Posts Tagged ‘Wall Street’

Punishing The Rich Punishes The Poor By Punishing Economic Growth

July 15, 2009

I don’t know about you, but I have never gotten a single job – or even a single job offer – from a poor person.  And even when I’ve applied for a job at a company, there was always a rich person or persons up the food chain who had made that job possible.  We “ordinary people” don’t stop and think about how much we have actually depended upon the rich.  But as our economy tanks, maybe it’s time we did.

How the Mighty Have Fallen

The rich really aren’t like you and me–: They’re historically recession-proof. But this time they’ve been hit hard—and we may all be the poorer for it.

By Robert J. Samuelson | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 11, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jul 20, 2009

Just who is “rich” in America is a matter of considerable disagreement. No one disputes that Bill Gates (No. 1 on last year’s Forbes400 list with a net worth of $57 billion) and Warren Buffett (No. 2 at $50 billion) are wealthy or, indeed, that everyone on the Forbes list qualifies (the poorest had a net worth of $1.3 billion). But as you move from billions in net worth to the mere hundreds or many tens of millions, and then to annual incomes of the mere hundreds of thousands, the arguing begins.

In April, The Wall Street Journal ran an article sympathetically portraying families with incomes around $250,000, the level that President Obama has targeted for tax increases. By most measures, these families rank in the top 2 percent to 4 percent of the income spectrum. But many—possibly most—see themselves as “upper middle class” and not “rich,” the paper reported.

“I’m not after sympathy,” said the wife of a surgeon who makes about $260,000. “What I want is a reality check on what rich means. I can pay my mortgage and can buy some clothes. I’m not going without, but I’m not living a life of luxury.” The mayor of San Jose scoffed at $250,000. That’s what a two-engineer couple might make, he said. It put them in “the upper working class” and wasn’t enough to “buy a home in Silicon Valley.”

The article triggered an outpouring of e-mails—many applauding that someone had finally described their harried plight; others sarcastically wondering what planet the whiners lived on. But so much angst among the affluent—however defined—attests to something else: the present recession, unlike any other since World War II, has deeply shaken the nation’s economic elite.

With secure jobs and ample incomes, the rich and the near rich are supposed to be insulated from economic slumps. Well, not this time. Many feel fearful, threatened, and impoverished. In a recent Unity Marketing survey of consumers with incomes exceeding $250,000, 60 percent said their financial situation had deteriorated; 39 percent said bonuses or commissions had been cut; 29 percent said their regular income had been reduced; 8 percent said they’d lost their jobs; and 4 percent said their hours had been reduced. Even with a partial stock-market rebound, many of America’s most affluent feel vulnerable to layoffs and lost income, just like other Americans. “This has been an equal-opportunity recession,” argues Pam Danziger of Unity Marketing.

Collateral damage is widespread. Sales at luxury chains have fallen sharply; same-store revenues for Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus dropped about 25 percent in recent quarters. Many country clubs are struggling to hold members. In New York’s Hamptons, unsold homes reached a 34-month supply early this year at the prevailing sales pace; buyers had hibernated. Economist Susan Sterne, a specialist in consumer spending, calls it “the demise of luxury… the people who buy $3,000 Gucci handbags. You see it in the luxury-car market and housing.”

Some causes are obvious. With the recession’s epicenter on Wall Street, layoffs and bonus reductions among highly paid investment bankers, traders, and money managers have thinned the ranks of the rich. The plunge in share prices has especially hurt the wealthy, because they disproportionately own stocks.

But something bigger may also be happening. In a new study, economists Jonathan Parker and Annette Vissing–Jorgensen of Northwestern University find that—contrary to conventional wisdom—income losses in recessions are proportionately greater for the well-to-do than for middle-income households. By their estimates, the relative income loss for the top 10 percent of the population is 26 percent larger than for the average household. For the top 1 percent, the contrast is even starker. Their proportionate loss is more than double—that is, if the average household had an income loss of 10 percent, the top 1 percent would lose more than 20 percent.

That doesn’t mean they suffer more hardship. It’s almost certainly tougher for a family with an income of $50,000 to adjust to a $5,000 loss (10 percent) than it is for a family with $1 million to compensate for a $200,000 drop (20 percent). And the poor experience the highest joblessness. Still, the increased economic vulnerability of the upper classes is a change from the past. Before the 1980s, the conventional wisdom was true, Parker and Vissing–Jorgensen say. Higher income conferred more stability.

It’s not entirely clear what changed. Parker thinks that “one cause is the dramatic increase in pay for performance.” In the past quarter century, salaries for top executives and managers have increasingly consisted of stock options, year-end bonuses, and sales incentives, he says. When the economy thrives, pay rises; when it sours, pay falls. Parker also cites the growth of professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants, consultants) among the economic elite. “When the demand for elective surgery or legal services or consulting services goes down, so do their incomes,” he says. Even among the top one tenth of 1 percent, wages represent half their income, and “proprietors’ income” (essentially profits from a business or partnership) accounts for another quarter. The stereo-type of the rich living mainly off dividends and interest income is increasingly outdated. Many of the wealthy are owners of small businesses whose well- being is—to some extent—hostage to the business cycle.

It will strike many, no doubt, that the setbacks and anxieties for the country-club set are just deserts. Some will correctly note that well-paid CEOs and investment bankers helped bring about the economic crisis. They’re just getting their comeuppance—and it’s about time. Others will point out that countless studies have shown that, in recent decades, the gap between the rich and the rest has widened. From 1990 to 2006, for instance, the share of pretax income received by the top 1 percent grew from 12 percent to 19 percent, says the Congressional Budget Office. The present reverses are a healthy correction. So goes the argument.

All this is understandable, but incomplete. The criticism usually presumes that if the rich and near rich get less, someone else will get more. Redistribution achieves a better social balance. Sometimes that happens. But sometimes when the rich get less, no one else gets more. Regardless of how the rich earned their money—trading bonds, performing surgery, starting new companies, providing legal work—it’s no longer so lucrative. The rich get poorer, but no one else gets richer. Society is worse off.

“Trickle-down economics” is a despised phrase and concept to many, but it also embodies a harsh reality. The rich often play a pivotal role in U.S. economic growth, and if they are enfeebled, then the consequences are widespread. Consider:

Consumption spending, the economy’s main engine, is skewed toward the upper classes, because they have most of the income. In 2009, households with more than $200,000 in income account for 3.4 percent of the total but will generate almost 14 percent of consumer spending, estimates economist Sterne. Households with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 represent about 14 percent of the population and 34 percent of spending. Together, these groups generate nearly half of U.S. consumption, although they’re only a sixth of the population.

Similarly, the rich pay most of the taxes. In 2006, the richest 1 percent paid 28 percent of all federal taxes, estimates the CBO. The richest 10 percent (including the top 1 percent) paid 55 percent. The system is progressive—that is, the richer people get, the more of their income they pay in taxes. In 2006, the effective rate for the top 1 percent was 31 percent, reflecting all federal taxes. By contrast, the poorest fifth paid an effective rate of 4 percent. (State and local taxes are less progressive, because they rely more heavily on regressive sales taxes.)

