Showing posts with label Education bubble. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education bubble. Show all posts

Monday, November 28, 2011

End of an Error?

What’s new today

Our # 1 story tells of how Obama is trying to raise money, increase the number of “contributors” by selling everything from coasters to chopping boards (never used—at least not to cut spending).  #2 looks at the psychological reasons for Obama’s behavior. #3 relates how some parts of the country have a boom which is giving rise to man camps for needed employees.  #4 talks about Politico.  It seems that this is an online “news” organization that is giving private bloggers a bad name.  #5 shows us that Ron Paul may actually be right.  #6 explores whether the Democrats have a chance to take back the House (see the parallel of the Indianapolis Colts winning the Super Bowl).  #7 relates how the HIRE portion of a Democratic bill appears to have all the makings of actually being a FIRE bill.  #8 looks to see if liberal actually think it is Unconstitutional to amend the Constitution.  #9 looks at the Education Bubble. 





1.  For Sale: If you can’t buy the candidate you can buy a bumper sticker

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN TEAM HAS PUT TOGETHER A WEBSITE TO REMIND US WHAT THE YULETIDE SEASON IS TRULY ALL ABOUT — GETTING HIM RE-ELECTED. So they’ve decided to offer Americans a collection of special decorations for the “holiday” season...

...And don’t worry about messing up your furniture with water stains because the Commander-in-Chief also has a line of glass coasters.

But if you’re sipping a Martini, why not just throw a backyard barbecue?

And President Obama has just what you need — a “Fired Up and Ready to Grill” apron, a six-pack presidential cooler, and a nifty Commander-in-Chief cutting board to chop up your White House veggies.

But wait — there’s more….

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama-birth-certificate/2011/11/27/obama-selling-martini-glasses-and-spatulas-campaign-cash#ixzz1exgVYUEs

The sales of this merchandise counts as a contribution to the campaign which boost the numbers of contributors and decreases the size of the contribution giving the appearance of more populous and widespread support.





2.  The Psychological Foundation of Obama’s Political Problems


In June 1985, Flora Lewis wrote in the New York Times that then-President Ronald Reagan said he had pounded the walls in frustration over the hostage crisis in Beirut. Given what we know about Reagan, it's not hard to believe that he would resort to such measures to express his rage.

Now try to imagine Barack Obama similarly venting his frustration at the Republicans taking his agenda hostage for political gain. Hard to visualize, isn't it?

That's no accident. SINCE BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT, OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY DISPLAYED A COOL DEMEANOR, ONE THAT HAS CONFOUNDED MANY OF HIS FORMER SUPPORTERS. His detachment has led many to think that he is oblivious, disinterested, even frightened of direct confrontation. The latest instance has been his passive observation of the failure of the Super Committee, which has spurred pundits and politicians from both sides of the aisle to accuse him of lacking the fire to be president. MSNBC news host Chris Matthews, once one of the president's biggest fans, recently placed direct blame for the country's malaise on the President's lack of emotional leadership. “There's nothing to root for,” he complained.



The fact that the President has failed to address, hands-on, such a critical problem should make us realize that HIS RELUCTANCE TO TAKE CHARGE IS NOT A COGNITIVE ISSUE, BUT A PSYCHOLOGICAL ONE. It's not that Obama doesn't understand what he ought to be doing—it’s that THE STRUCTURE OF HIS PERSONALITY WON'T ALLOW HIM TO CONSTRUCTIVELY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM….

http://www.tnr.com/article/97758/obama-insular-psychology

An interesting article, but the equivalent of the articles you see advertised on the cover of women’s magazines. Fluff, but interesting fluff. 







3.  Man Camps

As much as the drilling rigs that tower over this once placid corner of the prairie, the two communities springing up just outside of town testify to the galloping pace of growth here in oil country.



THEY ARE CALLED MAN CAMPS — TEMPORARY HOUSING COMPOUNDS SUPPORTING THE OVERWHELMINGLY MALE WORK FORCE FLOODING THE REGION IN SEARCH OF REFUGE FROM A STORMY ECONOMY….

…Confronted with the unusual problem of too many unfilled jobs and not enough empty beds to accommodate the new arrivals, North Dakota embraced the camps — typically made of low-slung, modular dormitory-style buildings — as the imperfect solution to keeping workers rested and oil flowing.

