Clinton-Obama axis

This article from the New York Magazine pretty much lays out the venality of Democrat politicians.  Here we have the specter of Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, who don't trust or like each other, finding ways to use one another to each's benefit.  Truly, the deserve each other.  Clinton was a disgracefully amoral and low brow President.  He brought great disgrace to the WH and country with all his philandering and crass political machinations.  What saved his reputation was the Peace Dividend from the end of the Cold War, and the Newt Gingrich led Contract with America.  In the former case, the winding down of the Cold War eliminated the need for huge military budgets, and in the latter the huge mid-term win by Republicans prevented Clinton from enacting all the Progressive (Socialist) plans and programs democrats always want to put in place.  Obama, as we know, was successful in ramming through several of his socialist programs (Obamacare at the top of the list) before the Tea Party revolution put the brakes on his ambitions.  Now they appear to be teaming up to bring four more years of socialism to the country in order to serve their personal and political party's interest.  Hopefully Romney can bring an end to nightmare or four more or even more of the destructive politics these prototypical democrat politicians bring to our nation.  Enough isn surely enough.

Krugman the liar

• PRINT
• EMAIL
• SHARE:

Paul Krugman has no credibility. what he does have is a nobel prize for work he did in economics at some point in time.  For his nobel prize the NYTimes picked him up as a pundit-columnist.  truthfully he belongs at the times, a media outlet that has dealt in subtly biased and misleading reportage for many decades and has lately become a propaganda arm of the democrat party.  a careful reading of what follows reveals precisely how corrupt krugman is

POSTED ON OCTOBER 9, 2012 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,ECONOMY, MEDIA BIAS

PAUL KRUGMAN some , THEN AND NOW

In the Democrats’ effort to brand Mitt Romney a “liar,” former economist Paul Krugman has taken a leading role, as I noted here. Krugman, as a full-time shill for the Obama administration, has tried to put a positive face on Obama’s dismal economic record. See, for example, this post on his New York Times blog, where he talks about the payroll jobs numbers and offers this graph:

If you don’t look at it closely, the chart could give you the impression that the number of payroll jobs has returned to its pre-recession level, which it hasn’t. Clark Judge, for one, made that mistake. Actually, the y-axis of the chart represents the change in the number of nonfarm payroll employees compared to 12 months earlier. It is a counter-intuitive presentation that likely is intended to make the jobs numbers seem better than they are, but what it shows, as Krugman writes, is that approximately 1.8 million payroll jobs have been added in the last 12 months. Here is how Krugman spins Obama’s jobs record:

Again, you want to focus on somewhat longer-term trends, not monthly numbers. Over the past year the employer survey says that we’ve added 1.8 million jobs, or 150,000 a month. …

This is substantially more than the number of jobs we need to keep up with population growth, which is currently something like 90,000 a month. (The number used to be higher, but baby boomers are getting old — the same thing that affects the household survey.)

So the two survey are saying the same thing: job growth fast enough to make gradual progress on the employment front. Not fast enough; it will take years to restore full employment, and we should, um, end this depression now. But the progress is real.

So that is a pretty positive assessment, focusing specifically on jobs. I wondered: how did George W. Bush’s jobs record during the last year of his first term compare with Obama’s, and what did Krugman say about it then? So I did the math.

You can see the official monthly jobs numbers from 2002 through this month here. They show that from January through September of this year, including the current report which was hailed as great news by the Obama administration, a total of 1,314,000 payroll jobs have been added to the economy. In the first nine months of the fourth year of the Bush administration, January through September 2004, the economy added 1,512,000 payroll jobs. Advantage, Bush.

Of course, that is only the beginning of the story. In September 2004 the unemployment rate was 5.4%, while the Obama administration breathed a sigh of relief that the rate for September of this year came in at 7.8%. Moreover, that figure vastly understates how bad the current employment picture is, as millions have left the labor force and chronic unemployment has skyrocketed. Other economic indicators are worse as well. More Americans are living in poverty than at any time in our history. The price of gasoline in October 2004 was $2.02 per gallon, coincidentally the high point of Bush’s first term. And median household income has fallen dramatically under Obama.

Krugman gives Obama what I would interpret as a B for his economic policies, at least as they relate to employment. So he must have given George Bush an A+, right?

Just kidding. Krugman excoriated Bush non-stop for eight years, using his (Krugman’s) purported expertise to savage Bush’s economic policies. You could find hundreds of instances, but let’s consider this CNN interview in October 2004, titled “A discussion of the disastrous Bush economy and the 2004 Presidential Election.” Here is what Krugman had to say about an economy that was obviously, and by any measure, far better than the one he defends today:

CAFFERTY: So why so glum? The president points out record homeownership, low interest rates, the economy is growing again. We’re producing jobs. The tax cuts put more money in peoples’ pockets. What’s the problem?

