Would someone please educate Paul Krugman?

According to this quack, inflation is "hypothetical." A quote from Paul Krugman's latest op-ed  in the New York Times:

The Fed has by no means done all it could, partly because it was more concerned with hypothetical inflation than with real unemployment, partly because it let itself be intimidated by the Ron Paul types.

Time to get out of your ivory tower, dude. Have you been to the gas station or grocery store, looked at your electric bill, or even been out of the house lately?
I don't know about this guy, but ever time I turn around, something is more expensive than it was last week, last month, or last year.

The problem with Krugman is that too many people take his word as gospel, when it should be relegated to just another left-wing nut trying to form a economic theory through liberal filters. Doesn't work.

And don't defend him because of his Nobel Prize. These prizes are now not worth the paper they are printed on (even though the recipient gets a huge amount of cash.)

Nancy: Do you know when to shut up?

Nancy Pelosi is at it again. She is so proud of her accomplishments over the last four years. She even had a party this week to celebrate. Such a productive Congress it was. Especially if you count the pages of legislation that had to be passed so we, the common people, could know what was in it.

In USA Today, Pelosi states:

President Obama and this Congress were job creators from Day One, saving the country from the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. The Recovery Act created or saved more than 3 million jobs, and America is moving forward. October marks the 10th straight month of private sector job growth.

What's Obama got to do with this? Nancy, you and your henchmen (henchpeople?) wrote all the legislation. Obama just sat back, played some golf, and watched from afar.

She also claims that they were job creators from Day One (why the capitals? I guess this was the very beginning of all things.) and did you know that the Recovery Act created or saved more than 3 million jobs? Really? This is no longer believable, but I guess like all politicians, if they say it enough, they think us dunderheads will believe it. Well, I don't.

From Oct 2009 through Oct 2010, total nonfarm employment, according to the BLS, increased about 800,000, but the unemployment rate has stayed in the high 9s and the level of first-time jobless claims has remained stubbornly high. So the RA saved 2.2 million jobs? Prove it. I don't believe you. Besides, why would anyone spend $800 billion to save 2.2 million jobs? The private sector could have done this much better, but you took $800 billion out of the economy for your pet projects.

The RA (which has turned out be a Rheumatoid Arthritis for the nation) was supposed to limit the unemployment rate to under 8 percent. We know how that worked out.

She continues:

Our Democratic members took tough votes to support America's working families, putting the American people before politics and thinking of the next generation, not the next election.

Tough votes? You had super majorities, yet you still had to work very hard to get enough votes to pass your B.S. Nancy, everything you do is about politics. You could care less about the American people. Thinking of the next generation? Why did you add $5 trillion in debt?

Pelosi focused on seizing 17 percent of our economy by passing ObamaCare at a time when Americans were struggling to find jobs, buy food and pay rent. Rather than focusing on America, she pushed for her own personal achievement – government healthcare. Not only do Americans not believe in her core values – the government takeover of a private industry – but her timing couldn’t have been worse.

She says: "Our small business bill is now extending credit to small business owners so they can grow and hire." Nancy, small business won't hire if there isn't more demand. The demand for their products and services must grow, or at least forecast to grow, before they'll borrow money. A small business isn't like the federal government where -- as Joe put it -- you have to spend more money to get out of debt.

Here's another one, and I'll leave it at this, but the whole article smells of tripe:

We achieved more progress over the last four years for our veterans and military families than any time since the passage of the original GI Bill in 1944. And we did all of this while restoring fiscal discipline to the Congress by making the pay-as-you-go rules the law of the land.

Did you hear my jaw drop to the floor? I'm a veteran, so I know that you can't compare what you have done now with the GI Bill in 1944. Completely absurd. Want to really help veterans? Quit tying our health insurance to Medicare reimbursement rates.

And you did all this while restoring fiscal discipline to the Congress. How nice. The deficit in October 2010 (and that's all yours, baby) was just over $180 billion (annualized rate of nearly $1.7 TRILLION). You call that pay-as-you-go? Was this after or before you racked up $5 trillion in extra debt.

Anyone who believes this woman is either just plain stupid, delusional or ignorant. I guess we now know that makes up an unbelievalbe 80 percent of her constituents in San Francisco.