But now, even as the housing shortage worsens, towns like this one are denying new applications for the camps. IN MANY PLACES THEY HAVE COME TO EMBODY THE DANGER OF GROWING TOO BIG TOO FAST, CLUTTERING FORMERLY IDYLLIC VISTAS, STRAINING UTILITIES, OVERBURDENING EMERGENCY SERVICES and aggravating relatively novel problems like traffic jams, long lines and higher crime….


Ah, leave it to the NY Times to point out every silver lining has a cloud.   





4.  Politico and the Facts

On Sunday evening, October 30, Politico broke the story that two women had complained about Herman Cain while at the National Restaurant Association. IN THAT FIRST WEEK, POLITICO RAN SEVERAL DOZEN STORIES ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT THE ACCUSATIONS WERE, while characterizing the accusations as sexual harassment.

During the subsequent three weeks, the name of one of the accusers in the Politico story, Karen Krauhaar, was released, but she has refused to release details  of the accusations she made, despite initially indicating she would do so, and it turns out this was not her only mployment complaint. Another accuser with a dubious background, Sharon Bialek came forward, but she was not part of the original Politico story and her supposed corroboration also was suspect. While the media regularly referred to 4 or 5 accusers, we only knew the names of two of them and only knew the accusations of one of them.

But back to Politico.

AFTER HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES AT POLITICO, WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HERMAN CAIN WHICH GAVE RISE TO POLITICO’S ORIGINAL REPORTING: NOTHING.

AFTER HUNDREDS OF ARTICLES AT POLITICO, WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST HERMAN CAIN WHICH GAVE RISE TO POLITICO’S ORIGINAL REPORTING: NOTHING.

Truly incredible.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/its-been-four-weeks-since-politico-broke-the-story-of-accusations-against-herman-cain/

Politico seems to be saying, “Trust us, it was truly bad.”  Politico is giving the internet bloggers a bad name with charges like this. 





5.  Maybe Ron Paul is Right

Many people have expressed dismay and disgust over the Federal Reserve.

Beyond Ron and Rand Paul, Rick Perry, a growing number of other conservative public figures and commentators are beginning to not only raise question about the practices of the Federal Reserve, but also its very legitimacy.

THE RECENT FOIA REQUESTS BY BLOOMBERG FINALLY UNCOVERED THE STAGGERING AMOUNT OF AMERICAN TAXPAYER MONEY THAT WAS SPENT BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE- IN SECRET MIND YOU- DURING 2008-2009. In fact, the Federal Reserve blatantly lied to the American public, saying initially the amount was approximately $500 billion, when in fact THE GROSS AMOUNT OF MONEY TOTALED OVER ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.

That's right folks. 1.2 trillion taxpayer dollars spent in secret and with no accountability or oversight by elected representatives. That alone is an outrage and should put people in jail.

Moreover, to make matters even worse, we now know THAT MUCH OF THIS TAXPAYER MONEY WENT OVERSEAS. WHILE AMERICAN CITIZENS WERE GETTING HIT WITH FORECLOSURES, HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE SENT TO BAIL OUT FOREIGN BANKS, INCLUDING MANY IN EUROPE THAT ARE CURRENTLY FOUNDERING. If and when those banks fail, that will impact our nation as well. As Bloomberg journalists Keon and Kuntz note in the August 21st 2011 expose:

It wasn't just American finance. ALMOST HALF OF THE FED'S TOP 30 BORROWERS, MEASURED BY PEAK BALANCES, WERE EUROPEAN FIRMS. They included Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, which took $84.5 billion, the most of any non-U.S. lender, and Zurich-based USB AG, which got $77.2 billion. Germany's Hypo Real Estate Holding AG borrowed $28.7 billion, an average of $21 million for each of its 1,366 employees.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/federal_reserve_shennanigans.html#ixzz1ezgevg2M

We’ve been the sugar daddy to Europe since World War II.  Isn’t it time they stood on their own two feet?







6.  Can the Democrats take back the House?

Let’s start with the basics. One pretty much has to assume Barack Obama wins re-election before we can speculate about Democrats making big gains in the House. This looks to be somewhat shy of a 50-50 proposition right now. EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT DOES WIN, HOWEVER, HISTORY SUGGESTS THAT HE WON’T BRING ALONG MANY NEW DEMOCRATS WITH HIM. SINCE THE HOUSE GREW TO 435 SEATS IN 1912, THERE HAVE ONLY BEEN TWO OCCASIONS WHERE THE PARTY OF A PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN A RE-ELECTION EFFORT HAS PICKED UP 25 OR MORE SEATS: 1948 AND 1964.

