Obama’s plans hurting the economy: Yahoo “Poll”

Interesting and somewhat surprising.  An AT&T/Yahoo Poll in progress has the following results so far. 

“Q. The president’s progress with the battered economy has been both praised and criticized. How well are his efforts measuring up with you?

Extremely well. We are undoubtedly moving in the right direction.	19%
Fairly well. There’s still a long way to go.	14%
Not well at all. His plans are hurting more than helping.	65%
Not sure/No opinion.	2%

79205 votes”

Unfortunately, I can’t link directly to the poll or it’s results.  The link pulls up a java window or something.  Of course, this is not a scientific poll, but it is ineteresting nonetheless.  I did not think we would see any wavering among the faithful this early in the game.

Obama proclaims simpler tax code… “just give us all of it.”

Actually, he didn’t say exactly that, but that would make it a heck of a lot simpler, wouldn’t it.  I admit I got a little tax cut recently.  Unfortunately, the tax cut I got came at the expense of other hard working people (the “wicked rich”), as well as my children and grand children, because the feds did not cut spending concurrently.  In fact, I will probably see the bill in my lifetime, with interest. 

We have yet to learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch.   The government takes our money and spends it where they see fit or simply gives it to others, and tells us we will be better off for it–it will magically multiply.  Unfortunately, the only thing we get is an economy of bubbles, misallocated capital, and redistributed wealth.

We ought to get rid of the income tax altogether.   It is nothing less than forced labor and blatant theft.

Last Night’s Speech: Snake Oil for Sale.

I tried to read through Obama’s speech this morning, even though I knew what he was going to say.  I am amazed that anyone watches this stuff–the same old attempts at salesmanship, the same old faulty interventionist ideas designed to increase government power and devoid of any real effectiveness.  Here’s what I took from the first part (I didn’t make it all the way through): 

The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank. We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.

Wait, is he saying alternative energy will be cheaper?

The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform.

So health care costs are why our economy is in a shambles?

Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for.

Our economy is in a shambles because our schools fail to prepare our children properly?  Here I would agree in part, but not for Obama’s reasons, I’m sure.  Our schools fail to teach children to think and to be able to see through empty rhetoric and government manipulation.  They fail to teach them the real laws of economics.  They cannot teach them responsibility and virtue, and this is a crisis of character.

And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.

I agree. 

A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.

Then he sneaks in his socialism.  Wrong.  In fact the opposite is true.  Intervention caused the present crisis, and intervention always weakens the economy.

People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway.

The banks were forced (by the government) to loan to people who could not afford it.  And now Obama wants banks to do more of the same.

Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that’s what I’d like to talk to you about tonight.

And that’s what government action cannot do, and will not do.  It will make it worse.  Who says we need the government to save us?  Obama says.

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

Keynesianism is wrong.  The economy will recover on its own (if Obama can stop messing with it).

Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

This is nothing more than a redistribution of money–it cannot create wealth…  or jobs.

I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work. I understand that skepticism. Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending. And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right.That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort …

That’s why there are thousands of earmarks on the new spending bill.

You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy.

Wrong.  Productivity is the lifeblood.  

But credit has stopped flowing the way it should. Too many bad loans from the housing crisis have made their way onto the books of too many banks. With so much debt and so little confidence, these banks are now fearful of lending out any more money to households, to businesses, or to each other. When there is no lending, families can’t afford to buy homes or cars. So businesses are forced to make layoffs. Our economy suffers even more, and credit dries up even further.

Banks were not allowed to be careful with lending.  That’s why we are in this mess.

But that does not mean we can afford to ignore our long-term challenges. I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.

Wrong, the freer the markets, the stronger the economies.

For history tells a different story. History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas.

Damaging actions, faulty ideas.

In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry.

The government laid the railroad tracks?  Though they did provide subsidies, those were damaging, not helpful.  And I though burning fossil fuels was bad?

From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age.

Turmoil of the industrial revolution?  Were public schools created to boost the economy?  Rather they were a conspiracy of the rich and elite to sujugate the citizenry (see John Gattos books).

In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history.

The GI Bill created the middle class?  He thinks we’re stupid.

And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways,

And greater and greater use of fossil fuels, don’t forget. 

an American on the moon,

And why was it important to go to the moon?

and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.

Which wouldn’t have happened without the moon shot?

In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise.

He was right the first time.  It replaced it and hindered it.

It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.

How?  The only way the government can do that is to stay out of the way.