Nancy Pelosi "represents" the 8th Congressional District in California.

Once again: Who caused the financial meltdown?

It saddens me that so many people think it was only the Republicans who were responsible for the financial meltdown. But it is only a small part of the story. The fact the Democrats also had a large play is not only fact, but recorded on CSPAN video. The Republican failure wasn't that they saw the problem coming much earlier, but they let the Democrats intimidate them and didn't stand up for their own principles.

It was kind of like "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

I think putting the blame on only Republicans is a failure to take personal responsibility (see my earlier post about Barney Franks). This seems typical of the Democrat party today, and possibly most politicians.

Here's a compilation of CSPAN videos that will -- hopefully -- help enlighten those who can't see the actual truth. Or at least get you thinking critically, instead of using simple-minded talking points.



It's really not so simple, is it?

Krugman: Modifying facts to fit his theory

It's really inexcusable for a scholar with a PhD in Economics, and a Nobel Peace Prize as well, to modify his "facts" to fit his theory that the recession has been prolonged because the stimulus package wasn't big enough.

In his October 10 column, "Hey, Small Spender," Krugman declares that there "never was a big expansion of government spending" under Obama, because cities and states underwent "drastic spending cuts, more than offsetting the modest increase at the federal level." His clear message is that total government spending has fallen, a premise also advanced by Ezra Klein in the pages of the Washington Post.

These statements don't match reality.

According to the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, total combined federal, state, and local government spending rose from $5,020 billion in 2008 to $5,345 billion in 2009 -- to a seasonally adjusted average of $5,532 billion in the first half of 2010, which is the most recent available data point.

Also, contrary to Krugman's claim that cities and states experienced "drastic spending cuts," the reality is that state and local governments slightly increased their spending from $2,186 billion in 2008 to $2,189 billion in 2009 to a seasonally adjusted average of $2,224 for the first half of 2010. This equates to a 2% rise during a period with 3% inflation.

If Krugman has another data source, he hasn't shared that with us yet. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the data published by this agency are the "only comprehensive estimates of state and local government activity available on a timely basis."

Krugman also based his premises that government spending "under Obama" has been too low. Yet the recession actually started in December 2007. Since then, combined government spending was $4,637 billion. Thus, from the outset of the recession through the second quarter of 2010, spending has risen 19% in a period with 4% inflation.

So Krugman's premises that there were "drastic cuts" in government spending is untrue, which therefore makes his theory of government spending invalid. If he wants to "prove" that the stimulus wasn't enough, he needs to re-write his hypothesis.

(Hat tip to James Agresti at American Thinker.)

Friday Digest

Goverment run healthcare: Medicare

As it now stands, if Congress does not act, doctors who treat Medicare patients face a 21 percent rollback in reimbursement rates beginning Tuesday...an American Medical Association poll of its members showed that if the planned cuts go into effect, two-thirds of doctors now treating Medicare patients will limit their Medicare cases, if not quit altogether. This will also affect military -- both active duty and retired -- because their Tricare insurance is tied to Medicare. Happy Memorial Day.

Democrats continually weak on national security
Why would they refuse to send 6,000 national guard troops to the border with Mexico? Excerpt: Senate Democrats managed Thursday to block deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, but the proposal still garnered a majority of senators, showing widespread support for a border-security-first strategy and underscoring why President Obama is having difficulty trying to win an immigration-legalization bill.

How's that stimulus bill working out?
The economic rebound last quarter turned out to be slower than first thought, one of the reasons unemployment is likely to stay high this year. The only thing the stimulus is stimulating is the growth in government. Democrats have had control of the Congress for three years, but as usual, liberal programs do not work.

Fannie and Freddie still broken. But of course...
The oil spill in the Gulf isn't the only calamity the administration is ignoring. As a result of the BP accident, anywhere from $400,000 to $7 million worth of crude oil is leaking into the ocean each day, threatening widespread environmental damage. A much larger leak - $232 million per day - has come from taxpayer vaults since Sept. 7, 2008, when mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac came seeking the first billion-dollar patch for their fiscal mismanagement. And there's no plug in sight for that gusher.