Moreover, Democrats enter the election season at a real disadvantage, vis-à-vis Republicans at a similar point in 2010. That year, there were almost 70 Democrats representing Republican-leaning districts (those with a Republican Cook Partisan Voting Index, or PVI); it was from the ranks of these Democrats that most of the Republican pickups occurred. This time, however, THERE ARE ONLY 19 REPUBLICANS IN DEMOCRATIC-LEANING DISTRICTS TO BEGIN WITH. This also doesn’t account for redistricting, which has tended to make Democratic seats bluer and Republican seats redder so far this cycle.

TO ACTUALLY PUT 100 REPUBLICAN SEATS INTO PLAY, DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE TO PUT EVERY R+7 (that is, a district that has, on average, voted seven points or more Republican than the country as a whole over the last two presidential elections) or less DISTRICT INTO PLAY. Even in a year like 2010, Republicans didn’t come close to putting all of the D+7 or less seats into play.

That’s really the Democrats’ problem. THE SEATS ARE NOW PRETTY WELL SORTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES: Republicans occupy the Republican-leaning seats, while Democrats occupy the Democratic seats. The playing field has just shrunk. When you consider the natural Republican advantage in the House -- the median seat is presently an R+2 -- you understand the enormity of the Democrats’ task, absent yet another tsunami.

Finally, remember that the generic ballot is the best indicator we have of the mood of the country today, but that doesn’t mean it is a great indicator. After all, you don’t vote for “generic Republican,” you vote for a particular representative. Because the parties don’t field competitive candidates in all -- or even most -- districts, a lot of people who might wish to vote for a Republican or Democratic challenger won’t end up doing so. In other words, it is one thing for an independent in Northern Ohio to decide that he or she would like a Republican in Congress. It’s quite another to go to the polls and pull the lever for an obscure candidate, about whom the voter had heard little except that he had re-enacted World War II battles on the Nazi side, instead of 14-term Rep. Marcy Kaptur. This is probably why THE GENERIC BALLOT HAS TENDED TO OVERSTATE PARTISAN GAINS OVER THE PAST FEW CYCLES (INCIDENTALLY, THE GENERIC BALLOT IS ABOUT A POINT BETTER FOR DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW THAN IT WAS AT THIS POINT IN THE 2009-10 CYCLE)….


There are some in the Democratic camp that seem to be smoking something.  Taking back the House isn’t going to happen and Obama will not win reelection. 







7.  From HIRE to FIRE

Buried in an ostensible jobs bill signed by President Obama last year is A LITTLE-NOTICED JOB-DESTROYING GOVERNMENT REGULATION THAT THREATENS TO TRIGGER A MASSIVE OUTFLOW OF CAPITAL FROM THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

The U.S. economy is in bad shape. Many want the federal government to fix it -- to end the deficits, create jobs, and get America back onto the track of growth and stability. President Obama came to Washington with great promises: to restore international respect for the United States and to bring back the jobs. When signing the HIRE Act of 2010 on March 18, 2010, President Obama said:

A consensus is forming that, partly because of the necessary -- and often unpopular -- measures we took over the past year, our economy is now growing again and we may soon be adding jobs instead of losing them. The jobs bill I'm signing today is intended to help accelerate that process.

NOW THE HIRE ACT OF 2010 CONTAINS A TIME BOMB CALLED FATCA (FOREIGN ACCOUNT TAX COMPLIANCE ACT), WHICH HAS INDEED ACCELERATED A PROCESS. Unfortunately that process is not job-generation, but job-destruction caused by an exodus of capital from the United States. Investment means jobs; a departure of investment capital means job losses. THUS, THE HIRE ACT IS REALLY THE "FIRE ACT."

FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) is the brood of FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Report). FBAR requires that U.S. persons divulge foreign accounts to the Treasury Department, but few knew about or ever complied with it.  To stanch the bleeding of U.S. capital into secret bank jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, Congress introduced FATCA into law as part of the HIRE Act. FATCA requires that foreign financial institutions (FFIs) reveal the accounts of U.S. persons to the IRS. THE FFIS WILL THEN HAVE TO COLLECT TAX WITHHOLDINGS FOR THE IRS FROM THESE CLIENTS. If by January 1, 2014 the FFI is unwilling to reveal its U.S. clients' accounts, the IRS will impose a punitive 30% withholding on all payments to the FFIs, on dividends, interest, and gross sales of stocks, bonds, and financial derivatives.

