Thanks to "Sarkazein" for passing on these enlightening statistics.
Obamacare is adding more patients while fewer people want to be Doctors and many practicing Doctors are quitting. Look for the numbers to get worse.
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000 (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000187
Statistics courtesy of FBI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT
Almost everyone has at least one doctor. This means you are over 900 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as a gun owner!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
U.S. Debt Grows To 90.3% Of GDP
June 4 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is poised to increase the U.S. debt to a level that exceeds the value of the nation’s annual economic output,
Sit down before clicking.
The debt numbers are staggering enough but not the whole story. Suppose Bill Gates (net worth $53 billion) buys a Lamborghini. Now suppose I (net worth way way less) buy the same car. Is it the same? Can it be said we both have shown the same fiscal resposibility? The percentage of debt to income tells a completely different story than the debt alone.
Here is a chart showing the debt to GDP ratio going back 218 years, scroll down for individual years. We have never seen anything approaching this kind of debt.
Just for fun, I looked a little deeper into the numbers. The average debt to GDP ratio from 1993-2000 (Clinton) was 63.93%. From 2001-2008 (Bush) the average was 62.18%. Despite fighting 2 wars and weathering 9/11 Bush was more fiscally responsible than Clinton and the numbers prove it. It's still far too high but that's not my point. My point is Clinton did not do as well with the economy as he is given credit for. Obama is off the charts and it may already be too late to save us.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Maybe a Time to Get Off the President's Back
A commenter on this blog wrote: “Obama makes only Fascist-like threats regarding the oil leak” That Fascist part is what is concerning me. I am uneasy about the pressure Republicans are putting on the president over this oil leak, and here is why: It is in his nature to take over as much as he can. His guiding mantra is “don’t let a good crisis go to waste.” So far he is only federalizing, i.e., putting more government control over the whole debacle. Critics should not be pushing him toward nationalizing the oil industry which many in his base are already calling for.
When Katrina hit,the federal response to Katrina was governed by the 1988 Stafford Act, which says that in natural disasters, on-shore states are in charge, not Washington. The federal obligation is to “support. . . States and local assistance efforts.” Even though Bush was following the law, he was clobbered by Democrats for not rushing in and taking over.
Now Obama, contrary to his nature, is actually admitting government does not have the know-how to solve a problem. He is willing to let private enterprise tackle the problem which has to be going against every fiber of his being. And, he is getting clobbered. Republicans can’t have it both ways. Either they believe in private enterprise, or they believe in government takeover.
When Katrina hit,the federal response to Katrina was governed by the 1988 Stafford Act, which says that in natural disasters, on-shore states are in charge, not Washington. The federal obligation is to “support. . . States and local assistance efforts.” Even though Bush was following the law, he was clobbered by Democrats for not rushing in and taking over.
Now Obama, contrary to his nature, is actually admitting government does not have the know-how to solve a problem. He is willing to let private enterprise tackle the problem which has to be going against every fiber of his being. And, he is getting clobbered. Republicans can’t have it both ways. Either they believe in private enterprise, or they believe in government takeover.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
ACLU Challenges NC Effort to Get Detailed Records From Amazon
Newsobserver.com Every once and awhile the ACLU gets on the correct side.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
What Do We Make Of This?
Deportations reach an all time high under President Obama. Here's the Graphic. In a politically honest world this news should outrage the liberals and please the conservatives. Obama has shown a propensity to talk one way and act another. Club Gitmo is still open for business with indefinite detention and water boarding a viable option at no extra charge. Obama continues to order the assassination of Muslims. His actions do not reflect his words, we know that. So what about this? He's on the warpath against Arizona and deportations are up?! Could it be the numbers are up because the number of illegal immigrants coming in are up? I smell a talking point brewing.
Union Thugs
Thank to Guy Faulkes for the tip
This is not anything the tea party protesters would do. When it comes to hate this is the real deal. These are Obama's people. Here's more.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Lights Out
Utility board member's letter to Los Angeles Mayor regarding the threatened Arizona boycott
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Dale Peterson
Consider this an open thread about the primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. As of this writing Kentucky has been called for Rand Paul. Tea Party power! We'll see what happens in November.
Dale Peterson is a breath of fresh air. I thought some of you would get a kick out of him and others would have an aneurysm. That's spells FUN.
Monday, May 17, 2010
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT
Commenter Guy Faulkes asks: Could we please have a thread on this topic?
Subject: VERY, VERY SERIOUS WARNING
While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN. OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR.
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.
Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!
THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.
As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S.reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) VIEW FULL ARTICLE The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
Subject: VERY, VERY SERIOUS WARNING
While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN. OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE could BE WAR.
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.
Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present!
THIS IS NOT A JOKE NOR A FALSE WARNING.
