In the last three hours, there have been reports by the New York Times and other media that Obama and Boehner are reaching a big deal on the debt ceiling. This position is reinforced by the fact that Boehner has called a meeting of the Trpublican caucus in the House for 9 am Friday. On the other hand, the White House spokesman confirmed within the last hour that a deal was not close. And, of course, no one from the White House or the Congress has disclosed what it is that they are discussing.
So here we are just days from the deadline announced by the White House, and Obama has yet to put forward any plan. That's right, Obama has proposed nothing, zilch, nada! He must have something that he is discussing with the GOP, but not anything that he is prepared to disclose to the American people.
It is truly unfair to the American people for these talks to proceed in this manner. We all have a right to know what is being discussed. Further, we need a president who actually understands what leadership means. Contrary to Obama's core beliefs, leadership is not making speeches. Rather, it is making choices and decisions, something that Obama seems unable to do.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Going from Really Bad to Worse
Quick, tell me who Cenk Uygur is! If you are one of the three people in the country who knows the answer, then you may have a big disappointment heading your way. Uygur is the loud mouth host of the MSNBC show on at 6 pm Eastern Time each weekday. If you do not know that, then you are part of the 99.8% of the public that does not watch that show. Indeed, I have seen the show in part on multiple occassions, but I never knew who the dark-haired, chubby guy was until news came that he had been fired. Uygur claims that he left due to creative differences. The MSNBC management has its own story. Who cares? I just realize that Uygur's leaving will have about as much impact in America as if someone in Ohio has squashed a bug.
Sadly, the MSNBC management has actually made things worse. In an amazing move, MSNBC is going to give the 6pm hour to a show headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. While it is hard to imagine that MSNBC could have less viewers for a show than it had with Uygur as the host, Sharpton is one of the few personalities who could achieve what ought to be the unachievable. First of all, Shartpon is very hard to understand due to a combination fo the way he speaks and his accent. That is not a very auspicious start for a TV host. Second, there are the wacky views that Sharpton holds. After the Tawana Brawley scandal, we know all that we need to know about Sharpton.
It seems strange to me that Comcast does not close down MSNBC and re-open it with some other theme. Certainly, cable television could do with more reality tv. Maybe Cablevision could start the first the first channel to give hints on how to wash clothing. At least viewership would go up from the current levels at MSNBC.
Sadly, the MSNBC management has actually made things worse. In an amazing move, MSNBC is going to give the 6pm hour to a show headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. While it is hard to imagine that MSNBC could have less viewers for a show than it had with Uygur as the host, Sharpton is one of the few personalities who could achieve what ought to be the unachievable. First of all, Shartpon is very hard to understand due to a combination fo the way he speaks and his accent. That is not a very auspicious start for a TV host. Second, there are the wacky views that Sharpton holds. After the Tawana Brawley scandal, we know all that we need to know about Sharpton.
It seems strange to me that Comcast does not close down MSNBC and re-open it with some other theme. Certainly, cable television could do with more reality tv. Maybe Cablevision could start the first the first channel to give hints on how to wash clothing. At least viewership would go up from the current levels at MSNBC.
New Unemployment claims -- the continuing saga
It's Thursday, and that means that we will all get to see an "unexpectedly" high number for new unemployment claims during the prior week. True to form, this week's number was 418,000 new claims. That is up 10,000 from last week, and it is right in line with the four week average of 421,000. It is also the 15th week in a row that the claims number has exceeded 400,000. In other words, it is the fifteenth week in a row that the economy is not producing jobs fast enough to lower unemployment and, perhaps, even keep the rate steady. Indeed, during the last three months, the unemployment rate has risen with each new monthly figure.
Today's news is just another blow to the myth that Obama has done anything to help the economy grow. Indeed, it is proof positive that Obama's policies have been a massive flop that has cost the American people dearly. Of course, that does not stop the media from still trying to downplay these terrible results. Here is what AP had to say today:
"Economists have attributed much of the slowdown to temporary factors, such as a spike in gas prices this spring. Manufacturing output also declined after Japan's March 11 earthquake disrupted global supply chains."
You would think that even the media would be embarrassed to keep telling us that the increase in unemployment is temporary when we are just short of four months of awful results, but nothing seems to stop their campaigning for Obama and the Obamacrats.
The real truth is that something major has to be done or we will see another year or even more of steady or rising unemployment numbers. There are a host of things that could help, some quickly and some long term. Right now, Obama is doing none of them. NONE! How can he ever hope to win re-election when his policies continue to raise unemployment and kill jobs? Who will actually vote for him?