Obama struggling to show he's in control of oil spill
A defensive President Obama sought Thursday to quell doubts about his handling of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, insisting that his administration has been "in charge" from the moment it began and bristling that critics who accuse it of being sluggish to react "don't know the facts." But at times during a 63-minute news conference in the East Room of the White House, the president seemed to undercut his own argument. He enumerated a litany of fumbles and lapses...(and he wants the government to run our health care system?)

And finally, but not least by a long shot:

The BIG Lie
"The Democratic Congress and the Obama administration share a strong commitment to fiscal discipline and common sense in our budget, and we must continue to do everything in our power to boost our economic recovery, rein in the deficits we inherited, and remain responsible stewards of the public purse. After President Bush and Republicans in Congress turned record surpluses into record deficits and nearly doubled the national debt, Democrats are returning our nation to a course of fiscal responsibility." --House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on her own party's quadrupling of even the worst Bush deficit

The United States of America: on the road to bankruptcy.

When President Obama requested $63 billion for Iraq and Afghanisan, Congress inflated the bill to $300 billion for other pet projects, according to FoxNews.com.

Anyone still want to talk about those terrible deficits under President Bush?

Obama and his liberal Congress is racking up more debt in two years than the previous 10.

But don't worry. Obama keeps promising that his unconstitutional Health Care Plan will cut $100 billion from the deficit over 10 years.

Does he think the American people are stupid? He must, along with Pelosi and Reid.

Besides groveling to world leaders, this man and his friends will bankrupt this country.

Make sure you vote these people out in November of 2010 and 2012.

How's that change working for you now? The fact that as private sector wages drop, federal benefits are going up. This is the situation that created riots in Greece. USA Today reports on this in Private pay shrinks to historic lows as gov't payouts rise. We're becoming a welfare state, and that's not what this country is about.

On nearly every front in the real economy -- from jobs to consumer spending to foreclosures -- we've made virtually no progress at all. While Washington and the media have been consumed with the titanic debate over this reform bill [financial reform], talk of the actual suffering by actual people in the actual economy is virtually a taboo subject, at least judging by how rarely it makes the front pages or leads the TV news.

That's from Arianne Huffington. Yes, the Arianne of HuffPost. Even the liberals -- well, some of them -- are grasping the obvious.

The chart above only shows deficits through 2011. This view shows the projected deficits through 2019.

A short note to FamGuy in Colorado: Don't even bother to tell me that this problem was created by Bush and Obama is just fixing it. Time to get a grip on reality as it exists NOW. This is not fixing anything.

How does Texas do it?

Texas has a lower unemployment rate than most states, and nearly 2 percent below the national average of -- still -- 9.7 percent. Our housing market here has also not experienced the shakeup going on around the country. Reports the Washington Post:

It's one of the great mysteries of the mortgage crisis: Why did Texas -- Texas, of all places! -- escape the real estate bust? Only a dozen states have lower mortgage foreclosure and default rates, and all of them are rural places such as Montana and South Dakota, where they couldn't have a real estate boom if they tried. Texas's 3.1 million mortgage borrowers are a breed of their own among big states with big cities. Fewer than 6 percent of them are in or near foreclosure, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association; the national average is nearly 10 percent.

The land in Texas might look an awful lot like its Sun Belt sisters Arizona (with 13 percent of its borrowers in foreclosure) or Nevada (19 percent) -- flat and generous in letting real estate developers sprawl where they will. Texas was even the home base of two of the nation's biggest bubble-era homebuilders, Centex and D.R. Horton. Texan subprime borrowers do especially well compared with their counterparts elsewhere. The foreclosure rate among subprime borrowers in Texas, at less than 19 percent, is the lowest of any state except Alaska.

Part of the reason is that Texas didn't experience the stratospheric run-ups in home prices that other states did. On average, the home-resale prices of the 20 metro areas in the Case-Shiller Home Price Index peaked in 2006 after more than doubling since 2000. In Dallas, one of the 20 areas, they rose just 25 percent, gradually, and have barely declined. But there is a broader secret to Texas's success, and Washington reformers ought to be paying very close attention. If there's one thing that Congress can do to help protect borrowers from the worst lending excesses that fueled the mortgage and financial crises, it's to follow the Lone Star State's lead and put the brakes on "cash-out" refinancing and home-equity lending.