As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control. Read the Article U.S.reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade WASHINGTON (Reuters) VIEW FULL ARTICLE The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Excerpts From How Badly Will the Democrats Do? by Karl Rove
Excerpts from How Badly Will the Democrats Do by KARL ROVE
The answer isn't locked in yet—and will depend on the confluence of many elements. Here are several that matter.
The most important metric is presidential job approval. President Obama is now at 51% in Gallup and 47% in Rasmussen. When Democrats lost 54 seats in 1994, Bill Clinton's job approval was at 46%.
The GOP also enjoys a lead in the polls that now sample likely voters. In Rasmussen, the GOP is ahead 44% to 37%.
Intensity matters as well. The latest Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll reports two-thirds of Republicans are "extremely" or "very" interested in the midterms, compared to only half of Democrats. Older voters are almost twice as likely as younger voters to be interested; and seniors now favor the GOP 50% to 41%.
Another important metric for the fall is the turnout for primaries. Is it rising or falling compared to four years ago? The results so far are bad for Democrats. For example, in Ohio, Democratic participation was down 24% over the last midterm while GOP turnout was up 64%.
The answer isn't locked in yet—and will depend on the confluence of many elements. Here are several that matter.
The most important metric is presidential job approval. President Obama is now at 51% in Gallup and 47% in Rasmussen. When Democrats lost 54 seats in 1994, Bill Clinton's job approval was at 46%.
The GOP also enjoys a lead in the polls that now sample likely voters. In Rasmussen, the GOP is ahead 44% to 37%.
Intensity matters as well. The latest Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll reports two-thirds of Republicans are "extremely" or "very" interested in the midterms, compared to only half of Democrats. Older voters are almost twice as likely as younger voters to be interested; and seniors now favor the GOP 50% to 41%.
Another important metric for the fall is the turnout for primaries. Is it rising or falling compared to four years ago? The results so far are bad for Democrats. For example, in Ohio, Democratic participation was down 24% over the last midterm while GOP turnout was up 64%.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Obama's Debt Heading Us Into Deep Doo Doo
According to the IMF “under the Obama administration’s current fiscal plans, the national debt in the US (on a gross basis) will climb to above 100% of GDP by 2015 – a far steeper increase than almost any other country.”
Pumped Watauga Republicans Prepare
At last night’s Watauga Republican meeting, everyone was pumped. Committee chairs gave exciting reports. For the first time in a while, every precinct has a chair; every office has a candidate–all outstanding.
When NC GOP Executive Russell Peck was finally introduced, at first all he could articulate was something like “awesome.” He said he had come to teach us about organization. However, he said our organization was so impressive, he would be telling other counties a lot about Watauga. In talking about winning elections, he used the following outline:
GRASSROOTS
Elections are won by people who talk to their friends, knock on neighbors’ doors and make calls. It takes eight to twelve appearances of an expensive political TV ad to finally get absorbed; four exposures to a mailing, but only one direct contact for a message to get through.
So it is grassroots, grassroots, grassroots.
VOTER GOALS
Precinct chairs can study the previous election turnout; estimate turnout; an election needs 52% of the vote for your candidate to avoid expensive recounts. Precinct chairs will then know exactly how many they need. Besides Republicans, they will also have a list of those Unaffiliated who asked for Republican ballots last time.
BUILDING YOUR ORGANIZATION
Ask people to volunteer. A recent poll revealed that 76% of the people said they would volunteer, but only 30% had been asked.
This summer the work needs to be to get new people registered, including the summer visitors who are already Republicans or oriented towards conservatism. Early this fall you can contact the Republican Headquarters on their webpage and volunteer. I like to volunteer in the headquarters because I enjoy meeting and greeting fellow conservatives who come in for information and conversation.
Just as we are poised to take the House and the Senate in Washington, with the anti-incumbent back lash and the Democrat Raleigh scandals, we can take the House and Senate in North Carolina.
When NC GOP Executive Russell Peck was finally introduced, at first all he could articulate was something like “awesome.” He said he had come to teach us about organization. However, he said our organization was so impressive, he would be telling other counties a lot about Watauga. In talking about winning elections, he used the following outline:
GRASSROOTS
Elections are won by people who talk to their friends, knock on neighbors’ doors and make calls. It takes eight to twelve appearances of an expensive political TV ad to finally get absorbed; four exposures to a mailing, but only one direct contact for a message to get through.
So it is grassroots, grassroots, grassroots.
VOTER GOALS
Precinct chairs can study the previous election turnout; estimate turnout; an election needs 52% of the vote for your candidate to avoid expensive recounts. Precinct chairs will then know exactly how many they need. Besides Republicans, they will also have a list of those Unaffiliated who asked for Republican ballots last time.
BUILDING YOUR ORGANIZATION
Ask people to volunteer. A recent poll revealed that 76% of the people said they would volunteer, but only 30% had been asked.
This summer the work needs to be to get new people registered, including the summer visitors who are already Republicans or oriented towards conservatism. Early this fall you can contact the Republican Headquarters on their webpage and volunteer. I like to volunteer in the headquarters because I enjoy meeting and greeting fellow conservatives who come in for information and conversation.