Let's suppose that a foreign investor trades stocks on a U.S. exchange, but his broker is FATCA non-compliant. ONE DAY HE BUYS 10,000 SHARES OF XYZ AT $25 PER SHARE, AND THE NEXT DAY, HE TAKES ADVANTAGE OF A NICE UPTICK OF $1.00 IN XYZ AND SELLS AT $26 PER SHARE. He makes a tidy profit of $10,000. But because his broker is non-compliant, the IRS now withholds 30% -- not of the profit, but of the gross proceeds of the sale! SO THE CLIENT NOW RECEIVES THE SUM OF $260,000 MINUS 30%. THE FOREIGN INVESTOR IS UNHAPPY BECAUSE HIS $250,000 INVESTMENT HAS BECOME $182,000. If he wants his money back, he must file a U.S. tax return.

No investor would accept such conditions. Hence, an FFI must either comply with the invasive regulations of FATCA or simply abandon the U.S. markets….


The left have all these wonderful ideas.  The problem is they never work as intended.  The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

8.  Newsflash for Liberals: It is not Unconstitutional to Amend the Constitution

SOMEONE RUSH A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OVER TO POLITICO'S NEWSROOM, AND MAKE SURE REPORTER REID EPSTEIN READS ARTICLE V, WHICH SPECIFIES HOW TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Pitched with a snarky tweet, "The GOP presidential candidates all love the Constitution, except the parts they want to change," this Politico article tries to make Republican presidential candidates look hypocritical for simultaneously (1) calling on Congress and the President to operate within the confines of the Constitution, and (2) invoke Article V of the Constitution to propose amendments.

Here's the heart of Epstein's case:

THE SAME CANDIDATES PROMISING TO APPOINT STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST JUDGES CLEARLY THINK THE FRAMERS, FOR ALL THEIR WISDOM AND FORESIGHT, FORGOT A FEW THINGS, WHICH THEY NOW WANT TO TACK ON WITH AN ARRAY OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BULK UP THE DOCUMENT.

This article embodies two maladies of the mainstream media that Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on another occasion also afflicts the Left: (1) they don't really understand conservative arguments; and (2) they don't really understand the Constitution.

The article's premise is not only false, it's so laughably a caricature of GOP candidates you would be forgiven if you thought it was coming from the mouth of Paul Begala or Jay Carney:

To hear the Republican presidential candidates tell it, the U.S. Constitution is the guiding light of democracy, a bedrock document so perfect and precise that it shouldn’t be challenged, interpreted or besmirched by modern-day judges.

YOU KNOW WHAT POLITICO REPORTER EPSTEIN FAILED TO INCLUDE IN HIS 1,200-WORD OPUS? A SINGLE QUOTE FROM A SINGLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS "PERFECT" OR THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE "INTERPRETED." I'm not saying no conservatives believe in a divinely ordained and perfect Constitution. I'm saying Epstein never actually establishes these candidates do…


The left loves straw man arguments.  It allows them to write 1200 words that make other liberals feel good and superior, while not really addressing what the right is saying. 



9.  From Instapundit November 28, 2011—Education Bubble

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: The Root Cause of Market Failure in Higher Education (see link at the bottom). “In a world turned upside down, CHINA’S RULERS WANT TO MAKE SURE THE YOUNG CADRES THEY EDUCATE AT THE PEOPLE’S EXPENSE ACTUALLY FIND JOBS IN THE PRIVATE ECONOMY. Here in the U.S., where outstanding government guaranteed student loans have recently passed the $1 trillion mark, education policy is geared not toward maximizing the employability of graduates, but toward garnering votes for politicians. . . . ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CAREER TRAINING, LIKE APPRENTICESHIP IN TRADES THAT REMAIN IN DEMAND – because, after all, you can’t fly in Chinese plumbers – get no social respect. This despite the fact that skilled plumbers, with a little hustle, can out-earn most liberal arts majors. . . . Too many aspiring young museum curators can’t find jobs? THE PRAGMATIC CHINESE SOLUTION IS TO CUT PUBLIC SUBSIDIES USED TO TRAIN MUSEUM CURATORS. The free market solution is that only the rich would be indulgent enough to buy their kids an education that left them economically dependent on mommy and daddy after graduation. THE PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN SOLUTION IS TO SEEK INCREASED PUBLIC FUNDING TO BUILD MORE MUSEUMS.”


