40% of Obamacare's "cost savings" were quietly flushed from the program on Friday of last week with the cancellation of the long term care provision. This program was used to gain the support of the elderly for Obamacare while providing a complete SCAM for a part of the program where they would collect premiums for 10 years without paying out any benefits. Surprise, surprise citizens would not agree to voluntarily subscribe. So they just quietly dropped 40% of their fake savings. Could it be that Obama wants the Supreme Court to find Obamacare unconstitutional so that he can run on how the Republicans and their Supreme Court don't want Americans to have healthcare? Otherwise, he has to defend the worst legislation passed in American history in re-election campaign.
Meanwhile, "occupiers", whatever the hell that is, continue to demonstrate, defecate, and break laws to protest the injustices of some people earning more money than other people. Think of that. Hundreds are being arrested, and their lawyers are demanding their release. If not, the lawyers threaten they will tie up the courts with phony trials. How is that for American justice at work? Obama meanwhile urges his supporters to "take off their house slippers and march in the streets", while he tells his worshipers at the opening of the MLK Memorial that "we must work to make things the way they ought to be" which he describes as "more equality and justice". His buddy, Al Sharpton, tells the crowd, "if you can't get the jobs bill done in the suites, then we will get the jobs bill done in the streets". Martin Luther King must be flipping and flopping in that grave when he hears these idiots.
While Americans have to work very hard to keep up with the Marxist activities of the White House domestically, Obama is quietly, yet dramatically, putting this country at great risk against known enemies. His techniques are right out of the Marxist playbook. Few of these events are on the front page of Obama's newspapers. They are buried in the center sections and, like a White House document dump, printed in Friday papers.
Iran's plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US did make the front page. Seems they were going to murder 10's of people in a restaurant bombing. Our response is to once again attempt to get the Russians and Chinese to join others in economic sanctions meanwhile the Iranians race to obtain nuclear weapons. Obama is either by design or incompetence completely impotent when it comes to Iran.
Meanwhile hidden in most papers is the US pullout from Iraq. The small headlines said, "US drops plans to keep troops in Iraq past Dec 31". The text said, "despite growing concerns about the Iraq security forces and the potential for instability". This means the bad guys will be joined by the Iranians to take over the world's 4th largest oil reserves to go with Iran's number 3 ranking in due time. If they can take over Saudi Arabia (ranked #1) that would give them control of almost 70% of the world's oil. Not to mention huge sanctuaries for terrorists who could be armed with Iran's nukes. We have sacrificed 4,400 brave US soldiers since 2003 and their brave efforts could go to waste with the Obama pullout. Is this by design or just incompetence?
It is ironic that the #2 ranked country with huge oil reserves is our neighbor, Canada, who does not have a Marxist administration that prohibits the exploration and production of oil and natural gas. The US is ranked a pitiful 17th even though we have huge potential that is unproven without adequate exploration.
Back to the news. Buried in the papers also is the story where our brave leader is quite aggressive. He is in fact coming on like John Wayne in a preposterous letter to House Speaker John Boehner in which he said his deployment "furthers U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS AND FOREIGN POLICY". Must be a big deal, huh. Where? Israel, Russia, China, North Korea, Yemen? How about we send troops to Uganda? We can join up with those fighting what sounds like Christian bad apples. Obama says we may have to go into South Sudan and the Congo as well. Hold on to your seat because Obama may have told his biggest lie ever as he declared, "his decision to send troops is in keeping with the NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS of the United States". Our national security is threatened by a band of renegades in Uganda to the extent that we need to send troops to help kill the bad guys? Yet Iran's nuclear threat just calls for economic sanctions? Obama says our troops will just be there "for months". You can hang this statement right up there with Obama's Libyan promise of the conflict lasting "weeks not months". Does Obama need to risk American troops in Africa to shore up his Black voting base against Herman Cane? Are do we need to make a preemptive strike before they canoe over to attack our shores?
By the way, Uganda, the Congo, and South Sudan are not on the top oil reserves list of countries. I guess they will provide a big solar market for Obama sponsored clean energy stimulation.
Additionally, last week Obama held a press conference with the President of South Korea to celebrate a trade agreement that he had held up for years until he could get a billion dollar "retraining" bribe to his union buddies. Obama said of South Korea, "they buy as much from us as we buy from them. This is the way free trade is supposed to work". I am not making this up folks. What is it about "free" that Obama doesn't understand?
Meanwhile Obama is on his million dollar bus today telling the folks that the Republicans don't want clean air, clean water, roads, bridges, schools, airport runways, teachers, cops, or healthcare. Obama said Americans have a choice between Republicans who want dirty air and dirty water and Democrats who want to put teachers in the classroom and police on our streets? Wow! Heck, all Republicans want is to protect a few millionaires and billionaires like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Michael Moore, Algore, Bill Clinton, and most of all, those Hollywood and Wall Street crowds. Who wouldn't want to help them?
Think about it,
Jim
Monday, October 17, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Our Sorry President
This is an excellent article published in Investors.com:
In November 2009, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to bow to Japan's emperor. This week leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?
The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to "express its condolences" to his family.
Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.
It's yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.
One stop on his tour was Prague in August 2009. There he spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.
Another stop on the tour was in Japan, where Obama in November 2009 bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs had come to pass.
A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"
The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.
Whatever Tokyo's motive, Obama's motive was to once again apologize for defending freedom, this time for winning with devastating finality the war Japan started.
While Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons, and moves steadily toward unilateral disarmament of our nuclear arsenal, we envision a world without tyrants and thugs willing to use them against us. We do not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France, countries that share our love of freedom and democracy.
In November 2009, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to bow to Japan's emperor. This week leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?
The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to "express its condolences" to his family.
Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.
It's yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.
One stop on his tour was Prague in August 2009. There he spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.
Another stop on the tour was in Japan, where Obama in November 2009 bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs had come to pass.
A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"
The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.
Whatever Tokyo's motive, Obama's motive was to once again apologize for defending freedom, this time for winning with devastating finality the war Japan started.
While Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons, and moves steadily toward unilateral disarmament of our nuclear arsenal, we envision a world without tyrants and thugs willing to use them against us. We do not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France, countries that share our love of freedom and democracy.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Communist Takeover Gaining Ground: Where? The Good Old USA
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the recent movement of Communist China to a more market or capitalistic economy many of us thought we could forget the Socialistic Communist Marxist Leninist threat to the United States of America. We felt our threats were more from radical Islamists. We were wrong.
What we did not consider, nor can many of us still believe, is that our greatest threat is from within. And that threat is clearly from Socialism.
Proof? You be the judge. Way back in 1958, when I was 16 years old and driving a solid Red Chevrolet Impala to Hubbard High School, a book was written, The Naked Communist. It listed goals of socialists who wanted to take over the USA. I have a subset of those goals listed below. The author's goal is shown with my (comments) following each goal:
1. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. (Obama's Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Imelt from GE says that China is his "second market" as he builds plants there and provides critical technology for Chinese products such as their newest airplanes)
3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. (One down and one to go. We ain't talking about Republicans, yet)
4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks. (We must return schools to local control by eliminating the Department of Education!)
5. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. (The OCCUPY WALLSTREET movement isn't even warmed up yet as we approach 2012 elections. What organizations are under attack? How about the Tea Party?)
6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. (Thank goodness for FOX as ABC, CBS, NBC, and Hollywood are long gone.)
7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. (Do I need to comment to convince you?)
8. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." (Same sex marriages, protected gay rights, and gays in the military--any progress here since '58? Name 5 current TV series that don't have gay themes.)
9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch." (Check out the Methodist, Episcopalians, and others at the national level. Remember when Obama said Bitter Pennsylvanians were "klinging to their guns and religion" because they wouldn't vote for his party?)
10. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." (This will never happen, right?)
11. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. (Currently of 9 Supreme Court Justices 4 believe this and a 5th is a swing voter)
12. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." (Or maybe as old white racist rich guys?)
13. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. (How about health care, the auto companies, and banks? The EPA? These are rolled up into "Obama Inc.")
14. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. (Which ones don't they have now? They over achieved here!)
15. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation and easy divorce. (Done! Plus toss in abortion, welfare for unwed mothers, and defining marriage to include anything you want to do.)
16. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. (Hillary says it "Takes a Village")
Well I guess we have to do more than to just tear down the wall in Berlin. Some years ago these goals were considered "Un-American". We had a House Commttee on Un-American Activitities. As it turns out those engaged in fighting Socialism then were actually living in "the good old days".
Think about it and vote the Socialists out before it is too late,
Jim
What we did not consider, nor can many of us still believe, is that our greatest threat is from within. And that threat is clearly from Socialism.
Proof? You be the judge. Way back in 1958, when I was 16 years old and driving a solid Red Chevrolet Impala to Hubbard High School, a book was written, The Naked Communist. It listed goals of socialists who wanted to take over the USA. I have a subset of those goals listed below. The author's goal is shown with my (comments) following each goal:
1. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. (Obama's Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Imelt from GE says that China is his "second market" as he builds plants there and provides critical technology for Chinese products such as their newest airplanes)
3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. (One down and one to go. We ain't talking about Republicans, yet)
4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks. (We must return schools to local control by eliminating the Department of Education!)
5. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. (The OCCUPY WALLSTREET movement isn't even warmed up yet as we approach 2012 elections. What organizations are under attack? How about the Tea Party?)
6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. (Thank goodness for FOX as ABC, CBS, NBC, and Hollywood are long gone.)
7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. (Do I need to comment to convince you?)
8. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." (Same sex marriages, protected gay rights, and gays in the military--any progress here since '58? Name 5 current TV series that don't have gay themes.)
9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch." (Check out the Methodist, Episcopalians, and others at the national level. Remember when Obama said Bitter Pennsylvanians were "klinging to their guns and religion" because they wouldn't vote for his party?)
10. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." (This will never happen, right?)
11. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. (Currently of 9 Supreme Court Justices 4 believe this and a 5th is a swing voter)
12. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." (Or maybe as old white racist rich guys?)
13. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. (How about health care, the auto companies, and banks? The EPA? These are rolled up into "Obama Inc.")
14. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. (Which ones don't they have now? They over achieved here!)
15. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation and easy divorce. (Done! Plus toss in abortion, welfare for unwed mothers, and defining marriage to include anything you want to do.)
16. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. (Hillary says it "Takes a Village")
Well I guess we have to do more than to just tear down the wall in Berlin. Some years ago these goals were considered "Un-American". We had a House Commttee on Un-American Activitities. As it turns out those engaged in fighting Socialism then were actually living in "the good old days".
