Monday, July 9, 2012

Obama's War on America

At what point will President Obama man up and take responsibility for the mess he has created?
This continues to be the longest streak — 41 months — of unemployment of 8% or higher since the Great Depression. (Pethokoukis)
Thanks to government fudging and statistical manipulation, our official unemployment rate is 8.2% instead of the being over 10% where it really belongs. Obama and his team of the economically ignorant promised us 5.6% by now, and the hopium smokers believed them..

 Why does Obama Hate Black People?
The unemployment rate for white men and women was unchanged at 7.4 percent, while 184,000 more black American's went without a job in June, for an unemployment rate of 14.4 percent. (Business Insider
Why is Obama Punishing Latinos?
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for blacks (14.4 percent) edged up over the month, while the rates for adult men (7.8 percent), adult women (7.4 percent), teenagers (23.7 percent), whites (7.4 percent), and Hispanics (11.0 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.3 percent in June (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier.(Weekly Standard
Why is Obama Waging War on Women?
The number of women unemployed in June was 5,785,000, an increase of 780,000 from when Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 – at that time, the number of unemployed women in the United States was 5,005,000. (CNS)
We need jobs, Mr. President, not billowy rhetoric and constant campaigning. You and your party shout angry diatribes against George Bush and the Republicans while bribing the various constituency groups, but how about getting government out of the way and allowing the private sector, hard working men and women of all colors and creeds, to drive this recovery?

"It doesn't have to be this way"

We need a president who understands job creation. Mitt Romney has created jobs, Obama has been a miserable, Carteresque failure, which is unfair to Carter, since he was actually a better president.

Here's Romney's plan. You can argue that it is just words, but that is what campaigns are about, and he has the track record to back it up...
"I have a plan," Romney said. "My plan calls for action that will get America working again and create good jobs.
Both near and long-term. It includes finally taking advantage of energy resources and creating energy jobs and convincing manufacturers that energy will be available and low cost in America.
It means opening up new markets for American trade, particularly in Latin America where the opportunities are extraordinary and cracking down on china when they cheat and making sure they don't steal our jobs and bringing tax rates down.
Cutting out the exemptions and deductions and loopholes that are unfair in many cases. In other cases we will limit the deductions so that we maintain our revenue through growth and limning of special deals and bringing tax rates down so they are competitive and attractive for jobs to come back to America." (Romney quoted in the Weekly Standard)
Obama's response? Another BS-fueled campaign outing. He launched his "Betting on American Stupidity" reelection tour, commandeering a foreign-made bus and driving it through states and municipalities destroyed by progressivism...


Always On Watch said...

Good essay, Silverfiddle.

Are American voters such sheeple that they believe the BS that the Obama Campaign is dishing out?

Always On Watch said...


LD Jackson said...

It amazes me that so many Americans are so blinded to what Obama is doing. Even with the evidence right before their eyes, they continue to believe the rhetoric and the lies being espoused by this administration and its friends. I just hope enough of them wake up to the facts and realize how important it is for us to remove him from office in November.

Ducky's here said...

So what would you do, Silverfiddle? Some good old tinkle down economics?

Lower taxes again on the job creators? That sure worked.

The old bromide about reducing regulations? Have you bee paying attention to the LIBOR rte rigging? We can sure trust them to regulate themselves, right?
How about the report on the Fukushima disaster. There's an example of corporate responsibility.

Or you could come to your senses and see that there has been a fundamental change in our economy that isn't going to yield to standard policies.

Yeah, let's do something bold and build the Keystone pipeline. Or sign a few more NAFTA's.

Pardon me if I say you are as clueless as Romney. Of course The Black Messiah doesn't have much of an idea except fellating the banksters so until we realize there has been a fundamental shift and stop listening to these clowns we are screwed.

Silverfiddle said...

A comparison of Reagan's first term against Obama's completely shreds your argument Ducky.

Hack said...