I found the Progressive solution to be sadly true.  Price is a signal and right now there are too many museum curators and not enough plumbers.  I recently posted an article about over 600,000 manufacturing jobs that are going begging because we don’t have the workers with skills to fill them. 

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Supercommittee: Just another Political Loser

What’s new today

Our # 1 describes the denial of top democrats as to the dangerous position of the Democrats on the effect of regulations on the country. # 2 and #3 talks about the failure of the Supercommittee.  #4 relates to the revision of the growth in the economy.  In #5 Erskine Bowles describes the failure of Barack H. Obama.  #6 looks at the Education bubble and puts the blame squarely where it belongs. 



1.   Denial is not just a River in Egypt

Brandishing misleading employer survey data, SENATE LEADER HARRY REID CLAIMS THERE ISN'T "A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE" REGULATIONS CAUSE BIG ECONOMIC HARM. Even President Obama disagrees.

It is self-evident that regulations on business kill jobs. Rules add costs. And the simplest way for a firm to recoup big expenses is by cutting salaries or by not adding new salaries.

With unemployment at 9%, it makes sense that Republicans are pointing to the Obama administration's over-regulation as one of the culprits. As the Heritage Foundation noted in July:

"In the first six months of the 2011 fiscal year, 15 major regulations were issued, with annual costs exceeding $5.8 billion and one-time implementation costs approaching $6.5 billion. ... OVERALL, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IMPOSED 75 NEW MAJOR REGULATIONS FROM JANUARY 2009 TO MID-FY 2011, WITH ANNUAL COSTS OF $38 BILLION."

It takes a major media outlet like the Washington Post, however, to remind those of us outside the government that we're not smart enough to realize the falsity of what is obvious….

….Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants the public to think so, which is why he said on the Senate floor last Wednesday: "MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS HAVE YET TO PRODUCE A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THE REGULATIONS THEY HATE SO MUCH DO THE BROAD ECONOMIC HARMS THEY CLAIM. THAT'S BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY."….

http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=592433&p=1

This statement reminds me of the statement by the EU bureaucrats where they banned the claim  that water can prevent dehydration.  In fact, EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE PREVIOUSLY UNDISPUTED FACT.  Sounds an awful lot like Reid’s statement.



2.   Why the SuperCommitteee failed

EVEN IF REPUBLICANS AGREED TO EVERY TAX INCREASE DESIRED BY THE PRESIDENT, OUR NATIONAL DEBT WOULD CONTINUE TO GROW UNCONTROLLABLY. Controlling spending is therefore a crucial challenge. The other is economic growth and job creation, which would produce the necessary revenue to fund our priorities.

In the midst of persistent 9% unemployment, the committee could have enacted fundamental tax reform to simplify the tax code, help create jobs, and bring in over time the higher revenues that come with economic growth. REPUBLICANS PUT SUCH A PLAN ON THE TABLE—AND EVEN AGREED TO $250 BILLION IN NEW REVENUE BY ELIMINATING OR LIMITING MOST OF THE DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS, LOOPHOLES AND TAX EXPENDITURES MAINLY ENJOYED BY HIGHER-INCOME AMERICANS. We offered this to avoid the even larger tax increases already written into current law that will intensify the pain Americans are feeling during these difficult economic times.

Republicans were willing to agree to additional tax revenue, but only in the context of fundamental pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the base, lower rates, and maintain current levels of progressivity. This is the approach to tax reform used by recent bipartisan deficit reduction efforts such as the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and the Rivlin-Domenici plan.

The Democrats said no. THEY WERE UNWILLING TO AGREE TO ANYTHING LESS THAN $1 TRILLION IN TAX HIKES—AND UNWILLING TO OFFER ANY STRUCTURAL REFORMS TO PUT OUR HEALTH-CARE ENTITLEMENTS

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204531404577052240098105190.html

I’m amazed by the Democrats.  It seems that they have no solution to any of our problems but to throw money at it and their solution to the lack of money problem is to raise taxes.  When they offered a plan they include as their spending cuts, cuts already in progress (winding down the war in Iraq) and magical money like a decrease in interest payments.  They simply seem incapable of reducing spending. 





3.   Another Look at What Happened with the Supercommittee

THE TRUTH IS THE COMMITTEE WAS DOOMED FROM THE START, IF A DIVIDED CONGRESS COULDNT COME UP WITH THE CUTS WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE THAT A MINI-VERSION OF A DIVIDED CONGRESS WOULD SUCCEED?