Think about it and vote the Socialists out before it is too late,
Jim
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
What Is Really Too Big To Fail? Crony Capitalism
George Bush, Jr., as he left office, bailed out Wall Street (the banks) to 'save the world economy' and because the banks were 'too big to fail'. He spent about $300 billion and handed off another $400 billion or so to Obama to finish the job. They called it TARP.
Obama not only continued the bank bailout but added the auto companies to the list and heaped money on GM and Chrysler (Ford refused). Interesting that Obama forced money on some of the banks that didn't want, nor need, bail out assistance. Strange, huh? Not really, read on.
So what was it that made these businesses TOO BIG TO FAIL? Let's take the banks first. The federal government muscled banks to make questionable loans to a large set of the populace that could not afford to own homes (called sub-prime mortgages). They claimed to back these banks by having Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae support these loans with tax payer money. George Bush, Sr. signed legislation that stated that Fannie and Freddie have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families. They set a target of 30% for loans to this segment. In 1999, Fannie and Freddie came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas. They drove the percentage to over 55%. (this also served the Clinton economy).
These actions supported the Liberal cause by making loans to moochers who vote Democratic (and favored racial groups) while hyping the economy (we call it a bubble). When the government creates a partnership with selected large corporations to further their mutual causes it is called CRONY CAPITALISM. Also in most, if not all cases, it results in disaster because it interferes with natural FREE MARKET FUNDAMENTALS.
So when the 'stuff' hits the fan (in this case the sub-prime homeowners can't make their payments and the price of their homes fall below the their mortgage balance) the government starts scrambling because their SCAM IS TOO BIG TO FAIL and the politicians need to cover up the facts of their actions that caused the problems. So they buy off their cronies with bail outs. The last thing they want is for the banks to tell how they were forced, and enticed, into violating their own regulations and business practices at their government partner's urgings. So politicians bail out their cronies with taxpayer money and government debt to keep them quite and to get their continued co-operation (not to mention big contributions to their campaign funds). It is a typical government cover up.
And why bail out the auto companies? Look at the two major factors that have made the American auto companies fail. The first was labor laws and government practices that backed the labor unions with excessive wage rates, lucrative health care plans, and ridiculous retirement plans. If that isn't enough to keep you from competing in a world market add severe regulations on top of the labor costs. Regulations that dictate what kind of products the auto companies must make to meet fleet emission standards and mileage regulations supporting the government's global warming scam. The government then makes it difficult for the auto companies to build plants in labor markets where they would be competitive. Again when the stuff hits the fan and the auto companies approach bankruptcy, the government must bail them out. It just would not serve the politicians interests for the auto companies to, first, tell the public why they failed. And next, for the companies to take the actions necessary to get rid of union contracts and to demand less regulation. As it is, the government and their crony auto executives are just kicking the can down the road. The auto companies will fail again unless they throw off union and government control. American companies have no chance in competing against free market competitors with lower costs and the freedom to build autos that world buyers desire.
Interesting that even though Ford didn't take bail out money, they are on the record supporting the bail out program. Are you kidding me? Obviously they have been threatened to not criticize the 'hush money bail out'. The rumor is they were recently encouraged to take down an ad bragging about not taking bail out money. The Obamas were quick to announce that Ford had approved of the bail out even though they didn't participate.
What are the lessons learned? Moderate Republicans, the Bushs, will pass legislation working with the Libs that seems reasonable at the time. The Dems (Clinton, Obama, etc.) will then dramatically alter the implementation to buy votes and ultimately do considerable damage to the economy. Example: George, Jr. hands Obama $400 billion in TARP. Obama immediately adds another trillion in stimulus. George, Sr. passes sub-prime legislation, and Clinton drives a truck through the opening he was given.
Think about it and vote the bums out before they destroy other industries and bankrupt the nation. Also, beware of Moderate Republicans. If it wasn't for George, Jr. there would not be an Obama in the White House. If it wasn't for George, Sr. there would not have been a Bill Clinton.
Jim
Obama not only continued the bank bailout but added the auto companies to the list and heaped money on GM and Chrysler (Ford refused). Interesting that Obama forced money on some of the banks that didn't want, nor need, bail out assistance. Strange, huh? Not really, read on.
So what was it that made these businesses TOO BIG TO FAIL? Let's take the banks first. The federal government muscled banks to make questionable loans to a large set of the populace that could not afford to own homes (called sub-prime mortgages). They claimed to back these banks by having Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae support these loans with tax payer money. George Bush, Sr. signed legislation that stated that Fannie and Freddie have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families. They set a target of 30% for loans to this segment. In 1999, Fannie and Freddie came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas. They drove the percentage to over 55%. (this also served the Clinton economy).
These actions supported the Liberal cause by making loans to moochers who vote Democratic (and favored racial groups) while hyping the economy (we call it a bubble). When the government creates a partnership with selected large corporations to further their mutual causes it is called CRONY CAPITALISM. Also in most, if not all cases, it results in disaster because it interferes with natural FREE MARKET FUNDAMENTALS.
So when the 'stuff' hits the fan (in this case the sub-prime homeowners can't make their payments and the price of their homes fall below the their mortgage balance) the government starts scrambling because their SCAM IS TOO BIG TO FAIL and the politicians need to cover up the facts of their actions that caused the problems. So they buy off their cronies with bail outs. The last thing they want is for the banks to tell how they were forced, and enticed, into violating their own regulations and business practices at their government partner's urgings. So politicians bail out their cronies with taxpayer money and government debt to keep them quite and to get their continued co-operation (not to mention big contributions to their campaign funds). It is a typical government cover up.