Trickle down economics does work and the Reagan recovery is evidence of it. It boggles my mind that liberals continue to completely overlook this seemingly simple fact. Concerning this coming election, the economy is going to be the deciding factor. Not social issues or any Dem crafted diversion. Not that Osama got killed and not birth control. The Obama legacy is becoming increasingly more clear. Economic FAILURE. 20 years down the road are people going to look at Obama's failed economy and say, "Well it was Bush's fault." No. Obama owns this pathetic, wretched economy and he always will and no amount of political BS is ever going to change it. Mitt Romney, while many on both sides don't like him, is the perfect candidate in this political climate and era. He is going to make an outstanding president and yes, he will be president. Obama has run out of time and independents have zero reason to vote for him.

Ducky's here said...


Saint Ronnie Raygun starts a few equity bubbles.

Institutes a middle class tax hike.

Savings and loan scandal gives us a taste of what's to come?

Volcker was the one who gave us the medicine.

However, my argument is that you have nothing new, just the same old supply side bullshit that got us here thanks to Saint Ronnie Raygun, Clintoon, Chucklenuts and The Black Messiah and we know have a fundamental change in the economy that isn't going to respond to this nonsense.

Train in the tunnel, Silverfiddle and sitting around getting high sniffing your souvenir sample of Saint Ronnie Raygun's rotting brain tissue isn't going to help.

That buffoon shreds nothing.

Silverfiddle said...

Yeah, those 20 million new jobs and doubling of GDP was just all bs...

Let's try soviet style command economics! It's worked so well!

Ducky's here said...

Doubling the economy? Are you insane?

But go ahead and elect Romney and let him green light the Likud bulletheads to attack Iran and you'll really see a collapse.

I predict you will get what you deserve.

conservativesonfire said...

Is the sqawking duck suggesting a trickle-up economy woid be better?

Too many people buy Obama's meme that it was the policies of GW Bush that brought our economy down and that Romney would give us more of the same. Bush was a crap president, but he didn0t cause the financial collapse; Bill (Slick Willy) Clinton did and no one on either side has even tried to correctly explain that truism.

Whether Romney can or can not turn our economy around depends, in large part, on what happens in Europe. If Europe dies in slow motion, Romney has a chance. If Euroe crashes on Romney's watch, he will get the blame like Bush got the blame for Clinton's misdeeds.

Silverfiddle said...

The fundamental issue here is government failing to exercise its proper role in the marketplace.

Demand economies do not work. Unchecked oligarchs will rape and rob us blind.

Between those two prospects lies the free market, which government seems to have a hard time policing intelligently.

Bunkerville said...

Why it seems so hard to create jobs beats me. Every turn Obama stifles growth. You name it. Pipeline to EPA regs. Shutting down coal. I could go on but what's the point.

Z said...

Gad, how many times can leftwingers ignore the stats SF cites here start slamming Reagan and Romney? I'll admit it must feel better than paying attention to SF's truths here, but it's getting wearisome to read.

ROmney needs to hammer this stuff home...he'll win then. I'd fire ALL of his advisers YESTERDAY and get REALLY REALLY tough people (maybe even liars) like Axelrod and Jarrett and all the other obfuscating or lying henchmen like Obama has. ANd it'll still be tough with our media.

Rational Nation USA said...

As people argue over which of the two statist candidates is the lesser of two evils the answer lies elsewhere, in a different candidate.

Either Obama or Mittens will result in a continuation of the status qou. And the American people continue to pay the price for Leviathan.

Those who really want positive change will vote for it. Their vote will be for neither Mittens or Obama.

Finntann said...

It's obvious... we need higher taxes and more handouts, that always works to get the economy going.

An electric car in every pot!

-rolls eyes-

Z said...

"Those who really want positive change will vote for it."

and then Obama wins. You might still think that's positive change, I don't. We all have to wake up and realize that America's again picked two people who probably THOUSANDS of Americans could do a FAR better job than (Including SF or Finntann), but these are the cards we're dealt (again) and we can't afford Obama for another four years...not with the SCOTUS changes coming.

Silverfiddle said...

Z: I agree. It's a two car race.

Ducky's here said...

Corporate profits have been rising at the expense of labor for a while now. Why is labor going to be able to claw back anything in a period of *+% unemployment?