The wealthy dominate charitable giving. In 2004, families with a net worth exceeding $5 million made up about 1.5 percent of all U.S. families but accounted for 27 percent of contributions, according to the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. Those with a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, about 7 percent of all families, represented another 20 percent of contributions. So, a tenth of American families made nearly half of all gifts.

Wealthy individuals are an important source of money for venture capital—funds invested in startup companies. Individuals and families represent about 10 percent of VC money (most of the rest comes from pension funds, college endowments, and insurance companies).

When the affluent retrench, they drag a lot with them. For example, the financial crisis led to a 44 percent fall in year-end bonuses at Wall Street firms, to $18.4 billion in 2008 from $32.9 billion in 2007, according to the New York state comptroller. No doubt that struck many as overdue and insufficient. Bankers were overpaid, and huge year-end bonuses encouraged excessive risk-taking. The trouble is that the loss of taxes on the bonuses blew a $1 billion hole in the state’s budget and made it harder to pay for schools, health care, and prisons.

It’s the same story with consumption. In late 2008, spending declined at about a 4 percent annual rate, and, in the first quarter of this year, rose slightly. But Danziger’s surveys show steeper cutbacks at the top. From 2007 to 2008, consumers with incomes from $150,000 to $249,000 reduced spending by about 8 percent, while those above $250,000 cut almost 15 percent. Similarly, charitable giving decreased to $308 billion in 2008, a drop of 5.7 percent after adjustment for inflation, says the Giving USA Foundation, a nonprofit group. Donations may fall further this year. The stock market is a strong predictor of giving. A 100-point rise in the S&P 500 stock index increases charitable contributions by $1.7 billion, says the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Not all charities have suffered. “Our funding is up 42 percent over last year,” says Ross Fraser of Feeding America, an umbrella group that channels cash and groceries to 206 food banks around the country. “Charities such as ours do well when times are hard. If you have to choose between giving to the ballet and feeding a hungry child, who’s going to win?” But that compounds the pressure on other nonprofits: colleges, hospitals, and environmental groups.

It’s probably true that being rich is more a state of mind than an explicit level of income or wealth. It’s feeling of having enough money so that money is no longer a worry. For many, that sense of security is gone. Michael Silverstein of the Boston Consulting Group reckons there are about 100,000 households with a net worth—counting their homes, stocks, bonds, and businesses—of at least $20 million. Even at these rarefied levels, he thinks, many are rattled. “They’ve seen up to a 30 to 40 percent drop in their net worth from peak to trough.  Some have friends at blue-chip companies like General Electric, AIG, or Citigroup who have lost fortunes invested in company stock,” he says.

What’s unclear is whether the trauma will permanently change behavior. Silverstein is skeptical. “The nice thing about Americans is that they have short-term memories,” he says. “We’ll get out of this—and then the rich will realize they’re rich again and start to spend.” But Danziger, the marketing researcher, thinks the shopping culture has taken heavy hits. Americans have “been on an extended buying spree for the past 20 years. They’ve got stuff—and they don’t need a lot of it,” she says. There’s a growing realization “that material wealth doesn’t make people happy.” Striving to replenish their savings, Americans—even the rich—will skimp on spending.

Once way or another, it’s doubtful that trickle-down economics will soon regain the power of recent decades, when exploding stock and real-estate values and rising salaries were compounded by George W. Bush’s favorable tax changes. But cheering at its eclipse may be premature and misguided. The contradiction is that many of the large gains at the top that are routinely deplored also provide the economic fuel for desired spending at the bottom. If the rich—however defined—remain stuck in neutral, the overall economy may not do much better.

Think about some of the “filthy rich” such as doctors and small business owners.  Ask yourself this: if there wasn’t the promise of high pay at the end of the road, do you think we’d have as many doctors?  Would you spend tens of thousands of hours in study, and thousands of more hours in stressful and sleep-deprived residency, if you weren’t going to be well-paid in the end?  How about small businesspeople?  Would you risk all your savings and years of your time developing a business if you didn’t have the right to expect a real reward if you actually succeeded?

What’s wrong with us for hating such people for their hard work and their success?  Why on earth would we wish them anything but success when we benefit from their succeeding with better health, better jobs, and better lives than we could otherwise ever have apart from them?

There has long been a movement by the political left in America to be more like sophisticated Europe.  Liberals say, “What Europeans do with government is pretty good.  And what they do with civil rights is pretty good.  And what they do with health care is pretty good.”  And there’s this constant movement on the part of the left to be more like Europe.  In our Surpreme Court liberal justices have been quoting what Europeans do in their law.  The fact is, 200 years ago there was the same kind of intellectual elitest movement going on – “Let’s be like Europe.”  Thomas Jefferson made a statement that is applicable today:

“The comparisons of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell.”

That’s the thing.  As Europe has dived into socialism, fascism, communism, and just about every other “-ism,” what should have been obvious is that Americans shouldn’t be more like Europeans; it should be the other way around.  And socialist redistribution of wealth is neither American nor successful.

There’s a joke that compares the attitudes of Americans with the attitudes of Europeans.  An American rides the bus, sees an expensive sports car, and says, “Some day I’m going to own a car like that.”  And there’s a European who rides the bus, sees an expensive sports car, and says, “Some day that son of a bitch will be riding the bus just like me.”  What makes that joke so sad is that we have too many American liberals who are thinking like the Europeans even as the Europeans are beginning to think more like Americans used to.

As we speak, Democrats are devising more and more ways to fund their massive and frankly European-style socialist spending programs by punishing the rich for their success.  They are going to lift the successful Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on “the rich.”  They are going to impose additional taxes in the form of “surcharges” on “the rich” to try to pay for their socialist-style health care agenda.  As a result the rich – who already pay a shockingly high share of the taxes – will begin to see more taxes than they have seen in decades.  And they will keep coming after “the rich” as long as Marxist-style class-warfare politics pitting the proletariat against the bourgeousie continue to work for them.

Advertisements

Helen Thomas Shows It’s Official: Barack Obama, Fascist

July 2, 2009

Take a gander at the definition of fascism, and ask yourself how many parts of it Barack Obama has already implemented:

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

Barack Obama has seized control of the auto industry, in spite of the fact that Americans overwhelmingly thought it was a bad idea (with 59% disapproving).  He has taken Bush measures to control the banks in order to control the scope of the financial crisis to an entirely new levels.  And Obama additionally recently seized “unprecedented powers” over Wall Street:

The plan clearly grants the central bank unprecedented new powers to conduct comprehensive examinations of almost any U.S. financial company, as well as any of that company’s foreign affiliates.  It would also give the central bank oversight of any commercial company that owns a banking charter known as an industrial loan company, according to The Journal.

If all that wasn’t bad enough, Obama has now appointed some twenty czars – who are answerable only to him – in a move that is unprecedented in American history.  Reuters said, “Name a top issue and President Barack Obama has probably got a “czar” responsible for tackling it“).  Even longest-serving Senate Democrat Robert Byrd says that “President Obama’s ‘czar strategy’ is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.”

So as a matter of definition and fact, it is entirely appropriate to call Barack Obama “a fascist.”  And fascist leaders have never have paid such trivial matters as a “Constitution” much mind.  And this leading of America into fascism by the left shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

The only thing that anyone could argue was lacking in labeling Barack Obama as “a fascist” has been Obama’s contrived persona as presented in the media.

