I don't really need to say this, but I will.  The media are a bunch of morons.  In their reporting about yesterday's drop in the Dow, they managed to blame it on everything except what actually caused it.  The truth of the matter is that the Dow fell because of the actions of the Failed Obama Administration in forcing out the CEO of GM.  Whether the guy needed to go or not is irrelevant.  The fact is the government forced a business to change management.  Investors are scared that they could do this to any company, so they start dumping stock.  It's that simple.

The media can't bring itself to say this.  If they did, it would be critical of their idol, and they can't have that.  I suspect that their secondary motivation is to suck up to the gummint to protect any future media bailouts.  It's all about dollars and cents.

Ironically, it is their dishonest reporting that is making times so hard for them.  The more they lie, the more their credibility is called into question.  When people don't believe them, their circulation/ratings fall.  As those numbers fall, their revenue falls.  As their revenue falls, they have to resort to sucking up to the gummint.  They ramp up their dishonest reporting and the cycle repeats.

Gosh, I wish there was a way to break the cycle.  On a whim, they might try reporting the truth.  You never know how that will work out.

Posted by: Steve L. at 06:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

It looks like Teleprompter Jesus is gearing up to ram a little bipartisanship down Republicans throats: 

President Barack Obama may try to push through Congress a health-care overhaul, energy proposals and tax increases by using a partisan tactic that would thwart Republican efforts to block the measures.

 The administration and congressional Democrats are debating whether to use a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to advance some of the biggest items on the president’s agenda. The move would allow Democrats to approve plans to raise taxes by $1 trillion, create a cap-and-trade system to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions, and overhaul health care without a single Republican vote.

Nice. He's reaching across the aisle to slap Republican lawmakers silly. When he talked about bipartisanship when he was running for President, it was only lip service. He never intended really caring about what R's thought. He probably thought that he would have a filibuster-proof Senate and he wouldn't have to compromise. Things didn't quite work out that way, did they?

I don't think this will pan out for him. There are too mnay moderate Democrats who won't agree with this tactic. He will need them down the line, so it would be bad to alienate them now. When he starts losing his own party, he is in serious trouble.

To me, this is starting to sound like a guy who doesn't think he will be around very long. He is trying to cram as much left-wing legislation through Congress as fast as he can. Congress is already grumbling that he should slow down. We can only hope that he doesn't hang around too long. I don't know if we can survive his Presidency.

Posted by: Steve L. at 07:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Now that Dems are 'fessing up about their roles in the AIG bonus "problem," I suspect we will hear less and less about it.  We won't see Congressmen pounding their fists demanding the money be returned.  We won't see administration officials screaming about getting the money back.  We won't see Teleprompter Jesus calling these executives every dirty name in the book.  TJ took responsibility* just so we can move on.  Our long, national nightmare is over.

* As in, "It's not really my fault, but I will take the balme if you will move on and stop looking into the unethical dealings of my administration."

Posted by: Steve L. at 05:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

In an article about the AIG bonuses, I found this little nugget: 

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, earlier Monday charged that the move to pay bonuses amounted to "rewarding incompetence."  

"These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.

 This from a guy who has been in office for 28 years.

Posted by: Steve L. at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

One of our U.S. Senators is up for e-election in 2010.  This weekend, she held her big re-up kick-off party.  Her theme is that she works hard to reach across the aisle and forge bipartisan legislation.  I wonder if he giggled a little when she spoke that crap.

Her lifetime rating from the ACU is 19.41.  That means that 80.59% of the time, she voted along party lines.  I would suspect that, since The One has been in office, her rating would approach zero.  I can't recall one vote where she didn't fall in line with Harry Reid.  Of our 6 reps/senators, she rated hext-to-last with only the commie who represents our capital's district lower (12.66.)

Of course, the people of this state will re-elect her because the vast majority of them don't pay enough attention to positions and votes to know what she is doing to them.

If 1 vote in 5 is considered "bipartisan," we are screwed.

Posted by: Steve L. at 05:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

This morning, our statewide daily newspaper published a letter to the editor from a lefty rocket scientist. The sub-moron wrote:

>

When FDR took office in 1933, unemployment hit 24.9 percent, nearly a quarter of the workforce. It fell to 21.7 percent in 1934 as the New Deal kicked in. By 1935, it was 20.1 percent, and by 1936, it fell to 16.9 percent. Unemployment continued to fall in 1937 to 14.3 percent. If this is not “an appreciable improvement in economic conditions,” then what is? >

FDR didn’t just manage to win the 1936 election. He won it in a landslide with 523 electoral votes. He carried all but eight electoral votes. It was only after FDR eased back on deficit spending in 1936 when he became overly concerned about balancing the budget that the economy fell back into a recession and unemployment rose to 19 percent in 1938. >

President Obama’s stimulus bill makes good economic sense and history supports him. >

Apparently, this idiot doesn’t really understand much about history. The New Deal was not an actual plan to stimulate the economy. It was a massive increase in government spending designed to make life a little better for people. The New Deal didn’t create private sector jobs. It created massive government public works projects that provided jobs for the unemployed. These weren’t real jobs in that they weren’t permanent, and the money used to create them was real. It was debt. They were temporary jobs designed to alleviate hard times for some people. That’s why the unemployment numbers went down.

>

 

Of course, FDR was popular when it came re-election time. He had put a bunch of people back to work, even if it was temporarily. The average person didn’t know deficit spending from a hole in the wall. They didn’t care that the government would have to pay back the money borrowed to create the jobs. They just knew that their lives were a little better.

>

 

Also, the writer failed to make the connection between that fact that the government decided to balance the budget and unemployment rose while the economy slipped back in a recession. It was the government money that was propping up the economy not any real economic improvement brought on by the FDR’s programs. Had the New Deal really helped the economy, it would have been able to sustain itself when the government tap was turned off.

>

 

There are many economists predicting the exact same result from the Obama plan.

Posted by: Steve L. at 06:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 4 kb.

I have to agree with Ace on this one.  Michael Steele must go.  His war with Rush Limbaugh has become a major distraction.  It has created a diversion behind which Obama has hidden the porkulus and Bank Bailout 2.0 (or is it 3.0; I can't keep up) and Hillarycare redux.  The media isn't exactly anxious to report on these issues to begin with, so this is perfect for them.  They can report on the red-on-red sniping and feel no guilt about doing so.

Ann Coulter needs to shut up as well.  Her spat with Keith Olbermann is one of the silliest things I have over seen.  Who gives a flying fuck what school anyone graduated from?  I know that Olbermann likes to wave Cornell around like a club, bashing those he considers to be inferior, but no one really cares about whether his diploms ia a "real" Cornell diploma or not.  Cornell grads can be as full of shit as the next guy.  Hell, I graduated from West Point and I can be a flaming asshole any day of the week.  Your alma mater has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong.

I am no fan of either Limbaugh or Coulter.  I understand that there are many, many people who hang on their every word.  They advocate slash-and-burn, which strikes note in some people.  I don't know that they even believe everything they say.  I think they spout most of what they do for the publicity it brings them.  In this situation, their positions make them look petty and makes the Right look silly.

Posted by: Steve L. at 03:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.