The wealth transfer will continue and your hope has to be that the next bubble isn't successively worse as they have been since Saint Ronnie Raygun really got trickle down moving along.

Watch it all blow up in your face.

Jersey McJones said...

Anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to go back to a full one-party state, in the White House, the Hill, and the courts, is neither a conservative nor a libertarian, not an objectivist nor a constructionist, but just a complete buffoon and a moron.


Mark Adams said...

Federal Debt has been rising as a threat to "Corporate profits... (all) at the expense of labor for a while now." Especially in the last 3.5 years.
There's the trickledown economics for ya.

Rational Nation USA said...

And as long as people believe this it remains a two car race forever. A race to the cliff.

Enjoy the fall.

Rational Nation USA said...

Your insults are not necessary nor helpful jmj. The fact is however, I agree a one party government is not the answer.

Steve said...

We have a one party State.
What energy is Romney talking about? Oil? We would lose a competitive race on oil. We could win a race on a new energy source, especially if we lead in its R&D and production.
Most countries are in worse financial shape than America. How will Romney boost trade when no one is buying?
Details are lacking.

Rational Nation USA said...


Finntann said...

Ducky/Jersey, Your mouths are running, but nothing constructive ever comes out. You can bitch and whine all you want, but until you offer viable alternatives, nothing will change.

You both consistently make cases against things, honestly the easiest case to make. You have some grand vision for this country? Why don't you espouse it and convince us to jump on board?

Frankly, I'm tired of the blame game... it's Bush's fault, it's Clinton's fault, it's Reagan's fault... really? Reagan hasn't been president for a quarter of a century, might as well blame Garfield at this point.


FreeThinke said...

WOWEEE!!! 200-odd posts on the theology and the moralistic and legalistic aspects of homosexuality over two consecutive threads, and only 25 here concerning our economic future, our right to pursue happiness as we see fit, and our freedom to express ourselves honestly without fear of imprisonment, torture or summary execution.

No wonder the country is swirling down the drain!

~ FreeThinke

FreeThinke said...

I agree with Les to a certain extent. I was -- and remain -- terribly disappointed and disillusioned that Romney became "our" candidate. He was the most wooden, least dynamic, least creative, least passionate and most stagnant.

HOWEVER, I WILL vote for him if only in hopes of getting rid of Obama's arrogant, shit-eating grin on my TV screen.

Romney has n charisma, but at least he's NOT Burrito Hussein Obama and there is no doubt whatsoever that he is a natural-born American citizen AND a Christian.

~ FreeThinke

Liberalmann said...

Why are you such a lapdog and shameless liar?

Ducky's here said...

Ducky/Jersey, Your mouths are running, but nothing constructive ever comes out. You can bitch and whine all you want, but until you offer viable alternatives, nothing will change.

Freaking unreal. You want to elect another supply side moron and you talk about alternatives?

Look Beavis, we've been digging this hole since 1980. So let's stop digging the damn hole, okay.

Let's start by demanding the money gets out of the system and demand an amendment to permanently revoke Citizens United.
Then maybe thing can quit down so that you Libertarians in your little political sandbox can explain how we are going to reduce health care costs when we cede insurance to for profit insurers with an antitrust exemption.
I keep asking that one as a starter and no answer from Beavis.

Silverfiddle said...

Another moronic statement from the poisonous whiner Ducky...

Utopia's that way. Why don't you go find it?

Z said...

Ducky, Citizens United really scares you, doesn't it. I'd never heard of it till a week or so ago....

FreeThinke said...

Pardon my immense ignorance, but WHAT is Citizens United?

Is it anything like the Tea Party?

And by the way, whatever happened to the Tea Party?

We don't hear much about them in the news anymore, do we?

Are they just another spent force -- a flash in the pan -- fizzle?

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

An answer to my question ...

chirp chirp ...

Silverfiddle said...

Citizens United was a Supreme Court ruling that *Gasp* said not just people, but groups of people have a right to buy ads, including campaign adds.

Progressives hate free speech.

Z said...