Also expected was IT TOOK ABOUT TWO MINUTES FOR PRESIDENT TO MAKE DIVISIVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE COMMITTEE’S FAILURE. At a press conference he said that Republicans would not budge in their defense of the tax cuts for wealthy Americans. He said Republicans are main stumbling block to reaching agreement on deficit.

"There are still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of Washington," Obama said.

The truth is that THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFERED AS MUCH AS $640B IN TAX HIKES IN THE NEGOTIATIONS (IN THE FORM OF CLOSING LOOPHOLES) the President’s comments were the continuance of his reelection strategy, carpet bomb the GOP rather than run on his record (who can really blame him). But the President is conveniently ignoring the fact that even the two most conservative members of the panel Senator Pat Toomey and Representative Jeb Hensarling offered $300 billion in net tax hikes. All of these compromises were being offered despite the fact that tax hikes always slow down the economy. And this economy cannot absorb any more slowdowns.

Why were these compromises rejected? Because THE DEMOCRATS CHANGED THE RULES, THEY INSISTED THAT THE GOP COME UP WITH $1.2 TRILLION IN INCREASED TAXES AND COMBINE IT WITH $500 BILLION IN CUTS. You see the Democrats insisted that the Super Committee not only come up with the required funds, but enough extra cash to pay for the President’s most recent stimulus plan which was already rejected by both houses of congress. IN OTHER WORD
S THE GOP WAS PUNKED AND THE PRESIDENT WAS LESS THAN TRUTHFUL...


It appears you can’t believe anything the Democrats say. 



4.   Growth Revised downward for the last Quarter

The U.S. economy grew more slowly than previously estimated in the third quarter, but weak inventory accumulation amid sturdy consumer spending supported views output would pick up in the current quarter.


GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT GREW AT A 2.0 PERCENT ANNUAL RATE IN THE JULY-SEPTEMBER QUARTER, THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT SAID IN ITS SECOND ESTIMATE ON TUESDAY, DOWN FROM THE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED 2.5 PERCENT.

While the revision was below economists' expectations for a 2.5 percent growth pace, the composition of the GDP report, especially still-firm consumer spending and the first drop in businesses inventories since the fourth quarter of 2009 set the platform for a stronger economic performance this quarter.


There is both good and bad news in this.  The bad news is the drop in growth.  The good news is the drop in inventories (which should lead to more growth). 



5.   Obama’s Failure as a Leader

…As with the Supercommittee, Obama took no part in discussions or decisions BOWLES FINDS THIS INCOMPREHENSIBLE:.

I did not know President Obama, and neither did Alan. So we spent a tremendous amount of time with him and his economic team up-front defining success. And we negotiated a deal that got a majority of Republicans to vote for it, so he had plenty of cover on the other side. It also exceeded every single one of the goals that he had given us.

I FULLY EXPECTED THEM TO GRAB HOLD OF THIS. If it had been President Clinton, he would have said, "God, I created this, this is wonderful. It was all my idea."

So we were really surprised. My belief is that most of the members of the economic team strongly supported it. Like every White House, there's a small cabal of people that surround the president that he trusts and works with, and I BELIEVE IT WAS THOSE CHICAGO GUYS, THE POLITICAL TEAM THAT CONVINCED HIM THAT IT WOULD BE SMARTER FOR HIM TO WAIT AND LET PAUL RYAN GO FIRST, AND THEN HE WOULD LOOK LIKE THE SENSIBLE GUY IN THE GAME.

We then expected, before the State of the Union, that when he did the stimulus, that that would be a great time to say not only, look, we're going to do this to get the economy moving forward, but we have to do it within the context of long-term fiscal reform and responsibility. And he didn't….


Obama will lose in 2012.  If you believe otherwise you are kidding yourself.  Those in the know want Obama to drop out now and let Hillary run.





6.   The Higher Education Bubble

….I noticed ABOUT 1990 THAT SOME STUDENTS IN MY CLASSES AT CSU WERE BOTH CLEARLY ILLITERATE AND YET BENEFICIARIES OF LOTS OF FEDERAL CASH, LOANS, AND UNIVERSITY SUPPORT to ensure their graduation. And when one had to flunk them, an entire apparatus was in place at the university to see that they in fact did not flunk. JUST AS COACHES STEERED JOCKS TO THE RIGHT COURSES, SO TOO COUNSELORS DID THE SAME WITH THOSE POORLY PREPARED BUT ON FAT FEDERAL GRANTS AND LOANS. By the millennium, faculty were conscious that the university was a sort of farm and the students the paying crop that had to be cultivated if it were to make it all the way to harvest and sale — and thus pay for the farmers’ livelihood.