And why bail out the auto companies? Look at the two major factors that have made the American auto companies fail. The first was labor laws and government practices that backed the labor unions with excessive wage rates, lucrative health care plans, and ridiculous retirement plans. If that isn't enough to keep you from competing in a world market add severe regulations on top of the labor costs. Regulations that dictate what kind of products the auto companies must make to meet fleet emission standards and mileage regulations supporting the government's global warming scam. The government then makes it difficult for the auto companies to build plants in labor markets where they would be competitive. Again when the stuff hits the fan and the auto companies approach bankruptcy, the government must bail them out. It just would not serve the politicians interests for the auto companies to, first, tell the public why they failed. And next, for the companies to take the actions necessary to get rid of union contracts and to demand less regulation. As it is, the government and their crony auto executives are just kicking the can down the road. The auto companies will fail again unless they throw off union and government control. American companies have no chance in competing against free market competitors with lower costs and the freedom to build autos that world buyers desire.
Interesting that even though Ford didn't take bail out money, they are on the record supporting the bail out program. Are you kidding me? Obviously they have been threatened to not criticize the 'hush money bail out'. The rumor is they were recently encouraged to take down an ad bragging about not taking bail out money. The Obamas were quick to announce that Ford had approved of the bail out even though they didn't participate.
What are the lessons learned? Moderate Republicans, the Bushs, will pass legislation working with the Libs that seems reasonable at the time. The Dems (Clinton, Obama, etc.) will then dramatically alter the implementation to buy votes and ultimately do considerable damage to the economy. Example: George, Jr. hands Obama $400 billion in TARP. Obama immediately adds another trillion in stimulus. George, Sr. passes sub-prime legislation, and Clinton drives a truck through the opening he was given.
Think about it and vote the bums out before they destroy other industries and bankrupt the nation. Also, beware of Moderate Republicans. If it wasn't for George, Jr. there would not be an Obama in the White House. If it wasn't for George, Sr. there would not have been a Bill Clinton.
Jim
Monday, October 3, 2011
William Jefferson Clinton: A Business Genius or Scammer?
As promised in the last blog posting Scott Riddle (local cattleman, insurance tycoon, Texas Holdem expert, occasional investor in anything of interest, and nephew of Hall of Fame Baseball Player, Tris Speaker) was asked to discuss the Clinton Boom Years of the 90's. His remarks follow.
"Many folks rewrite history by giving Bill Clinton sole credit for a robust economy, creating jobs, and generating a federal government surplus (by raising tax rates). Clinton's economic metrics were benefited considerably by what is called a 'bubble' in the Internet sector of the economy. What was the Internet Bubble? It was an orchestrated assault on America's investors by Wall Street investment bankers, venture capitalists, and the Clinton administration led by one, Robert Ruben (Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and former CEO of Goldman Sachs, but of course). This collusion literally flooded the IPO (Initial Public Offering) stock market with high tech Internet start up stock offerings. Most of these companies were heavily funded by venture capital firms, many of which were also funded by the venture investor organizations of the investment bankers who would 'take these companies public'."
"Most of the IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) went public at huge valuations and most of the companies were operating at huge losses at the time of the public offerings. In this crazy Internet world all former rules based on revenues and profits were thrown out in this race to Internet 'gold'. Those hyping these companies convinced investors that profits weren't important. A term called 'eyeballs' replaced profits. The companies spend huge sums of money enticing visitors to their web sites while convincing public investors that this would convert to revenues and profits sometime in the future (sounds a lot like GREEN INVESTMENTS DOESN'T IT). The end result was the company employees, the venture capitalists, and Wall Street investment banking companies all made out handsomely, and the Clinton economy produced jobs and wealth for those who were lucky enough to 'cash in' before the BUBBLE POPPED. And when did it pop? In Clinton's last year of office (of course) dumping the country in a recession at the expense of the nation, and particularly at the expense of the shareholders who thought they had made investments in real companies with long term futures. Very few companies lived up to this expectation. Companies that did not make the IPO window shut down losing the investor's money and the jobs of many employees. The High Tech Industry has still not recovered."
"Another big loser of the Clinton Bubble was the whole concept of Initial Public Offerings. This method of rewarding successful high tech start up companies with liquidity and growth capital had been largely responsible for this countries' world leadership in innovation, technology, and worker productivity. Clinton's outlaws basically KILLED INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS! This may be the greatest cost of Clinton and his cronies GREED."
"So what did Wall Street move to after the Clinton Internet Bubble? They colluded with Washington (Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Black Caucus, Fannie, and Freddie) to create a huge REAL ESTATE BUBBLE. Using the government and taxpayers to bail out their bad loans they packaged things called 'instruments' and played a game passing off the hot potato (they called these sub-prime loans) hoping they weren't the last to be holding these instruments when the bubble popped. With the un-able (Dennis Miller calls a race between Obama and Cain a race between Cain and Un-able) assistance of Obomb-us we are still suffering from this criminal act."
"While Bush didn't stop the Real Estate Bubble, he did get the economy moving again after inheriting the Clinton recession by eliminating Clinton's tax increases and not doing the insane government interference of the Obama crowd. Bush, however, did allow his obsession with the nation's security to blind him into allowing the Democratic Congress to overspend. Bush's weakness in reigning in Democrats lost his conservative base and enabled the election of Obama in my opinion. His approval ratings as he left office was in the thirties because he lost conservatives."
