Monday, September 12, 2011
John Stossel's "You Can't Even Talk About It": Medicare Ponzi Scheme
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=891c168e5d0e5ccf8a70f747d23eecd5&topic=394512.0
Obama gives out new $850 Million Loan Guaranty to another Cali Solar Company
« on: September 08, 2011, 08:07:11 PM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
The Solar Dole
IBD Editorials ^ | September 8, 2011 | Staff
Posted on September 8, 2011 7:12:29 PM EDT by Kaslin
Corruption: In the same week a green energy firm that wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars said it was bankrupt, the White House made a multimillion-dollar loan to another solar power project. Madness reigns.
Last week, Solyndra, which builds industrial solar panels in the Bay Area, announced that it was filing for bankruptcy. The company, whose officials and investors visited the White House at least 20 times and have donated to the Obama campaign, chewed through 1,100 employees and piles of other people's money, including $535 million provided by taxpayers, before it finally succumbed to reality.
President Obama, who can't let go of his party's eco-energy fantasy, toured Solyndra's Fremont, Calif., plant last year. He identified the company as an example of the "positive impacts" of his stimulus plan and called it "a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism." The president and the thinkers in his administration dreaming of a green economy merrily claimed Solyndra would eventually employ 4,000.
What made them think this when Solyndra's own accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers considered the company's business model to be shaky and expressed "substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern"?
Learning nothing from the Solyndra crackup and the many other green-energy failures, the White House, also last week, handed out an $852 million loan guarantee to the Genesis Solar Project in California. This 1,950-acre slice of federal land in Riverside County filled with parabolic solar panels is supposed to produce enough power — 250 megawatts — to light, heat and cool more than 48,000 homes.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65695
Re: Obama gives out new $850 Million Loan Guaranty to another Cali Solar Company
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2011, 08:09:31 PM »
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584248/201109081840/The-Solar-Dole.htm
Defend this team tampon!
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65695
Re: Obama gives out new $850 Million Loan Guaranty to another Cali Solar Company
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2011, 06:43:20 PM »
Bump.
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
GigantorX
Getbig IV
Posts: 3725
GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Obama gives out new $850 Million Loan Guaranty to another Cali Solar Company
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2011, 07:58:55 PM »
Gotta love burning up all sorts of capital on companies that make a product that is 20% efficient.
Report to moderator Logged
BerzerkFury
Getbig V
Posts: 16683
My IQ is 160 and I put it to use selling snake oil
Re: Obama gives out new $850 Million Loan Guaranty to another Cali Solar Company
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2011, 08:08:37 PM »
Quote from: GigantorX on September 11, 2011, 07:58:55 PM
Gotta love burning up all sorts of capital on companies that make a product that is 20% efficient.
How dare you insinuate that the government is incompetent. This $500 billion will be different. Obama swears it!
« on: September 08, 2011, 08:07:11 PM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
The Solar Dole
IBD Editorials ^ | September 8, 2011 | Staff
Posted on September 8, 2011 7:12:29 PM EDT by Kaslin
Corruption: In the same week a green energy firm that wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars said it was bankrupt, the White House made a multimillion-dollar loan to another solar power project. Madness reigns.
Last week, Solyndra, which builds industrial solar panels in the Bay Area, announced that it was filing for bankruptcy. The company, whose officials and investors visited the White House at least 20 times and have donated to the Obama campaign, chewed through 1,100 employees and piles of other people's money, including $535 million provided by taxpayers, before it finally succumbed to reality.
President Obama, who can't let go of his party's eco-energy fantasy, toured Solyndra's Fremont, Calif., plant last year. He identified the company as an example of the "positive impacts" of his stimulus plan and called it "a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism." The president and the thinkers in his administration dreaming of a green economy merrily claimed Solyndra would eventually employ 4,000.
What made them think this when Solyndra's own accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers considered the company's business model to be shaky and expressed "substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern"?
Learning nothing from the Solyndra crackup and the many other green-energy failures, the White House, also last week, handed out an $852 million loan guarantee to the Genesis Solar Project in California. This 1,950-acre slice of federal land in Riverside County filled with parabolic solar panels is supposed to produce enough power — 250 megawatts — to light, heat and cool more than 48,000 homes.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65695
Re: Obama gives out new $850 Million Loan Guaranty to another Cali Solar Company
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2011, 08:09:31 PM »
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584248/201109081840/The-Solar-Dole.htm
Defend this team tampon!
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65695
Re: Obama gives out new $850 Million Loan Guaranty to another Cali Solar Company
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2011, 06:43:20 PM »
Bump.
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
GigantorX
Getbig IV
Posts: 3725
GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Obama gives out new $850 Million Loan Guaranty to another Cali Solar Company
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2011, 07:58:55 PM »
Gotta love burning up all sorts of capital on companies that make a product that is 20% efficient.
Report to moderator Logged
BerzerkFury
Getbig V
Posts: 16683
My IQ is 160 and I put it to use selling snake oil
Re: Obama gives out new $850 Million Loan Guaranty to another Cali Solar Company
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2011, 08:08:37 PM »
Quote from: GigantorX on September 11, 2011, 07:58:55 PM
Gotta love burning up all sorts of capital on companies that make a product that is 20% efficient.