No wonder places like California and Michigan are losing residents, and Texas in gaining residents.

The fraud of the stimulus program

The Health Care bill just passed and signed into law is not the first bad bill passed by Congress and signed by Obama.

Of the $787 billion for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, less than $200 billion has been awarded and less than $100 billion has actually been spent. See Recovery.gov

Here's some hightlights of where the money (we don't have) is going:

• The University of California - San Diego received a grant of $233,825 to study African election patterns. The grant proposal stated that "the primary objective of this project is to identify the micro-foundations of vote choice in sub-Saharan Africa through extensive analysis of individual-level exit poll data." I think scientific research is great, but this smacks of a payoff. This is not seriously going to stimulate the economy.
• Deployment Essentials, LLC, received some $648,000 for "expert" installation of 2,074 of digital TV converters in the southwest. That's $312 per box, which cost $50 and a monkey could connect them.
• Vanderbilt University received a grant of $1.1 million to study black holes. Now that's really going to stimulate the economy.
• The city of Cherokee, Iowa, got $30,480 for picnic benches. Dear Obama: Where's mine?
• The Jennie-O Turkey Store in Willmar, MN, received more than $7 million in two separate awards for the delivery of deli turkey breasts. For whom? Since the award came directly from Congress, it must be for their lunches.
• The University of North Carolina received a grant of $447,492 to study the affect of 70 African American children speaking Eubonics (African American English) and its role in school achievement. Very good for the economy.
• The State of NY received nearly $400 million to "weatherize" low income housing. It reportely created 49 jobs. That's $8.1 million per job. Where do I sign up?
• Mt. Saint Mary's College in Los Angeles received a grant for $327,337 for: "Genetic Control of Sensory Hair Cell Membrane Channeels in Zebrafish." I kid you not. 

I'd go on -- there are thousand of examples -- but I'll go puke my breakfast up now.

The American taxpayer is getting ripped off.

Source: Stimulus Watch

Jobs bill will not mean jobs

Now that we have a jobs bill, things are looking up, right? No. This bill will do nothing.

I work for a small business (85 employees). I asked our owners yesterday if this bill will motivate them to hire new employees. Absolutely not. They called the current business climate "weird."

What they mean is that there is no certainty, no way to predict the future, or at least forecast what might happen. Without this certainty, they have taken the approach to hold costs in line, reduce debt, and do those things that will increase sales (or at least keep them steady).

But to hire more people in this climate? Not yet.

I believe most business people in this country are taking the same strategy.

Fed up with liberal lies

Sometimes I want to put my fist through my monitor as I scan news articles, blogs and the comments that go along. Bad enough is the leftist talking-point of the "tax cuts for the rich" which is -- at least -- a distortion of the truth (what they mean is that only the rich got tax cuts, which is ridiculous).

But I keep reading about how the Republicans caused the current recession. I want to scream. Doesn't anybody know how to read and analyze facts anymore?

Here's Dylan Loewe, a Democrat speech writer:

But if Democrats can't stand up and clearly articulate the nightmare scenario we were saved from, while championing the progress we're making everyday, then the economic disaster that Republicans caused may well be the same disaster that helps them surge back into power. (Emphasis mine.)

But like in a divorce where it takes two people to fail a marriage, the Republicans can't shoulder all the blame, nor should they. The current recession had its roots with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act and Bill Clinton putting it on steriods. When Republicans wanted more oversight on these Freddie and Fannie programs in the mid-2000s, efforts were blocked. They should have fought harder.

The truth is out there. You just have to accept it. You can read more about the Community Reinvestment Action here. 

Postscript: Dylan Loewe is coming out with a book entitled: Permanently Blue: How the Democrats Can End the Republican Party and Rule the Next Generation. One party rule? Does that scare you?

5.7 percent annualized growth? Not so fast!

The headlines are shouting about the 5.7 percent growth (annualized) during the 4th quarter of 2009. But most of this is due to higher inventory levels, rather than real growth, which is estimated to be only 2.9. Still growth, but nothing like the numbers put out by the government.