"And what Bubble would the Libs like to replace the real estate mess with? THE GREEN REVOLUTION, of course. If they can sell the world on 'man caused global warming', they can use government regulations to create an artificial market for all types of GREEN SCAMS. They can through regulations force consumers and companies to buy and use any products they choose whether it is window shades, solar panels, roofing materials, electric cars, or public transportation to name just a few. This could be the biggest scam of all if they can pull it off."
"Lastly, if of course when you get under the covers of the surplus during the Clinton years, he had no choice. The Clinton policies created an environment begging for the Gingrich Revolution. Newt and the Republicans forced Clinton to move to the right and balance the federal budget, thus creating a surplus."
Mom had a question, "Scott, how do you know so much about this Internet Bubble?"
Good question, Maxine, "I actually invested in some of these Internet start up companies, and one in particular in Austin, Texas."
"Right, Scott. I think I know that company. The IPO window closed real tight right before they planned to go public, thank goodness! A failed start up company is one thing, a failed public company is much worse; I am told by a close member of my immediate family."
Lots to think about as Americans determine whether Hillary would be any better than Obama,
Jim
"Many folks rewrite history by giving Bill Clinton sole credit for a robust economy, creating jobs, and generating a federal government surplus (by raising tax rates). Clinton's economic metrics were benefited considerably by what is called a 'bubble' in the Internet sector of the economy. What was the Internet Bubble? It was an orchestrated assault on America's investors by Wall Street investment bankers, venture capitalists, and the Clinton administration led by one, Robert Ruben (Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and former CEO of Goldman Sachs, but of course). This collusion literally flooded the IPO (Initial Public Offering) stock market with high tech Internet start up stock offerings. Most of these companies were heavily funded by venture capital firms, many of which were also funded by the venture investor organizations of the investment bankers who would 'take these companies public'."
"Most of the IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) went public at huge valuations and most of the companies were operating at huge losses at the time of the public offerings. In this crazy Internet world all former rules based on revenues and profits were thrown out in this race to Internet 'gold'. Those hyping these companies convinced investors that profits weren't important. A term called 'eyeballs' replaced profits. The companies spend huge sums of money enticing visitors to their web sites while convincing public investors that this would convert to revenues and profits sometime in the future (sounds a lot like GREEN INVESTMENTS DOESN'T IT). The end result was the company employees, the venture capitalists, and Wall Street investment banking companies all made out handsomely, and the Clinton economy produced jobs and wealth for those who were lucky enough to 'cash in' before the BUBBLE POPPED. And when did it pop? In Clinton's last year of office (of course) dumping the country in a recession at the expense of the nation, and particularly at the expense of the shareholders who thought they had made investments in real companies with long term futures. Very few companies lived up to this expectation. Companies that did not make the IPO window shut down losing the investor's money and the jobs of many employees. The High Tech Industry has still not recovered."
"Another big loser of the Clinton Bubble was the whole concept of Initial Public Offerings. This method of rewarding successful high tech start up companies with liquidity and growth capital had been largely responsible for this countries' world leadership in innovation, technology, and worker productivity. Clinton's outlaws basically KILLED INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS! This may be the greatest cost of Clinton and his cronies GREED."
"So what did Wall Street move to after the Clinton Internet Bubble? They colluded with Washington (Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Black Caucus, Fannie, and Freddie) to create a huge REAL ESTATE BUBBLE. Using the government and taxpayers to bail out their bad loans they packaged things called 'instruments' and played a game passing off the hot potato (they called these sub-prime loans) hoping they weren't the last to be holding these instruments when the bubble popped. With the un-able (Dennis Miller calls a race between Obama and Cain a race between Cain and Un-able) assistance of Obomb-us we are still suffering from this criminal act."
"While Bush didn't stop the Real Estate Bubble, he did get the economy moving again after inheriting the Clinton recession by eliminating Clinton's tax increases and not doing the insane government interference of the Obama crowd. Bush, however, did allow his obsession with the nation's security to blind him into allowing the Democratic Congress to overspend. Bush's weakness in reigning in Democrats lost his conservative base and enabled the election of Obama in my opinion. His approval ratings as he left office was in the thirties because he lost conservatives."
"And what Bubble would the Libs like to replace the real estate mess with? THE GREEN REVOLUTION, of course. If they can sell the world on 'man caused global warming', they can use government regulations to create an artificial market for all types of GREEN SCAMS. They can through regulations force consumers and companies to buy and use any products they choose whether it is window shades, solar panels, roofing materials, electric cars, or public transportation to name just a few. This could be the biggest scam of all if they can pull it off."
"Lastly, if of course when you get under the covers of the surplus during the Clinton years, he had no choice. The Clinton policies created an environment begging for the Gingrich Revolution. Newt and the Republicans forced Clinton to move to the right and balance the federal budget, thus creating a surplus."
Mom had a question, "Scott, how do you know so much about this Internet Bubble?"
Good question, Maxine, "I actually invested in some of these Internet start up companies, and one in particular in Austin, Texas."
"Right, Scott. I think I know that company. The IPO window closed real tight right before they planned to go public, thank goodness! A failed start up company is one thing, a failed public company is much worse; I am told by a close member of my immediate family."
