Wednesday, December 9, 2009
$140 Billion For Another Stimulus Bill
Let me see if I get what is happening here. Stimulus I was a success according to the Democrats. Even though Stimulus I isn't spent yet we are going to add in a jobs creation Stimulus II. What was the Pork Bill, I mean Stimulus I, suppose to do again? Something doesn't smell right will this one but I'm sure some DemocRats will try and blame Bush or the Republicans for it. That one never gets old. Does heavy wasteful spending really work in creating jobs? If so then prove it. The nice thing is they made Porkulus II vague so they have lots of room to steal more of our money while we do nothing. This is nothing more then embezzlement from we the people. Our government is not above the law and it is high time we do something about it. Take a good look at where the first Porkulus bill went. That first stimulus was suppose to help stimulate jobs growth. It was suppose to be shovel ready and it wasn't. It was suppose to fix unemployment under 8% and we are at over 10%. And the left do have reason to be pissed also. Gitmo,Afghanistan,Iraq,Patriot Act,Lobbiest,Transparency,Greater Deficit Spending and Debt are all subject the left should be pissed about and are. Once the other 47% wake up and take a look around they will bail on the Democratic sinking ship too. I just hope that the left don't blame the color of his skin for being a failure. The do put a lot of stock in the color of ones skin. But I'm sure the majority of liberals view the color of ones skin to be of no consequence just like MLK looked at character over color. What are your thoughts and opinions on this subject?
Glenn Beck Shows Us Presidential Cabinet Appointments Based on Private Sector Knowledge
Glenn Beck Shows Us Presidential Cabinet Appointments Based on Private Sector Knowledge
I began to further consider the practical implications of this lack of privet sector guidance. Intuitively, one would conclude that a group of policymakers who don’t understand business and capitalism probably would not have a clue about making public policy that is friendly to business. And indeed, this appears to be the case. At every turn, the Obama administration is promoting legislative action that is harmful to businesses - new taxes, regulations and other economically harmful policies.
This ignorance of what drives the private sector was proven by Barack Obama himself this week, at his so-called “Jobs Summit,” where the POTUS stated:
And now we come to the by-product of the Administration’s disconnect on private sector economics. If the policies of Barack Obama are truly damaging to business, we would expect to see that demonstrated in the marketplace. And indeed we’ve seen it. Remember this diagram showing the trajectory of the unemployment rate, despite the grandiose “stimulus” program implemented by the Left?
Obviously the business community didn’t respond to the “stimulus” as the Obamites anticipated. Strike one on understanding the private sector. But that’s not all.
At the recent “Baird Industrial Outlook” conference in Chicago, David Farr, CEO of St. Louis-based Emerson Electric, stated:
Farr is not the only business person expressing such opinions. The WSJ reports:
We should have known this would happen. We received a hint from none other than Rep. Barney Frank, when, in September, 2008, Frank stated “‘THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it.” Compare and contrast with Ronald Reagan, who famously stated “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Emerson’s Farr is by no means the only business leader who finds the Democrats’ policies threatening to their company’s survival. Businesses are not going to begin hiring again until they are comfortable that the economy and government policies will allow them to be profitable without having to resort to cost-cutting to maintain margins. The prospects of business-friendly policies emanating from Capitol Hill are quite dim at this point, and the Obama administration’s sheer lack of experience in private sector fundamentals is most certainly a primary factor in the lack of job growth in the marketplace.
To borrow from Reagan, “Barack Obama’s policies are not the solution to the problem; Barack Obama is the problem.”
This ignorance of what drives the private sector was proven by Barack Obama himself this week, at his so-called “Jobs Summit,” where the POTUS stated:
Despite the progress we’ve made, many businesses are still skittish about hiring. Some are still digging themselves out of the losses they incurred over the past year. Many have figured out how to squeeze more productivity out of fewer workers. And that cost-cutting has become embedded in their operations and in their culture. That may result in good profits, but it’s not translating into hiring and so that’s the question that we have to ask ourselves today: How do we get businesses to start hiring again?Heaven forbid! Productivity? Profits? Does Mr. Obama believe that businesses exist to hire people? I’m sorry, sir, but it is ALL about the profits. Productivity, and in turn, profitability, is improved either by enabling a constant number of people to produce more, or by reducing the number of people and maintaining constant production. New hiring may improve producTION, but not necessarily producTIVITY. Obama’s ideology, like that of his staffies, is disconnected from the realities of a capitalistic economy. And the policies he supports are similarly disconnected.