KRUGMAN: First, net loss of jobs, payroll jobs for any president since Herbert Hoover. Duration of unemployment is close. The time it takes on average for unemployed people to find a new job close to its highest level in 20 years. Jobs have been created over the past year but only just about fast enough to keep up with population growth. This is a situation in which a lot of people are hurting. This is a much worse labor market than we had when he came into office and people feel that. The only thing he can point to is the unemployment rate which while it is lower than the average of the ’90′s, the average of the ’90s is kind of perked up by a couple of years under his father and is well below, is well above the unemployment rate when he came in. I think it is – in a way I think he’s almost making a mistake by making it seem as if things are really great because people can tell it isn’t.

Every data point that Krugman cites is now worse under Obama. I really enjoy what follows, as Krugman sternly explains that presidents shouldn’t make excuses:

ROMANS: Paul, the White House keeps saying is that he inherited this really unusual kind of merger of really terrible situations, the popping of the Internet bubble and then September 11, a global slowdown and that the White House says he actually managed through that very well.

KRUGMAN: You know, you can always find an excuse. The thing to say is that each year of his presidency, the Council of Economic Advisers come out with an economic report of the president which forecast great job growth starting right now. Those reports come out each February. Each year they forecast great job growth. It hasn’t materialized and then they go back and say well, that’s because of all these things, but those things didn’t seem to affect their own forecast when they were making them. So we’re about seven million jobs short of where the 2002 economic report of the president said we were going to be. We already knew about the Internet bubble. We already knew about 9/11 then. What has changed since then to explain why we’re seven million jobs short?

One could say the same thing, only more so, about the forecasts the Obama team has made, as reflected for example in this famous chart:

Here is how Krugman assessed the political situation on the eve of the 2004 election:

SERWER: Paul, there are some other feathers in the president’s hat though, including household income which is up and the other thing I want to point to is, isn’t it really most important about where the economy is locally in states? For instance, in Florida the economy is actually not so bad. That could help the president. Isn’t that the better way to look at it?

KRUGMAN: We can all try to figure out how the politics is going to play and the truth is we don’t know anything. I think obviously Ohio is very bad for Bush because it has been hit worse than the average. What is — the point is it is not a record to be proud of. It is a record you can spin. It’s not so terrible that you can’t go ahead and try and find some good numbers here and there, but overall let me just put it this way. If a Democrat had this record, oh boy, the Republican chorus about the incredibly terrible performance. It’s not a happy record on the economy.

If Bush’s record on the economy was “not happy,” Obama’s record is suicidal depression. Yet Krugman defends it. He says that those who criticize Obama’s performance are “liars.” So were those who criticized George W. Bush’s far better performance liars, too? Of course not! On the contrary, Krugman never missed an opportunity to brand Bush and pretty much every member of his administration as a “liar” or worse.

Krugman is, of course, one of the most shameless and dishonest political hacks on the planet. But while he is an extreme case, he is not alone. A similar, if less extreme, lack of honesty in assessing Obama’s economic record is endemic across the media formerly known as mainstream.

Steve Wynn

Steve Wynn, entrepreneur, speaks out on the subject of politics  in this television interview in Nevada where his company is located.




http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/playlist//3789684

Phony-in-chief

Thomas Sowell dispenses with Barak Obama, once in for all in this column..  Sowell is a well-known, highly respected economist/historian, author of over twenty scholarly books, who happens to be black.  He was born in the Jim Crow South over 80 years ago, and left for New York (Harlem) as a teenager.  He was introduced to the New York Public Library and began a learning journey that took him to several of the most prestigious universities in the country as both a student and tenured professor.  Thomas Sowell knows whereof he speaks.  He has been onto Barak Obama from the very beginning, much as many others, as an outright fraud who would do this country no good.  He, and all the others who were never fooled, have been proven right over the last four years, much to the misfortune of our country.  Last week's debate between Obama and Mitt Romney caused  the scales to fall from the eyes of many former supporters of Obama who began to see him as the empty suit he is in fact.  Obama and his enablers in the Congress and in the media have cost us four years of recovery time from the financial meltdown resulting from housing policies put in place by Carter, put on steroids by Clinton, and encouraged and enabled all along by the Black Congressional Caucus(BCC) which included Barak Obama among its members.  Thanks to Obama all these wrong-headed enablers it will take this country much longer to dig out from the wreckage of all their failed policies than would be the case had they not pulled then wool over the eyes of 53% of the American voters in 2007.  Should the incumbents win again next month, there's no telling what will happen to this country in the coming years, but whatever happens will not be pretty.