Lots to think about as Americans determine whether Hillary would be any better than Obama,
Jim
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Warning All Idiots: The Clintons Are Coming To Your Rescue
"Bill, the Bubble King, launched the Clinton's next idiot pitch with their goal clearly set to move their demented sex acts back into the White House. The scheme is an old one for the Clintons. It is to trap their Liberal opponents in deep left field and their Conservative opponents in deep right field while they give the false impression of planting themselves prudently right in the middle. Perfect timing here in 2011 as Obomb-us goes crazy trying to please his Communist base and the Republican candidates try to please their Tea Party supporters," obviously Butch has done some real deep thinking to believe he can match swords with James Carville, Paul Begala, and the other sleazes that surround the Clintons.
Billy Roy Mitcham (who is the featured performer at the Hubbard City High School Homecoming in a couple of weeks) entered this one pretty early since he really doesn't take to the Clinton crowd having a real tender heart in believing that young interns should date other young interns instead of playing adult games with dirty sleazy old men in the Oval Office of all places, "You must be talking about Bill's idiot pitch of all idiot pitches when he said last week that it was not a good time to raise taxes, even on the rich, nor was it a good time to cut government spending. Right down the middle in assuring everyone that we should just stop our fighting, wait it out, and everything will turn out just fine. What complete idiot wouldn't like to hear that? Like most idiot pitches it sounds great, but like most Clintonian statements it is just not true. This is coming from the lips of the greatest liar of all time. Don't want to step on your analysis, Butch, tell em why?"
"Gothcha covered BM. Let's look at it this way. Not a good time to cut spending, huh? America's ever-growing debt crisis is in the trillions -- more than $14 trillion, give or take a few billion and we are adding a mere $1.7 trillion or so every year Obama 'stays' in the White House. That's a lot of zeros, numbers so large they're sure to make Americans numb when trying to get their arms around what it means to them. But what would the federal debt crisis look like if you set it up as a household budget?
"A heck of a lot simpler, according to new figures from the Tea Party group, which estimates the government 'household' spends nearly twice as much as it takes in every year, has a credit card bill nearly seven times annual income and cuts back less than 2 percent of that spending in an effort to control the debt."
"The group looked at some key figures, mainly tax revenue, the current federal budget, debt and budget cuts, and divided each figure by $100 million, in an effort to break it down into simple terms that most Americans can comprehend. The group posted its findings online and came up with a household with an average family income of $21,700. But that 'family' spent nearly twice that -- $38,200 -- and has an existing credit card balance of a whopping $142,710. And if you look at the big spending cuts that they almost shut down the government arguing over, the family budget will be reduced by $385 (and they probably will find ways to not even make these cuts," Butch pretty much laid it out.
BM came back, "And here comes Big Bad Bill riding in on Hillary's back saving us all by saying 'it is just not a good time to cut back on our spending! So we add another measly $17 thousand to our credit card, we are still under $160 thousand. Hell maybe another Internet Bubble will come along and save us if we are just patient.' See why we call it an idiot pitch? Everybody knows Bill, and more so Hillary, are just as Liberal as Obomb-us and even more dangerous. Hillary was a Socialist long before Obomb-us. Her positions on social issues would further destroy families (definition of family, gay rights, government sponsored killing of the unborn, etc.) are as radical as the current Communists, and she would be more effective in implementing them. And of course the Clinton's would double down big time on Algore's Man Caused Global Warming Scam as a source of income on the side. Bill could make jillions with Hillary in the White House."
Mom had a question, "But wouldn't Bill get the economy going? I keep hearing that he was a genius in creating jobs, and he did balance our budget, and in fact, created a surplus."
BM loves Mom and her questions even more, "Great question, Maxine, but I've got some guitar tuning to do and Butch has his daily call with the Tea Party in ten minutes so let's hold the Clinton business record for our next java session. In fact, we need to get Scott Riddle, cattle baron/insurance tycoon/and gambler of major league renown, in on that discussion. I understand he got a real good taste of the Clinton economy."
This will give us something to think about, huh?
Jim
Billy Roy Mitcham (who is the featured performer at the Hubbard City High School Homecoming in a couple of weeks) entered this one pretty early since he really doesn't take to the Clinton crowd having a real tender heart in believing that young interns should date other young interns instead of playing adult games with dirty sleazy old men in the Oval Office of all places, "You must be talking about Bill's idiot pitch of all idiot pitches when he said last week that it was not a good time to raise taxes, even on the rich, nor was it a good time to cut government spending. Right down the middle in assuring everyone that we should just stop our fighting, wait it out, and everything will turn out just fine. What complete idiot wouldn't like to hear that? Like most idiot pitches it sounds great, but like most Clintonian statements it is just not true. This is coming from the lips of the greatest liar of all time. Don't want to step on your analysis, Butch, tell em why?"
"Gothcha covered BM. Let's look at it this way. Not a good time to cut spending, huh? America's ever-growing debt crisis is in the trillions -- more than $14 trillion, give or take a few billion and we are adding a mere $1.7 trillion or so every year Obama 'stays' in the White House. That's a lot of zeros, numbers so large they're sure to make Americans numb when trying to get their arms around what it means to them. But what would the federal debt crisis look like if you set it up as a household budget?
"A heck of a lot simpler, according to new figures from the Tea Party group, which estimates the government 'household' spends nearly twice as much as it takes in every year, has a credit card bill nearly seven times annual income and cuts back less than 2 percent of that spending in an effort to control the debt."
