Tuesday, September 11, 2012
What Recovery?
I keep hearing that this is the "weakest recovery since the Great Depression." The only thing I can respond to that is, "what recovery?"
Every economic indicator is still in the toilet. Unemployment hovers, officially, around 8%. If you look at the more realistic U6 measure, it's just under 15%. If the workforce were the same size today as it was when Obama took office, U3 would be over 11%.
No one is hiring. Big firms are firing. For many, there is no hope of a new job. For many of the rest, their hope lies in multiple jobs just to make ends meet.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration wasted over $800,000,000,000 dollars on a "stimulus" that only worsened the situation. They spend over half a billion dollars on the "green energy" company Solyndra, which promptly declared bankruptcy. They've lost over $55 million on the bailout of GM alone, at current valuation, while GM loses nearly $50,000.00 per volt sold, including the subsidies paid for by you, the taxpayer.
This isn't what recovery looks like. This is what the Great Depression looked like.
Barack Obama has had nearly four years to address this problem. Instead, he plays golf. It's time to fire the incompetent in office, and hire someone who has some clue how an economy works.
Every economic indicator is still in the toilet. Unemployment hovers, officially, around 8%. If you look at the more realistic U6 measure, it's just under 15%. If the workforce were the same size today as it was when Obama took office, U3 would be over 11%.
No one is hiring. Big firms are firing. For many, there is no hope of a new job. For many of the rest, their hope lies in multiple jobs just to make ends meet.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration wasted over $800,000,000,000 dollars on a "stimulus" that only worsened the situation. They spend over half a billion dollars on the "green energy" company Solyndra, which promptly declared bankruptcy. They've lost over $55 million on the bailout of GM alone, at current valuation, while GM loses nearly $50,000.00 per volt sold, including the subsidies paid for by you, the taxpayer.
This isn't what recovery looks like. This is what the Great Depression looked like.
Barack Obama has had nearly four years to address this problem. Instead, he plays golf. It's time to fire the incompetent in office, and hire someone who has some clue how an economy works.
Life Goes On...
Eleven years ago this morning, I was sitting in front of my computer, having just signed out of EverQuest where I played with some friends from work. We all worked the overnight shift, and would head home and play for a few hours. After logging out, I went to check my email and do some light browsing.
I'm not sure why I went to the MSN Home Page, it may have just been my unchanged default at the time. But I saw a graphic of the World Trade Center with smoke billowing out of one of the towers. I remember thinking, "that has to be a hoax." As I clicked through to some reporting, my sense of unreality only grew.
Then I turned on the TV and life changed. I had grown up in an America that was invincible. The last major attack against the US in US Territory was WWII. Pearl Harbor day was a day I only remembered because of its proximity to my birthday. My parents talked about being able to recall, with crystal clarity, where they were when they heard that JFK had been shot. I now understood what they were saying.
For the next seven years, September 11th was a day of sadness and resolution. We remembered those lost, and those who fought to make us safer; I'll never feel truly safe from this kind of attack again. George Bush would speak with that quiet strength of his convictions. We knew that someone who loved this country was watching, doing everything in his power to ensure this would never happen again.
Then, just over three and one half years ago, that changed. Barack Obama, a Marxist and neo-fuedalist, someone who hated what the United States had stood for for over two centuries, and who wanted to "fundamentally transform" her came into power. I remember that first September 11th after his inauguration almost as well as I recall the original. Other than the original, it was the first one when I'd cried for my country. I no longer believed that we had someone who loved this country watching to ensure a monstrosity like those attacks would never again occur.
And so it continues today. Back in 2001, Barack Obama blamed America for the attack, and said that the primary sin of the terrorists was "a lack of empathy." I believe that, to this day, that is still his outlook.
But life must continue. Please, comment here about your remembrances. Remember those who died because we failed to protect them. Remember those who died afterwords to destroy our enemies' ability to harm us. This will be the last post on 9-11-01 from me today. Because to honor the memories of those who have fallen, we must also work to reinstall someone who loves this country and what she stands for to the Presidency.
I'm not sure why I went to the MSN Home Page, it may have just been my unchanged default at the time. But I saw a graphic of the World Trade Center with smoke billowing out of one of the towers. I remember thinking, "that has to be a hoax." As I clicked through to some reporting, my sense of unreality only grew.
Then I turned on the TV and life changed. I had grown up in an America that was invincible. The last major attack against the US in US Territory was WWII. Pearl Harbor day was a day I only remembered because of its proximity to my birthday. My parents talked about being able to recall, with crystal clarity, where they were when they heard that JFK had been shot. I now understood what they were saying.