And now we come to the by-product of the Administration’s disconnect on private sector economics. If the policies of Barack Obama are truly damaging to business, we would expect to see that demonstrated in the marketplace. And indeed we’ve seen it. Remember this diagram showing the trajectory of the unemployment rate, despite the grandiose “stimulus” program implemented by the Left?
Obviously the business community didn’t respond to the “stimulus” as the Obamites anticipated. Strike one on understanding the private sector. But that’s not all.
At the recent “Baird Industrial Outlook” conference in Chicago, David Farr, CEO of St. Louis-based Emerson Electric, stated:
“Washington is doing everything in their manpower, capability, to destroy U.S. manufacturing,…Cap and trade, medical reform, labor rules.”That is the voice of a man who understands the responsibility of a private-sector corporation and the antagonism of the Obama administration against businesses in the United States. Mr. Farr’s position is unfortunate, as no one wants to see an American company ship jobs offshore. But as Farr states, his job is to grow returns to shareholders. He must do this in spite of the anti-business policies of the government. Strike two for the Obama administration.
…
“What do you think I am going to do?” Farr asked. “I’m not going to hire anybody in the United States. I’m moving. They are doing everything possible to destroy jobs.”
…
“We as a company today are putting our best people, our best technology and our best investment in these marketplaces to grow,” he said. “My job is to grow that top line, grow my earnings, grow my cash flow and grow my returns to the shareholders. My job is not to shrink and roll over for the U.S. government.”
Farr is not the only business person expressing such opinions. The WSJ reports:
A number of chief executives say the government should clear up uncertainty over health care, energy prices and financial regulations. “Companies large and small are saying, ‘I am not going to do anything until these things — health care, climate legislation — go away or are resolved,’ ” said Dan DiMicco, chief executive of steelmaker Nucor Corp.USA Today cites a similar example of trepidation due to Obama policies:
Porta-King of the St. Louis area, which makes prefabricated offices and other enclosures, cut spending on new gear from $1 million a year to less than $100,000 in the slump and isn’t planning an increase next year. Like Lubrano, Porta-King CEO Steve Schulte worries that proposals in Congress to tackle climate change and overhaul health care would raise costs. “It’s going to be survival mode in 2010.”Strike three. You’re out, Mr. President (Or at least we hope that will be the case in 2012)
We should have known this would happen. We received a hint from none other than Rep. Barney Frank, when, in September, 2008, Frank stated “‘THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it.” Compare and contrast with Ronald Reagan, who famously stated “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Emerson’s Farr is by no means the only business leader who finds the Democrats’ policies threatening to their company’s survival. Businesses are not going to begin hiring again until they are comfortable that the economy and government policies will allow them to be profitable without having to resort to cost-cutting to maintain margins. The prospects of business-friendly policies emanating from Capitol Hill are quite dim at this point, and the Obama administration’s sheer lack of experience in private sector fundamentals is most certainly a primary factor in the lack of job growth in the marketplace.
To borrow from Reagan, “Barack Obama’s policies are not the solution to the problem; Barack Obama is the problem.”
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Government By Wishfull Thinking
Way back in the depths of time, Greek philosophers ended up with two basic and incompatible ways of looking at the universe. One way was materialism, which says that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works.
That’s the world view of engineers and scientists — and businessmen, for that matter. It’s the world view of people who understand and use mathematics, and statistics. It is a place where cause leads to effect. It’s the place that game theory studies. It isn’t necessarily inherently atheistic; a lot of religious people live in the materialist world.
