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.

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.

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.