Today's news is just another blow to the myth that Obama has done anything to help the economy grow. Indeed, it is proof positive that Obama's policies have been a massive flop that has cost the American people dearly. Of course, that does not stop the media from still trying to downplay these terrible results. Here is what AP had to say today:
"Economists have attributed much of the slowdown to temporary factors, such as a spike in gas prices this spring. Manufacturing output also declined after Japan's March 11 earthquake disrupted global supply chains."
You would think that even the media would be embarrassed to keep telling us that the increase in unemployment is temporary when we are just short of four months of awful results, but nothing seems to stop their campaigning for Obama and the Obamacrats.
The real truth is that something major has to be done or we will see another year or even more of steady or rising unemployment numbers. There are a host of things that could help, some quickly and some long term. Right now, Obama is doing none of them. NONE! How can he ever hope to win re-election when his policies continue to raise unemployment and kill jobs? Who will actually vote for him?
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz a Racist?
The Chair of the Democrat National Committee, Congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida has consistently criticized her fellow Congressman from Florida, Alan West. West, who happens to be African American, seems to be singled out each time by Wasserman Schultz when she decides to talk negatively about Republican representatives from Florida. Indeed, in the latest flap, when West responded to a tirade from Schultz that accused West basically of throwing seniors under the bus, Schultz brought out a group of female Congressmen to feign outrage that West would speak to her in such a manner. West had told Shultz that if she had something to complain about with regard to his actions, she should speak to him directly. Oh, how heinous!
So here we have it. Wasserman Schultz is attacking West repeatedly, but she is not attacking the other Florida Republican representatives, all of whom happen to be white. In plain English, Wasserman Schultz is singling out West because of his race. She has done it before and she continues to do it. Indeed, during the last campaign, she called West crazy, an epithet that she reserves for a black man.
I think that there ought to be an outcry calling upon Wasserman Schultz to apologize for her conduct. Then she should be sent to receive diversity training. Just because she is in congress and chair of the DNC does not excuse Wasserman Schultz for her conduct.
So here we have it. Wasserman Schultz is attacking West repeatedly, but she is not attacking the other Florida Republican representatives, all of whom happen to be white. In plain English, Wasserman Schultz is singling out West because of his race. She has done it before and she continues to do it. Indeed, during the last campaign, she called West crazy, an epithet that she reserves for a black man.
I think that there ought to be an outcry calling upon Wasserman Schultz to apologize for her conduct. Then she should be sent to receive diversity training. Just because she is in congress and chair of the DNC does not excuse Wasserman Schultz for her conduct.
Things look bleak in Obamaland
There were two polls released today that ought to give the White House a panic attack. First, Rasmussen released a national poll which showed Mitt Romney leading Obama by 43% to 42%. Sure, the rap on Rasmussen is that his polls always seem to show the Republicans doing better than some others, and it is obviously way early to get too invested in poll results. If you add in the second poll, however, you find that Public Policy Polling which is a Democrat pollster shows a tie nationally between Obama and Romney at 45% each. The key to both these polls is not only that Obama is tied or just behind, but also that his numbers are so low. An incumbent president cannot feel safe unless his numbers are over 50%. After all, the public knows him well, and if they are still not in favor of his re-election, something major has got to change for him to win.
Things get even worse for Obama when he is matched against a generic Republican. In those matches, Obama is generally 6 to 8 percent behind the generic GOP candidate depending on which company is doing the polling.
Obama will have many chances to change the dynamic in the next 15 months. It will be hard for Obama to do anything now that will rescue the economy, however. If the USA economy continues to limp along like now, or if the economy gets worse (hopefully not), Obama will be stuck with much of his present position. In other words, at this early point, things do not look good for the Man from Hope and Change.
Things get even worse for Obama when he is matched against a generic Republican. In those matches, Obama is generally 6 to 8 percent behind the generic GOP candidate depending on which company is doing the polling.
Obama will have many chances to change the dynamic in the next 15 months. It will be hard for Obama to do anything now that will rescue the economy, however. If the USA economy continues to limp along like now, or if the economy gets worse (hopefully not), Obama will be stuck with much of his present position. In other words, at this early point, things do not look good for the Man from Hope and Change.
Let's look at spending reality
One of the big themes in the current coverage of the debt ceiling issue is that the USA cannot cut spending without doing terrible harm to the poor and middle class. No one ever investigates this to put forward the truth, so I think it is time to set it out there.
During the four years of George W. Bush's second term, the average level of federal spending was 2.7 trillion dollars per year. This included major defense expenditures in Iraq which drove spending levels higher. During the Obama years, federal spending has averaged 3.7 trillion dollars. During Obama's term, costs in Iraq plummeted, but costs in Afghanistan rose, just about offsetting the dollars in the defense budget. In other words, the rise in spending was not due to defense. To be fair, some of the increased spending was due to the recession, but that was not that big a percentage of the rise. In other words, in just three years in office, Obama has managed to spend an additional three trillion dollars over the levels that spending was at during the second Bush term. In percentage terms, spending has risen by about 37% on average during the Obama term.