Just as we are poised to take the House and the Senate in Washington, with the anti-incumbent back lash and the Democrat Raleigh scandals, we can take the House and Senate in North Carolina.
Bernie Goldberg to Speak at Watauga Republican Fund Raiser
Bernie Goldberg, author of Bias and A Slobbering Love Affair to be the guest speaker at the Watauga Republican Party fund raiser. The dinner will be held at the Broyhill Center, August 13.
The public is invited. There will be 350 seats available and the cost is $100 per person and is part of the fund raising for the party. Watch for further details on the Watauga Republican Blog.
Besides being a best-selling author, Mr. Goldberg is known as a regular news and media analyst for Fox News. He also is a weekly guest on O’Reilly. Also, he is a ten-time Emmy Award-winning American writer, journalist, and political commentator.
The full title of his book is A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media. He also wrote the best seller, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.
Come Celebrate Lincoln/Reagan Day With Watauga Republicans
The Watauga County Lincoln-Reagan Family Day will be celebrated on Saturday, June 12, 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. at the National Guard Armory in Boone. Admission is free with only low prices for your food and games.
Come and enjoy the food-fun-and games. There will be games for the children,and a bluegrass band as well as shagging lessons with beach music This will be a great day for families. Everyone is invited.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Inheritance (part 3 of 3)
Barack Hussein Obama
All through the 2008 Presidential campaign we heard from Obama that the economy was as bad as it's been since the "Great Depression". It is now but it wasn't then. It didn't have to be. We've to linked this graphic more than once. Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half by 2013 and the graph shows how he will do it. He quadruples the debt first, simple. You will also notice that in 2013 (Obama's best deficit year) the deficit dwarfs Bush's worst year by hundreds of billions of dollars.
For this edition of our discussion I'll lump Congress and the President together, They have worked in tandem with virtually no votes from Republicans. What have they done? The health care industry, the insurance industry, the auto industry, the insurance industry and the banking industry have all had large segments of their business taken over by government. This has not helped the economy. The latest CBO numbers put to rest the lie that health care reform is deficit neutral, we knew that already and there is more enlightenment to come. The massive stimulus package did not work. With the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the promise of more tax hikes and no end in sight on the reckless spending the job market has gotten steadily worse. The stock market has become incredibly volatile. States have no money. Social Security has no money, Medicare/Medicaid have no money. We've printed all the money we can. We've borrowed more. China owns us. Europe's economy is crumbling led by Greece. America is no longer able to lead them back. Obama pushed hard for the EU to approve a trillion dollar bailout. More of the same failed policy. It's not working.
What happened independently and completely out of the control of the Barack Obama and Congress that affected the economy one way or the other? They did inherit a recession. They have not fixed it and blaming Bush is beginning to loose it's credibility. Obviously, the deficit is in part culpable but Senator Obama shares the blame. Look at the graphic again. Notice the deficit was declining from 2004 (the thick of the wars) until 2007. Obama's Democrat Congress was sworn in January 2007 and the deficit went crazy. It's also of note that this graphic properly splits TARP.
The problem with the economy is Obama's agenda, a willing majority in Congress, a strategy of division, a search for any crisis to exploit and a desire to fundamentally transform America.
All through the 2008 Presidential campaign we heard from Obama that the economy was as bad as it's been since the "Great Depression". It is now but it wasn't then. It didn't have to be. We've to linked this graphic more than once. Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half by 2013 and the graph shows how he will do it. He quadruples the debt first, simple. You will also notice that in 2013 (Obama's best deficit year) the deficit dwarfs Bush's worst year by hundreds of billions of dollars.
For this edition of our discussion I'll lump Congress and the President together, They have worked in tandem with virtually no votes from Republicans. What have they done? The health care industry, the insurance industry, the auto industry, the insurance industry and the banking industry have all had large segments of their business taken over by government. This has not helped the economy. The latest CBO numbers put to rest the lie that health care reform is deficit neutral, we knew that already and there is more enlightenment to come. The massive stimulus package did not work. With the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the promise of more tax hikes and no end in sight on the reckless spending the job market has gotten steadily worse. The stock market has become incredibly volatile. States have no money. Social Security has no money, Medicare/Medicaid have no money. We've printed all the money we can. We've borrowed more. China owns us. Europe's economy is crumbling led by Greece. America is no longer able to lead them back. Obama pushed hard for the EU to approve a trillion dollar bailout. More of the same failed policy. It's not working.
What happened independently and completely out of the control of the Barack Obama and Congress that affected the economy one way or the other? They did inherit a recession. They have not fixed it and blaming Bush is beginning to loose it's credibility. Obviously, the deficit is in part culpable but Senator Obama shares the blame. Look at the graphic again. Notice the deficit was declining from 2004 (the thick of the wars) until 2007. Obama's Democrat Congress was sworn in January 2007 and the deficit went crazy. It's also of note that this graphic properly splits TARP.
