Vacationing in Spain. What's wrong with the U.S.?

From my point of view, the excuses by the White House -- and other Obama groupies -- over the First Lady's extravagant trip to Spain, are pure bull hockey.

Axelrod said it was appropriate because she was a "mom," and that she went to Spain for the "privacy".

Privacy? Do Democrats really think the average American citizen is that stupid. It's unbelievable. If she wanted privacy she could have stayed home or gone to Camp David...but that was not the purpose of the trip and shows once again how the White House is disconnected from reality.

I think the arrogance and sense of entitlement the Obama's continually flaunt will insure that they will be gone after 2012.

But I knew someone would play the race card again, and it wasn't hard to find:

Simply put, there are some in this country who cannot stand the idea of women and people of color in positions of power, and there are cynical power mongers who don't mind pushing their buttons to keep the political pot boiling. And they are not above exaggeration and outright lies to prove their nonexistent point.

Are we tired of this yet? I think of all the "women and people of color" who have occupied positions of power over the last several decades, and wonder where some folks keep coming up with this as an excuse for incompetence.

Even some in Europe sense this. From the Telegraph in the U.K.

The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.

And the public is waking up. As Admiral Yamamoto said right after Pearl Harbor: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Kathleen Parker at the Washington Post summed it up nicely:

When many Americans are scraping together pennies to finance a birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese, the notion that a child must be treated to Spain's beaches to celebrate her decade on the planet is a bitter pill to swallow.

On balance, the vacation was poorly conceived but hardly a crime befitting the condemnation. Perhaps of more lasting concern is the missed opportunity for the first lady to set an example of restraint and even generosity. I hear the Gulf Coast beaches could use a cash infusion.

And what's wrong with a vacation in the United States? Well, we know that Michelle Obama really doesn't like her country all that much and would rather rub shoulders with European royalty. That is the simple, but sad, truth.

Are politicians stuck on stupid?

You have to come to that conclusion. Members of both parties are pretty much there. I've been hearing dumb things from both sides of the political spectrum, which convinces me we aren't going to get any fixes to our problems anytime soon.

Let's start with Obama, using a news article from Reuters:

At a fund-raising event for Democrats in Dallas, where Bush now lives, Obama said the former president's "disastrous" policies had driven the U.S. economy into the ground and turned budget surpluses into deficits.

Obama defended his repeated references to Bush's policies, saying they were necessary to remind Americans of the weak economy he inherited from Bush in January 2009.

"The policies that crashed the economy, that undercut the middle class, that mortgaged our future, do we really want to go back to that, or do we keep moving our country forward?" Obama said at another fund-raising event in Austin, referring to Bush's eight years as president.

Sorry, Mr. President. This tactic is not going to work anymore. Man-up. Our country has been moving forward? To what? And where? You must really think that the average American is a gun-toting, bible-thumping moron.

One thing interesting about this article is the reader comments. As of this writing, there were 311 comments. After scrolling through about half of them, I could see the consensus. The blaming-Bush tactic is backfiring. He is losing respect. The following comment is consistent with about 99 percent of the comments:

Whatever happened to being “Presidential”? The buck stops at the top and this president has been at the top for quite some time now. Enough is enough. It is time to buck up and take responsibility for policies that are not working.

You can easily find a lot of Democrats who are using this tactic, and it won't work.

But some on the Republican side are just as stupid. Pete Sessions on Meet the Press:

"We need to go back to the exact same agenda that is empowering the free enterprise system rather than diminishing it," said NRCC chairman Pete Sessions on "Meet the Press" Sunday morning.

Yea, that'll get you re-elected, you nincompoop. Just what everyone is hoping for, a return to the policies that got the Republicans fired from Congress in 2006.

What we need are some solutions, not rhetoric. All we seem to get is gab, gab, gab, and things keep getting worse, not better. Democrats have bad ideas which have never worked, and the Republicans don't have any new ideas. So we have, as Lewis Black put it, a party of bad ideas and a party of no ideas.

Maybe things would improve if we didn't allow lawyers to run for office.

Is it time to bail on stocks?

Many financial advisers have reached this conclusion. One popular CFP in the Dallas area already has his clients in cash or alternative investments. I'm debating -- with myself mostly -- on whether I should reduce my exposure to stocks.

One key component of my decision will be capital gains taxes. If they are set to double, then I may take profits this year. A lot of other people may do the same. This may create heaving selling, which would create a bear market.