But there are people who don’t. A different epistemological view is teleology, which says that the universe is an ideal place. More or less, it
exists so that we humans can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly believe in something, it’ll happen. Wikipedia says:
At least, that’s the distorted form of Teleology that has come down to some of us in the modern era, mainly on the left wing. Aristotle probably wouldn’t recognize his red-headed step child as it exists today, though. Like many philosophically pure ideas adopted into popular culture, it’s gotten mutated nearly beyond recognition and almost all the mutations were negative.
One way to compare and contrast those two world views is to consider what they think about socialism. Materialists look at history since Marx and point out that socialism has been tried many times, in many nations, in various forms, and it has always failed. In places where it was fully implemented the result was decline and economic collapse. When it was only partially implemented you got slower decline. It often looks like it’s working in the early stages, but in the longer term it has never succeeded.
So to materialists, it’s apparent that socialism is a nice idea, but one that doesn’t work and shouldn’t be adopted.
To teleologists, none of that matters. What matters is the fact that it’s a beautiful idea. It’s how things should be. In a world in which socialism was implemented and which worked the way the teleologists think it should work, you really would have a utopia. The fact that it’s invariably failed when used doesn’t change any of that. (When asked to explain all the failures, usually the answer is, “They didn’t do it right.” But for teleologists, a long string of failures doesn’t matter because fundamentally teleologists don’t believe things like that make any difference.)
It’s teleologists who drive around with bumper stickers that say, “Imagine world peace.” I can imagine it just fine. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime, though. Why would they want me to imagine it?
It’s because teleologists believe that human thought truly affects things. Of course it does; thought precedes action, and actions change history, right? Yeah, but that’s not the point. Teleologists believe that thought directly affects things. The mere act of thinking about something and wanting it a lot directly changes reality, even if the thought doesn’t get translated into action.
It was teleologists who were mainly involved in the anti-war movement about five years ago when it was at its greatest. I remember reading about how they’d have a demonstration somewhere. Lots of people would come out. They’d parade about carrying signs saying, “End the war!” Someone would burn a giant mockup of President Bush’s head. And afterwards they’d all talk about how successful the demonstration had been.
Successful how? It didn’t have any political effect that I ever noticed. The war didn’t end because of the demonstrations. So what was it that they thought was successful? Well, if you asked them they’d talk about how there was all sorts of positive vibes. How good it felt to be out there. And how so many people were feeling the same thing. Which sounds like masturbation, if you’re a materialist, but genuinely makes sense for a teleologist. They really thought that if enough of them got together and wanted the war to end strongly enough, it would spontaneously end. Not because getting enough voters on their side would have electoral consequences, but because the act of wanting it would directly bring that about.
To a materialist this sounds like insanity. It is, as Chip Morningstar memorably put it, “epistemologically challenged”. And it doesn’t survive real world test. But to teleologists, “real world tests” don’t matter. The teleological world view inherently rejects all of that stuff.
Why does teleology (in this mutated form) matter? Because right now we have a teleologist as our President.
Matthew Continetti says that we’re in “a year of magical thinking.” And to someone who has grown up with a materialist view of the universe, it could certainly seem that way. But what’s really going on is that Obama has this kind of world view. And that explains everything he’s done.
It explains his foreign policy. To a teleologists, it just makes sense that everyone should want to get along. If you unclench your fist and hold out
your hand, everyone else will unclench their fists, and become your friends. So Obama is doing that, and as we know the result has been a shambles.
That’s the world view of engineers and scientists — and businessmen, for that matter. It’s the world view of people who understand and use mathematics, and statistics. It is a place where cause leads to effect. It’s the place that game theory studies. It isn’t necessarily inherently atheistic; a lot of religious people live in the materialist world.
But there are people who don’t. A different epistemological view is teleology, which says that the universe is an ideal place. More or less, it
exists so that we humans can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly believe in something, it’ll happen. Wikipedia says:
A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.And in its modern form that final result is presumed to be creation of a world of peace and harmony, a utopia, in which all men live in peace and brotherhood, in harmony with nature.