But that’s been blown away as well.

It’s somewhat surprising who would blow that mask away, but the fact that 40-year liberal White House Press Correspondent Helen Thomas would be the one to do it shows how obviously and how blatantly the Obama administration has sought to manipulate the media in full fascist fashion.

First of all, Helen Thomas has called herself a liberal, as an interview with CBC demonstrates:

Helen Thomas: I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

CBC Interviewer: Well, you know, it’s interesting because I’m sure that if somebody from the right was sitting here they would say… if you ask the question what should a reporter be they will say, “Oh, I don’t know, How about objective?”

Barack Obama had a much publicized “town hall” which turns out to have been very “tightly controlled,” with a tightly controlled audience and a tightly controlled list of White-House-approved questions.  Barack Obama wants to keep the real tought questions – such as who will pay for the massive government health care, how much will it cost, and will any bureaucrat ever be allowed to get between a patient and his/her physician and make decisions based on statistics rather than medical needs, just to name a few – out of the spotlight.  And so he has an event that is falsely presented as an open forum, but in actuality being controlled by the White House for propaganda purposes.

And Helen Thomas, to her credit, came unglued as White House Press Secretary Gibbs cheerfully presented the false face of propaganda as though nothing was amiss:

Gibbs: “… But, again, let’s–How about we do this?  I promise we will interrupt the AP’s tradition of asking the first question.  I will let you [Chip Reid] ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Annandale—“

Chip Reid: “I’m perfectly happy to—”

Helen Thomas: “That’s not his point.  The point is the control–”

Reid: “Exactly.”

Thomas: “We have never had that in the White House.  And we have had some, but not– This White House.”

Gibbs: “Yes, I was going to say, I’ll let you amend her question.”

Thomas: “I’m amazed.  I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and—”

Gibbs: “Helen, you haven’t even heard the questions.”

Reid: “It doesn’t matter.  It’s the process.”

Thomas: “You have left open—”

Reid: “Even if there’s a tough question, it’s a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.”

Thomas: “It’s shocking.  It’s really shocking.”

Gibbs: “Chip, let’s have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting.  How about that?”

Reid: “Okay.”

Gibbs: “I think—“

Thomas: “No, no, no, we’re having it now–”

Gibbs: “Well, I’d be happy to have it now.”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern.”

Gibbs: “Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern.  It isn’t the question—”

Gibbs: “What’s a pattern?”

Thomas: “It’s a pattern of controlling the press.”

Gibbs: “How so?  Is there any evidence currently going on that I’m controlling the press–poorly, I might add.”

Thomas: “Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.”

Gibbs: “How so?”

Reid: “Well, and controlling the public—”

Thomas: “How so?  By calling reporters the night before to tell them they’re going to be called on.  That is shocking.”

Gibbs: “We had this discussion ad nauseam and—”

Thomas: “Of course you would, because you don’t have any answers.”

This event follows a situation in which Barack Obama called upon a Huffington Post “reporter” to ask an obviously pre-screened question about Iran that generated a lot of media controversy.  Reporters were legitimately outraged over an unprecedented situation in which an American president gets to pre-screen questions at a supposed official White House press conference.

This follows ABC “teaming up” with President Obama in what amounted to a free hour-long “infomercial” to allow Obama to sell his health care agenda.  If that isn’t disturbing enough, ABC refused to allow paid ads that were critical of the presidents health care agenda during that infomercial.  This wasn’t a question of apparent bias suggesting an unhealthy White House-media relationship; it was in-your-face obvious bias proving an unhealthy White House-media relationship.

Helen Thomas has been a White House correspondent for more than forty years.  And she has been a doctrinaire liberal who clearly would tend to see things from the perspective of the administration in power.  It should be beyond disturbing to you that such a journalist would say, “We have never had that in the White House.”  That she would say, This is really shocking.”  And it should frighten you that she is “amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency” even as they reveal themselves to be the most manipulating and controlling administration in history.  It’s not just about self-righteous hypocrisy; it goes to Nixonian levels of deceit and lust for power.

An attempt by a president to control the press is bad enough; it’s terrifying when that same president has already grabbed unprecedented control over so many other things.

And it gets downright creepy when you consider that this president who is now trying to control the press has actually recieved the most favorable press coverage of any president (nearly TWICE as much favorable coverage as Bush recieved during the same period even while Bush was virtually as “popular” as Obama was).  It makes one wonder: what psychological defect, what pathological need to control, would need to exercise so much control?

This is no small matter.  We now have a president who seized more power than any president in American history – FDR included.  And we now have a Congress that is dominated by the same party as the president, and now posessing a filibuster-proof majority.  For the media to be in bed (to allude to a joke Obama made about NBC anchor Brian Williams) with the president is beyond dangerous – especially with our economy in such a fragile state.

Democracy is doomed in a nation that allows propaganda to dominate – as America is clearly doing.  Because in a democracy, people are expected to vote their will, and they cannot vote their own will when their opinion is being shaped and controlled by propaganda.

Update, July 3: As further proof that what I am arguing is true, take something that happened just yesterday, following the publication of this article.

The leftist Washington Post cancelled a “salon” event in the wake of an uproar over the sheer raving inappropriateness of such an event.  The Newspaper planned to sell access to reporters and Obama administration officials to lobbyist for sums of up to $250,000.   A quote from the Politico article breaking the story:

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

The newspaper has an incredibly flimsy excuse for this selling of its credibility, but the entire fiasco merely amounts to yet another of the complete abandonment of journalistic ethics and integrity of the mainstream media.

This is a blurring of the White House and the press that is intended to sell policy to the public.  It is dangerous.  It is facsist.

Russian Pravda Jeers As Obama Destroys America With Marxism

June 3, 2009

The onetime-official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the voice of it’s Marxist propaganda had the following article.

Clearly, if anyone would recognize the essence of socialism and Marxism, it would be Pravda.  And to paraphrase the often mocked Bush take on Putin, Pravda has now looked into the eyes of Barack Obama and found him to be a socialist and a Marxist.

American capitalism gone with a whimper

By: Stanislav Mishin     Source: Pravda.Ru

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America’s short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama’s command that GM’s (General Motors) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of “pure” free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a “bold” move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our “wise” Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper…but a “freeman” whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set “fair” maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Socialism doesn’t work next time around.  It is based on economic, theological, and philosophical presuppositions that are simply false.  It has always failed, and it always will fail.

When even Vladimir Putin, former KGB agent, former president of Russia, says the United States should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and see the devastating consequences of its own failed experiment with socialism, we should stop looking out the window of the bus Barack Obama is driving us on and start rushing to the front to wrest control of the vehicle before we go off a cliff.

Why We Should Be Seriously Contemplating The Great Depression

December 3, 2008

Revelation 6:6 – “And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.”

There are plenty of financial experts out there assuring us that any comparison between our current economic situation and the Great Depression are utterly baseless.  The problem is that most of these experts are either demonstrated hypocrites who have themselves compared our economy to the Great Depression, or they are employing extremely flawed logic in their dismissals that may well even cross the line into outright deception.

Nathan Burchfiel takes CNBC‘s Jim Cramer to task for the sort of blatant hypocrisy that we’ve seen from all to many other media analysts:

CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer said on NBC’s “Today” show Dec. 2 that comparisons between the current economy and the Great Depression are “scare tactics.” Maybe he forgot about his own reliance on the juxtaposition….