For the next seven years, September 11th was a day of sadness and resolution. We remembered those lost, and those who fought to make us safer; I'll never feel truly safe from this kind of attack again. George Bush would speak with that quiet strength of his convictions. We knew that someone who loved this country was watching, doing everything in his power to ensure this would never happen again.
Then, just over three and one half years ago, that changed. Barack Obama, a Marxist and neo-fuedalist, someone who hated what the United States had stood for for over two centuries, and who wanted to "fundamentally transform" her came into power. I remember that first September 11th after his inauguration almost as well as I recall the original. Other than the original, it was the first one when I'd cried for my country. I no longer believed that we had someone who loved this country watching to ensure a monstrosity like those attacks would never again occur.
And so it continues today. Back in 2001, Barack Obama blamed America for the attack, and said that the primary sin of the terrorists was "a lack of empathy." I believe that, to this day, that is still his outlook.
But life must continue. Please, comment here about your remembrances. Remember those who died because we failed to protect them. Remember those who died afterwords to destroy our enemies' ability to harm us. This will be the last post on 9-11-01 from me today. Because to honor the memories of those who have fallen, we must also work to reinstall someone who loves this country and what she stands for to the Presidency.
Have You Forgotten?
On September 11, 2001, Al Qaida terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes and destroyed countless thousands of lives.
Osama Bin Laden is now dead.
Sadam Hussein is now dead.
Al Qaida's ability to attack us has been disrupted but not destroyed. Other terrorist organizations still seek to kill us abroad and here at home.
Have you forgotten?
Osama Bin Laden is now dead.
Sadam Hussein is now dead.
Al Qaida's ability to attack us has been disrupted but not destroyed. Other terrorist organizations still seek to kill us abroad and here at home.
Have you forgotten?
Monday, September 10, 2012
That's My Girl
"And having just read up on it, I'm less than impressed with the act personally. I think having the initial 160 days to contest your pay is pleanty. If you're upset about it you should act accordingly, not sit around and wait. Extending the time period to 160 (or 180) days after any given paycheck is silly. Do I think women should get equal pay for equal work? Yes. Unfortunately there are a lot of women out there who don't do equal work but complain (under the guise of feminism) that they're not getting equal pay. If I'm being underpaid compared to my male coworkers for doing the same job, AND having the same qualifications, then you can bet your butt I'm gonna start trying to get that fixed. However, I know from experience that I've been paid less (once 10K a year less) than some of my coworkers (both male and female) for doing the same work (and sometimes doing it better) simply because I don't have a degree and they do. Is that fair? Is someone going to start suing over that now? The fact is most states are right to work and if you don't like they way you're being treated at your current job, find a new one. I guess what I'm saying is that yes, if the situation is correct equal pay is deserved no matter your gender but I don't think this bill helped in any way at all. In fact, it really looks like it may have opened the door to making things worse."
That long post was a reply from my wife to a friend of hers regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Act, passed (why?) by congress and signed by President Obama. Now, my wife is not particularly political. She picks up some from me, but mostly avoids political websites or news, so she didn't know about Lilly Ledbetter when it initially came up.
That email was about 10 minutes later. And she still didn't know about the fact that President Obama pays his female staff an average of 18% less than the men working for him. And Democrats accuse Republicans of hypocrisy.
Now, this post really has 3 points.
1) Almost any Democrat position can (and should be) debunked with minimal effort from someone who knows jack squat about anything.
2) Your views are important to people around you, and you can (and should) share them.
3) My wife is awesome, and that little nugget made my weekend.
If You Can't Say Something Nice...
Then shut up.
I've gone rounds with DrewM over at the Ace of Spades a few times, and I've never responded with a blog post about it, but I think this is important enough to be posted somewhere beyond just the comments section of the HQ.
Like DrewM, I was not a huge fan of Mitt Romney. I think he's a Northeastern Liberal Republican. I think he's got too much of the autocrat in him and views Government, if not as the solution, then at least as the vehicle for whatever the solution is. I still see him as "the man liberal enough to be elected Governor of Massachusetts."
Unlike DrewM, I've decided my personal problems with Mitt Romney pale when I consider the need to oust Barack Obama and get a Republican in the White House. My problems with Mitt Romney are problems of policy. My problems with Barack Obama are problems of fundamental ideology. Mitt Romney and I probably disagree about how big the Government should be. Barack Obama and I disagree about the relationship between Government and the People. Mitt Romney is an autocrat who believes in top-down solutions. Barack Obama is a neo-feudalist who believes I am a subject, not a citizen.
So if you're a conservative, and you want to make sure Barack Obama is evicted from his current residence in January of 2013, then I suggest you follow this advice. If you can't say something nice about Mitt Romney, then shut up and at least don't make the rest of us wast time answering your objections, too.
I've gone rounds with DrewM over at the Ace of Spades a few times, and I've never responded with a blog post about it, but I think this is important enough to be posted somewhere beyond just the comments section of the HQ.