At least, that’s the distorted form of Teleology that has come down to some of us in the modern era, mainly on the left wing. Aristotle probably wouldn’t recognize his red-headed step child as it exists today, though. Like many philosophically pure ideas adopted into popular culture, it’s gotten mutated nearly beyond recognition and almost all the mutations were negative.
One way to compare and contrast those two world views is to consider what they think about socialism. Materialists look at history since Marx and point out that socialism has been tried many times, in many nations, in various forms, and it has always failed. In places where it was fully implemented the result was decline and economic collapse. When it was only partially implemented you got slower decline. It often looks like it’s working in the early stages, but in the longer term it has never succeeded.
So to materialists, it’s apparent that socialism is a nice idea, but one that doesn’t work and shouldn’t be adopted.
To teleologists, none of that matters. What matters is the fact that it’s a beautiful idea. It’s how things should be. In a world in which socialism was implemented and which worked the way the teleologists think it should work, you really would have a utopia. The fact that it’s invariably failed when used doesn’t change any of that. (When asked to explain all the failures, usually the answer is, “They didn’t do it right.” But for teleologists, a long string of failures doesn’t matter because fundamentally teleologists don’t believe things like that make any difference.)
It’s teleologists who drive around with bumper stickers that say, “Imagine world peace.” I can imagine it just fine. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime, though. Why would they want me to imagine it?
It’s because teleologists believe that human thought truly affects things. Of course it does; thought precedes action, and actions change history, right? Yeah, but that’s not the point. Teleologists believe that thought directly affects things. The mere act of thinking about something and wanting it a lot directly changes reality, even if the thought doesn’t get translated into action.
It was teleologists who were mainly involved in the anti-war movement about five years ago when it was at its greatest. I remember reading about how they’d have a demonstration somewhere. Lots of people would come out. They’d parade about carrying signs saying, “End the war!” Someone would burn a giant mockup of President Bush’s head. And afterwards they’d all talk about how successful the demonstration had been.
Successful how? It didn’t have any political effect that I ever noticed. The war didn’t end because of the demonstrations. So what was it that they thought was successful? Well, if you asked them they’d talk about how there was all sorts of positive vibes. How good it felt to be out there. And how so many people were feeling the same thing. Which sounds like masturbation, if you’re a materialist, but genuinely makes sense for a teleologist. They really thought that if enough of them got together and wanted the war to end strongly enough, it would spontaneously end. Not because getting enough voters on their side would have electoral consequences, but because the act of wanting it would directly bring that about.
To a materialist this sounds like insanity. It is, as Chip Morningstar memorably put it, “epistemologically challenged”. And it doesn’t survive real world test. But to teleologists, “real world tests” don’t matter. The teleological world view inherently rejects all of that stuff.
Why does teleology (in this mutated form) matter? Because right now we have a teleologist as our President.
Matthew Continetti says that we’re in “a year of magical thinking.” And to someone who has grown up with a materialist view of the universe, it could certainly seem that way. But what’s really going on is that Obama has this kind of world view. And that explains everything he’s done.
It explains his foreign policy. To a teleologists, it just makes sense that everyone should want to get along. If you unclench your fist and hold out
your hand, everyone else will unclench their fists, and become your friends. So Obama is doing that, and as we know the result has been a shambles.
It explains his economic policy. Teleologists inherently don’t believe in unintended side effects when it comes to implementing their idealistic policies. Obviously it should be possible to provide free health care to everyone without wrecking the economy; it’s just how things really should be, so that’s how it will be. Where will the money come from? That’s the kind of question that materialists ask; teleologists don’t concern themselves with such trivial. It’ll happen somehow, because it’s obviously how it should turn out. To say we shouldn’t do it is to be heartless, uncaring — and those things are more important than mundane claims that it won’t work. If you just believe, it will work.
Of course, it won’t work. The materialists are right about that. But when it fails (if it gets tried) the teleologists will blame the negative vibes of all the materialist doubters for the failure. If only they’d come on board and supported it, then it would have come out OK.
It explains his dealings with Congress in general. He has been telling Congress in very general terms what he wants from them, and seems to think that this is all he really has to do. He wants the bills enough so that Congress will spontaneously create exactly the bills he wants and send them to him as soon as he says. Nothing else need be done by him except to want them.