Snake oil.  Fuzzy thinking.  Government power grabbing.  I’ve heard enough.  (Boy, this guy is windy. )

Obama’s address linked to socialist organization?

Interesting, at least.  Coincidence?  From Texas Darlin:

This is curious and bizarre. A reader, Jane, conducted some Google searches related to the Obamas’ Chicago home on Greenwood Avenue, and discovered the following, which I verified with my own searches, and documented with screenshots at approximately 2:30 PM ET on 12/17/08:…

The phone number associated with the Obama’s mansion is the number for the national Party of Socialism and Liberation.

Update:  I am thinking this is some kind of prank, though I do not doubt that Obama is a socialist at heart.

Spending is not the answer

From the “Office of the President Elect” (whatever that is) comes the assertion that recovery trumps deficit concerns.  From Newsmax:

The economy growing weaker, President-elect Barack Obama said Tuesday that recovery efforts will trump deficit concerns when he takes office in January. Yet he pledged a “page-by-page, line-by-line” budget review to root out unneeded spending…

Unfortunately for us, this keynsian strategy is contrary to the laws of logic, nature and economics.    Too bad Haiti and other dirt poor, third world countries don’t listen to Obama.  All they would have to do is print a bunch of cash and hand it out to the people–boost the economy.   It boggles the mind.  Seriously, where are the trillions of dollars coming from?  Can’t that see that fiat increases in the money supply, either through cheap government credit or printing cash (of course, in this computer age we need not print it on paper) lead to inflation? And inflation is harmful, no matter what they say.  True, increased prices eventually lead to increased wages, but they don’t increase concurrently, and most importantly:  the value of your savings doesn’t increase.

Or is the money coming from present or future taxes, as would be the case if we were borrowing the cash from other countries.  In this case, the government “stimulus” spending is simply a wealth re-distribution scheme, and a particularly insidious one at that, since it tales money from successful people or institutions and gives it to the unsuccessful or failing institutions.  How can propping up failing entities (most failing due to irresponsible behavior) and penalizing the responsible entities possibly benefit the economy? 

With his Electoral College landslide victory, Obama said he possesses a “mandate to move the country in a new direction, and not continue the same old practices that have gotten us into the fix we’re in.”

Curious.  What are the “same old practices”?  Is government spending not the “same old practice” that is used whenever a crisis hits?  Is it not government encouraged and provided, cheap, easy credit that got us into this mess?  I agree, let’s not continue the same old practices.  Let the government stay out of it.

More admissions of election coverage bias from media…

Now that the elections is over, more “journalists” (including a Time editor and Washington Post ombudsman) are admitting and bemoaning the bias of the media toward Barack Obama. 

Last week, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin called the media’s performance during the campaign simply “disgusting.”

 

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.”

 

He added, “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

Of course it is safe for them to admit it now.  And maybe they think that “coming clean” will restore the trust of the American people.  Don’t worry, all of you media elite, the “people” never doubted you, nor will they.  The “people” are far beyond any ability to question you.  You and the public school system made sure of that long ago.

Schumer’s irrational defense of the “Fairness” Doctrine

In a recent interview, Charles Schumer irrationally defended the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine.  From Newsmax:

Democratic Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine regarding talk radio, telling Fox News: “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

I don’t know, Mr. Schumer, what do you think?  Do you think ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN were fair and balanced during the presidential campaigns?  Did you hear Dan Rather’s comments on the subject?  Have you heard the statistics on the subject?  Have you read Goldberg’s book?  My goodness, all you have to do is listen to NPR.  I wonder if that taxpayer-funded radio program always makes sure to have a conservative experts on to balance the liberal ones?  Not that I have ever heard (of course, I stopped listening to that slanted propaganda a long time ago).

Is it “fair and balanced” for a newspaper to endorse a candidate?

Mr. Schumer, are you proposing that all of these news outlets give equal time to all points of view?

Of course not.  And with the exception of NPR, which is government funded, we should not force the networks to be “fair and balanced”.  They are private businesses.  If they want to air Obama more than they do McCain, then let them do it.  I am not forced to watch (yet), and I do not.  On what moral basis do you believe that you have the right to force businesses to present viewpoints that they oppose?  Must a business present the disadvantages of its product, or the advantages of their competitor’s product?  Must a radio station give equal time to positions it believes to be false?

If I am a doctor, and I believe that my friend has cancer, but another doctor does not, must I give equal emphasis to the opposing viewpoint when urging him to get treatment?  Is it immoral for me not to do so?