How dare you insinuate that the government is incompetent. This $500 billion will be different. Obama swears it!
Obama has always been a despicable piece of trash.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=891c168e5d0e5ccf8a70f747d23eecd5&topic=394631.0
Obama to pay for "Jobs Bill" via 400 Billion in tax hikes. LMFAO! « on: Today at 09:59:52 AM » http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-jobs-plan-woul
Obama to pay for "Jobs Bill" via 400 Billion in tax hikes. LMFAO!
« on: Today at 09:59:52 AM »
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-jobs-plan-would-raise-400b-in-taxes-cut-subsidies-2011-9
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=891c168e5d0e5ccf8a70f747d23eecd5&topic=394694.0
« on: Today at 09:59:52 AM »
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-jobs-plan-would-raise-400b-in-taxes-cut-subsidies-2011-9
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=891c168e5d0e5ccf8a70f747d23eecd5&topic=394694.0
real life should not be like democrat run university
this is a basic insight
no and furutre wil not and should not be like next generation trek
no and furutre wil not and should not be like next generation trek
Peter Schiff: Obama "jobs bill" is a joke and he is killing the American Dream
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=891c168e5d0e5ccf8a70f747d23eecd5&topic=394665.0
Peter Schiff: Obama "jobs bill" is a joke and he is killing the American Dream
« on: Today at 04:48:06 AM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
The Emperor is Naked and Broke
Townhall.com ^ | September 11, 2011 | Peter Schiff
Posted on September 11, 2011 2:19:35 PM EDT by Kaslin
Although it was labeled and hyped as a "jobs plan," the new $447 billion initiative announced last night by President Obama is merely another government stimulus program in disguise. But semantics are of supreme importance in American politics...some could argue that word choice is the only thing that matters. As a result, despite the fact that this plan bears no substantive difference from previous stimulus bills, the President never once mentioned the word "stimulus" in his hour-long speech. But a rotten banana by any other name still stinks.
Like all previous stimuli, this round of borrowing and spending will act as an economic sedative rather than a stimulant. Running up the deficit in the short-run will not grow the economy, but will merely dig it into a deeper hole. A year from now there will be even more unemployed Americans than there are today, likely resulting in additional deficit financed stimulus that will again make the situation worse.
The President asserted that the spending in the plan will be "paid for" and will not add to the deficit. Conveniently, he offered no details about how this will be achieved. Most likely he will make non-binding suggestions to future congresses to "pay" for this spending by cutting budgets five to ten years in the future. History is absolutely clear on one point: politicians never pass cuts promised by prior politicians. In other words...the check is in the mail. So I will make the fairly riskless assumption that the plan will be financed by deficit spending. If so, the negatives associated with greater deficits will overwhelm any perceived benefit the spending will generate.
President Obama claims he wants to put money into the pockets of American consumers. The problem is the government's own pockets are empty. In order to put money in the pocket of one American, it must first pick the pocket of another. The problem is that it takes more from the pockets it picks than it puts into the pockets it fills.
In the meantime money to fund the stimulus has to come from somewhere. Either the government will borrow it legitimately, or the Federal Reserve will print. Either way, the adverse consequences will damage economic growth and job creation, and lower the living standards of Americans.
There can be no doubt that some jobs will in fact be created by this plan. However, it is much more difficult to identify the jobs that it destroys or prevents from coming into existence. Here's a case in point: the $4,000 tax credit for hiring new workers who have been unemployed for six months or more.
The subsidy may make little difference in effecting the high end of the job market. An employer will not pay a worker $50,000 per year simply to qualify for a one-time $4,000 credit. But the effects will be felt on minimum wage jobs where rather than expanding employment it will merely increase turnover.
Since an employer need only hire a worker for 6 months to get the credit, for a full time employee, the credit effectively reduces the $7.25 minimum wage (from the employer's perspective) to only $3.40 per hour for a six month hire. While minimum wage jobs would certainly offer no enticement to those collecting unemployment benefits, the lower effective rate may create some opportunities for teenagers and some low skilled individuals whose unemployment benefits have expired. However, most of these jobs will end after six months so employers can replace those workers with others to get an additional tax credit.
Of course the numbers get even more compelling for employers to provide returning veterans with temporary minimum wage jobs, as the higher $5,600 tax credit effectively reduces the minimum wage to only $1.87 per hour. If an employer hires a "wounded warrior" the tax credit is $9,600 which effectively reduces the six month minimum wage by $9.23 to negative $1.98 per hour. This will encourage employers to hire a "wounded warrior" even if there is nothing for the employee to do. Such an incentive may even encourage such individuals to acquire multiple no-show jobs from numerous employers. History has shown that when government creates incentives, the public will twist themselves into pretzels to qualify for the benefits.
The plan creates incentives for employers to replace current minimum wage workers with new workers just to get the tax credit. Low skill workers are the easiest to replace as training costs are minimal. The laid off workers can collect unemployment for six months and then be hired back in a manner that allows the employer to claim the credit. The only problem is that the former worker may prefer collecting extended unemployment benefits to working for the minimum wage!
The $4,000 credit for hiring the unemployed as well as the explicit penalties for discriminating against the long term unemployed will result in a situation where employers will be far more likely to interview and hire applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. Under the law, employers would be wise to decline interviews with anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months, as any subsequent decision not to hire could be met with a lawsuit. However, to get the tax credit they would be incentivized to interview applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. If they are never hired there can be no risk of a lawsuit, but if they are hired, the start date can be planned to qualify for the credit.
