Remember when George W Bush was accused of not caring about black people after Katrina hit New Orleans, a city with a nearly 70% black population, and prominent blacks and Democrats rushed to his defense pointing out that the city and state, who are the first responders in a disaster were both run by Democrats? Yeah, me neither. Pass it on.
Well, it turns out that Vermont, devastated by Irene, is the whitest state in America. Has Obama been there yet? How many FEMA trailers are on the ground today? Has power been restored to everyone? Is everyone in a shelter? Has the US Army or Navy been mobilized? Does everyone have food and water? Look, we had a whole week of dire warnings to prepare for this thing. This was not a surprise! Was Obama on vacation or something? I think Obama doesn’t care about white people!
Of course, both the accusation against Bush and my parody against Obama are ridiculous. The difference being I understand the idiocy, but Democrats including Obama rode that ginned-up hatred to electoral victory. Shameful. And dangerous.
Kanye West Accuses Bush of Not Caring About Black People
http://youtu.be/zIUzLpO1kxI
Vermont ranked as whitest state on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American
Spike Lee bashes Bush on Katrina response
http://www.bvnewswire.com/2011/05/24/spike-lee-calls-out-george-w-bush-for-katrina-response/
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Gibson Blues
First they came for Non-Union Toyota but I didn’t care because I drive a UAW pick-up.
Next they came for Non-Union Delta Airlines but I didn’t care because I don’t fly.
Then they came for the Non-Union Boeing Plant but I still didn’t care because I still don’t fly.
Now the Feds have raided Non-Union Gibson Guitars and I am really pissed-off because I’ve been saving my damn unemployment checks for a smokin’ Les Paul Custom which I could never afford if the price goes any higher!
These Reds are beginning to give me the Blues. (Apologies to Martin Niemoller)
Yesterday Gibson Guitars in Nashville Tennessee was raided by federal agents. At first, based on early reports, I thought this was a minor issue about exotic imported wood. NOT ON YER LIFE! This is friggin' serious and I believe it is about UNIONS and OBAMA'S JIHAD against non-union companies and right-to-work states. Here is a comment clipped from my research on the subject:
“Companies don't move south for the weather.
Tennessee is a Right to Work state and the reason Gibson moved operations there (from Michigan) was to avoid unions. They picked Tenn. over all the other union-unfriendly Southern states because of tax incentives offered to them, but they moved because of labor.”*
This is ominous and Gibson may be fighting for its non-union life, just like Toyota, Boeing, Delta, and others before it. Can you believe we live in a country where the full power of the federal government is blatantly used to selectively harass non-union businesses? I still can't believe it has come to this in our once "Free Country".
*Hat Tip: “Wyatt” on Harmony Central Forums
Update: If you are unfamiliar with the Toyota/Union connection, please follow the above Toyota link. Read it and weep.
Next they came for Non-Union Delta Airlines but I didn’t care because I don’t fly.
Then they came for the Non-Union Boeing Plant but I still didn’t care because I still don’t fly.
Now the Feds have raided Non-Union Gibson Guitars and I am really pissed-off because I’ve been saving my damn unemployment checks for a smokin’ Les Paul Custom which I could never afford if the price goes any higher!
These Reds are beginning to give me the Blues. (Apologies to Martin Niemoller)
Yesterday Gibson Guitars in Nashville Tennessee was raided by federal agents. At first, based on early reports, I thought this was a minor issue about exotic imported wood. NOT ON YER LIFE! This is friggin' serious and I believe it is about UNIONS and OBAMA'S JIHAD against non-union companies and right-to-work states. Here is a comment clipped from my research on the subject:
“Companies don't move south for the weather.
Tennessee is a Right to Work state and the reason Gibson moved operations there (from Michigan) was to avoid unions. They picked Tenn. over all the other union-unfriendly Southern states because of tax incentives offered to them, but they moved because of labor.”*
This is ominous and Gibson may be fighting for its non-union life, just like Toyota, Boeing, Delta, and others before it. Can you believe we live in a country where the full power of the federal government is blatantly used to selectively harass non-union businesses? I still can't believe it has come to this in our once "Free Country".
*Hat Tip: “Wyatt” on Harmony Central Forums
Update: If you are unfamiliar with the Toyota/Union connection, please follow the above Toyota link. Read it and weep.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Jobs Leaving!
The big news today was: "Jobs Leaving"! Isn't that the same headline we've had ever since Obama got elected? Jus askin'...
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Holder Announces Investigation!
Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the US Department of Justice will vigorously investigate any news outlet reporting on the downgrade of the structural integrity of the Washington Monument. The Washington Monument was apparently cracked during the recent earthquake, which according to administration officials was caused by a tectonic anomaly inherited from George W. Bush, and could have been much worse.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
It could have been much worse!