But Cramer has been among the most vocal scaremongers when it comes to throwing around Great Depression warnings.


Criticizing economists who opposed the $700 billion taxpayer bailout of the financial industry on the “Today” show Oct. 1, Cramer warned the country was “on the precipice of Great Depression II.”

He made a similar claim about the financial bailout in September, arguing that if Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson didn’t find a way to get a rescue package passed, “we are going to have The Great Depression II on our hands.”


On Nov. 11, Cramer supported another proposed bailout – this time for the U.S. auto industry by saying it would prevent another depression. “It’s like look – we got to bail them out,” Cramer told CNBC “Street Signs” host Erin Burnett. “We have to. We have to keep the Great Depression off the table.”

In other words, the “Great Depression” basically becomes a shell game, where you see the shell when the shysters want you to look at it, and then you don’t see the shell when they want to keep it out of sight.  It’s a bogeyman that some journalist, or some academic, or some government official can trot out to frighten us into doing what s/he wants to advance an agenda, and then put it away until they want to frighten us again.

Now, there was a time when a story like this one would have completely discredited a media personality such as Jim Cramer.  But in these Bizarro World days, being discredited seems to be to a journalist’s career what having a tawdry sexual affair does to a movie star’s career.

Then we’ve got the philosophical dismissal of any comparison to the Great Depression, as exemplified by government academics such as Ben Bernanke:

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said Monday the current economic situation bears “no comparison” to the much deeper crisis of the 1930s Great Depression.

“Well, you hear a lot of loose talk, but let me just … say, as a scholar of the Great Depression — and I’ve written books about the Depression and been very interested in this since I was in graduate school, there’s no comparison,” Bernanke said in a question period after an address in Austin, Texas.

Bernanke cited “an order-of-magnitude difference” in the current situation compared to the 1930s.

“During the 1930s, there was a worldwide depression that lasted for about 12 years and was only ended by a world war,” he said.

“During that time, the unemployment rate went to 25 percent, at least, based on the data that we have. The real GDP (gross domestic product) fell by one-third. About a third of all of the banks failed. The stock market fell 90 percent.”

Bernanke said the situation at that time represented “very difficult circumstances,” because “we didn’t have the social safety net that we have today. So let’s put that out of our minds; there’s no — there’s comparison in terms of severity.”

Well, first of all the fact is that Bernanke – just like Cramer – has himself made the comparison between our economy and the Great Depression, as the bottom of the same article clearly demonstrates:

In a related matter, President George W. Bush said in an interview released Monday that Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned him weeks ago that bold action was needed to avert a new Great Depression.

“I can remember sitting in the Roosevelt Room with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke and others, and they said to me that if we don’t act boldly, Mr. President, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression,” Bush told ABC News.

Which clearly means that comparisons to the Great Depression clearly aren’t so silly after all – as evidenced by the very people who are most loudly telling us that such a comparison is silly.

Bernanke and others also imply that our social support structures and our financial expertise would prevent the worst effects of any so-called “Great Depression.”  But is that really so?

When the $852 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) suddenly morphed into what one writer mocked as Capital Redistributed As Pork (CRAP), shouldn’t it bother you that an abandonment of such an enormous program’s expressed goal midstream amounts to a de facto declaration that our experts clearly don’t know for sure what they’re doing?

The notion that a Great Depression could never happen because we know so much more doesn’t hold much water for me in the light of our “Keystone Cops-approach” to all of our various bailouts and attempts at political legislation.  The fact is, after seeing our “experts” at work the last couple months, I have less confidence in them than I’ve ever had before.

But there’s another giant problem with Bernanke’s analysis, and it is difficult to imagine that he doesn’t himself recognize it.  The problem is that he’s comparing apples to oranges; he’s comparing an economy that may well be on the throes of a future Great Depression to a 1930s economy that was already well into the worst stages of a depression.  And he’s pointing out the obvious – but in fact completely irrelevant and actually completely absurd – fact that they don’t look alike.  Of course they don’t look alike – yet.

But what would have happened had Bernanke compared the economy as it was in 1929 with our economy today, rather than the worst period of the 1930s?  What would have happened had he looked at the economy just before the Black Tuesday crash of October 29, 1929, or even shortly after that crash?  The numbers would have hardly appeared anywhere near so dire, which means Bernanks’ comparison would have failed.

Let me quote Wikipedia to show you what I mean:

The Great Depression was not triggered by a sudden, total collapse in the stock market. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929.[7] Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.

In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. Conditions were worst in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the American economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.

Keep in mind that OUR stock market began to tank only a little over two months ago.  And if the exact same thing were to happen now that it did to the United States in the 1930s, we actually would expect our market to pick up significantly in the coming months – and our economy to even appear to be rebounding – shortly before a downward slope into collapse that would occur one to three years later.  It wasn’t until March 1933 – 3 years and 4 months after the Black Tuesday stock market crash – that the bottom really fell out of our economy.

And while “Great Depression” comparisons may be silly in terms of the actual economic numbers RIGHT NOW (the number of banks going under, the jobless rate, etc.), we actually face potential economic nuclear bombs that would very likely have made 1930s American financial experts faint with dread.

We are looking at $700 TRILLION in derivatives.  Compare this stupefying fact to the associated fact that global GDP is only about a lousy $50 trillion! Assets have been leveraged as much as a hundred and even two-hundredfold.  The Institute for Economic Democracy have an article titled, “Hedging and Derivative Risks Become Infinite Risks.”  The result is MASSIVE exposure such as the world has never seen lurking like some incredibly deadly plague in the form of financial vehicles that few even begin to understand and only advanced computers can calculate.  As these highly leveraged financial obligations result in losses – as has already begun to happen – the result is cataclysmic failure in financial markets beyond the power of any government to prevent.  And anyone but a fool should be able to recognize by now that such disasters can send the entire global economy crashing down very quickly, seemingly from out of nowhere.

None of the bailouts have done ANYTHING to fix the systemic structural problems with our financial system (the worst probably being the massive flow of capital out of production and into speculative markets due to the shift from being a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy).  And the fact that the $852 billion bailout package went from being used to buy bad mortgages to a completely different solution should kind of serve to tell you that no one really knows WHAT to do.

So our financial experts are throwing out our money the way out-of-control craps players throw dice.

ABC News had this:

The government’s financial bailout will be the most expensive single expenditure in American history, potentially costing around $7.5 trillion — or half the value of all the goods and services produced in the United States last year.

In comparison, the total U.S. cost of World War II adjusted for inflation was $3.6 trillion. The bailout will cost more than the total combined costs in today’s dollars of the Marshall Plan, the Louisiana Purchase, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the entire historical budget of NASA, including the moon landing, according to data compiled by Bianco Research.

It remains to be seen whether the government’s multipronged approach to bail out banks, stimulate spending and buy up mortgages will revive the economy, but as the tab continues to grow so does concern over where the government will find the money.