The result will simply create classes of winners (those unemployed for four or five months) and losers (the newly unemployed and the long term unemployed). Ironically, the law banning discrimination against long-term unemployed will make it much harder for those people to find jobs.
Another problem is the President's intention to help under-water homeowners refinance their mortgages with lower rates. While this will certainly be good for the borrowers, it will be horrific for the banks holding the loans. The borrower's gain is simultaneously offset by the bank's loss. This will further impair the solvency of our banking sector, exacerbating the losses and failures when rates rise, thereby increase the costs to taxpayers of the next round of bailouts.
Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous, the President claims his payroll tax cuts will not endanger the Social Security Trust Fund, as the government will replace the lost "contributions" with transfers from general revenue. In other words, the government will borrow money, put it in a phony trust fund, then borrow the same money back from the trust funds and spend it on the stimulus. It is amazing the theatrics the government will go through to maintain the illusion that trust funds actually exist. The tragedy is that Americans continue to buy the charade and even heap scorn on those, like Rick Perry, who has the temerity to point out that the emperor is naked.
The truth of course is that no real economic growth or job creation is going to occur until the failed policies of both Obama and Bush are reversed. In his speech the President mourned the death of the American dream. Obama should stop killing it. To revive that dream we need to revive the American spirit that produced it in the first place. That means returning to our traditional values of limited government and sound money. Unfortunately we are still headed in the wrong direction.
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
whork25
Getbig IV
Posts: 1373
Getbig!
Re: Peter Schiff: Obama "jobs bill" is a joke and he is killing the American Dream
« Reply #1 on: Today at 06:49:33 AM »
The only politician who seem to grasp this is Ron Paul but the media ignores him
Report to moderator Logged
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65675
Re: Peter Schiff: Obama "jobs bill" is a joke and he is killing the American Dream
« Reply #2 on: Today at 06:56:44 AM »
But but but but but _ team kneepad said krugman approves so it must be ok.
Peter Schiff: Obama "jobs bill" is a joke and he is killing the American Dream
« on: Today at 04:48:06 AM »
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
The Emperor is Naked and Broke
Townhall.com ^ | September 11, 2011 | Peter Schiff
Posted on September 11, 2011 2:19:35 PM EDT by Kaslin
Although it was labeled and hyped as a "jobs plan," the new $447 billion initiative announced last night by President Obama is merely another government stimulus program in disguise. But semantics are of supreme importance in American politics...some could argue that word choice is the only thing that matters. As a result, despite the fact that this plan bears no substantive difference from previous stimulus bills, the President never once mentioned the word "stimulus" in his hour-long speech. But a rotten banana by any other name still stinks.
Like all previous stimuli, this round of borrowing and spending will act as an economic sedative rather than a stimulant. Running up the deficit in the short-run will not grow the economy, but will merely dig it into a deeper hole. A year from now there will be even more unemployed Americans than there are today, likely resulting in additional deficit financed stimulus that will again make the situation worse.
The President asserted that the spending in the plan will be "paid for" and will not add to the deficit. Conveniently, he offered no details about how this will be achieved. Most likely he will make non-binding suggestions to future congresses to "pay" for this spending by cutting budgets five to ten years in the future. History is absolutely clear on one point: politicians never pass cuts promised by prior politicians. In other words...the check is in the mail. So I will make the fairly riskless assumption that the plan will be financed by deficit spending. If so, the negatives associated with greater deficits will overwhelm any perceived benefit the spending will generate.
President Obama claims he wants to put money into the pockets of American consumers. The problem is the government's own pockets are empty. In order to put money in the pocket of one American, it must first pick the pocket of another. The problem is that it takes more from the pockets it picks than it puts into the pockets it fills.
In the meantime money to fund the stimulus has to come from somewhere. Either the government will borrow it legitimately, or the Federal Reserve will print. Either way, the adverse consequences will damage economic growth and job creation, and lower the living standards of Americans.
There can be no doubt that some jobs will in fact be created by this plan. However, it is much more difficult to identify the jobs that it destroys or prevents from coming into existence. Here's a case in point: the $4,000 tax credit for hiring new workers who have been unemployed for six months or more.
The subsidy may make little difference in effecting the high end of the job market. An employer will not pay a worker $50,000 per year simply to qualify for a one-time $4,000 credit. But the effects will be felt on minimum wage jobs where rather than expanding employment it will merely increase turnover.
Since an employer need only hire a worker for 6 months to get the credit, for a full time employee, the credit effectively reduces the $7.25 minimum wage (from the employer's perspective) to only $3.40 per hour for a six month hire. While minimum wage jobs would certainly offer no enticement to those collecting unemployment benefits, the lower effective rate may create some opportunities for teenagers and some low skilled individuals whose unemployment benefits have expired. However, most of these jobs will end after six months so employers can replace those workers with others to get an additional tax credit.