SF...what's with that? As if it doesn't work both ways? Liberals hide better. It's just a fact.

Ducky's here said...

Answer the question on private insurers.

You've already proven you don't mind being owned and having elections bought suits your idea of freedom.
"Groups of people". Man you sure can spin it.

Silverfiddle said...

Private insurance should compete in a free market with no special exemptions or government handouts.

Silverfiddle said...

See? Unlike you, I can answer a question.

Now run along, there are unicorns and rainbows for you to chase...

Finntann said...

@Freaking unreal. You want to elect another supply side moron and you talk about alternatives?

Well, the alternative we have now seems to be working well (bangs head on wall)... I'll let the esteemed readers here compare current performance with past and come to their own conclusions.

"Let's start by demanding the money gets out of the system", can mean many things, although I think we are pretty much in agreement there. Obviously, money corrupts our electoral process, so how do you correct that? Post primary public funding? Equal air time? Demanding that money get out of the system is simply bitching... how do you get money out of the system? That is a subject for public debate, whining isn't.

"explain how we are going to reduce health care costs when we cede insurance to for profit insurers with an antitrust exemption"

I've answered that before, and am opposed to antitrust exemptions for insurance companies, as I believe SF is, and I think he's told you that.

How do you reduce health care costs when your only solution is to give them more money? As long as government is greasing the palms costs will remain where they are or go up. The answer to high costs is not more money, it is less purchasing.

Admittedly, the health care industry is in pretty much the same position as the mafia goon demanding protection money, they have an offer we can't refuse. The answer isn't to give them the money.

Has it ever occurred to you that we have unrealistic expectations regarding healthcare? Seriously, we wish to cram our bodies full of crap, sit on our asses and play nintendo, and expect government to come along and clean up the mess.

When did we get to the point at which we expect insurance to cover our daily driving? You auto insurance doesn't cover an oil change and new spark plugs, why should your health insurance cover routine doctor care? Your homeowner's insurance doesn't pay for the batteries in your smoke detector.

Aside from people with certain conditions... why shouldn't you pay more for the elevated cholesterol that results from what you are eating?

More often than not, for the vast majority of us, catastrophic medical conditions are self induced. It is not like we have Spanish Flu sweeping the country every few years wiping out millions. What we have is obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and other predominately self induced ailments draining the bank.

So when the doctor tells you that you need to stop eating a double-bacon-cheeseburger for lunch four times a week and you don't... should the rest of us be forced to pay for your coronary care?

We don't need laws banning salt on restaurant tables and trans-fats in food, limiting portion sizes of soft drinks... we need to suffer the consequences to our actions. I believe you've mentioned nieces and nephews? Do you run along side them as they ride their bikes just so you can be there to catch them if they start to fall?

There. There is a start to a discussion on our problems with health care.

Z said...

"You auto insurance doesn't cover an oil change and new spark plugs, why should your health insurance cover routine doctor care? Your homeowner's insurance doesn't pay for the batteries in your smoke detector."

Finntann, I could read your stuff forever. Excellent.

I suppose you've all seen this. I'll be blogging it soon, but while we're on the topic of health care...

Z said...

by the way, Finntann, I happened to watch O'Reilly tonight and he said he was in favor of gov't help only for catastrophic illness.

Would you be in favor of that?
SF, you?

Silverfiddle said...

Yes, Z. I have no problem with government stepping in as a last resort.

I've said it before, I don't want to see any family destitute because someone got a tragic illness.

FreeThinke said...

"Blessed re the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."

~ FT

Finntann said...

I have no objections to the government stepping in, in case of catastrophe.

Unfortunately for progressives, everything is a catastrophe requiring government intervention.

Salt on tables a catastrophe? Really! More like psycho nanny.


Z said...

SF and Finntann, glad to hear you agree... I feel the same way.
Sadly, Finntann, you're right...they can turn everything into a catastrophe (which generally leads to a new law being written, of course..if ONE person gets hot coffee spilled on him, ALL coffee must be served cooler, for example)

The left can't just let human beings BE, understanding that bad things DO happen. Even WITH a law :-)