One critical thing to understand is that the aforementioned historic massive expenditures – which combined still only amount to half of the expenditure we are talking about today – took place over many decades, such that the various costs to the economy were absorbed over many years.  What happens when we spend trillions of dollars in only a few months?  Who knows?  No one has ever tried it before! And unlike the what had been the greatest – now the second greatest – expenditure in history, the costs associated with World War II were spent producing, building, and developing, whereas frankly most of the costs associated with our current bailouts essentially amount to paying off Wall Street’s gambling debts.

Meanwhile – as we contemplate forking over still more billions to bail out our automakers – we need to realize that we’re entering a potentially insane realm where there’s simply no end to the companies and now even the states who are “too big to fail” and need bailouts of their own.  And what of the moral hazard incurred by giving money to people, corporations, and states simply because they were the biggest fools and failures?  What impact will this have not only on the economy, but on the hearts and minds of honest people who played by the rules and ended up with nothing to show for it while the failures and the gamblers walk away with money in their pockets?  How many previously stable people will begin to angrily demand, “Where’s my bailout?”

What’s going to happen as our financial system attempts to absorb absolutely mind boggling government debts that dwarf anything ever before seen in human history?

A lot of financial experts aren’t so much anxious about what happens in the next few months.  We might well be able to throw so much money at the economy that we can stimulate it again; rather, they are worried about 3-5 years down the road as our dollar devalues dramatically due to interest payments that can only be repaid by printing more and more money.  You don’t just double an already insanely-out-of-control national debt without severe consequences.

And given the very real probability that massive spending is going to be the cause of our undoing, the social safety net that Bernanke refers to as being a preventative would actually merely be one more causative factor in a pending economic collapse.  We won’t be able to hand out food stamps and welfare checks if our government itself goes bankrupt.

So while it’s obviously not accurate to describe our present situation as a “Great Depression,” the simple reality is that we might well – and in the very near future – experience an economic meltdown that would likely make the Great Depression look tame in comparison.

Of Presidential Fitness And Media Propaganda

November 26, 2008

Fox News anchor Brit Hume reported today:

The president-elect isn’t shy about his penchant for exercise. He begins most mornings with a visit to a gym and frequently discusses his love for sports. Associated Press reporter Deanna Bellandi describes the incoming first couple as “fabulously fit.” Back in June, Men’s Fitness magazine ranked Obama the candidate as one of the 25 fittest guys in America.

So if this virtue of exercise is praised, how, you ask, have reporters referred to President Bush’s workout routine? They have used words such as “obsession,” “indulgence” and even “creepy” to describe the President’s exercise habit.

— FOX News Channel’s Zachary Kenworthy contributed to this report.

Just so we can all be aware that the blatant media propaganda campaign that damned and condemned everything about Bush while praising and adoring everything about Obama extends even into the most trivial aspects of their lives.

I don’t know.  Maybe it’s partially because, unlike President Bush and all our other past Presidents, Barack Obama does his fitness routines in place of honoring God on Sunday mornings.

The Russian media (actually a quite fitting role model for the Tass-like American media of today) provides an example of the sheer power of propaganda to distort the truth and shape public opinion:

Though Moscow’s stock market is hit harder than its counterparts in Paris or London, Russian media are limiting their coverage of the financial crisis to Wall Street’s debacle, thereby adhering to confidence-boosting instructions from the Kremlin…

The Russian stock market has suffered a drop double that of Paris and has lost two-thirds of its value in just a few months, but this national channel gives no information on the situation and devotes less than 30 seconds to the financial markets.

In the corridors of Russia’s national media there is talk of a directive issued by the Kremlin – on the sensitive issue of the financial crisis, the order is – be positive on TV.

“It’s forbidden to use the word crisis if you’re speaking about Russia,” says Vladimir Vorfolomeev, the vice editorial director of radio Echo Moskvy. “You can’t say that the Russian market is falling or that shares are plunging…you have to be more neutral, saying for example that the share value is falling.”

But on the other hand, there are no restrictions when it comes to reporting on Wall Street – there, Russian journalists do speak of crisis and the inevitable recession which shows the limits of capitalism.

“They report that the plummeting US economy is dragging the rest of the world down,” says Vladimir Vorfolomeev. “They report Europe’s misfortunes – just like we did in Soviet times. On the one side there’s the West, which is in the process of collapsing, and on the other Russia, which if it is not prospering, can at least boast stability”.

And the Kremlin’s plan is working: if you believe the opinion polls more and more Russians are convinced that their economy is in good shape. Russians are not worried – for now the crisis is elsewhere and hasn’t affected them.

Barack Obama has talked at length about the United States becoming more like the rest of the world.  And in some ways we already have: our media, for instance, is now as thoroughly corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy as news services of all the totalitarian regimes we used to stand against.

Obama Says He’ll Bankrupt Coal Plants, Wipe Out Half Our Electricity

November 3, 2008

I hope they find out about this in the following states before they make the biggest mistake of their lives: Montana, Illinois, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Texas, Indiana.  Those are the ten states that collectively produce about 90% of our coal.  They should really know that Obama wants to drive a key national industry into decline and then extinction:

“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

Here’s the video link and here’s the transcript of the entire remark:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

You need to understand something: the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal.  This fossil fuel is an incredibly powerful resource for our energy independence.  Why on earth would we abandon it?

U.S. coal reserves contain 12 times as much energy as all the oil in Saudi Arabia! A brief look at some numbers explains why coal is the country’s most abundant and important energy resource.

According to the United States Geological Survey, we have 1.7 trillion tons of identified coal resources — coal for which geological evidence and engineering studies provide reliable information about location, rank, quality, and quantity. (Geologists recognize that more coal deposits are likely to be discovered in the future, so they estimate total coal resources could amount to 4 trillion tons.)

Ed Morissey has this to say:

Yesterday, we looked at Obama’s notions of government sending “price signals” to change behavior that it finds objectionable, especially on energy.  This is the way Obama intends to do it.  Coal provides 49% of domestic electrical power, and any rise in the cost of producing that energy will raise its cost to consumers and reduce the amount produced.

This comes as no great shock, pun intended.  Obama already called for a 15% reduction in demand for electricity — at the same time he and his allies want transportation to switch from gasoline to electricity.  Obama never explained this particular contradiction.  How does one switch tens of millions of vehicles from gasoline to electricity while not Increasing demand, let alone by cutting it 15%?  And when trying to break free from a recession, the nation will need greater production in energy, not a reduction.

As Wikipedia points out:

Coal fired power plants provide 49% of consumed electricity in the United States.

Obama frankly admitted that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under his plan (audio here):

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

It is frankly amazing that this is just dribbling out now, when it should have been known for months.  The media has refused to investigate Obama, and there are far too many frightening things we just don’t know even on the eve of the election.  Barack Obama has a dangerous policy that is based far more on naked ideology than on commonsense economics.

Global warming is largely an ideology masquerading as legitimate science.  As though God himself were calling global warming alarmist “idiots,” the first October snowfall since 1922 blanketed London as it hosted a global warming debate.  This kind of massive contradiction goes on all the time, but global warming ideologues ignore the facts and focus only on their theory and the political and economic redistributionism they hope to force upon the world.

The science is actually amazingly clear on global warming; it is primarily a cyclical climatic phenomenon that occurs about every 1,500 years.  But there is a systematic effort on the part of scientists and journalists to stifle the evidence, intimidate those who try to reveal the truth, and, and engage in scientific fraud in order to perpetuate a profoundly flawed theory.