Of course the numbers get even more compelling for employers to provide returning veterans with temporary minimum wage jobs, as the higher $5,600 tax credit effectively reduces the minimum wage to only $1.87 per hour. If an employer hires a "wounded warrior" the tax credit is $9,600 which effectively reduces the six month minimum wage by $9.23 to negative $1.98 per hour. This will encourage employers to hire a "wounded warrior" even if there is nothing for the employee to do. Such an incentive may even encourage such individuals to acquire multiple no-show jobs from numerous employers. History has shown that when government creates incentives, the public will twist themselves into pretzels to qualify for the benefits.
The plan creates incentives for employers to replace current minimum wage workers with new workers just to get the tax credit. Low skill workers are the easiest to replace as training costs are minimal. The laid off workers can collect unemployment for six months and then be hired back in a manner that allows the employer to claim the credit. The only problem is that the former worker may prefer collecting extended unemployment benefits to working for the minimum wage!
The $4,000 credit for hiring the unemployed as well as the explicit penalties for discriminating against the long term unemployed will result in a situation where employers will be far more likely to interview and hire applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. Under the law, employers would be wise to decline interviews with anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months, as any subsequent decision not to hire could be met with a lawsuit. However, to get the tax credit they would be incentivized to interview applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. If they are never hired there can be no risk of a lawsuit, but if they are hired, the start date can be planned to qualify for the credit.
The result will simply create classes of winners (those unemployed for four or five months) and losers (the newly unemployed and the long term unemployed). Ironically, the law banning discrimination against long-term unemployed will make it much harder for those people to find jobs.
Another problem is the President's intention to help under-water homeowners refinance their mortgages with lower rates. While this will certainly be good for the borrowers, it will be horrific for the banks holding the loans. The borrower's gain is simultaneously offset by the bank's loss. This will further impair the solvency of our banking sector, exacerbating the losses and failures when rates rise, thereby increase the costs to taxpayers of the next round of bailouts.
Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous, the President claims his payroll tax cuts will not endanger the Social Security Trust Fund, as the government will replace the lost "contributions" with transfers from general revenue. In other words, the government will borrow money, put it in a phony trust fund, then borrow the same money back from the trust funds and spend it on the stimulus. It is amazing the theatrics the government will go through to maintain the illusion that trust funds actually exist. The tragedy is that Americans continue to buy the charade and even heap scorn on those, like Rick Perry, who has the temerity to point out that the emperor is naked.
The truth of course is that no real economic growth or job creation is going to occur until the failed policies of both Obama and Bush are reversed. In his speech the President mourned the death of the American dream. Obama should stop killing it. To revive that dream we need to revive the American spirit that produced it in the first place. That means returning to our traditional values of limited government and sound money. Unfortunately we are still headed in the wrong direction.
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
whork25
Getbig IV
Posts: 1373
Getbig!
Re: Peter Schiff: Obama "jobs bill" is a joke and he is killing the American Dream
« Reply #1 on: Today at 06:49:33 AM »
The only politician who seem to grasp this is Ron Paul but the media ignores him
Report to moderator Logged
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65675
Re: Peter Schiff: Obama "jobs bill" is a joke and he is killing the American Dream
« Reply #2 on: Today at 06:56:44 AM »
But but but but but _ team kneepad said krugman approves so it must be ok.
After reading Krugman’s repugnant piece on 9/11, I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times this AM.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=891c168e5d0e5ccf8a70f747d23eecd5&topic=394572.0
Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« on: September 11, 2011, 09:16:36 AM »
Lots of people are talking about it but if a link could be provided it would be appreciated.
Cheers
Report to moderator Logged
I hate the State.
GigantorX
Getbig IV
Posts: 3724
GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2011, 09:29:32 AM »
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Could you read it and boil it down for us? I can't bring myself to read this idiot and his Keynesian bullshit.
Report to moderator Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
Posts: 22591
Reapers...
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2011, 09:33:56 AM »
Quote from: GigantorX on September 11, 2011, 09:29:32 AM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Could you read it and boil it down for us? I can't bring myself to read this idiot and his Keynesian bullshit.
What is odd is that I thought he believes that war is good for the economy? I am surprised he doesn't support the Iraq war for this very reason.
Report to moderator Logged
I hate the State.
GigantorX
Getbig IV
Posts: 3724
GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2011, 02:43:15 PM »
Quote from: Deicide on September 11, 2011, 09:33:56 AM
What is odd is that I thought he believes that war is good for the economy? I am surprised he doesn't support the Iraq war for this very reason.
War really isn't good for an economy in the long run.
Again, this guy is insane and a lunatic.
Report to moderator Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
Gender:
Posts: 5329
KENYAN ECONOMICS IS MORE LIKE IT
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2011, 03:02:57 PM »
Quote from: GigantorX on September 11, 2011, 02:43:15 PM
War really isn't good for an economy in the long run.
Again, this guy is insane and a lunatic.
Alien invasions and inflation are the hallmarks of healthy economic policy.
Report to moderator Logged
GigantorX
Getbig IV
Posts: 3724
GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2011, 04:57:18 PM »
Quote from: George Whorewell on September 11, 2011, 03:02:57 PM
Alien invasions and inflation are the hallmarks of healthy economic policy.
In his next blog he will advocate for the carpet bombing of major U.S. cities to help stimulate job growth and GDP.
Report to moderator Logged
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65675
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2011, 05:11:03 PM »
Remember - this douche actually wanted a bubble in housing way back in the day.