This is a blip on the radar, and the recession will continue. The stock market, where the smart money is, didn't even blink. DJIA is only up 4.61 points (as I write this Friday afternoon), which the NASDAQ has plunged 19.37.

The market is a leading indicator, so most investor aren't betting on growth in the future.

DHS, Texas and James Patterson

A few thoughts for today:

1. There has been a lot of criticism over the DHS handling of the security for flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. This is the same government many want to run our health care. This makes no sense.

2. Unemployment in Texas is down, and has always been below the national average, about 2 percentage points (8 vs 10). As a conservative state with a balanced budget, compared to states like New York and California, which is better? Conservative policies, or liberal policies? You pick...but many are leaving New York and CA to come to Texas.

3. The arrogance of the entertainment industry never ceases to amaze me. James Patterson: "Buy my book or I'll kill off Alex Cross" (main character of a series of popular novels he wrote). We'll, Mr. Patterson, I won't be blackmailed, so I'll pass on your book, though I already have read several. There are many other authors who don't have to stoop to such marketing, and my time is limited. See his video (until he takes it down.)

How many examples of bad thinking do you need?

Here's one: Even after years of a laissez-faire ideology that allowed businesses to pillage the economy, the idea of government intervention makes a lot of Americans nervous. -- Cynthia Tucker.

Cynthia, 99.9 percent of businesses in this country did not pillage the economy. You're drinking the far-left kool-aid if you think so. It was the government that caused the problems.

Here's a little history, courtesy of Paul D. White:

This is not a new problem. Consider a memo written in 1965 to President Lyndon Johnson from Assistant Labor Secretary Daniel Moynihan in which the secretary expressed his great concern over the high rate of out-of-wedlock births among blacks (25 percent at that time). Unaddressed, Mr. Moynihan predicted, this large number of fatherless children would result in increasing school failure, criminal delinquency, and joblessness. Sadly, because liberals across the board condemned this call for action as racist propaganda, President Johnson didn't want to risk heated public debate and so did nothing. (emphasis mine)

See my point. Liberal policies have made things worse in this country, not better.

The article goes on:

The recent Chicago incident, and countless others that occur daily, are the result of not heeding Moynihan's warning 44 years ago. The previous out-of-wedlock birthrate has almost tripled, and 7 out of 10 black children now grow up not only without a father, but also in disproportionate poverty. That means millions of young kids lack adequate parental guidance to make the transition to become successful adults.

I have so many examples of weak or bad thinking by liberals (and some conservatives) on this blog, that you've have to be a true idiot not to see the truth.

Not Afraid? You Will Be.

The facts are piling up faster than manure on a cattle ranch. If you're not worried, frightened, disgusted, or just plain ol' concerned about what our 44th President is doing, saying and planning, you must be living in a different world than the rest of us.

Here are three must reads. You be the judge.

The Obama-Pelosi deficits, from the Wall Street Journal

Insulter-in-chief, from the American Thinker.

Obama's Follies, from Victor David Hanson

Financial Crisis? It's Certainly a Mess

I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. -- Thomas Jefferson

Backtrack to 1977 when the Community Reinvestment Act was inacted during Jimmy Carter's term. The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. Call it Affirmative Action for home and small business loans.

This law was strengthened in 1995 by Congress, signed by Pres. Clinton, and it was then that this so-called sub-prime mortgage baloney really started to take off. It was part of the liberal plan to provide means of home ownership to those who could not qualify -- or afford -- a conventional mortgage. This was a nice idea, but one which could not work. The backbone of the lending industry is that lendees pay back loans to lenders.

You remember conventional mortgages? Up until recently, in order to buy a home, you had to work and save for the down payment, which was normally 20 percent of the cost of the house. Then you had to be able to prove to the bank that you could repay the loan on the remaining 80 percent. This provided immediate equity, which protected not only the bank, but the home owner as well.