The problem with the economy is Obama's agenda, a willing majority in Congress, a strategy of division, a search for any crisis to exploit and a desire to fundamentally transform America.
Inheritance (part 2 of 3)
George Walker Bush
What did Bush do to help the economy after the bursted dot com bubble and resulting recession? He cut taxes quickly in June of his first year (and again later). That issue was his. He gave the surplus back to the people in the form of rebates. The result was record revenues and a very shallow recession. That was crucial in weathering the storms to follow.
What did Bush do to hurt the economy? He owns the big spending "Medicare Part D" (the only government program in history to come in under budget because of the private sector elements) and "No Child Left Behind". He never vetoed a spending bill.
War? Doesn't count... despite the constant whine from the left. There are several reasons. There was a threat and a Constitutional duty. There was overwhelming, bi-partisan support for both wars. There was overwhelming UN (world) support. There was a new paradigm after 9/11. Add to all that, the point is moot in regards to Obama because he's already outspent the wars and he's still prosecuting those wars.
TARP? At best that's a wash too. The bill was paid in two installments. Bush got the first and Obama the second. Senator Obama voted for it. President Obama gets to spend the $500 billion of TARP that's been paid back while Bush gets tagged with the deficit numbers of both installments INCLUDING the $500 billion.
What did Congress do? As mentioned, supported both wars and all the funding associated. After Democrats took control in 2006, spending went up dramatically. Congress put pressure on banks to give loans to people that could not pay them back to buy hoses they could not afford. More than anything else that legislation caused the banking crisis.
What happened independently and completely out of the control of the George W. Bush and Congress that affected the economy one way or the other? Just as the tax cuts were showing signs of stemming he inherited recession we were hit. 9/11 changed everything. They did not name the twin towers the "World Trade Center" for nothing. Devastation beyond words. Less than two months later the Enron scandal (and others) was uncovered. Yet we survived economically. The economy continued to grow and jobs continued to be created.
What did Bush do to help the economy after the bursted dot com bubble and resulting recession? He cut taxes quickly in June of his first year (and again later). That issue was his. He gave the surplus back to the people in the form of rebates. The result was record revenues and a very shallow recession. That was crucial in weathering the storms to follow.
What did Bush do to hurt the economy? He owns the big spending "Medicare Part D" (the only government program in history to come in under budget because of the private sector elements) and "No Child Left Behind". He never vetoed a spending bill.
War? Doesn't count... despite the constant whine from the left. There are several reasons. There was a threat and a Constitutional duty. There was overwhelming, bi-partisan support for both wars. There was overwhelming UN (world) support. There was a new paradigm after 9/11. Add to all that, the point is moot in regards to Obama because he's already outspent the wars and he's still prosecuting those wars.
TARP? At best that's a wash too. The bill was paid in two installments. Bush got the first and Obama the second. Senator Obama voted for it. President Obama gets to spend the $500 billion of TARP that's been paid back while Bush gets tagged with the deficit numbers of both installments INCLUDING the $500 billion.
What did Congress do? As mentioned, supported both wars and all the funding associated. After Democrats took control in 2006, spending went up dramatically. Congress put pressure on banks to give loans to people that could not pay them back to buy hoses they could not afford. More than anything else that legislation caused the banking crisis.
What happened independently and completely out of the control of the George W. Bush and Congress that affected the economy one way or the other? Just as the tax cuts were showing signs of stemming he inherited recession we were hit. 9/11 changed everything. They did not name the twin towers the "World Trade Center" for nothing. Devastation beyond words. Less than two months later the Enron scandal (and others) was uncovered. Yet we survived economically. The economy continued to grow and jobs continued to be created.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Inheritance (part 1 of 3)
One of the most often repeated Democrat talking points is the subject of inheritance. Bush inherited a booming economy from Clinton. Obama inherited the worst economy since the great depression from Bush. We hear it all the time.
First, lets take it at face value. Clearly, the implication is that Clinton made a good economy and Bush ruined it so badly that Obama is still cleaning up the mess a year and a half later. Isn't that a lazy analysis? I mean, are we to conclude the power of the Presidency trumps all circumstances? The President can affect fiscal policy despite being unable to do the Legislature's job of budgeting but what did the President actually do to cause the boom or the bust? What did Congress do? What happened independently and completely out of the control of the President and Congress that affected the economy one way or the other? To disregard those questions is not only intellectually lazy, it's a pitiful attempt to shamelessly reshape history.
We'll do this in three parts so the debate has a foundation: Clinton, Bush and Obama.
William Jefferson Clinton
What did President Bush inherit from Clinton? For one thing, a recession. For those of you in Rio Linda, a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The economy was shrinking despite the surplus. Let's apply a wee bit of curiosity to the equation.