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65675
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2011, 05:42:21 PM »
Paul Krugman, Sociopath
NewsBusters ^ | Matthew Sheffield
On this solemn commemorative day, we at NewsBusters have made a point of holding our rhetorical fire against liberals as a gesture of respect to those who lost their lives that day and subsequently. There is much we could say and, starting tomorrow, will say.
An exception has to be made though for one Paul Krugman, who seems, earlier life, to have been a decent and civilized person. Since he began writing a column for the New York Times, however, Krugman has experienced a veritable descent into madness, principally due to Bush Derangement Syndrome. Today, Krugman decided to proudly parade his madness for all the world to see in an execrable rant on his Times blog. [snip]
Please note the timestamp on this posting: September 11, 2011, 8:41 AM.
That means Krugman woke up on the tenth anniversary of the largest attack on this nation's homeland and decided to make an attack on three men forever linked to that moment, simply because he doesn't like them. Imagine if a New York Times columnist had done that during World War II on Pearl Harbor Day. Absolutely sickening.
Of course, one ought not be surprised to see such contemptible rhetoric from Krugman given his history of making numerous preposterous and hateful statements
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is little commie jew muppet the pieces of garbage in the democrat party and the so called "progressives" look to for economic advice.
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65675
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #8 on: Today at 07:56:00 AM »
After reading Krugman’s 9/11 piece, Rumsfeld cancels subscription to New York Times
twiter.com ^ | 9/12/11 | Donald Rumsfeld
After reading Krugman’s repugnant piece on 9/11, I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times this AM.
Twitter via Drudge
Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« on: September 11, 2011, 09:16:36 AM »
Lots of people are talking about it but if a link could be provided it would be appreciated.
Cheers
Report to moderator Logged
I hate the State.
GigantorX
Getbig IV
Posts: 3724
GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2011, 09:29:32 AM »
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Could you read it and boil it down for us? I can't bring myself to read this idiot and his Keynesian bullshit.
Report to moderator Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
Posts: 22591
Reapers...
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2011, 09:33:56 AM »
Quote from: GigantorX on September 11, 2011, 09:29:32 AM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Could you read it and boil it down for us? I can't bring myself to read this idiot and his Keynesian bullshit.
What is odd is that I thought he believes that war is good for the economy? I am surprised he doesn't support the Iraq war for this very reason.
Report to moderator Logged
I hate the State.
GigantorX
Getbig IV
Posts: 3724
GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2011, 02:43:15 PM »
Quote from: Deicide on September 11, 2011, 09:33:56 AM
What is odd is that I thought he believes that war is good for the economy? I am surprised he doesn't support the Iraq war for this very reason.
War really isn't good for an economy in the long run.
Again, this guy is insane and a lunatic.
Report to moderator Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
Gender:
Posts: 5329
KENYAN ECONOMICS IS MORE LIKE IT
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2011, 03:02:57 PM »
Quote from: GigantorX on September 11, 2011, 02:43:15 PM
War really isn't good for an economy in the long run.
Again, this guy is insane and a lunatic.
Alien invasions and inflation are the hallmarks of healthy economic policy.
Report to moderator Logged
GigantorX
Getbig IV
Posts: 3724
GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2011, 04:57:18 PM »
Quote from: George Whorewell on September 11, 2011, 03:02:57 PM
Alien invasions and inflation are the hallmarks of healthy economic policy.
In his next blog he will advocate for the carpet bombing of major U.S. cities to help stimulate job growth and GDP.
Report to moderator Logged
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65675
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2011, 05:11:03 PM »
Remember - this douche actually wanted a bubble in housing way back in the day.
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65675
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2011, 05:42:21 PM »
Paul Krugman, Sociopath
NewsBusters ^ | Matthew Sheffield
On this solemn commemorative day, we at NewsBusters have made a point of holding our rhetorical fire against liberals as a gesture of respect to those who lost their lives that day and subsequently. There is much we could say and, starting tomorrow, will say.
An exception has to be made though for one Paul Krugman, who seems, earlier life, to have been a decent and civilized person. Since he began writing a column for the New York Times, however, Krugman has experienced a veritable descent into madness, principally due to Bush Derangement Syndrome. Today, Krugman decided to proudly parade his madness for all the world to see in an execrable rant on his Times blog. [snip]
Please note the timestamp on this posting: September 11, 2011, 8:41 AM.
That means Krugman woke up on the tenth anniversary of the largest attack on this nation's homeland and decided to make an attack on three men forever linked to that moment, simply because he doesn't like them. Imagine if a New York Times columnist had done that during World War II on Pearl Harbor Day. Absolutely sickening.
Of course, one ought not be surprised to see such contemptible rhetoric from Krugman given his history of making numerous preposterous and hateful statements
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is little commie jew muppet the pieces of garbage in the democrat party and the so called "progressives" look to for economic advice.
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65675
Re: Anyone have a link to Krugman's latest blog entry?
« Reply #8 on: Today at 07:56:00 AM »
After reading Krugman’s 9/11 piece, Rumsfeld cancels subscription to New York Times
twiter.com ^ | 9/12/11 | Donald Rumsfeld
After reading Krugman’s repugnant piece on 9/11, I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times this AM.