The horror of socialized medicine

Those who may wonder what socialized medicine in the U.S. would look like would do well to study the NHS in Merry Old England. What follows hospital to  here is a story that has been repeated many times in GB pointing to the lack of incentives and more importantly competition in the healthcare delivery system in that country.  Should this disgraceful care be delivered in a free enterprise driven private hospital in this country the law suits would fly, the hospital's reputation would plummet and doctors would never recommend that hospital to their patients. Competition keeps companies, hospitals and individuals on their toes, the reality that escapes socialized anything crusaders.  As reported on Powerline Blog:

Recent investigations have revealed hospitals administered by Britain’s National Health Service to be veritable houses of horrors. Here is the latest shock headline: Patients starve and die of thirst on hospital wards. Hospital conditions under socialized medicine appear to be trending toward the medieval:

Forty-three hospital patients starved to death last year and 111 died of thirst while being treated on wards, new figures disclose today.

The death toll was disclosed by the Government amid mounting concern over the dignity of patients on NHS wards.

The Office for National Statistics figures also showed that:

* as well as 43 people who starved to death, 287 people were recorded by doctors as being malnourished when they died in hospitals;
* there were 558 cases where doctors recorded that a patient had died in a state of severe dehydration in hospitals….

The records, from the Office for National Statistics, follow a series of scandals of care of the elderly, with doctors forced to prescribe patients with drinking water or put them on drips to make sure they do not become severely dehydrated.

Katherine Murphy, chief executive of the Patients Association, said the statistics were a grim and shaming reflection of 21st century Britain. …

In many wards nurses were dumping meal trays in front of patients too weak to feed themselves and then taking them away again untouched.

Many of those who starve or die of thirst are elderly, but by no means all:

In July, an inquest heard that a young man who died of dehydration at a leading hospital rang 999 for police because he was so thirsty. Officers arrived at Kane Gorny’s bedside, but were told by nurses that he was in a confused state and were sent away.

The footballer and runner, 22, died of dehydration a few hours later, an inquest heard in July.

…[H]e was in hospital for a routine hip replacement. Doctors had warned that, without regular medication to control his fluid levels, he would die. But when he was admitted to St George’s Hospital in Tooting, South London, staff ignored repeated reminders from Mr Gorny and his family to give him the tablets, and he became severely dehydrated after being refused water.

His mother told the inquest that in May 2009 she received a distressed phone call from her son, in which he said he had called the police because he was so desperate for a drink.

Shortly before he died, his mother found him delirious and saw that his medication was untouched. … He died of water deficit and hypernatraemia, a medical term for dehydration, three days after he was admitted to hospital.

Revealing editorial from the NYTimes

Reading this editorial from the NYTimes, one realizes how far liberals have sunk into the world of make-believe, fantasy and the most virulently destructive philosophies of the 20th century.  It is inconceivable that anyone could take seriously the arguments in this editorial that claim Romney is flip flopping, changing his basic positions on issues and/or lying.  And yet the libs who run that paper make all these claims and only fault Obama for not taking Romney to task for all this dissembling.  In truth everything Romney said rebutting the Obama campaign's serial distortions of the Romney/Ryan campaign positions is consistent with the platform put forth at the Republican Convention in Tampa last month.  Smaller government, strong defense, lower taxes to stimulate economic growth, elimination of socialized healthcare and regulations that stymy business activity that creates jobs and opportunity for those willing to put forth the effort.  But since none of these prescriptions for success involves controlling other people's lives that the liberal elites prefer, they are forced to resort to these mindless attacks on conservatives' lack of specificity in matters of policies of their agenda.  Which is exactly the point.  Liberals want 3,000 page bills that control every conceivable contingency concerning the delivery of healthcare services.  They want regulations that control all aspects of businesses trying to serve consumer needs and wishes.  They want total control over citizens' lives in order that their vision of the correct society can be achieved.  In the end their proscriptions for society are the same as those of the National Socialism of the Germans,  the Fascism of Mussolini, and the Marxist utopia of the USSR, and we all know how well those isms turned out.  In short, Republicans want maximum freedom for the individual while Democrats want maximum control of each individual's life by the state.

Odds and ends

If anyone needs proof that the so-called MSM media is hugely biased to the Democrats, read this: Al Gore versus "2016".


This explanation of the madmen we see  rioting over perceived 'insults' in the Middle East all the time is quite timely considering the election and chaos in the M.E at this very moment:Why Arabs are so Easily Offended

This book is not only easy to read but is deadly accurate.  It should be read by everyone in the country as a warning to beware of anyone who ever says "I'm from the government and I'm here to help.""Crazifornia: How California is Committing Suicide"

For those who do not understand capitalism and free enterprise and how this country became wealthy, lead this brief by Theodore Daylremple: "What is Entrepreneurship?""