Then along comes the "sub-prime" mortgage. Much pressure was put on mortgage lenders to offer these more risky loans. Fannie Mac offered to buy them. The Justice department threatened legal action if lenders didn't comply. In fact, the law firm that Barack Obama worked for at that time sued Citigroup because they weren't making enough sub-prime lonas. So as time went along, more and more of these risky mortgages were made, until it seemed that anyone could get a home loan. People were even getting loans that were more than the home was valued, expecting home prices would always go up. When will anyone learn that all things that go up, eventually come down?

In 1999, the New York Times observed that eventually the bill would come due because of these loans. How prophetic, even for this paper, which would be expected to fully support a liberal cause.

In 2001, after taking office, President Bush warned Congress to do something about this growing problem, and in 2003 upgraded his warning that the problem could create systemic problems, which means it could affect the entire financial system. Legislation introduced was blocked. Later, in February 2005, Alan Greenspan warned of a collapse. But Democrats, such as Barney Franks, said Fannie Mae should do even more to get low-income people into home ownership.

In 2006, Sen. John McCain co-sponsored a bill to increase regulatory measures over government-back mortgages. The bill passed the Senate (with all Democrats voting against), but never made it off the House floor. See the Fox News report below for a summary.



Now it's 2008. Back in June, we already coughed up $300 billion on this mess.

Now, the same people -- people like Chris Dodd and Barney Franks -- who helped created the problem, want the American taxpayer to bail out these financial institutions that are holding all this bad debt. These American taxpayers are the ones who are working, paying their mortgages, and trying to save for their futures. Now we should be expected to bail out not only the lending institutions, but the homeowners also.

I find it ironic that Dodd and his ilk will hold Congressional hearings to fix blame for this. But he should be a witness, not an investigator.

It just may be that the government -- us -- will have to do something drastic, like buy up all these bad mortgages. Bush says we'll get our money back. But don't count on it. Government has a bad track-record.

Politicians -- who pander for votes -- say this is a good plan. Several large banks will be saved from disaster, and a lot of homeowners who can't pay the bill will get bailed out. In the meantime, those of us who currently pay the bills (the top 50 percent of wage earners pay 95 percent of all income tax) will end up paying even more.

But there are now some 200 economists who say the plan is deeply flawed.

No matter which way it goes, one thing remains. Most of our problems have started with the Federal government meddling in free markets. Yes, there should be oversight against abuse. But when government starts telling free markets how to behave, disaster is around the corner. This has been proven over and over, yet our government does it over and over.

When will the madness stop?

Sheer Lunancy From the Left

Again, Robert Sheer, who once worked for the leftist LA Times, provides us with insight into the liberal mind. I commented on his 4th of July editorial, and he continues with his rants against sane, conservative polices with his usual irrational understanding of reality.

In his latest op-ed of Aug 20th, he spews forth more of his liberal talking points. His premiss for arguments are not based on facts. Let's look at some:

There you have it — in a capsule, the McCain campaign for president, an irrational melange of patriotic swagger and blindness to reality that is proving disturbingly successful with uninformed voters. How else to explain the many millions of Americans who tell pollsters they prefer a continuation of Republican rule when so many of them are losing their homes to foreclosure and the nation is bankrupted by out-of-control military spending.

The economy is in a downward spiral, the national debt is at an all-time high, the dollar is an international disgrace, and inflation in July had the steepest rise in 27 years, driven by oil prices fivefold higher than when President Bush invaded the nation with the world's second-largest petroleum reserves.

First of all, Sheer hates anything doing with patriotism, so he uses this quite frequently in his criticism of Republicans, and Americans in general, in this case "patriotic swagger and blindness." On July 4th, it was "patriotic bluster and beer swilling."

To us "uninformed voters," of course, being a liberal elitist, he doesn't believe we can choose for ourselves. That's one of the problems with America today -- we don't let the liberal elite run everything, you know?

He then leads you to believe that "so many" Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure, because you know, those damned neocons are cheating them out of their homes, you know. He doesn't say that, but you know that's what he means. But the fact is that these people are losing their homes because they made bad decisions. The government, many years ago, allowed lenders to lend to just about anybody -- didn't matter if they could repay -- so here we are with the consequences.