Like DrewM, I was not a huge fan of Mitt Romney. I think he's a Northeastern Liberal Republican. I think he's got too much of the autocrat in him and views Government, if not as the solution, then at least as the vehicle for whatever the solution is. I still see him as "the man liberal enough to be elected Governor of Massachusetts."
Unlike DrewM, I've decided my personal problems with Mitt Romney pale when I consider the need to oust Barack Obama and get a Republican in the White House. My problems with Mitt Romney are problems of policy. My problems with Barack Obama are problems of fundamental ideology. Mitt Romney and I probably disagree about how big the Government should be. Barack Obama and I disagree about the relationship between Government and the People. Mitt Romney is an autocrat who believes in top-down solutions. Barack Obama is a neo-feudalist who believes I am a subject, not a citizen.
So if you're a conservative, and you want to make sure Barack Obama is evicted from his current residence in January of 2013, then I suggest you follow this advice. If you can't say something nice about Mitt Romney, then shut up and at least don't make the rest of us wast time answering your objections, too.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Swing States
So we know the national economy is bad, but what, exactly does that mean. If the truism "It's the Economy, Stupid" is correct, that bodes ill for the President. However, it's only [i]partially[/i] the economy. There are certain states that won't be swayed whatever the current economic situation.
Texas isn't going blue. New York isn't going red. So, just as the campaigns are doing, let's take a look at "things on the ground." This will require looking at State Government and State UE for swing states. For these purposes, I'll look at: Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. We'll look at which party holds the Governor's seat, which holds the legislature, and the state UE numbers according to The Department of Numbers, which does not reflect today's updates.
Colorado:
Governor: D
Legislature: Mixed
Unemployment: 8.3% - National Average
Florida:
Governor: R
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 8.8% (+.5%)
New Hampshire:
Governor: D
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 5.4% (-2.9%)
North Carolina:
Governor: D
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 9.6% (+1.3%)
Ohio:
Governor: R
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 7.2% (-1.1%)
Virginia:
Governor: R
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 5.9% (-2.4%)
Based on these, it looks like Republicans probably have a lot of persuading to do in Florida, though they're not far off the national average. Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina will be real fights for both parties, though Republicans probably have the edge based on the national economy. Ohio and Virginia, however, should be Republican locks. It's hard to argue against the party that has led your State economy to outperform the the national economy by more than one full percentage point.
This should greatly concern Democrats (since I don't see that they really have an economic edge in any of these), but Republicans also should not get complacent, even in Ohio and Virginia.
The biggest take away, though, is that in the three states completely controlled by Republicans, one is near the national average, and the other two outperform by considerable margins. Only New Hampshire does better, and even they have a Republican Legislature.
If it really is "the Economy, stupid" then I believe Romney and Ryan need to point to this as well- those states which are governed only by Republicans (using our sample) outperform the national economy 67% of the time, and by an average of one full percentage point, even factoring in the one which under-performs.
That's a good case for Republican economic leadership.
Texas isn't going blue. New York isn't going red. So, just as the campaigns are doing, let's take a look at "things on the ground." This will require looking at State Government and State UE for swing states. For these purposes, I'll look at: Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. We'll look at which party holds the Governor's seat, which holds the legislature, and the state UE numbers according to The Department of Numbers, which does not reflect today's updates.
Colorado:
Governor: D
Legislature: Mixed
Unemployment: 8.3% - National Average
Florida:
Governor: R
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 8.8% (+.5%)
New Hampshire:
Governor: D
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 5.4% (-2.9%)
North Carolina:
Governor: D
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 9.6% (+1.3%)
Ohio:
Governor: R
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 7.2% (-1.1%)
Virginia:
Governor: R
Legislature: R
Unemployment: 5.9% (-2.4%)
Based on these, it looks like Republicans probably have a lot of persuading to do in Florida, though they're not far off the national average. Colorado, New Hampshire, and North Carolina will be real fights for both parties, though Republicans probably have the edge based on the national economy. Ohio and Virginia, however, should be Republican locks. It's hard to argue against the party that has led your State economy to outperform the the national economy by more than one full percentage point.
This should greatly concern Democrats (since I don't see that they really have an economic edge in any of these), but Republicans also should not get complacent, even in Ohio and Virginia.
The biggest take away, though, is that in the three states completely controlled by Republicans, one is near the national average, and the other two outperform by considerable margins. Only New Hampshire does better, and even they have a Republican Legislature.
If it really is "the Economy, stupid" then I believe Romney and Ryan need to point to this as well- those states which are governed only by Republicans (using our sample) outperform the national economy 67% of the time, and by an average of one full percentage point, even factoring in the one which under-performs.
That's a good case for Republican economic leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)