Bankrupting vital job-intensive industries that provide enormous energy resources is hardly a reasonable approach.  Sending electricity rates skyrocketing is hardly a reasonable approach.  But that is what Barack Obama has clearly said he intends to do to groups that WANT those things to happen because they care more about greenhouse gasses than human lives.  Barack Obama delivered this remark to the same sort of San Fransisco elites to whom he delivered his (in)famous line:

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

And the same sort of San Fransisco pseudo-intellectual and ideological elites who nodded over the one discourse nodded over the other.

You can’t trust Barack Obama; he is dangerous.  “Over 70% of CEOs fear an Obama presidency will be a disaster.”  Wall Street is terrified of an Obama presidency.  And you should fear an Obama presidency, too.  You should be terrfied of an Obama presidency, also.

If Obama Wins, Should Republicans Hope Democrats Win HUGE?

November 2, 2008

The polls are all over the place in the Presidential race.  I’ve had Democrats pointing to polls that have Obama up by as much as 14 points.  This morning I assumed I must have slept through Wednesday, because the crowd at ABC’s “This Week” were all talking about the election as though McCain had lost in a Iandslide.  Questions were phrased in terms of, “Is there anything that McCain could have done?”  “What did McCain do wrong that cost him this election?”  Personally, I still believe that McCain will eek out a victory, as voters who have no real inclination to support McCain will realize that they have very good reason to reject Obama.  I just can’t imagine that the country would decide to make the most inexperienced, most liberal, and most radical candidate in U.S. history our next President given our fragile state.

But I’ve got to face reality.  Maybe all those talking heads on “This Week” are right.  I frankly don’t know which polls are “most accurate” (if any), or who will surge or who will fade (although it seems to me – given their Iraq positions – that it be only fitting that McCain “surge” and Obama’s “victory” turn into a “cut and run” on him).  But regardless of what I hope will happen, or even what I think will happen, there’s always what might happen: Obama is clearly favored to win this election, and Democrats are clearly favored to win massive control of the House and the Senate under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The question is, if Obama does win, what should Republicans hope for about the Congressional elections?  What should we hope for during the course of the next two years?  During an Obama Presidency?  Should we want Republicans to do well enough to filibuster?  Or should we want to see Democrats do so well they destroy the country and destroy their own political futures in the process?  Should Republicans hope the economy recovers and hums along under Democratic leadership, or should we literally hope the economy tanks under the Democrats’ control?

You’ve got plenty of your ordinary, traditional conservatives out there.  They want what’s best for the country because they’ve always put country over party.  They want to see the economy pick up, they want to see the United States maintain and even expand its power and influence.  They want to see the country continue to remain great, because that’s what they’ve always wanted.

It’s what I always wanted.  At least up to now.  I was so proud to enlist in the United States Army with Ronald Reagan as my Commander-in-Chief.  I was proud to wear two Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals and the Combat Infantryman Badge on my chest.  And I continued to remain proud of my country after I left the Army.  During the Clinton years, I told more than a few bitter Republicans, “Whether you voted for him or not, he’s STILL your President!”  I didn’t vote for President Clinton, and was disappointed by his victory; but I was an American, and he was my President because my country voted for him.  I prayed for his wisdom and leadership.  Too bad so many Democrats never brought any similar bipartisanship with them.  They worked to undermine President Bush in every way they could.

But something happened to me.  Maybe I began to stop being proud of my country when Michelle Obama finally STARTED being proud of hers.  Maybe it was when I discovered that Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual adviser for 23 years years said, “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God damn America!”  He called America “the US of KKK A.”  And Democrats didn’t care about this outrage.  Maybe it was when I found out that Barack Obama had partnered with a man who had bombed the Pentagon, the Capital, and New York Police headquarters, who said on 9/11/2001 that he not only didn’t regret setting bombs, he felt he didn’t bomb enough.  Finding out that Obama’s rat bastard pal dedicated a book to Robert Kennedy murderer Sirhan Sirhan sure didn’t help.  I suppose that I feel that if a man like this could actually be elected President of the United States, that there must be something profoundly wrong with the country and with the people who live in it.

I just cannot bring myself to support God Damn America.  Or even wish it well.  We have become so amoral that we easily support the death-by-mutilation of 50,000,000 babies.  In fact, we have become so immoral that we are prepared to make a man who voted to let babies who have been born alive be killed.  I find myself hoping that the economy goes down the tubes under the Democrats’ control, because that appears to be the only way that people will support traditional values or the party that seeks to uphold them.

If Barack Obama is elected President, I will quote the man he called his pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years: GOD DAMN AMERICA!  THE U.S. OF KKK A!!!  And I will say my prayers accordingly: where I used to say, God, please don’t give us the judgment we deserve, I will say, “Lord, we voted for God damn America; go ahead and give it to us!”

I finally understand all the Democrats’ who expressed such vitriolic hatred of George Bush and the America that voted for him.  I love the America that the founding fathers envisioned; these Democrats repudiate that historic vision for America – and with their messiah – view our Constitution as having had an “enormous blind spot” which “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country.”  They think the Constitution and the country were deeply flawed; I think the flaw has always laid with the people who kept corrupting our system of government by imposing their will in place of our Constitution because they thought they knew better.

I loved the America of which Kennedy said, “Ask… what you can do for your country”; Today’s Democrats say, “Ask what your country can do for you.”  Or, to put it in Obama-Wright terms, Democrats hated the God bless America that we once were; I hate the God damn America that they promise to usher in.

I wonder how many conservatives will criticize me for my new feelings about Obama’s “new America.”  One thing is for certain: No one who votes for Barack Obama can criticize me; you can’t vote for ‘God damn America’ and then criticize me for saying the same thing.  I’ll bring up the last guy you Democrats nominated, and how John Kerry accused his fellow servicemen as a bunch of genocidal war criminalsbefore taking it back – and how he threw away his medals.  I won’t throw away my medals; they remind me of a country I loved, and was once so proud to serve and even shed my blood to defend.  I’ll bring up how Democrat after Democrat after Democrat justified the Iraq War until they cynically and cravenly repudiated that support for sheer political expedience.  Even though nearly 60% of Democratic Senators had voted for that war.  Even though the measure passed by wider margins in both branches of Congress than the 1991 war resolution.  I’ll bring up Rep. Jack Murtha, who accused innocent Marines of murderous war crimes before he accused his own Pennsylvanian voters of being racists.   I’ll bring up Sen. Dick Durbin, who compared U.S. servicemen to Nazis.  I’ll bring up Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was so quick to proclaim defeat for American soldiers while they were fighting on the battlefield.  I’ll bring up Democratic Whip James Clyburn, who said that success in Iraq “would be a real big problem for us, no question about that.”  I’ll bring up every single sermon that Barack Obama’s pastor for 23 years preached, right down to the last hateful word.  Right down to calling the United States “the US of KKK A.”  Hell, I could start bombing buildings like Barack Obama’s terrorist pal William Ayers and Democrats couldn’t accuse me of squat without being even bigger even hypocrites than they already are.