Then our national debt is due to out-of-control military spending. Oh? Really? Is it out of control? Or is it at the level we need to protect ourselves, unlike the attacks we suffered in the 1990s and on Sept 11, 2001? What's out of control is social spending, which has gone up much faster than military spending. But welfare programs, income redistribution, in fact, socialism is O.K.

Of course, the price of oil is Bush's fault. And since this is Bush's fault, our economy, inflation, etc is also Bush's fault. This is something I'm really tired of hearing. I just don't understand this Bush hatred, when any honest thinking human knows that all of our problems aren't the fault of one man.

Later in his editorial, while admitting to the victory in Iraq, Sheer has to disqualify it by bringing up our experience in Vietnam and that "victory is not all it's cracked up to be." Really? I guess victories, like World War II aren't important either. Or any of the other "victories" our military has managed to accomplish.

He reminds us of how Nixon rejected the neoconservative addiction to the cold war by his policy of detente with the Soviets and Chinese. Yet, Nixon really accomplished very little. The threat from these two communist regimes remained just a real as ever, and even more so to smaller countries, such as Afghanistan. Only when Reagan used neoconservative policies in the 1980s did he finally end the cold war.

And of course, our efforts against Islamic fundamentalists is "absurdly misdirected." We shouldn't spend more for national defense, oh no. This won't make us stronger. "Vote for McCain, and forget about funding to solve the Social Security, Medicare and subprime mortgage disasters or anything else that truly would make America stronger," he concludes.

Certainly, Mr. Sheer. Medicare, subprime mortgages and Social Security will certainly beat back the terrorists and other assorted bad guys from attacking our citizens, our properties and our freedoms.

This is dangerous thinking. Americans need to wake up and fight for the freedoms we have, because there are too many people willing -- like Mr. Sheer -- to give them away, or others who want to take them away.

How the media make you believe things are worse than they are

Today, the government reported that the economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product or GDP, grew by an annual rate of 1.9 percent. Nothing to write home about, but not bad either.

A caveat in the news business is that good news does not sell. My exposure to this was during the time I worked both in PR, working with the media, and as a newspaper reporter and editor. Bad news sells, good news does not, especially for the front page. And the front page, especially above the fold, which readers supposedly see first, is the Holy Grail of bad news.

The way people digest news these days is changing, but the dinosaur main-stream media has not changed quickly enough, which is why so many are struggling financially.

But the media will make good news look bad, because of this "golden rule" of news editors. They use the English language, choosing their words carefully, precisely. Reporters and editors spend a great deal of time doing this, and their choice of words are seldom by accident.

The AP reported this morning that "economic growth picked up" in the second quarter. Key here is "picked up." As in only. Of course, the reason is that the tax rebate "energized" consumers. This was the first sentence of the story, so you left with a kind of ho-hum feeling.

Next sentence, in the first paragraph (which is called the lead, or lede), reads: "The rebound followed a treacherous patch where the economy jolted into reverse at the end of 2007. The italics are mine to point out the change of emotion from the first sentence to the second.

Second paragraph provides actual figures for the lead (emphasis mine):

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product, or GDP, increased at an annual rate of 1.9 percent in the April-to-June period. That marked an improvement over the feeble 0.9 percent growth logged in the first quarter of this year and an outright contraction in the economy during the final quarter of last year.

Let's look at some other superlatives used in the article.

"The rebound, while welcome, isn't likely to be seen as a signal that the fragile economy is out of the woods. There are fears that as the bracing tonic of the tax rebates fades, the economy could be in for another rough patch later this year."

One of my favorite passages in the article is this one: "...employers have cut jobs for six months in a row, bringing total losses this year close to a staggering half-million — 438,000."

First of all, 438,000 is closer to 400,000 than a half-million, or 500,000. So if you are rounding to the nearest hundred thousand, it should have read "a whopping 400,000." Get it?

Secondly, there are more than 146 million people working in this country. Cutting 438,000 jobs is only .2 percent of the total. While we all hate to see 438,000 jobs cut, that doesn't really mean that 438,000 more people are out of work. As the AP reports, "The Labor Department reported Thursday that the number of applications for jobless benefits soared to 448,000, an increase of 44,000 from the previous week." A less-than-10-percent increase is not soaring. If there are 10,000 more people unemployed over the number of job cuts, so it must be that many of those people in jobs that were cut have found new employment. Now that would NOT be bad news.