What did the Bill Clinton do to cause the recession and the surplus? He was a good manager of the economy and didn't go nuts with a radical agenda to fundamentally transform America after the failure of health care. His tax hikes did not cause the doom and gloom many, including myself, predicted. He gets credit there but I honestly cannot name a single thing he did or agenda he pushed that puts the credit(surplus) or blame(recession) squarely on his shoulders.
What did Congress do? The biggest thing was "The Contract With America". In 1994 the people gave majorities back to Republicans with a clear mandate. President Clinton, with advice from guru Dick Morris, "triangulated" towards and co-opted 7 of 10 items in the contract including "The fiscal Responsibility Act". Clinton for all his faults listened to the will of the people. It is fair to say Congress drove the agenda towards fiscal responsibility.
What happened independently and completely out of the control of Bill Clinton and Congress that affected the economy one way or the other? Three words: "Dot Com Bubble". From 1995 to 2000 tech stocks soared on speculative trading. The phenomena illustrated how a growing economy is so much more effective at raising revenue than a taxed economy... but it was a bubble. There was no there there. Just cyber-there. The bubble burst on March 10, 2000. By the time Bush came into office the next January the country was in recession but we still had a little money in the bank. Another thing that was brewing during the Clinton years was the Enron scandal. It added to the stock bubble and made the pop a little louder when it burst.
A recession isn't the only thing Bush inherited from Clinton. He also inherited Osama Bin Laden, Jamie Gorelick's wall, Sadaam Hussein and a host of ignored UN resolutions, the Taliban in Afghanistan, a Pakistan that recognized them as the official regime, a vandalized White House with no "w"s on any of the computer keyboards and spooge-stained oval office. I'm sorry I even had to write that last one, excuse me.
First, lets take it at face value. Clearly, the implication is that Clinton made a good economy and Bush ruined it so badly that Obama is still cleaning up the mess a year and a half later. Isn't that a lazy analysis? I mean, are we to conclude the power of the Presidency trumps all circumstances? The President can affect fiscal policy despite being unable to do the Legislature's job of budgeting but what did the President actually do to cause the boom or the bust? What did Congress do? What happened independently and completely out of the control of the President and Congress that affected the economy one way or the other? To disregard those questions is not only intellectually lazy, it's a pitiful attempt to shamelessly reshape history.
We'll do this in three parts so the debate has a foundation: Clinton, Bush and Obama.
William Jefferson Clinton
What did President Bush inherit from Clinton? For one thing, a recession. For those of you in Rio Linda, a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The economy was shrinking despite the surplus. Let's apply a wee bit of curiosity to the equation.
What did the Bill Clinton do to cause the recession and the surplus? He was a good manager of the economy and didn't go nuts with a radical agenda to fundamentally transform America after the failure of health care. His tax hikes did not cause the doom and gloom many, including myself, predicted. He gets credit there but I honestly cannot name a single thing he did or agenda he pushed that puts the credit(surplus) or blame(recession) squarely on his shoulders.
What did Congress do? The biggest thing was "The Contract With America". In 1994 the people gave majorities back to Republicans with a clear mandate. President Clinton, with advice from guru Dick Morris, "triangulated" towards and co-opted 7 of 10 items in the contract including "The fiscal Responsibility Act". Clinton for all his faults listened to the will of the people. It is fair to say Congress drove the agenda towards fiscal responsibility.
What happened independently and completely out of the control of Bill Clinton and Congress that affected the economy one way or the other? Three words: "Dot Com Bubble". From 1995 to 2000 tech stocks soared on speculative trading. The phenomena illustrated how a growing economy is so much more effective at raising revenue than a taxed economy... but it was a bubble. There was no there there. Just cyber-there. The bubble burst on March 10, 2000. By the time Bush came into office the next January the country was in recession but we still had a little money in the bank. Another thing that was brewing during the Clinton years was the Enron scandal. It added to the stock bubble and made the pop a little louder when it burst.
A recession isn't the only thing Bush inherited from Clinton. He also inherited Osama Bin Laden, Jamie Gorelick's wall, Sadaam Hussein and a host of ignored UN resolutions, the Taliban in Afghanistan, a Pakistan that recognized them as the official regime, a vandalized White House with no "w"s on any of the computer keyboards and spooge-stained oval office. I'm sorry I even had to write that last one, excuse me.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Voice From Our Antithetics
Watauga Watch left a comment on our post "Western North Carolina Tea Party Summit in Hickory...":
Barack Obama's election and relentless pursuit of health care reform led to the emergence of a new political movement -- the "Tea Party" -- which claims the Obama presidency is reckless and irresponsible in its spending. Their evidence is quite limited and includes the new health care law, priced at $940 billion over 10 years, or $94 billion per year. Never mind the fact that the costs of the health care law are paid for without adding a penny to the national debt.