Twitter via Drudge
Obama Admn: The worst Presidency this nation has ever had to endure. « on: August 24, 2010, 01:33:16 PM » I am starting this thread to list the da
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=891c168e5d0e5ccf8a70f747d23eecd5&topic=346454.0
Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=891c168e5d0e5ccf8a70f747d23eecd5&topic=392903.0
Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
« on: August 26, 2011, 03:55:09 AM »
Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't..
By STEPHEN MOORE
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530412322260784.html
If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.
The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.
By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.
My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.
The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.
View Full Image
Getty Images
Ronald Reagan talks taxes, 1981.
.The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.
The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."
The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP.
Robert Reich, now at the University of California, Berkeley, explained that "The recession of 1981-82 was so severe that the bounce back has been vigorous." Paul Krugman wrote in 2004 that the Reagan boom was really nothing special because: "You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump."
Mr. Krugman was, for once, at least partly right. How could Reagan not look good after four years of Jimmy Carter's economic malpractice?
Fast-forward to today. Mr. Obama is running deficits of $1.3 trillion, or 8%-9% of GDP. If the Reagan deficits powered the '80s expansion, the Obama deficits—twice as large—should have the U.S. sprinting at Olympic speed.
The left has now embraced a new theory to explain why the Obama spending hasn't worked. The answer is contained in the book "This Time Is Different," by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. Published in 2009, the book examines centuries of recessions and depressions world-wide. The authors conclude that it takes nations much longer—six years or more—to recover from financial crises and the popping of asset bubbles than from typical recessions.
In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap. You don't believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation, according to a new report from Laffer Associates. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren't indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown.
There is something that is genuinely different this time. It isn't the nature of the crisis Mr. Obama inherited, but the nature of his policy prescriptions. Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs.
But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?
Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
004-0610085829-ron_paul_reagan_2-(Small).jpg (23.65 KB, 436x345 - viewed 22 times.)
obamabracketdancecopy.jpg (187.03 KB, 589x476 - viewed 22 times.)
ron_paul_reagan_1.jpg (55.46 KB, 762x602 - viewed 22 times.)
ron_paul_reagan_3.jpg (85.08 KB, 800x657 - viewed 22 times.)
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65674
Re: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
« Reply #1 on: Today at 08:03:45 AM »
Obama vs. Reagan : In historical match-up, Reaganomics trounces Obamanomics, 280,000 to 0.
National Review ^ | 09/12/2011 | Deroy Murdock
President Zero.
The brand-new nickname for Barack ObamAA+ symbolizes America’s total net jobs created in August: Zippo.
So, how many jobs emerged in August 1983, the analogous point in Ronald Reagan’s presidency? 280,000. Proportional to today’s population, that equals 367,360 new hires last month.
Citizens pondering Obama’s latest jobs speech and how to get America working again should focus on today’s great Keynesian experiment. Ronald Reagan’s supply-side mixture of tax cuts, deregulation, and sound money competes directly against Obama’s big-government blend of Keynesian stimuli, rampant red tape, and promiscuous printing of money — as if dollars were wallpaper. The late Reagan trounces the leisurely Obama.
President Ronald Reagan signing the Economic Recovery Tax Act on August 14, 1981 at his southern California ranch. On economic dynamism, he still has the last laugh. Photo: Associated Press.
Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 slashed the top federal income-tax from 70 percent to 50, and sliced business levies. Today, it would cost $1.86 trillion. (For consistency, I converted all of the historical numbers for 1981, 1983, and 2009 into 2011 dollars. Nominal figures appear in an analysis available here.) Meanwhile, Obama’s “stimulus,” formally called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, cost $829 billion.
Reagan deregulated America’s economy, as demonstrated by the relatively low 30,522 pages of rules added to the Federal Register in 1981 and 1982. Reagan continued President Carter’s loosening of restrictions on airlines, trucking, and other industries. The 45,696 pages that swelled the Register in 2009 and 2010 reflect Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, EPA guidelines, pro-union favors, and other regulations — atop Sarbanes-Oxley, farm programs, lighting standards, and other hurdles that Bush-Rove erected.
Confirming Reagan’s commitment to reliable currency and monetary restraint, gold’s price fell 33 percent — from $1,396.79 per ounce during Reagan’s Jan. 20, 1981, inauguration to $937.37 on Sept. 7, 1983. By converting the Bureau of Engraving and Printing into a veritable currency copy shop, Obama helped gold climb 201.4 percent through Wednesday, from $898.53 to $1,810.00.
Reagan accelerated Carter’s deregulation of oil prices and encouraged domestic production, as underscored by gasoline’s 6.75 percent fall from $3.11 per gallon on inauguration day to $2.90 in late August 1983. Obama’s domestic drilling limits and anti-carbon fetish helped gasoline climb 87 percent — from $1.93 when he arrived to $3.60 on August 29.
The economic and political consequences of these conflicting visions are stunning.
President Zero: In Barack Obama’s third August in office, the stimulus-fatigued U.S. economy created no jobs. In August 1983, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s pro-market reforms, America generated 280,000 new positions.
At the two-and-a half-year mark (Jul. 20, 1983), Gross Domestic Product under Reagan grew at 9.3 percent. Under Obama, GDP crawled forward last July 20 at 1 percent.
At that stage in Reagan’s presidency, non-farm productivity blossomed at 9.6 percent. Under Obama, it shriveled at negative 0.7 percent.