Let's put what this means into clear English: If the Congress cuts four hundred billion dollars of spending per year over the next ten years, the USA will save the four trillion dollars about which everyone speaks. Spending, however, will still be at a level that is $600 billion higher than it was under Bush. There will be no calamity. There will be nothing close to a calamity. Everyone needs to think about what it is that the federal government is doing now that it was not doing under Bush. What services or benefits is the public now receiving from the government that were not there under Bush? Where is that extra 600 billion dollars going? In short, would anyone even miss the reduction of the 400 billion dollars that would be cut from the budget?
The answer is self-evident. Most of the hue and cry over the cuts to the budget is just partisan nonsense coming from the Obamacrats. It is time for Washington to get serious and just cut the budget already.
During the four years of George W. Bush's second term, the average level of federal spending was 2.7 trillion dollars per year. This included major defense expenditures in Iraq which drove spending levels higher. During the Obama years, federal spending has averaged 3.7 trillion dollars. During Obama's term, costs in Iraq plummeted, but costs in Afghanistan rose, just about offsetting the dollars in the defense budget. In other words, the rise in spending was not due to defense. To be fair, some of the increased spending was due to the recession, but that was not that big a percentage of the rise. In other words, in just three years in office, Obama has managed to spend an additional three trillion dollars over the levels that spending was at during the second Bush term. In percentage terms, spending has risen by about 37% on average during the Obama term.
Let's put what this means into clear English: If the Congress cuts four hundred billion dollars of spending per year over the next ten years, the USA will save the four trillion dollars about which everyone speaks. Spending, however, will still be at a level that is $600 billion higher than it was under Bush. There will be no calamity. There will be nothing close to a calamity. Everyone needs to think about what it is that the federal government is doing now that it was not doing under Bush. What services or benefits is the public now receiving from the government that were not there under Bush? Where is that extra 600 billion dollars going? In short, would anyone even miss the reduction of the 400 billion dollars that would be cut from the budget?
The answer is self-evident. Most of the hue and cry over the cuts to the budget is just partisan nonsense coming from the Obamacrats. It is time for Washington to get serious and just cut the budget already.
Will Anyone Call him on it?
Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was busy telling lies again in the last 24 hours, but I wonder how many in the media will call him on it. Here is part of what Harkin said during a blast at the GOP for opposing a raise to the debt ceiling without spending cuts.
"Democrats are willing to do whatever is necessary to raise the debt ceiling, not for future borrowing but to pay the debts that we racked up in the past. Which, mostly was racked up by a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican President in the last 8 years. Yet, they're not willing to pay the bills."
So let's look at the lies. During the last 8 years, Democrats controlled the Senate for 4 and a half years and Republicans for 3 and a half years. Democrats controlled the House for 4 years and Republicans controlled the House for 4 years. During those eight years (which run from October 1 2004, to September 30, 2011) the total deficit of the federal government was just undr 8.5 trillion dollars. That's right, during the last eight years (including the projection to the end of the current fiscal year in September) the federal government spent 8.5 trillion dollars more than it took in. During the time that the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, the total deficit was just under 2.25 trillion dollars. In other words, during the time about which Harkin was speaking, the Republicans ran up only about a quarter of the deficit and the Democrats were responsible for three quarters. In English, these figures mean that Harkin is a blatant liar.
I will wait to see if anyone in the media takes on Harkin for such a blatant lie. I don't expcet to see anything, however. Under the new doubletalk from the Democrats, they are suddenly the party that is responsible about spending. Curiouser and curiouser.
"Democrats are willing to do whatever is necessary to raise the debt ceiling, not for future borrowing but to pay the debts that we racked up in the past. Which, mostly was racked up by a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican President in the last 8 years. Yet, they're not willing to pay the bills."
So let's look at the lies. During the last 8 years, Democrats controlled the Senate for 4 and a half years and Republicans for 3 and a half years. Democrats controlled the House for 4 years and Republicans controlled the House for 4 years. During those eight years (which run from October 1 2004, to September 30, 2011) the total deficit of the federal government was just undr 8.5 trillion dollars. That's right, during the last eight years (including the projection to the end of the current fiscal year in September) the federal government spent 8.5 trillion dollars more than it took in. During the time that the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, the total deficit was just under 2.25 trillion dollars. In other words, during the time about which Harkin was speaking, the Republicans ran up only about a quarter of the deficit and the Democrats were responsible for three quarters. In English, these figures mean that Harkin is a blatant liar.
I will wait to see if anyone in the media takes on Harkin for such a blatant lie. I don't expcet to see anything, however. Under the new doubletalk from the Democrats, they are suddenly the party that is responsible about spending. Curiouser and curiouser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)