What I'd like to know from any "Tea Party" member is ... where were you during the Bush administration? The costs of the war in Iraq are now $721 billion over seven years, or $103 billion per year, more than the health care law. And all of the war costs under President Bush were paid for using emergency appropriations outside of the normal budget process. Thus every penny spent on the Iraq war is added to the national debt!
Perhaps "Tea Party" members see war and health care reform as apples and oranges. I agree. The health care bill pays for itself and helps people, while the war adds to the debt and kills people! Assuming we just ignore the war, though, what about President Bush's Medicare expansion in 2003? This law costs $720 billion over 10 years, or $72 billion per year, and every penny of the costs were added on to the national debt. Yet this did not upset you enough to form a "Tea Party" movement.
And what about the $700 billion bailout of big business by Bush? No "Tea Party" movement for that either (in fact, you guys seem to think it was Obama that organized the bailout!). Yet you attack Obama for the 2009 stimulus plan, priced at $787 billion. Criticisms of the stimulus aside, many economists say it did save our economy from a major depression, and it is even helping expand Highway 421 here in Boone!
Your lack of criticism of President Bush is clear proof that your criticism of President Obama is not rooted in principles such as small government or fiscal responsibility but instead in partisan ideology. In other words, you are out in the streets because Obama is a Democratic president, plain and simple. So spare us the "devotion to the Constitution."
Analysis of White house budget data shows that the three presidents who most added to the national debt were all Republicans, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Yet neither of the Bush administrations prompted a "Tea Party" movement, and you hold President Reagan up to be this godlike figure who supposedly stood for conservative values such as small government and fiscal responsibility. It is just not true.
Almost nothing the "Tea Party" members say can be taken seriously. I'd laugh out loud if it were not so scary and dangerous. There are thousands of angry and uninformed people who actually believe Obama is a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, a totalitarian dictator, a foreign citizen, and even the anti-Christ who wants the terrorists to win! And they're generating societal unease based on these absurd beliefs.
So I ask you again: Where were you during the Bush administration? And the other Bush administration? And the Reagan administration? And why do you believe these ridiculous things?
Additionally I am curious if you know that your movement is led by lobbyist-run think tanks including "Americans for Prosperity" and "FreedomWorks"? These groups are not about fiscal responsibility or small government. They are for getting Republicans elected, no matter what. It's just politics, plain and simple. Finally, why do you even call yourselves the "Tea Party"? You are citizens, and you have representation! So there's no need to dump tea in the harbor!
RESPONSE:
Obviously you read different material than do I. But if you can tolerate a conservative article, this one refutes many of the points you made. It also includes criticism of Bush that you wanted to hear.
I can not speak for the Tea Party–actually no one can as it is such an amorphous group sans structure or leadership. However, I hope some tea party member will give your post a shot as it is thoughtful. You also showed respect by your depth and civility.
The reason you do not hear much from this contributor on Bush is that was then and this is now. Bush is yesterday’s news. However, for me, Bush was a big disappointment his second term. Here are some of the ways he let me down. 1. I wish he had turned around and read the sign on the aircraft carrier. The mission was accomplished and he never made the sale for Iraq. 2. Needing Congress to support his war, he let members of both parties loose, spending on steroids. 3. He did not handle the illegals problem when he had the majority. 4. TARP was to avoid a panicky run on the banks. But TARP should have stopped there, along with all the other bailouts. There were less costly and more American ways.
As to feeling the need to dump tea, never since the British, has a leader taken actions that so impacts us, then shuts us out when we object.
Barack Obama's election and relentless pursuit of health care reform led to the emergence of a new political movement -- the "Tea Party" -- which claims the Obama presidency is reckless and irresponsible in its spending. Their evidence is quite limited and includes the new health care law, priced at $940 billion over 10 years, or $94 billion per year. Never mind the fact that the costs of the health care law are paid for without adding a penny to the national debt.
What I'd like to know from any "Tea Party" member is ... where were you during the Bush administration? The costs of the war in Iraq are now $721 billion over seven years, or $103 billion per year, more than the health care law. And all of the war costs under President Bush were paid for using emergency appropriations outside of the normal budget process. Thus every penny spent on the Iraq war is added to the national debt!
Perhaps "Tea Party" members see war and health care reform as apples and oranges. I agree. The health care bill pays for itself and helps people, while the war adds to the debt and kills people! Assuming we just ignore the war, though, what about President Bush's Medicare expansion in 2003? This law costs $720 billion over 10 years, or $72 billion per year, and every penny of the costs were added on to the national debt. Yet this did not upset you enough to form a "Tea Party" movement.
And what about the $700 billion bailout of big business by Bush? No "Tea Party" movement for that either (in fact, you guys seem to think it was Obama that organized the bailout!). Yet you attack Obama for the 2009 stimulus plan, priced at $787 billion. Criticisms of the stimulus aside, many economists say it did save our economy from a major depression, and it is even helping expand Highway 421 here in Boone!