After Reagan’s first 30 months, unemployment stood at 9.4 percent, down from a 10.8 percent recessionary peak. Under Obama, top joblessness of 10.1 percent has dropped to 9.1 percent, but seems stuck there. And the fact that America yielded zero net jobs last month (versus 280,000 in August 1983) confirms the bankruptcy of Obamanomics.
These respective developments swayed America’s mood. In August 1983, under Reagan, the Consumer Confidence Index sparkled at 90.2. Last month, under Obama, it flickered at 44.5.
In a June 1983 CBS News poll, 47 percent of adults said America was “on the right track,” while 44 percent saw the nation “on the wrong track.” In a June 2011 CBS News study, 28 percent of Americans chose “the right track,” and 63 percent voted “wrong.”
Similarly, an Aug. 8, 1983 Gallup survey found 35 percent of Americans “generally satisfied with things in the U.S.” and 59 percent “generally dissatisfied.” On Aug. 14, 2011, 11 percent were satisfied, while a whopping 88 percent were dissatisfied.
Progress earned Reagan 48 percent approval in a September 1983 Gallup survey, while Obama stood at 40 percent last August 20. On managing the economy, ABC News documented Reagan’s 48 percent approval on May 18, 1983. On September 1, ABC gauged Obama’s approval on economics at 36 percent.
Obama’s triumphs include last week’s dismissal of 1,100 workers at Solyndra, a now-defunct solar-panel manufacturer that he stimulated with a $535 million loan guarantee. (Search-warrant wielding FBI agents raided Solyndra’s Fremont, Calif., headquarters late last week, seeking evidence of criminality.) Another “green-jobs investment” hatched 14 posts and weatherized exactly three Seattle homes. Cost: $20 million.
Ronald Reagan savored a landslide re-election in 1984, scoring 525 Electoral College votes to Democrat Walter Mondale’s 13. As Barack Obama crawls from the wreckage of his Keynesian vehicle, disappointed voters in November 2012 just might make him hand the keys to an adult who knows how to drive.
— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. Manhattan financier Brett A. Shisler contributed analysis for this piece.
Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
« on: August 26, 2011, 03:55:09 AM »
Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't..
By STEPHEN MOORE
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530412322260784.html
If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.
The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.
By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.
My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.
The Reagan philosophy was to incentivize production—i.e., the "supply side" of the economy—by lowering restraints on business expansion and investment. This was done by slashing marginal income tax rates, eliminating regulatory high hurdles, and reining in inflation with a tighter monetary policy.
View Full Image
Getty Images
Ronald Reagan talks taxes, 1981.
.The Keynesians in the early 1980s assured us that the Reagan expansion would not and could not happen. Rapid growth with new jobs and falling rates of inflation (to 4% in 1983 from 13% in 1980) is an impossibility in Keynesian textbooks. If you increase demand, prices go up. If you increase supply—as Reagan did—prices go down.
The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."
The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP.
Robert Reich, now at the University of California, Berkeley, explained that "The recession of 1981-82 was so severe that the bounce back has been vigorous." Paul Krugman wrote in 2004 that the Reagan boom was really nothing special because: "You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump."
Mr. Krugman was, for once, at least partly right. How could Reagan not look good after four years of Jimmy Carter's economic malpractice?
Fast-forward to today. Mr. Obama is running deficits of $1.3 trillion, or 8%-9% of GDP. If the Reagan deficits powered the '80s expansion, the Obama deficits—twice as large—should have the U.S. sprinting at Olympic speed.
The left has now embraced a new theory to explain why the Obama spending hasn't worked. The answer is contained in the book "This Time Is Different," by economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. Published in 2009, the book examines centuries of recessions and depressions world-wide. The authors conclude that it takes nations much longer—six years or more—to recover from financial crises and the popping of asset bubbles than from typical recessions.
In any case, what Reagan inherited was arguably a more severe financial crisis than what was dropped in Mr. Obama's lap. You don't believe it? From 1967 to 1982 stocks lost two-thirds of their value relative to inflation, according to a new report from Laffer Associates. That mass liquidation of wealth was a first-rate financial calamity. And tell me that 20% mortgage interest rates, as we saw in the 1970s, aren't indicative of a monetary-policy meltdown.
There is something that is genuinely different this time. It isn't the nature of the crisis Mr. Obama inherited, but the nature of his policy prescriptions. Reagan applied tax cuts and other policies that, yes, took the deficit to unchartered peacetime highs.
But that borrowing financed a remarkable and prolonged economic expansion and a victory against the Evil Empire in the Cold War. What exactly have Mr. Obama's deficits gotten us?
Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
004-0610085829-ron_paul_reagan_2-(Small).jpg (23.65 KB, 436x345 - viewed 22 times.)
obamabracketdancecopy.jpg (187.03 KB, 589x476 - viewed 22 times.)
ron_paul_reagan_1.jpg (55.46 KB, 762x602 - viewed 22 times.)
ron_paul_reagan_3.jpg (85.08 KB, 800x657 - viewed 22 times.)
Report to moderator Logged
SLAYTANIC SINCE 1986
333386
Getbig V
Posts: 65674
Re: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
« Reply #1 on: Today at 08:03:45 AM »
Obama vs. Reagan : In historical match-up, Reaganomics trounces Obamanomics, 280,000 to 0.
