviser:

“Never forget, never forget, and I think it’s very important for Democrats especially to remember this, that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed.”

The New Deal was a complete and utter failure.  But don’t believe me, listen to economists:

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

The New Deal was a complete and utter failure.  But don’t believe me, just open your own eyes, because you’re living through the failure of liberal stupidity all over again.

Let me take a moment to address the issue of Paul Krugman – supposedly brilliant intellectual and academic – before I move on.  I’ll quote my own previous words, which have been so accurate I’ve been able to point to them more than once:

I wrote the following the last time I wrote about a leftwing “intellectual” attacking Jews:

Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

American liberals enthusiastically supported Hitler’s socialist fascism during his rise to power, just as they had supported totalitarian communism in the years before.

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left. They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing. Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

And the foolishness of academia continues full throttle and full speed to the next fascist dictator.

Paul Krugman is a fascist with the despicable and deceitful ideas of fascism.  And he is a profoundly stupid man not because he has a diminished IQ, but rather because he he has determined to be stupid by sheer brute force of will.  He hates God and rabidly rejects the Judeo-Christian worldview that enables otherwise perverted and degenerate man to see the world as God sees it (i.e., accurately).  And all he has in place of the clear and rational thinking that comes from being created in God’s image is a collection of incredibly foolish secular humanist ideas that have profoundly failed every single time they have ever been tried.

With that said, allow me to explode Paul Krugman’s thesis that if liberal socialist fascist big government merely takes his advice and lies to the American people to trick them into re-enacting the World War Two escape from the Great Depression (that FDR’s failed policies prolonged in the first place), we can escape our dying economy.

The first thing wrong with Krugman’s thinking is that his “plan” calls for the United States to become a completely militarized society.  We’re not even pursuing the ALSO-FASCIST Moral Equivalent of War” idea where we take advantage of all the great things about militarism to provide a workable and sensible model for achieving desirable liberal ends; we’re talking about pure, hard-core militarism.

We’re not building a better widget; we’re gunning-up to take on space aliens.  We need big bombs and lots of them.  And given that we’re gearing up to take on a super-sophisticated alien race that can travel across billions of light years, we need the most dangerous arsenal ever assembled.  We need NUKES.  We need biological warfare.  We need Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Are you with Paul Krugman on this, liberals?

The second thing wrong with Krugman’s “thinking” is that, if we massively gear up our military production without actual provocation, which society will we most look like?  And the disturbing answer is that we will resemble Nazi Germany rather than the United States which responded to acts of military aggression when it militarized.

I’ve called you liberals “Nazis” for quite a while now.  Thank you for finally officially acknowledging that the jackboot fits.

I wonder how China and Russia would respond to our unilateral buildup of a massive military arsenal.  I’m kind of thinking our, “Ssshhh!  We’re doing it to get ready for the aliens!  We’re totally at peace with you!” line won’t work out to good.  Rather, China, Russia and everyone else will embark on their own militarization to balance ours, and Paul Krugman causes World War III and the extinction of the human race.

The third thing is that the United States didn’t get out of the Great Depression by merely building up its military; IT USED THOSE WEAPONS IN A GLOBAL WAR.  And we would need to do the same thing we did before.

How did the United States become the manufacturing and industrial superpower of the world?  BY BEING THE ONLY MAJOR NATION THAT STILL ACTUALLY HAD A FACTORY STANDING.  All of Europe was completely destroyed.  Russia was completely destroyed.  Much of Asia was completely destroyed.  Britain was attacked and destroyed first by bombing after bombing, and then by the V-2 ballistic rockets.

World War II finally, mercifully ended (at least until Paul Krugman came along), and who was going to build all the stuff that the world now needed more than ever?  Who was going to grow all the food?  And how about the only nation left that wasn’t in complete rubble?

So if we’re really going to pursue that World War II model, let’s do it: let’s build up that arsenal and then let’s just wipe out EVERYBODY.  And the poor, starving, desperate people who survive (assuming their countries didn’t wipe us out in retaliatory strikes) are going to need to turn to us to feed them and clothe them and build their stuff for them.

A few other things.  During the military buildup of World War II, the American people put their money behind the war effort.  We bought war bonds; we sacrificed raw materials so that the troops could have what they needed to fight.  We made due with little for a prolonged period of time so that our troops could achieve victory over our enemies.  The American people were completely united behind that goal, and willing to do whatever was necessary to make it work.  Who thinks we’ve got that can-do and will-do-no-matter-how-much-it-hurts attitude now?

Who would we borrow from now?  How are we going to finance this massive Nazi-like militarizing strategy that Paul Krugman favors?  Right now we massively in debt as it is; we’re borrowing 43 cents for every single dollar we’re spending.  And we’re in debt way above our eyeballs.

Who’s going to build all this for us?  Certainly not us!  Unions have gutted our manufacturing and our industrial bases; we’ve been forced to outsource.  Barack Obama just went on his B.S. bus tour, and who made that bus?  Canada!

This is what Detroit looks like now, thanks to sixty years of being dominated by the Democrat Party.  We can’t build anything.

I’ve watched the History Channel about how some union workers (such as during June of 1941 at the North American Aviation plant in Inglewood, California) attempted to strike to take advantage of the crisis to squeeze every advantage they could, and FDR called in the military to crush these worker uprisings.  I can only imagine the SEIU and the AFL-CIO etc. etc. pursuing the same tactics and getting machine-gunned.

And of course we need to realize that a lot of the utterly unsustainable union benefits that have since completely gutted any hope of ever having a substantial industrial and manufacturing capability arose as a result of bribing union workers not to strike during World War II.

You should understand by now that Paul Krugman is an insane and evil man. Which is another way of saying he’s a liberal. His ideas lead to holocaust, whether that holocaust be of babies, or jobs, or the U.S. economy and our very way of life.