Your lack of criticism of President Bush is clear proof that your criticism of President Obama is not rooted in principles such as small government or fiscal responsibility but instead in partisan ideology. In other words, you are out in the streets because Obama is a Democratic president, plain and simple. So spare us the "devotion to the Constitution."
Analysis of White house budget data shows that the three presidents who most added to the national debt were all Republicans, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Yet neither of the Bush administrations prompted a "Tea Party" movement, and you hold President Reagan up to be this godlike figure who supposedly stood for conservative values such as small government and fiscal responsibility. It is just not true.
Almost nothing the "Tea Party" members say can be taken seriously. I'd laugh out loud if it were not so scary and dangerous. There are thousands of angry and uninformed people who actually believe Obama is a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, a totalitarian dictator, a foreign citizen, and even the anti-Christ who wants the terrorists to win! And they're generating societal unease based on these absurd beliefs.
So I ask you again: Where were you during the Bush administration? And the other Bush administration? And the Reagan administration? And why do you believe these ridiculous things?
Additionally I am curious if you know that your movement is led by lobbyist-run think tanks including "Americans for Prosperity" and "FreedomWorks"? These groups are not about fiscal responsibility or small government. They are for getting Republicans elected, no matter what. It's just politics, plain and simple. Finally, why do you even call yourselves the "Tea Party"? You are citizens, and you have representation! So there's no need to dump tea in the harbor!
RESPONSE:
Obviously you read different material than do I. But if you can tolerate a conservative article, this one refutes many of the points you made. It also includes criticism of Bush that you wanted to hear.
I can not speak for the Tea Party–actually no one can as it is such an amorphous group sans structure or leadership. However, I hope some tea party member will give your post a shot as it is thoughtful. You also showed respect by your depth and civility.
The reason you do not hear much from this contributor on Bush is that was then and this is now. Bush is yesterday’s news. However, for me, Bush was a big disappointment his second term. Here are some of the ways he let me down. 1. I wish he had turned around and read the sign on the aircraft carrier. The mission was accomplished and he never made the sale for Iraq. 2. Needing Congress to support his war, he let members of both parties loose, spending on steroids. 3. He did not handle the illegals problem when he had the majority. 4. TARP was to avoid a panicky run on the banks. But TARP should have stopped there, along with all the other bailouts. There were less costly and more American ways.
As to feeling the need to dump tea, never since the British, has a leader taken actions that so impacts us, then shuts us out when we object.
A Greek Tragedy
Where did Greece go wrong? Someone needs to ask our President that question because he's taking us down the same path. The word is that Portugal and Italy are next. Europe to follow.
The violence is in reaction to austerity legislation the EU and the IMF demanded they pass in exchange for a 30 billion euro ($40 billion) bailout. Greece has a retirement age of 54, huge pension plans, they get 6 weeks paid leave annually and national health care. It's a nanny state and the people aren't taking kindly to their benefits being cut. Greece has no choice because they have no money. The IMF is funded in part by US taxpayers. We're bailing out Greece.
"The legislation, which includes tax hikes, pension reforms and deep cuts in public sector bonuses which will slash take-home pay for a fifth of the workforce, is being pushed through in exchange for aid of 110 billion euros -- the first rescue of a member of the common currency bloc."
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Newt Gingrich Proposal on Immigration
Liberal POV is always asking for conservative proposals on Immigration. Here is Newt Gingrich's.
A Message For The Liberals At Watauga Watch
I had my little fling, now I'm done. Many commenters refer to Watauga Watch so I finally got around to checking them out a few weeks ago. The comment moderation is cumbersome and the filtering of opinion is not honest. I responded, politely and on-topic to BikerBard but did not get through the filter while other supporting post did. This morning I went back and the moderation had been disabled. I pointed out, politely and on-topic, glaring disinformation. "Bridle" took exception to something I said and when I replied the comment moderation was back on. I don't know if my comment will get through the filter and frankly don't care. It's a waste of time. It's their right, it's their blog but the arguments and positions can be defeated easily. They have to cheat to appear correct. It's propaganda.
My message: Liberals are welcome here. You will not be filtered but you will be challenged. We are mostly very respectful here and eager to discuss the issues of the day from all sides. Maybe you don't realize that common sense, polite rebuttals are not getting through. Don't be fooled into thinking absence of honest debate means you are scoring points. It's self-delusion. This is the place to be.
My message: Liberals are welcome here. You will not be filtered but you will be challenged. We are mostly very respectful here and eager to discuss the issues of the day from all sides. Maybe you don't realize that common sense, polite rebuttals are not getting through. Don't be fooled into thinking absence of honest debate means you are scoring points. It's self-delusion. This is the place to be.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Strike Three?