HOW COULD A PONZI SCHEME OF SUCH MAGNITUDE GO ON THIS LONG? . . .

 But what cannot go on will not go on — at least for most universities without the billion-dollar plus endowments. The present reckoning is brought on not by introspection, self-critique, or concern for our increasingly poorly educated students, but by money, or rather the lack of it. HIGHER EDUCATION IS DESPERATELY SEARCHING FOR STUDENTS WITH CASH, LOANED OR NOT. AND IT IS, BY NEEDS, PANICKING AND WILL EVER SO SLOWLY START CHANGING….


Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent mind and can explain things in easy to understand ways.  The education bubble is what really brought on the OWS protests and they show how shallow the education they are getting for their borrowed money. 

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Is Michelle Obama Barack's secret weapon?

What’s new today

Our # 1 talks about Michelle Obama and her role in the coming election.  She appears to be just a clueless as her husband is and represent an easy target with her high spending ways. #2 sets the record straight about Occupy Oakland.  It was called a police riot by the people on Joe Scarborough’s show on MSNBC.  It appears the protesters were are fault according to some left wing sources.  #3 looks at what happens when you include the entire world to the size of the one percenters who live in America.   Article #4 talks about the education bubble.  #5 goes over the looks at the MSM and finds the Washington Post may be the most biased rag in America. 



1.   Michelle Obama’s role in the coming election

….Now she’s back on the campaign trail, and for some reason is returning to the same hardball politics. The other day, she thundered, “WILL WE BE A COUNTRY THAT TELLS FOLKS WHO’VE DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT BUT ARE STRUGGLING TO GET BY, ‘TOUGH LUCK, YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN’? Is that who we are?”

GIVEN THAT THE FEDERAL BUDGET HAS INCREASED BY $2 TRILLION IN JUST A DECADE, ENTITLEMENTS ARE AT RECORD LEVELS, AND THIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOW RUNNING $1.5 TRILLION ANNUAL DEFICITS, IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT ANY GOVERNMENT HAS TOLD ANYONE “TOUGH LUCK.” And it is even harder to suggest that nine months of a Republican-controlled House — voted in as part of the largest midterm correction since 1938 — has had much effect on the Obama employment agenda of nearly three years, the majority of which time Obama controlled both houses of Congress and borrowed nearly $5 trillion in sending unemployment over 9 percent.

And when Ms. Obama charges, “Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top? Who are we?” one wonders, why, then, in the past three years of hard times, did she insist on vacationing, in iconic fashion, at Vail, Martha’s Vineyard, and Costa del Sol, the tony haunts of “the few at the top”? In these rough times, surely a smaller staff, less travel, and budgetary economies would have enhanced her populist message of some at the top enjoying perks at the expense of others.

In short, even if she does not revert to 2008 style and restart her lamentations about life in her country being unfair, I THINK IT A MISTAKE FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO PUT THE FIRST LADY OUT, IN HIGHLY PARTISAN FASHION, ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL TO ATTACK HER HUSBAND’S POLITICAL RIVALS. And, I think, the public unease with it will soon prove the point.






Obama is trying anything and everything he can to separate himself from his record.  Running as an outsider who is trying to put people first and will protect the poor just isn’t very credible with Michelle Obama’s spending and his raising money with fat cats in Hollywood, New York and anywhere else he can find money.







2.   Occupy Oakland:  The Protesters started it



As reported on Thursday by Newsbusters' Mark Finkelstein, Joe Scarborough and some members of his MSNBC Morning Joe crew shot their mouths off about what MIKE BARNICLE DESCRIBED AS A "POLICE RIOT" AT THE OCCUPY OAKLAND PROTESTS BEFORE WAITING FOR ALL THE FACTS. And now it appears that the Morning Joe folks have shot themselves in the foot as well since REPORTS FROM THE SCENE SHOW THAT IT WAS THE POLICE WHO WERE CLEARLY PROVOKED BY THE OCCUPY OAKLAND DEMONSTRATORS.