Barack Obama is claiming a major victory saying that were it not for him, the earthquake could have been much worse!
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Burning Down the House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis
I don't remember seeing this at the time. Wish more people had...
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Hinckleynomics
One of Newt Gingrich’s answers at the Iowa debate on Thursday (8/11/2011) reminded me how lucky we’ve been for the last 30 years. When asked about his qualifications to be President, Newt touted his experiences in congress both as a member and leader during periods of divided government when pro-growth policies nevertheless emerged. The two periods he referred to were the Reagan era Kemp-Roth Tax cuts, and the Clinton era Welfare reforms and capital gains cuts. While both those were in fact accomplished with divided government, I maintain they were very different, and one of them actually qualifies as a miracle.
Not all divided governments are equal. In Clinton’s case the legislature after ’95 was united under Republican leadership. That gave two thirds of the government to the pro-growth Republicans. To Clinton’s credit he went along and reluctantly signed the pro-growth agenda into law, but he was the minority who went along with the majority.
In Reagan’s case, the house was under hostile Democrat leadership and the Democrats could stop the Senate any time they wanted. How then did Reagan get to sign a sweeping pro-growth tax law? Much of that had to do with Reagan’s ability to go directly to the people, but there was another factor; Reagan was shot early in his presidency and within about 4 months, Kemp-Roth made it through congress.
Had Reagan not taken a bullet and built-up such a reservoir of good will and respect, would Democrats have given him his wish? We’ll never know, but I’m skeptical.
In other words, John Hinckley’s deranged act and poor marksmanship may be the reason we had almost 30 years of full employment and economic growth in the US. Sorry Newt, it wasn’t all you.
(Note: this piece was edited 4/2012 for inaccuracies.)
Not all divided governments are equal. In Clinton’s case the legislature after ’95 was united under Republican leadership. That gave two thirds of the government to the pro-growth Republicans. To Clinton’s credit he went along and reluctantly signed the pro-growth agenda into law, but he was the minority who went along with the majority.
In Reagan’s case, the house was under hostile Democrat leadership and the Democrats could stop the Senate any time they wanted. How then did Reagan get to sign a sweeping pro-growth tax law? Much of that had to do with Reagan’s ability to go directly to the people, but there was another factor; Reagan was shot early in his presidency and within about 4 months, Kemp-Roth made it through congress.
Had Reagan not taken a bullet and built-up such a reservoir of good will and respect, would Democrats have given him his wish? We’ll never know, but I’m skeptical.
In other words, John Hinckley’s deranged act and poor marksmanship may be the reason we had almost 30 years of full employment and economic growth in the US. Sorry Newt, it wasn’t all you.
(Note: this piece was edited 4/2012 for inaccuracies.)
Thursday, August 11, 2011
What is Gold?
Gold has been on a remarkable run lately. What is Gold and why is it worth so much more today? Gold is like idiot insurance. When you buy gold you are buying an insurance policy to protect you against the stupidity of idiots who may be interfering in monetary and economic matters. When idiots are in charge, and regularly doing stupid things, gold rises in value. ‘Nuff said.
So what is a stock and why are stocks struggling? Stocks are like genius coattails. When you buy a stock you are hitching a ride on the coattails of the geniuses who innovate and create value from nothing more than their own industry. Unfortunately, the same idiots who are driving up the value of gold are also interfering with the ability of geniuses to innovate and create value. When idiots are in charge, and regularly doing stupid things, stocks will eventually struggle. ‘Nuff said.
So what is a stock and why are stocks struggling? Stocks are like genius coattails. When you buy a stock you are hitching a ride on the coattails of the geniuses who innovate and create value from nothing more than their own industry. Unfortunately, the same idiots who are driving up the value of gold are also interfering with the ability of geniuses to innovate and create value. When idiots are in charge, and regularly doing stupid things, stocks will eventually struggle. ‘Nuff said.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Inept, Immoral, and Insane.
Barack Obama elbowed his way into our living rooms the other day and stole a quarter hour of our time to lecture us with the most vacuous poll-tested drivel imaginable from a President of the United States. I’ll leave the political analysis for the experts in that area and instead focus on the economic logic of President Obama’s poll-tested “balanced approach” to raising the debt ceiling.