National Review ^ | 09/12/2011 | Deroy Murdock
President Zero.
The brand-new nickname for Barack ObamAA+ symbolizes America’s total net jobs created in August: Zippo.
So, how many jobs emerged in August 1983, the analogous point in Ronald Reagan’s presidency? 280,000. Proportional to today’s population, that equals 367,360 new hires last month.
Citizens pondering Obama’s latest jobs speech and how to get America working again should focus on today’s great Keynesian experiment. Ronald Reagan’s supply-side mixture of tax cuts, deregulation, and sound money competes directly against Obama’s big-government blend of Keynesian stimuli, rampant red tape, and promiscuous printing of money — as if dollars were wallpaper. The late Reagan trounces the leisurely Obama.
President Ronald Reagan signing the Economic Recovery Tax Act on August 14, 1981 at his southern California ranch. On economic dynamism, he still has the last laugh. Photo: Associated Press.
Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 slashed the top federal income-tax from 70 percent to 50, and sliced business levies. Today, it would cost $1.86 trillion. (For consistency, I converted all of the historical numbers for 1981, 1983, and 2009 into 2011 dollars. Nominal figures appear in an analysis available here.) Meanwhile, Obama’s “stimulus,” formally called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, cost $829 billion.
Reagan deregulated America’s economy, as demonstrated by the relatively low 30,522 pages of rules added to the Federal Register in 1981 and 1982. Reagan continued President Carter’s loosening of restrictions on airlines, trucking, and other industries. The 45,696 pages that swelled the Register in 2009 and 2010 reflect Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, EPA guidelines, pro-union favors, and other regulations — atop Sarbanes-Oxley, farm programs, lighting standards, and other hurdles that Bush-Rove erected.
Confirming Reagan’s commitment to reliable currency and monetary restraint, gold’s price fell 33 percent — from $1,396.79 per ounce during Reagan’s Jan. 20, 1981, inauguration to $937.37 on Sept. 7, 1983. By converting the Bureau of Engraving and Printing into a veritable currency copy shop, Obama helped gold climb 201.4 percent through Wednesday, from $898.53 to $1,810.00.
Reagan accelerated Carter’s deregulation of oil prices and encouraged domestic production, as underscored by gasoline’s 6.75 percent fall from $3.11 per gallon on inauguration day to $2.90 in late August 1983. Obama’s domestic drilling limits and anti-carbon fetish helped gasoline climb 87 percent — from $1.93 when he arrived to $3.60 on August 29.
The economic and political consequences of these conflicting visions are stunning.
President Zero: In Barack Obama’s third August in office, the stimulus-fatigued U.S. economy created no jobs. In August 1983, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s pro-market reforms, America generated 280,000 new positions.
At the two-and-a half-year mark (Jul. 20, 1983), Gross Domestic Product under Reagan grew at 9.3 percent. Under Obama, GDP crawled forward last July 20 at 1 percent.
At that stage in Reagan’s presidency, non-farm productivity blossomed at 9.6 percent. Under Obama, it shriveled at negative 0.7 percent.
After Reagan’s first 30 months, unemployment stood at 9.4 percent, down from a 10.8 percent recessionary peak. Under Obama, top joblessness of 10.1 percent has dropped to 9.1 percent, but seems stuck there. And the fact that America yielded zero net jobs last month (versus 280,000 in August 1983) confirms the bankruptcy of Obamanomics.
These respective developments swayed America’s mood. In August 1983, under Reagan, the Consumer Confidence Index sparkled at 90.2. Last month, under Obama, it flickered at 44.5.
In a June 1983 CBS News poll, 47 percent of adults said America was “on the right track,” while 44 percent saw the nation “on the wrong track.” In a June 2011 CBS News study, 28 percent of Americans chose “the right track,” and 63 percent voted “wrong.”
Similarly, an Aug. 8, 1983 Gallup survey found 35 percent of Americans “generally satisfied with things in the U.S.” and 59 percent “generally dissatisfied.” On Aug. 14, 2011, 11 percent were satisfied, while a whopping 88 percent were dissatisfied.
Progress earned Reagan 48 percent approval in a September 1983 Gallup survey, while Obama stood at 40 percent last August 20. On managing the economy, ABC News documented Reagan’s 48 percent approval on May 18, 1983. On September 1, ABC gauged Obama’s approval on economics at 36 percent.
Obama’s triumphs include last week’s dismissal of 1,100 workers at Solyndra, a now-defunct solar-panel manufacturer that he stimulated with a $535 million loan guarantee. (Search-warrant wielding FBI agents raided Solyndra’s Fremont, Calif., headquarters late last week, seeking evidence of criminality.) Another “green-jobs investment” hatched 14 posts and weatherized exactly three Seattle homes. Cost: $20 million.
Ronald Reagan savored a landslide re-election in 1984, scoring 525 Electoral College votes to Democrat Walter Mondale’s 13. As Barack Obama crawls from the wreckage of his Keynesian vehicle, disappointed voters in November 2012 just might make him hand the keys to an adult who knows how to drive.
— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. Manhattan financier Brett A. Shisler contributed analysis for this piece.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
hows the communism?
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=PR&Date=20110907&ID=14234210&industry=IND_MEDIA&isub=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