"The group looked at some key figures, mainly tax revenue, the current federal budget, debt and budget cuts, and divided each figure by $100 million, in an effort to break it down into simple terms that most Americans can comprehend. The group posted its findings online and came up with a household with an average family income of $21,700. But that 'family' spent nearly twice that -- $38,200 -- and has an existing credit card balance of a whopping $142,710. And if you look at the big spending cuts that they almost shut down the government arguing over, the family budget will be reduced by $385 (and they probably will find ways to not even make these cuts," Butch pretty much laid it out.
BM came back, "And here comes Big Bad Bill riding in on Hillary's back saving us all by saying 'it is just not a good time to cut back on our spending! So we add another measly $17 thousand to our credit card, we are still under $160 thousand. Hell maybe another Internet Bubble will come along and save us if we are just patient.' See why we call it an idiot pitch? Everybody knows Bill, and more so Hillary, are just as Liberal as Obomb-us and even more dangerous. Hillary was a Socialist long before Obomb-us. Her positions on social issues would further destroy families (definition of family, gay rights, government sponsored killing of the unborn, etc.) are as radical as the current Communists, and she would be more effective in implementing them. And of course the Clinton's would double down big time on Algore's Man Caused Global Warming Scam as a source of income on the side. Bill could make jillions with Hillary in the White House."
Mom had a question, "But wouldn't Bill get the economy going? I keep hearing that he was a genius in creating jobs, and he did balance our budget, and in fact, created a surplus."
BM loves Mom and her questions even more, "Great question, Maxine, but I've got some guitar tuning to do and Butch has his daily call with the Tea Party in ten minutes so let's hold the Clinton business record for our next java session. In fact, we need to get Scott Riddle, cattle baron/insurance tycoon/and gambler of major league renown, in on that discussion. I understand he got a real good taste of the Clinton economy."
This will give us something to think about, huh?
Jim
Monday, September 26, 2011
Moochers March For Their Slice Of Obama Pie
We know there is a love affair between Obama and moochers based on mutual interest. What we don’t know is how many moochers Obama can create between now and November of 2012.
Never has Obama been more fired up than he was this past weekend when he spoke to the Black Caucus. He called for blacks to "get out of their house slippers and to put on their marching boots". Obama's rhetoric was a response to black leaders (Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee) calling for Obama to give more handouts to their “community”. Instead of demanding Obama programs for growing the economy and putting people to work, they were asking, "You bailed out banks, wall street, and auto companies. Where is our bailout?"
This same weekend protesters continued to descend on Wall Street and occupy parts of it showing their rage over a financial system that they say favors the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary citizens. Micah Chamberlain, 23, a line cook from Columbus, Ohio, who had hitchhiked to New York, said “There are millions of people in his country without jobs and 1 percent of the people have 99 percent of the money.” Looks like the strategy is to march until Obama gives everyone their fair share (1% of the people should have 1% of the money).
And Obama's people are just getting warmed up. It is clear to the most casual observer that the current President of the United States believes that our country has seen its best days. He feels strongly that we have peaked as an economic and political leader of the world. From this point forward he believes we must lower our standards for economic growth (or lack thereof), lower our standards for leadership in the world (or lack thereof), and lower our standards for employment and self sufficiency (or lack thereof), and lower our standards of liberty and freedom from government interference in our citizens lives.
How do we know this? Look at his proposals. It is evident that Obama has given up on creating jobs and growing our economy (actually he never intended to do so). The Obama jobs plan has little if anything to do with jobs. It pays people for not working. In Obama's plan the American people get permanent tax hikes that would enlarge the federal government to offset the cost of temporary jobs policies that would not create any jobs. The tax hikes in this plan are clearly more likely to destroy more jobs than the jobs policies would ever create.
So what is the Obama plan as he accepts, and in fact, accelerates the shrinking American way of life? He wants to take the shrinking pie and divide it more fairly. He defines fair as taking money from non-Obama voters and giving it to Obama voters. He would rather his people have a larger share of a smaller pie than to grow the pie that would provide more for all constituents. It is easier to REDISTRIBUTE when the ship is sinking then when times are good. All SOCIALIST leaders throughout history have known this.
How does Obama plan to accomplish this REDISTRIBUTION?
First Obama can pass REGULATIONS without having to deal with a pesky Congress. During President Obama's first 26 months in office, his Administration imposed 75 new major regulations, with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. The annual cost of regulation--$1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate--represents twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year.
Regulations are complex and boring to the American public making them a great way to punish your enemies and reward your voters.
Next comes the Obama takeover of 1/6 of the American economy. Obamacare is a perfect ploy to transfer money from doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and the American taxpayer to the Obama voter even if it does kill jobs and make those without jobs more dependent on government. Additionally Obamacare will destroy the quality of the health care system while increasing costs to the paying customer. Obama would rather give his voters free health care, even if it is inferior, then to force people to work and buy excellent health care at market prices.
Next comes BIG SPENDING, RUNAWAY DEFICITS, and TAX INCREASES.
President Obama's $787 billion stimulus was supposed to create jobs, but instead deficits mounted and economic growth is now stagnant. Who cares as long as you can transfer resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive government sector (Obama voters)? Who cares that government rarely receives good value for the dollars it spends as long as Obama can redistribute the nation’s wealth by providing tax dollars to favored constituencies. Obama’s new jobs plan? More of the same, but with huge tax increases on job creators.
Earlier this summer, businessman Steve Wynn said that the Obama Administration has been "the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime." And when Investors Business Daily asked Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, "What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?" he replied, "The U.S. government." Business owners--those men and women who create jobs in America--know that the Obama Administration is the root cause of the stalled economy. However, Obama is way ahead of Wynn and Marcus. Obama has always known he was a job killer, and he doesn't care as long as he can take money from Marcus and Wynn and "redistribute it fairly to his moochers".