And what do you mean by “we should all” be fair and balanced?  Do you plan to force individuals to always equally represent both sides when they are speaking to other people?  Is this what you do, Mr. Schumer?

I will grant that it is immoral to knowingly deceive, but to simply present a viewpoint you believe to be correct, is that immoral?  On the contrary, if I believe something of great moral or practical significance to be true, and yet when I am speaking to another person about it I do not reveal my own beliefs, but equally present both sides, then I am engaging in morally questionable behavior.  Do I not have the responsibility to tell what I believe to be the truth?

The Fairness Doctrine, repealed during the Ronald Reagan administration, would require radio stations to balance conservative talk hosts with liberal ones.

In a Fox interview Tuesday morning, the senator from New York was asked if he supported telling radio stations what their content should be.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air,” Schumer said.

“I am for that . . . But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

First of all, perhaps we should not regulate pornography on the air.  But making sure that a six year old does not turn on the radio and hear people having sex on the air is not the same thing as making sure they don’t turn on the radio and hear Rush Limbaugh.  If we apply Schumer’s “fairness” rule to porn, I suppose we should allow porn on the air as long as we balance it with abstinence education radio programs.

The six year old who accidentally hears Rush Limbaugh will not be harmed any more than he will be by listening to Obama’s left-leaning speeches.  Do we need to balance every Obama speech by with a conservative speech? 

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, told The Hill newspaper: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Of course.  It is always wise to hear both sides of the story, but who are you, our parents?  let me interpret Durbin’s doublespeak for you:

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that Americans cannot think for themselves.”

Unfortunately, judging by the outcome of the recent election, Durbin may be right.  But even that does not give the government the right to force private businesses to air anything, much less unprofitable and unpopular liberal talk radio programs.

And of course, they will not apply this doctrine to the liberal media, only to radio, because their motive is to silence the conservatives.  This is standard operating procedure for socialists:  silence the opposition.  ”Oh yes,”  they proclaim, “we love freedom of thought and speech…  as long as it does not threaten our power.”

No doubt they will claim that the conservative hosts are “deceitful” or ”harmful”.  They will claim that these conservative viewpoints have were disproven by economists and scientists ages ago, and so they cannot be allowed to deceive the public.  That is what they will say.  But they lie. 

They lie, but they are right about one thing:  The American people have lost the ability to reason, and I do not doubt that the majority will not oppose the “Fairness” Doctrine.  Like the serfs they have become, they will whine for their government lords to protect them from the conservative “lies.”

Why Obama won: The change that was coming to America.

Obama’s win last night was not a miracle, nor was it due only to Obama’s charismatic charlatanism.  It was due to a change that has been taking place gradually in America for 100 years–a change from individualism, freedom, and self-determination to an attitude of dependency and mutual plunder.  Americans now want the government to take care of them, and Obama, with his socialistic rhetoric and pseudo-religious emotional code words and socialistic philosophy, promised to take care of them.  And there is no doubt he will try.  But be not deceived, as the government takes more of your responsibility, it takes more of your freedom and you right to self-determination.

I know.  The people don’t care about such things.  Just make sure they are healthy and well-fed and comfortable.  They don’t care if there lives are controlled by the state.  They are no longer men, but beasts, begging for food from their masters.

I am saddened by this election, but not just because we have elected a pro-abortion, anti-gun socialist.  I am saddened because of the extent to which the American people have descended into servile depency on the government.  As long as this attitude prevails, the candidate who promises more government cash (redistribution) will prevail. 

And I have little hope that a change in this attitude will come soon.  Socialistic policies reinforce themselves in the minds of the people as the people become dependent on them, as we have on social security, welfare, medicare, etc.

But I will not join them in there frenzy to plunder each other through taxes and government programs.  I will not join them in their descent.  Let them all become beasts and slobber over the government bowl filled with food taken from those that earned it.  Let them lick their master’s hand as they beg for more.  Let them fawn as their master pats their heads and assures them he will take care of them.

They are no longer men, but beats.

The death of science: “Nature” endorses Obama

The “premiere” scientific journal, Nature, recently endorsed Barack Obama for president.  Science is dead.  No wonder people are skeptical of scientists when they squawk about global warming and other immanent disasters.  They no longer even pretend at objectivity.  They are no longer scientists.  They are politicians.  How can we trust them to be objective at all, especially on issues that bear on political decisions?

Change we can believe in: Your Healthcare run by the DMV.

Will more government involvement improve our health care system?  It’s easy to answer this:  Just imagine your health care program run by the Department of Motor Vehicles.