So were these reports from the usual "rightwing" suspects? Nope. The REPORTS CONFIRMING THE PROVOCATIONS FROM THE DEMONSTRATORS CAME FROM THE LEFTWING MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE AND WERE SUPPORTED BY THE VERY LIBERAL SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE. Here is the initial report from the scene by James West of Mother Jones:




I’ve left the rest for you to read.  It isn’t pretty.  It appears the left has a difficult time with the peaceful part of any protest.





3.   Who are the one percenters?



…The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have aimed their message at the income disparity between the 1% richest Americans and the rest of the country. BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU EXPAND THAT AND LOOK AT THE 1% RICHEST OF THE ENTIRE WORLD? Some really interesting numbers emerge. If there were a global Occupy Wall Street protest, people as well off as Linda Frakes might actually be the target.

In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, AMONG THE RICHEST NATIONS ON EARTH. HOW MUCH DO YOU NEED TO EARN TO BE AMONG THE TOP 1% OF THE WORLD?

$34,000.

That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOP 0.1% REQUIRES AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $70,000….




This is a new and interesting way to look at what is going on.  It appears most of the protesters across America are really in the top 1% worldwide.  Does this mean we should raise their taxes and possible have the third world “Eat” them? 





4.   The Education Bubble



It’s officially a crisis. STUDENT LOAN DEBT HAS HIT THE $1 TRILLION MARK, exceeding Americans’ total credit card indebtedness. Unemployed graduates with huge loan balances are camping out in “Occupy” camps -- the Hoovervilles of our age -- around the nation. And President Obama, perhaps afraid those camps will be dubbed “Obamavilles,” as indeed they have already been by some, has unveiled a new proposal that promises to help graduates who are drowning in debt.

Unfortunately, “promises” is the correct word. THOUGH UNVEILED WITH MUCH FANFARE, THE OBAMA PROPOSAL DOESN’T REALLY DO MUCH. First, as the Chronicle of Higher Education pointed out in an article characterizing it as mostly political, “The benefit is available only to current students. Those jobless college graduates who are protesting on Wall Street and at similar events elsewhere won’t qualify.”

Second, even for those who do qualify, THE BENEFIT DOESN’T AMOUNT TO MUCH. Daniel Indiviglio of The Atlantic Monthly calculated that the president’s plan will save the average grad less than $10 a month. (Even those with $100K in debt will save only $28.50 a month). You can make that sound like more -- and the White House tried -- by touting total savings over the life of the loan, but this isn’t going to rescue anyone who’s financially underwater. It’s a beer and a slice a month, more or less.

At best, it’s a band-aid solution. The real problem is that we’ve been running a higher education bubble, one that -- like the real-estate bubble -- has been pumped up by cheap government money. SINCE 1999, STUDENT LOAN DEBT HAS INCREASED BY 511%, WHILE DISPOSABLE INCOME HAS INCREASED BY ONLY 73%....




The left first creates or facilitates the problem and then they want to come in on their white horse to solve the problem.  The irony is that they are much better at creating problems than solving them and their solutions normally cost a lot of money and don’t work.







5.   Washington Post Holds To the Party (Democratic) Line



BARACK OBAMA HAS MADE A BIG WHOOP-DE-DOO ABOUT NOT TAKING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBYISTS. But he’s raised lots and lots of money from those with lobbyist connections, as the Examiner’s Tim Carney reported in a piece logged in at the web yesterday, October 27, at 5:06pm. CARNEY’S LEAD: “PRESIDENT OBAMA DOESN'T TAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LOBBYISTS -- UNLESS YOU COUNT THE OWNERS AND CEOS OF LOBBYING FIRMS, CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENTS FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, OR MANAGING DIRECTORS FOR PUBLIC POLICY.” And his article goes on to provide chapter and verse.

ERIC LICHTBLAU WROTE  A SIMILAR STORY  FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, His lead: "Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.” The web version of Lichtblau’s story is dated October 27, but it seems it appeared in the October 28 print edition of the Times.

IN CONTRAST, THE OCTOBER 28 EDITION OF THE WASHINGTON POST MISSED THIS STORY ALTOGETHER. It has a page A3 story headlined in the print edition “Romney leads the Republican pack in donations from lobbyists” and in the web version “Lobbyists play key role in 2012 fundraising” by reporters Dan Eggen and T. W. Farnam. The lead: “K Street is playing an increasingly central role in the 2012 presidential race, as hundreds of lobbyists representing some of the world’s largest corporations and trade groups POUR MONEY INTO REPUBLICAN COFFERS.”


The real tragedy is that many leftists actual believe that it is only the Republicans who are getting money from lobbyists.