But I do wonder how conservatives – whose opinions I actually DO give a rip about – feel about my anger and bitterness over the prospect that half the country (or more, or less, as we’ll find out November 4) would elect such an un-American – or at least such a ‘God Damn America’ American – for President.  I feel like Dietrich Bonhoeffer must have felt as he watched his beloved Germany fervently embracing Nazism.  The German people in the 1920s wanted “change”, too: and Adolf Hitler gave them change in spades.

Right or wrong, this is how I feel: I actually hope that if Obama wins, Republicans lose HUGE.  You know how, when you realize that your professional sports team won’t make it to the playoffs, you come to start hoping they lose so many games that they’ll receive a high draft pick?  I’m kind of there in my politics, given an Obama win.  The fewer Republicans there are to blame for the disaster that is going to overtake this country, the better.  The whole charade that has led to such anti-Republicanism has been due to the demonization by Democrats and by the overwhelmingly biased liberal media.  Let Republicans be so utterly rejected that liberals have no one – and I mean absolutely no one – to blame but themselves so that their ideas and their candidates can be vilified for the next fifty years or so.

The media has been so blatantly biased that we are now in a propaganda state.  There is no possible way that Republicans can win in this media climate: whether you look at the Media Research Center, or at the Project for Excellence in Journalism (or again at their brand new study), or at the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin Advertising Project, there is widespread agreement with one longtime ABC journalist that the media is dangerously biased.  Pew Research discovered that Americans believe by a 70% to 9% margin that the media is biased in favor of Obama and against McCain.  The media now represents a fifth column of government – a propaganda wing – that attacks conservatives and celebrates and defends Democrats.  Democracy is going extinct in the country that founded it, because no free society can survive a climate of propaganda.

The only way that America can turn around given the propaganda-dominated culture is if the media is utterly discredited, and Democrats lead the nation into calamity and despair.  It can happen in two ways:

The US economy – and in fact the world economy – are facing a crisis.  And while leftist media propaganda may be assuring you that Obama will be better for the economy, our investors and our business leaders most assuredly do not agree at all.  “Over 70% of CEOs fear an Obama presidency will be a disaster.”  And the financial market – which is already selling off in expectation of an Obama win – would face a “dramatic sell-off on Wall Street” if Democrats make the huge gains they are anticipated to win.  Wall Street is terrified of an Obama presidency.  Obama’s radicalism and socialistic redistribution policies, his doomed-to-fail massive health care plan, his steadfast refusal to exploit our domestic oil resources in favor of “alternative energy” sources that can’t possibly meet our energy needs, and the fact that his every move will be backed by tax-and-spend liberals hungry for power and a propagandist media – serving as apologists – will all come together to doom our economy.

Obama has promised $4.3 TRILLION in new spending, even as his tax redistribution plan is guaranteed to shrink the tax base as the wealthy shelter their assets.  Where are we going to get all that money?  Democrats believe their messiah can turn water into money.  But the people will ultimately come to see that they are wrong.  And no amount of media propaganda will ultimately be able to hide that reality.

I wonder what will happen when Americans discover that Democrats want to socialize their 401Ks?

The second way that America will recognize that they’ve been lied to by both Democrats and their media propaganda is if we are attacked again.

Personally, if Obama is elected to the White House, I would like to see conservatives leaving military service the way rats might leave a sinking ship.  Let them determine that they will not fight for God Damn America and leave the military in droves.  Let Democrats do all the fighting and suffering sacrificing and dying (or at least all the cutting and running that they prefer to fighting) for the next few years.  When 70% of the military is composed of McCain-supporting conservatives, something needs to change under a Commander-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama.  Joe Biden – the foreign policy “expert” on the ticket – flat-out guaranteed that Obama would be tested with an international crisis in the first six months of his Presidency.  Let the people who voted for him do all the dying for him, too.  That only seems fair.  I earlier suggested that we have a “Gay All The Way!” military.

The country that so totally rejects conservatives certainly doesn’t need their help.  At this point – with the voters demanding complete Democratic domination – building up country amounts to tearing down the conservative vision for the country.

We have totally turned Iraq around in the last couple years, but that is only because President Bush and his commanders in the filed refused to listen while the Democratic Senate Majority Leader proclaimed defeat, while Barack Obama vigorously opposed the surge that allowed us to finally gain the upper hand in the first place, with Democrats claiming that President Bush lied about Iraq from the outset, and with too many Democrats loudly and publicly calling our soldiers war criminals and Nazis.  Let’s see how President Obama fares against Iran.  Let’s see what happens when – as I believe – Israel attacks Iran to try to destroy its nuclear program because they don’t believe that the United States under President Obama will do anything.

When a weak, passive, appeasing Barack Obama allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons (because only the assurance of a massive attack will stop them at this point), they will be coming after the Great Satan both directly and indirectly through terrorist proxies – and be able to threaten a few mushroom clouds should the Great Satan directly threaten them in return.  That won’t look so good to the electorate, who will suddenly fondly remember that the Bush Presidency had actually managed to protect them from terrorist attacks.  But I will be loudly quoting Jeremiah Wright and how “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

We are one major terrorist attack – just ONE – away from an America that overwhelmingly realizes that Barack Hissein Obama is UNFIT to lead this country.  Don’t think for one nanosecond that the same fickle electorate that rejected Bush won’t reject Obama.  One attack, and they will remember all the many ways that Democrats left this country vulnerable to terrorism.

I believe that if the country wants to hop aboard a freight train that’s going to steam full speed off a cliff, then Republicans – if they’re smart – ought to get as much out of the way as they possibly can and be ready to pick up the pieces after the dust settles.  Vote against everything so its on the official record, but let the Democrats hang themselves.  If Republicans finally decide to be as cynical as Democrats have been for  years, they might even consider doing everything possible behind the scenes to sow havoc and discord both in domestic and international policy, so they can then turn around and blame the Democrats’ “failed policies” just like the Democrats did to them.  You can hardly blame them, once you get past that whole “But that would be un-American!” thing.  After all, that hardly stopped Democrats, and they’ve benefited mightily from doing it.  I mean, you’ve got Democrats agreeing with Republicans on the need to remove Saddam Hussein, only to despicably turn on them the moment it was to their advantage to do so.  You’ve got Charles Rangel comparing the US action in Iraq to the Holocaust; you’ve got Dick Durbin comparing American troops to Nazis;  you’ve got Barack Obama suggesting that our troops have to do more than just air raiding villages and killing civilivans.  You’ve got Democrats accusing innocent Marines of being murdering war criminals; you’ve got Democrats declaring defeat in Iraq while our troops were fighting in the field; you’ve got Democrats acknowledging that good news in Iraq was bad news for Democrats; you’ve got Democrats opposing the surge strategy that brought us to victory; you’ve got Democrats falling all over themselves to support the reasons for going to war against Iraq before they fell all over themselves to attack Republicans for going to war against Iraq.  If the American people approve of and vote for that kind of conduct, why shouldn’t Republicans look at the polls and follow suit?

Yes, in the short run, the Democrats would pass the fascist “Fairness Doctrine” to muzzle all opposition speech and run so completely wild on social godlessness that they will make decent peoples’ skin crawl.  But when they poison the nation against themselves do to their own rabid excesses – or if there is another major terrorist attack given the likely Democrat’s repeal of the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance of terrorists, the abandonment of Gitmo and its detention of our terrorist enemies, and their overall perception by terrorists as weakling cowardly retreating appeasers ripe for attack – there will be a conservative victory in two years that will be like nothing ever seen.  The only way Democrats can be seen as the incompetent fools they truly are is if they are actually allowed to run everything and they have no one to blame for the disaster but themselves.