I'm sure by now everyone has heard about the failed terrorist attack in Times Square. By my count this is the third terrorist attack since Obama came into office. Fortunately this one failed as opposed to being thwarted. Abdulmutallab also failed on Christmas day but Hasan was successful at Ft. Hood. All three had terrorist ties. In addition to the driver Faisel Shazad, eight have been arrested in Pakistan over this latest incident. Too bad for the press, they were just itching for it to be a tea partier, which is disgusting. It turns out he was a registered Democrat but we won't be hearing much about that. He's an American citizen (as Hasan) so the whole miranda question is dicey.
Kudos to law enforcement for closing the loop so fast and extra special kudos to the watchful citizens. Unfortunately, law enforcement is reactionary not preemptive. As with Abdulmattalab it was incompetance and luck that saved disaster. My question is the same one I had with the last two terrorist attacks, has Gorelick's wall been rebuilt? We'll learn more but it seems to me there were flags.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Incredibly Unfair and Wildly Specultive Post
Thanks to (shared blame with) Sarkazein
Here's Sark's link. I saw something about it a few days ago but thought strongly that it was wildly speculative and incredibly unfair to Obama. If there is one thing positive I (to this point) believe about President Obama, it's that he is a good family man. God bless him for that, he deserves that presumption. We all do until that trust is vanquished.
But the heck with all that. McCain wouldn't have gotten the same presumption of innocence, why should I care? Honor? Honor schmonor! It's like worrying about the Geneva Convention with an enemy that will cut your head off with a dull knife in front of your children. There's no honor in cloaking stupidity with compassion... oops... there I go again gettin' on my soapbox, sorry...where was I?
Is Obama a cheater? You had to have wondered, I did.
He believes he's God's gift to humanity. Women faint. It's the nature of the business and, logistically speaking, he has the infrastructure and sycophants to pull it off. He's arrogant enough to think he could get away with it. He has shown himself to be less than ethical. Why wouldn't he?
Maybe it's not so unfair. With Bill Clinton my conclusion was that any man that can't tell the truth to his own wife cannot be an honorable man. I don't care about "arrangements", don't take sacred vows if you don't intend to keep them. With Mr. Obama I am making the mirror determination. Any man that can be so disingenuous and lie on so many levels (it's a given and not at issue for this thread) cannot be trusted to take his marital vows seriously. Is that too logical?
The other thing is that it's the "National Enquirer". I am serious as a heart attack when I say I put more faith in them than the New York Times, AP, NPR and the Networks combined. I know it sounds funny but why would they put their reputation at stake if they didn't have something?
Alright. I've still gotta a little creepy feeling. I don't want to be judgmental... I'm hittin' the "publish post" button anyway.
Here's Sark's link. I saw something about it a few days ago but thought strongly that it was wildly speculative and incredibly unfair to Obama. If there is one thing positive I (to this point) believe about President Obama, it's that he is a good family man. God bless him for that, he deserves that presumption. We all do until that trust is vanquished.
But the heck with all that. McCain wouldn't have gotten the same presumption of innocence, why should I care? Honor? Honor schmonor! It's like worrying about the Geneva Convention with an enemy that will cut your head off with a dull knife in front of your children. There's no honor in cloaking stupidity with compassion... oops... there I go again gettin' on my soapbox, sorry...where was I?
Is Obama a cheater? You had to have wondered, I did.
He believes he's God's gift to humanity. Women faint. It's the nature of the business and, logistically speaking, he has the infrastructure and sycophants to pull it off. He's arrogant enough to think he could get away with it. He has shown himself to be less than ethical. Why wouldn't he?
Maybe it's not so unfair. With Bill Clinton my conclusion was that any man that can't tell the truth to his own wife cannot be an honorable man. I don't care about "arrangements", don't take sacred vows if you don't intend to keep them. With Mr. Obama I am making the mirror determination. Any man that can be so disingenuous and lie on so many levels (it's a given and not at issue for this thread) cannot be trusted to take his marital vows seriously. Is that too logical?
The other thing is that it's the "National Enquirer". I am serious as a heart attack when I say I put more faith in them than the New York Times, AP, NPR and the Networks combined. I know it sounds funny but why would they put their reputation at stake if they didn't have something?
Alright. I've still gotta a little creepy feeling. I don't want to be judgmental... I'm hittin' the "publish post" button anyway.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Who Are These People Claiming to be Americans?
As we know, to be an American is not to be a member of an ethnic group, but rather it is to be a people of shared values.
Today however, we are going to be subjected to demonstrations by a people who may or may not be a people of shared values.
We have always welcomed people to our shores who come in by the front door–who give us time to teach them our language–our shared values, our Constitution and why we are an exceptional people. Then they can become Americans.
My ancestors came from England, but American I am. If tomorrow millions of people fleeing the slums of England, flooded down through Canada, I would have no identification with them whatsoever. They would be illegal aliens, a people bringing, not our values, but the values of the English slums, even some criminals as well. I would fight to send them home with everything that was in me.
So who then are all these people today in the streets who claim to share our values–who claim they are Americans? Why the solidarity with the values of their countries of origin rather than the values of their neighbors–their fellow Americans?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)