The fact is that the economy grew in the second quarter and the jobless rate remains historically low.

But why paint a rosy picture when you can spin it as bad news?

Where Has All Our Money Gone?

During the last two years (2006 and 2007), the U.S. Government spent about $5.3 trillion. This astronomical sum of money is almost beyond comprehension. During these same two years, the government collected about $5.0 trillion. Again, a huge pile of cash.

One way to look at this amount of money -- $5.3 trillion over two years -- is how that breaks down for every person in the country, called per capita: It's $17,385 per person for two years, or about $8,690 per person per year.

Another way to look at is how much money does the U.S. Government spends per each worker, those who are employed. During the second quarter of this year, there were about 146 million people with jobs. It comes to $18,150 per employed person per year.

Page 19 of this table will show you a summary of where the government gets its money. Page 22 shows a summary of which agency gets what.

And we've all heard of earmarks. Well, you can find out what is being spent on these little jewels. The Office of Management and Budget has the information.

Our government has grown so large that no one can control it, a concept offered in this article called Insatiable Government by Garet Garrett:

There are many aspects of government. The one least considered is what may be called the biological aspect, in which government is like an organism with such an instinct for growth and self-expression that if let alone it is bound to destroy human freedom — not that it might wish to do so but that it could not in nature do less. No government ever wants less government — that is, less of itself. No government ever surrenders power, even its emergency powers — not really. It may mean to surrender them, but on the first new occasion it will take them all back. One of the American Government's wartime powers was the War Finance Corporation. The present Reconstruction Finance Corporation is a revival of that power in time of peace. And so it goes.

This was first published on June 25, 1932. We haven't learned. From the New Deal to Johnson's War on Poverty, we've allowed the government to control just about everything we do. This is not freedom.

It will only get worse, unlesss we do something about it.

Gramm's Comments Hide Bigger Story

Phil, you're not helping the conservative or Republican cause when you stay stupid shit. Of course, it doesn't matter that the "mental recession" comment was made in private and then later relayed to a journalist. It gave the liberals more ammunition about insensitive conservatives.

I know everyone with a blog or computer or typewriter will be commenting on Phil Gramm's idiotic comments yesterday. If you really want to know what some people think or feel, take a look at Melody's rant at the DailyKos.

Yes, I occasionally peruse sites like DailyKos and Huffington Post. If you have any stake in what's going on, you gotta know what other people who might disagree with you are thinking. Then you need to think about what they're thinking before you throw it out. Otherwise, you're no better than the left-wing koolaid drinkers.

Anyway, Melody makes some valid points, even though some things aren't quite right factually (like her whining about it being hot in Texas, which it is every summer and this one is not even close to a record, the public pool has closed because the Democrat leadership in Dallas can't manage their budget; like her "cottage" decreasing in value by $50K; home prices in Dallas have been relatively stable, unless you're living in a $750K house, which in Dallas equates to a $3 million house in L.A.), and telling him to stick it up his ass several times losses its one-time punch.

But as a fellow middle-class American, I have to agree with her point that the recent rise in price of gas, energy, and food have made an impact on us, and it's just not mental. So Gramm has done everyone a disservice, and a great one at that.

But he does have somewhat of a point: we are becoming a nation of whiners, especially on the left.

But there is more to this story than meets the eye, especially at first glance. At nearly the same time Phill is making an idiot of himself, Michelle Obama put her foot in her mouth as well. Phil sounds elitist, but so does Michelle when she says, "Barack's approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good," she continued. "And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings..." I assume she's talking about the May rebate checks (this isn't a gift from the government, they're just returning my money). Full story here.

Earrings? My wife and I received $1,200 in rebate checks; we're not going to go buy earrings for God's sake, or anything else frivolous. We used it on things we need.

But where is the outrage? The Obamas get a free pass again from the main street media. The conservative gets hammered, and rightly so, but the liberal is so cute. Even the somewhat-more-conservative-than-most U.S. News and World Report ignores it...

That's the bigger story.