Until then, I’m just going to spend the next four years reciting Democratic talking points: our country is evil; our President is evil; our soldiers are evil.  God damn America, also known as the U.S. of KKK A.  We’re immoral for doing every damn thing we do; Obama lied, people died.  That sort of thing.

Politico: Investors Ready For Dramatic Sell-Off If Democrats Win

October 24, 2008

Yesterday’s Politico story puts it this way:

Generally, financial analysts say the stock market likes Republicans more than Democrats. And while predicting market movements is as difficult as predicting the winner of the World Series in August, some experts say the market is already anticipating an Obama win on Nov. 4 and has at least partially accounted for it.

“Potentially, you could see a one or two-day rally on a McCain victory, and not much of a reaction if Obama wins, because that’s what’s expected at this point,” said Justin Fishkin, a partner at The Cypress Group, a financial services company in Washington, D.C. Fishkin, who earlier in his career was a hedge fund manager specializing in political, regulatory, and legislative event-driven investments, said the key issue on Wall Street minds is corporate taxation — which is why the market might prefer McCain and his promised rate cuts over Obama.

In other words, a significant part of the massive sell-offs we’ve already seen were inspired by the belief that Obama would win the White House and start screwing up the economy with socialism.

This adds to the fact that CEOs overwhelmingly (74%) fear that “an Obama presidency would be disasterous for the country,” that Obama would “have a negative impact on business and the economy,” and that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.”  Oh, well, what do Chief Executive Officers know about business or the economy, anyway?

Politico isn’t the only major news source reporting on the fear of an Obma presidency by the people who understand money and finance.  MSN has an article titled, “Why Wall Street Fears Obama“:

Investors this summer have been placing their bets on an Obama presidency, and for the most part that hasn’t been good for the market.

Without giving him a chance to explain himself in detail on the campaign trail or at the Democratic National Convention, they are voting with their shares by tossing financial, health insurance, manufacturing and high-dividend stocks into the ash can, and are growing skeptical about energy companies as well.

It’s not that major institutional investors don’t like the man — far from it. He has many backers among the financial elite, including multibillionaires George Soros and Ron Burkle. And it’s not that there aren’t many other reasons for investors to sell stocks now, as the global economy tangles with the terrible twin beasts of bank deleveraging and inflation.

It’s just that Obama’s rhetoric on taxes and health care is scaring common wealthy people with large capital gains from investments made over the past decade, and a lot of them don’t want to wait around to see whether it’s just populist fluff that might be set aside once he takes office.

The real question for investors after an Obama win is the extent to which Democrats assume control of the Congress, and the more there are the less they like it:

Joe Lieber, a political analyst at the consulting firm Washington Analysis who scrutinizes elections for his clients at hedge, mutual and pension funds, said an electoral lurch that gave the Democrats 60 seats could prompt a dramatic sell-off on Wall Street.

“We’re getting a lot more questions about the Senate than the presidential [race],” Lieber said, “because there’s almost nobody on Wall Street right now who believes McCain’s going to win.” A filibuster-proof Democratic majority (three-fifths of the chamber, or 60 senators) would not be well received by Wall Street traders, he added. “A lot of investment professionals don’t necessarily want to give one party the keys to the entire city. Free markets like gridlock.”

Ah yes, the thrill of one party domination, with the in-the-tank media determined to tell the Titanic that everything is fine no matter how fast the country plows toward the giant iceberg.

An interesting question is to what extent conservatives and Republicans believe we should try to forestall the disaster we think will occur under the Union of Soviet Socialist AmeriKKKa (because that’s how Barack’s Marxist/anarchist/terrorist pal and his preacher for 23 years spelled ‘America,’ after all) or just stand back and let the meltdown commence.

Democrats Rush To Embrace Trickle Down Theory

September 27, 2008

You have probably heard the concept of “trickle down economics” get ridiculed by Democrats.  They’re not ridiculing it now; in fact, they are embracing it.

Why are we “bailing out” so many financial entities dealing in bad mortgage debts?

Because – as is widely recognized – if we don’t, capital will stall as investors play it safe and protect their money.  Loans will dry up, interests will go up, and people will start losing jobs.

In other words, if we don’t help the big money players, the effect will soon “trickle down” to the average Joe.

Why aren’t Democrats talking about “bottom up” economics – in which we give the $700 billion bailout dollars to the American people instead of the finance markets?  Do you notice that no one in a position of actual responsibility is talking about that?

It appears that the wisdom of Republican trickle down economics has been officially confirmed – by Democrats.

McCain Suspends Campaign To Lead In Economic Crisis; Democrats Pandering

September 24, 2008

John McCain announced that he would suspend his campaign – including all advertising and the upcoming debate – in order to focus on providing leadership in addressing the financial crisis.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued the following statement:

This is a critical time for our country. While I appreciate that both candidates have signaled their willingness to help, Congress and the Administration have a process in place to reach a solution to this unprecedented financial crisis.

I understand that the candidates are putting together a joint statement at Senator Obama’s suggestion. But it would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation’s economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.

If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now.

The only problem with this is that it completely flies in the face of what he said only yesterday:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is watching Republicans in both chambers, one after another, criticize the Wall Street bailout, but he says he’s not going to let them off the hook by passing the bill and letting the GOP cast soft “no” votes against the plan.

“This is a Republican proposal, and we need some Republican votes,” to help it pass. “At this stage we [Democrats] are working with ourselves.”

Reid went on to say in the same statement:

“We now need Republicans to stand up,” Reid said. “We need the Republican nominee for president to say what he’s for.”

So, anyone who thinks that Democrats aren’t completely full of crap, and determined to use whatever side of any issue to posture and pander and demagogue – no matter how dangerous it is to the nation’s well being – explain Harry Reid’s complete hypocritical turnabout to me.

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims that he isn’t seeing enough Republican action on the Paulson financial bailout plan.  Yesterday Reid claims that we need the Republican nominee – and that’s John McCain by the way – to step up and say what he’s for.  Reid demands that of McCain even though Barack Obama hasn’t bothered to say what he’s for.

So John McCain suspends his campaign to return to Washington and put his leadership in the Republican Party – and his very political future – on the line to become personally involved in the economic situation in order to break the impasse and reach a compromise deal that is best for the American people.

And immediately following his announcement to do so, Reid suddenly says McCain’s involvement is unnecessary.

If any thinking person had any doubt that the Democratic leadership – and that includes Barack Obama, who is planning to keep launching divisive attacks when we need to come together fast, keep fundraising in the midst of economic crisis, keep playing the same old politics – is not above cynically manipulating a crisis, it ought to be clear now.

Democrats are trying to present John McCain’s suspending his campaign in order to return to Washington to lead the Republican effort to produce a bipartisan plan as nothing more than a desperate political act.  But please don’t forget that this isn’t the first time John McCain was willing to suspend his political campaign in the face of a national crisis: he did so during the Republican Convention as Hurrican Gustav was bearing down on the Gulf Coast.