The American people are catching on to the first part of the puzzle. According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, 77 percent say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track, and "Americans by a 2-1 margin, 34 percent to 17 percent, now say [the Obama] administration’s efforts have done more to harm rather than help the nation's economy." What the American people don't know yet is that Obama will intentionally slow the economy and create unemployment to accomplish his CLASS WARFARE GOALS OF REDISTRIBUTION.
In current polls Romney leads Obama by 2 points while Perry loses to Obama by 4 points. It looks like you can toss a coin as to whether Americans would like to return to a prosperous and growing nation or would rather stop the economic machine and take money from the achievers and give it "fairly" to the moochers.
Think about it,
Jim
Never has Obama been more fired up than he was this past weekend when he spoke to the Black Caucus. He called for blacks to "get out of their house slippers and to put on their marching boots". Obama's rhetoric was a response to black leaders (Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee) calling for Obama to give more handouts to their “community”. Instead of demanding Obama programs for growing the economy and putting people to work, they were asking, "You bailed out banks, wall street, and auto companies. Where is our bailout?"
This same weekend protesters continued to descend on Wall Street and occupy parts of it showing their rage over a financial system that they say favors the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary citizens. Micah Chamberlain, 23, a line cook from Columbus, Ohio, who had hitchhiked to New York, said “There are millions of people in his country without jobs and 1 percent of the people have 99 percent of the money.” Looks like the strategy is to march until Obama gives everyone their fair share (1% of the people should have 1% of the money).
And Obama's people are just getting warmed up. It is clear to the most casual observer that the current President of the United States believes that our country has seen its best days. He feels strongly that we have peaked as an economic and political leader of the world. From this point forward he believes we must lower our standards for economic growth (or lack thereof), lower our standards for leadership in the world (or lack thereof), and lower our standards for employment and self sufficiency (or lack thereof), and lower our standards of liberty and freedom from government interference in our citizens lives.
How do we know this? Look at his proposals. It is evident that Obama has given up on creating jobs and growing our economy (actually he never intended to do so). The Obama jobs plan has little if anything to do with jobs. It pays people for not working. In Obama's plan the American people get permanent tax hikes that would enlarge the federal government to offset the cost of temporary jobs policies that would not create any jobs. The tax hikes in this plan are clearly more likely to destroy more jobs than the jobs policies would ever create.
So what is the Obama plan as he accepts, and in fact, accelerates the shrinking American way of life? He wants to take the shrinking pie and divide it more fairly. He defines fair as taking money from non-Obama voters and giving it to Obama voters. He would rather his people have a larger share of a smaller pie than to grow the pie that would provide more for all constituents. It is easier to REDISTRIBUTE when the ship is sinking then when times are good. All SOCIALIST leaders throughout history have known this.
How does Obama plan to accomplish this REDISTRIBUTION?
First Obama can pass REGULATIONS without having to deal with a pesky Congress. During President Obama's first 26 months in office, his Administration imposed 75 new major regulations, with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. The annual cost of regulation--$1.75 trillion by one frequently cited estimate--represents twice the amount of individual income taxes collected last year.
Regulations are complex and boring to the American public making them a great way to punish your enemies and reward your voters.
Next comes the Obama takeover of 1/6 of the American economy. Obamacare is a perfect ploy to transfer money from doctors, nurses, insurance companies, and the American taxpayer to the Obama voter even if it does kill jobs and make those without jobs more dependent on government. Additionally Obamacare will destroy the quality of the health care system while increasing costs to the paying customer. Obama would rather give his voters free health care, even if it is inferior, then to force people to work and buy excellent health care at market prices.
Next comes BIG SPENDING, RUNAWAY DEFICITS, and TAX INCREASES.
President Obama's $787 billion stimulus was supposed to create jobs, but instead deficits mounted and economic growth is now stagnant. Who cares as long as you can transfer resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive government sector (Obama voters)? Who cares that government rarely receives good value for the dollars it spends as long as Obama can redistribute the nation’s wealth by providing tax dollars to favored constituencies. Obama’s new jobs plan? More of the same, but with huge tax increases on job creators.
Earlier this summer, businessman Steve Wynn said that the Obama Administration has been "the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime." And when Investors Business Daily asked Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, "What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?" he replied, "The U.S. government." Business owners--those men and women who create jobs in America--know that the Obama Administration is the root cause of the stalled economy. However, Obama is way ahead of Wynn and Marcus. Obama has always known he was a job killer, and he doesn't care as long as he can take money from Marcus and Wynn and "redistribute it fairly to his moochers".
The American people are catching on to the first part of the puzzle. According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, 77 percent say the country is headed seriously off on the wrong track, and "Americans by a 2-1 margin, 34 percent to 17 percent, now say [the Obama] administration’s efforts have done more to harm rather than help the nation's economy." What the American people don't know yet is that Obama will intentionally slow the economy and create unemployment to accomplish his CLASS WARFARE GOALS OF REDISTRIBUTION.
In current polls Romney leads Obama by 2 points while Perry loses to Obama by 4 points. It looks like you can toss a coin as to whether Americans would like to return to a prosperous and growing nation or would rather stop the economic machine and take money from the achievers and give it "fairly" to the moochers.
Think about it,
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