The teleological world view on the left has been a factor in American politics to a greater or lesser extent since the 1960’s, but this is the first time it was largely in control. And the most likely outcome of it is to make most Americans understand just how deeply worthless, and outright damaging, it is. Which, in the long run, will be very good for America.
The only concern is that we can come through the remaining three years of Obama’s first (and almost certainly his only) term of office without sustaining irreparable damage. If Congress had moved at the speed Obama wanted them to, we might have suffered such damage, but now that we’ve almost made it through his first year and are moving into an election year, with public opinion polls moving strongly against Obama and his policies, I am becoming cautiously optimistic that we can survive this. writen by Steven Den Beste original post by Hotair.
Presidential Approval Ratings Through History
GW Bush 86% Bill Clinton 52% GHW Bush 71% Ronald Reagan 49% Jimmy Carter 57% Gerald Ford 52% Nixon 59% Lyndon Johnson 74% John Kennedy 77% Eisenhower 69% Harry Truman 49% and for the number you have all been waiting to hear BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA with and approval rating of a all time low of 47%. I remember when the left used to throw Obama's high approval rating in our face. But what they forget is like the Nobel Peace Prize Obama didn't do anything to get such high ratings. Now that American know who our president is they don't like him much. This is an anecdotal post but fun none the less. heeeheeeheeee
The Unseen War/Can Obama And Congress Win In Afghanistan?
| |
It seems our media has forgotten about our war dead since Bush left office and Obama stepped in. And it also seems like all the drumbs the left were beating have gotten much quiter. Obama is trying to fight these wars but is he up for the task of winning the wars? So far he has only shown us and the world that he can campain and organize a community. Obama talked a good game but now that he has to play it is he up for it? Is Obama the right man to lead America into victory? If not then we must go ASAP before one more person dies. But if Obama can lead us to victory then we must fight to win this war as it is a "good war".
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Science Is In.Oops It's Out Again.
Video: Climate-Gate Prof Calls Skeptic A-Hole Why Is This Prof So Pissed? Is It Because His Science Is A Fake? At least the rest of the world is talking about the biggest scientific event since Lucy was found out to be a fake. I expect this to hurt the Democrats and liberals a lot. The rest of the world are blaming the US for all of this BS. If this turns out to be a big scam on the world then we are in big trouble. Most conservatives aren't suprised by this news of the Democratic Scam Climategate. They said we were going to have an ice age,drought,floods you name it they have clamed it. This "man made global warming" scam stuck and some people bought into it like a bunch of dumb lemmings. To the lemming on the left it is like there is no God. The left worship Mother Nature at the same time telling us liberalism isn't a religion. I have no problem with your choice of a god. I just find it funny that you deny that it hasn't taken the role of a religion.
Obamacare Will Cost We The People
Blue Cross Group Blasts Health Reform Legislation
Premiums will rise up to 50 percent for individual policies and 19 percent for small group plans if healthcare reform passes, a new report released by a major health industry trade group claims.
Sponsored by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and conducted by Oliver Wyman Inc., the report faults reform legislation for lacking a strong individual mandate. Requiring healthy Americans to purchase reform would help offset costs for the millions of people with health problems who would purchase insurance policies under the new system, the study finds.
Sponsored by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and conducted by Oliver Wyman Inc., the report faults reform legislation for lacking a strong individual mandate. Requiring healthy Americans to purchase reform would help offset costs for the millions of people with health problems who would purchase insurance policies under the new system, the study finds.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Jon Stewart On Climategate
Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 12:34 PM
Wesley J. Smith
It’s sad when Jon Stewart on the Comedy Channel does the MSM’s job. Climategate is a huge and growing scandal, and yet many outlets continue to pretend it is just powdered sugar, while the NYT won’t even report what was in the e-mails based on “policy” (even though it linked directly to the stolen Sarah Palin e-mails). But Jon Stewart sees clearly that catastrophic has been done to the cause of global warming hysteria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)