By “balanced approach”, President Obama is referring to a mix of new revenues from higher taxes combined with some unspecified spending cuts. Sounds reasonable right? After all, why not use every tool available, including revenue, to close this dire budget gap? Besides, isn’t it Democrat lore that Bill Clinton raised taxes AND balanced the budget? Unfortunately, none of that is plausible, despite making for potent political rhetoric. Let’s review:
First of all, there is a ceiling on the amount of total tax revenue that can be collected and sustained. That amount is 18% of GDP. That’s not some number I’m making up. That number is proven by over 65 years of US tax collecting history and all the proclamations of politicians to the contrary cannot undo that reality. The top marginal rate fluctuated from as high as 92% to as low as 28% during that 65 year period, but the total take stayed rock solid OVER TIME at 18% of GDP. This is remarkable and irrefutable. Meanwhile, spending is at 25% of GDP and rising fast under the Obama spending blowout. Tax revenue cannot bridge the gap between 18% and 25%. Only lowering spending and growing GDP can do that, and tax hikes can only impede those goals.
Mention the above to any fan of higher taxes and they will immediately shoot back: “What about Clinton? Didn’t he raise taxes and balance the budget?” Ah yes, the Clinton “beer goggles” are potent indeed. Sure, Clinton did raise marginal tax rates on the very rich in 1993 from 31% to 39.6%, but he was also dragged into an across the board drop in the long-term capital gains rate by the Republicans who were swept into power in 1994. That drop, which eventually became law in 1997, was from an EFFECTIVE rate of 29.19% to 21.19%.* Remember, the income tax hike was only on those earning more than $250,000 while the lower capital gains rate was available to any tax-payer. The cap-gains drop actually had a more marked impact on revenue and growth as evidenced by the proliferation of tech-boom stock options and a stock market rally which began on the day after the election of the Republican congress and which fueled both metrics. In other words, Clinton ended up being a net tax CUTTER, and that fueled short term revenue growth as well as GDP growth! Unfortunately, it was all based on two bubbles (tech and housing) which soon burst and resulted in a regression back to the mean over several years. As for the balanced budget which Clinton will always be credited with? He was dragged kicking and screaming to it by a combination of the net tax cut and an unusually thrifty Republican congress. Democrats know all this, but they’re hoping you don’t.
Again, the politics of this approach I'll leave to the experts, but the economics are pretty clear: Inept, Immoral, and Insane.
* Although the published rates are different, the tax code is thousands of pages long and the EFFECTIVE rates are what matters. See link below:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161
By “balanced approach”, President Obama is referring to a mix of new revenues from higher taxes combined with some unspecified spending cuts. Sounds reasonable right? After all, why not use every tool available, including revenue, to close this dire budget gap? Besides, isn’t it Democrat lore that Bill Clinton raised taxes AND balanced the budget? Unfortunately, none of that is plausible, despite making for potent political rhetoric. Let’s review:
First of all, there is a ceiling on the amount of total tax revenue that can be collected and sustained. That amount is 18% of GDP. That’s not some number I’m making up. That number is proven by over 65 years of US tax collecting history and all the proclamations of politicians to the contrary cannot undo that reality. The top marginal rate fluctuated from as high as 92% to as low as 28% during that 65 year period, but the total take stayed rock solid OVER TIME at 18% of GDP. This is remarkable and irrefutable. Meanwhile, spending is at 25% of GDP and rising fast under the Obama spending blowout. Tax revenue cannot bridge the gap between 18% and 25%. Only lowering spending and growing GDP can do that, and tax hikes can only impede those goals.
Mention the above to any fan of higher taxes and they will immediately shoot back: “What about Clinton? Didn’t he raise taxes and balance the budget?” Ah yes, the Clinton “beer goggles” are potent indeed. Sure, Clinton did raise marginal tax rates on the very rich in 1993 from 31% to 39.6%, but he was also dragged into an across the board drop in the long-term capital gains rate by the Republicans who were swept into power in 1994. That drop, which eventually became law in 1997, was from an EFFECTIVE rate of 29.19% to 21.19%.* Remember, the income tax hike was only on those earning more than $250,000 while the lower capital gains rate was available to any tax-payer. The cap-gains drop actually had a more marked impact on revenue and growth as evidenced by the proliferation of tech-boom stock options and a stock market rally which began on the day after the election of the Republican congress and which fueled both metrics. In other words, Clinton ended up being a net tax CUTTER, and that fueled short term revenue growth as well as GDP growth! Unfortunately, it was all based on two bubbles (tech and housing) which soon burst and resulted in a regression back to the mean over several years. As for the balanced budget which Clinton will always be credited with? He was dragged kicking and screaming to it by a combination of the net tax cut and an unusually thrifty Republican congress. Democrats know all this, but they’re hoping you don’t.
Again, the politics of this approach I'll leave to the experts, but the economics are pretty clear: Inept, Immoral, and Insane.
* Although the published rates are different, the tax code is thousands of pages long and the EFFECTIVE rates are what matters. See link below:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)