While the chart shows a mini-bull session, it may not last. Here's why:

1. Unemployment is not improving. Without new jobs, the economy is not going to grow much. There is not one thing the Obama administration has proposed that will stimulate job growth.
2. While earnings have been impressive so far, revenues have been weak. These earnings have come from cost-cutting, not revenue growth. So earnings may stagnate or decline. This is key to stock market returns.
3. Uncertainty over taxes and regulations have business treading water. They are sitting on cash, waiting to see what Congress and the Feds do. They are not hiring.  A lot will depend on the elections in November.
4. Investment taxes, such as those on dividends and capital gains, are set to go up, maybe. Another uncertainty. Many investors may start more selling just based on this. As uncertainty rises, so does risk.
5. The market top in late April may indeed be a market top. While 10 to 20 percent corrections are the norm, this one may not reverse significantly. Volume on upticks has not been encouraging.

The chart below shows the SP500 for the last six months. Once the 20-day dips below the 50-day MA, and the MACD trend is negative, it may be -- probably will be -- time to sell. Volume will be a confirmation (down ticks on heavy volume is bearish).

Disclaimer: This is not a recommendation, so don't go buy and sell stocks and then come back here and tell me I'm wrong. I could very well be. Do your own research and due diligence.

Oops. A 'progressive' tells the truth

This was too good to make up. This comment appeared on Paul Krugman's blog on the NYT, who has recently decided to moderate comments because he's losing the debate.

Who is this guy Sean from Florida? He takes everything that Professor and shreds it, piece by piece. He shouldn't be allowed to post his comments on this blog since he seems to be winning all the debates. We progressives need to stick together and embellish our talking points without someone from the outside pointing out fallacies in our ideology.

 Amazing!

For those of you who do not know Krugman, here's one summary:

For those who do not know, Paul Krugman is one of the few who still claim that Keynesian progressivism is the answer to America's (and Europe's) problems, not their cause. He repeats that claim many times each month. Amid these repeated expressions of his "progressive" faith, he now also repeatedly expresses grim despair because his progressive policy prescriptions are being accepted less and less in the public square, even by the Obama administration.

So it looks like the debate is over for Paul Krugman.

For a better perspective on economics and politics, I invite you to check out Dr. Thomas Sowell. He has written several books, which are understandable to the layman. This is an interesting series at Investor's Business Daily.

Obama and Iraq: Nothing New

President Obama's speech about the "end" of combat operations in Iraq is pretty much fluff. I want you to remember that this change in the U.S. forces in Iraq is all part of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) reached between the two nations before Obama took office.

(Note: If you're not familiar with SOFAs, the U.S. has one with any country where U.S. forces are stationed, which is just about everywhere. They guide the rules of conduct for U.S. forces.)

So what is happening now has nothing to do with Obama. Though I'm sure he and his vice-idiot will take credit for it. The good part of all this is that we can bring some more of our troops home (oops...many of them get to go to Afghanistan now). The bad part is that Iraq may descend into anarchy. I'd hate to see all the death and suffering accomplish nothing.

The Associated Press was one of the few media outlets that even mentioned the SOFA.

The president was walking a difficult line in his speech Monday to the Disabled American Veterans. His ambiguous record on the war before taking office and the fact that an end-of-2011 total withdrawal deadline was already in place were sure to have diluted his message.

As an opponent to what he, in 2002, called "a dumb war, a rash war," Obama also strenuously challenged the Bush administration's so-called troop surge in 2007, which is broadly credited with pulling Iraq back from the brink of civil war.

Obama said the combat mission will end by Aug. 31 "as promised and on schedule," but the pullout was, in fact, preordained by the U.S.-Iraqi "Status of Forces Agreement" that took effect before his inauguration in January 2009.

So what has Obama really accomplished? Not much, in my view.

With Obama's approval rating now at 41 percent, and the approval rating for Congress at historic lows, we have to ask ourselves "Why do we elect these people?"

Who has controlled what?

I find it interesting that so many liberals / democrats are continuing to blame all of our problems on Republicans, and especially Bush, on just about everything.

But I have one point here: You can't put blame, if that's what you want to do, on just one party or person. Congress, and more specifically the House, controls spending. Without spending, the President can't do anything. There was a good reason for this, and it continues to be a good reason: Division of power.

Since 1945, Democrats have had a majority in the house 51 years, the Republicans only 14 years. The Senate has been controlled by the Democrats for 45 years, the Republicans only 20.

For the executive branch, Democrats have ruled for 29, Republicans 36. This is a little more equitable, but if we go back 12 more years, to 1933 when Roosevelt took over, then Democrats have ruled for 41 out of 77 years, or more than half the time.

So generally speaking, over the last several decades, it has been Democratic programs and policies. So are we better off than we were in 1945, or 1965, or 1985? It doesn't seem so, and in many cases things are worse, despite decades of liberal policies.

Maybe it's time for something new. Vote them all out and start over.