Thursday, July 19, 2012
Elizabeth Warren, Again: "Nobody got rich on their own. Nobody."
That is correct, but almost any intervention by the state into markets creates inefficiency. Entrepreneurs are alone responsible for their actions, just as is anyone else. Politicians that tout government intervention as the solution are setting us up for failure.
Media apologists might be trying to get all post-modernist about President Barack Obama's justifiably infamous "you didn't build that" rap, but not Obama's former employee, the current Democratic nominee for Teddy Kennedy's old Senate seat:
"I think the basic notion is right. Nobody got rich on their own. Nobody. People worked hard, they buil[t] a business, God bless, but they moved their goods on roads the rest of us helped build, they hired employees the rest of us helped educate, they plugged into a power grid the rest of us helped build," she said.
"The rest of us made those investments because we wanted businesses to flourish, we wanted them to grow, we wanted them to create opportunity for all of us. That's what we do together. We get richer as a country when we make those investments." [...]
Warren called government investments "a good thing," charging that, "the Republican vision of the future is just to continue to make cuts and not to make those investments."
Note here how all government spending is equated to roads, public education, and electrical power, which–despite massive spending increases–account for a very small fraction of federal spending. You could (and should!) lop the federal budget in half without touching these line items.
Note, too, how increased government spending has not noticeably improved the very areas of service Warren names. K-12 results are flat over 40 years despite more than doubling per-pupil spending. The electricity grid isinefficient, wasteful, and expensive. The latest federal transportation bill continues squandering money without building or maintaining anything near highway capacity, and is best described as "pathetic." We are getting much less return on our "investment," while being asked to pony up more.
Remarks by the President on Entrepreneurialism
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has appealed to the U.S. Justice Department to drop its antitrust lawsuit against Apple and certain book publishers through an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, insisting that it will result in restoring Amazon to the “dominant position atop the e-books market”. The Justice Department filed the suit earlier this year against the iPad maker and five publishers for allegedly colluding to fix e-book prices. While Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster settled, Macmillan and Penguin Group are still part of the case. According to Schumer, Apple’s method actually helped increase competition and drive prices lower, and that the suit could “wipe out the publishing industry as we know it,” making it harder for young authors to get published.
Senator Tells DOJ: Drop Apple’s E-book Lawsuit!
The Obama regime has recently made clear it's contempt for entrepreneurialism, and the Department of (in)Justice continues to attack everything but the cause of any problem on which it focuses. How do these efforts promote any sort of economic health?
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.While everyone has different driving forces and motivations, only those who actually take action have the rights to the results of those actions. The state believes itself to be responsible for every positive action and result in markets, though the opposite is actually true. When the state intervenes, markets become inefficient and costs to consumers rise. But why should statists like Obama believe any different when we have idiots like Paul Krugman telling them that they are correct.
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Roanoke, Virginia | The White House
Schumer is correct in defending free market principles, and Apple's efforts have definitely worked toward driving down costs to consumers. Even in a true monopoly situation, the market for eBooks would not be as efficient as some fear, but the healthy competition in this market will keep costs down over the long run, as innovation is thriving in this industry and coming from small and large businesses alike. This sort of collusion is more likely to keep competitors in the market, rather than driving out the ones that can not compete.
Government intervention into markets which are operating competitively is politically-driven (or revenue-seeking), and not in the interest of consumers or producers. Price-fixing is rarely an issue outside of a pure monopolistic situation, and this is far from one. If anything, this false flag interventionism into the market will drive up costs to consumers due to litigation and lobbying, and stifle innovation.
More than two centuries ago, in "The Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith observed that "people of the same trade seldom meet together . . . but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices." Coming from the father of laissez faire, that warning has been cited ad nauseam by antitrust proponents to justify all manner of interventionist mischief. Those same proponents, whether carelessly or deviously, rarely mention Smith's next sentence: "It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice."The Case Against Antitrust
Make no mistake: A growing drumbeat of questions from Washington puts a damper on innovation. Reflecting on Microsoft’s decline after its decade-long antitrust case, tech expert Adam Thierer wrote in Forbes, “When antitrust hangs like the Sword of Damocles, every decision about how to evolve and innovate becomes a calculated gamble.”D.C. Wants a Bite at the Apple
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Obama on Entrepreneurs and Innovation
While I hardly believe one person is responsible for the success or failure of collective economics, especially on a national or international level, US president Barack Obama is so misinformed (or willfully ignorant) of economic principles that he actually believes innovation comes not from entrepreneurs, but from government intervention.
President Obama said in a speech at the weekend that governments and not individuals create jobs, telling entrepreneurs: 'If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'
He added: 'You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.'
The inflammatory campaign speech comments underline the extent to which Obama believes that the state rather than ordinary citizens create jobs and wealth.Obama says the wealthy AREN'T responsible for their own success ...
If you have a great idea, invest your time and resources into that idea, and you succeed, I believe that you are responsible for your success and deserve whatever profits or acknowledgement you receive, not the government. The state and it's interventionist policies, regulations, and ever-increasing taxation stifles innovation, impedes entrepreneurs, and holds back advancement, preventing any benefit or social good.
Obama's criticism of Romney (I honestly can't tell much difference between Obamney) and capital investment firms is misplaced. Without firms such as Bain, companies like Howard Johnson, where Obama fondly recalls childhood family memories, would have faded into history during the Great Depression.
“Entrepreneurs embody the promise of America: the idea that if you have a good idea and are willing to work hard and see it through, you can succeed in this country. And in fulfilling this promise, entrepreneurs also play a critical role in expanding our economy and creating jobs.” – President Barack Obama, January 31, 2011I am having a hard time keeping up with the flip-flops from the Obama regime. The level of narcissism Obama maintains is nearly a psychological issue. If he believe half of what he claims, he is mentally unfit for public office. If he is simply a mouthpiece, reading speeches tailored for him, he is the puppet many claim. And we have a long line of potential replacements willing to tow the same line.
The regime wants to control and manage the entrepreneurial spirit, which is a statist goal.
The recent White House announcement of a new government program to promote entrepreneurship must signify that the Obama Administration finally “gets it” about job creation and economic recovery, right? Certainly free-market conservatives can agree with the President’s inspiring words. But …The regime wants to have the final word on what will be allowed in the market and what will be suppressed. This is not innovation, but interventionism, which is known instead for destroying innovation. Big surprise there.
The problems, as always, emerge in the details of the program. This “coordinated public/private effort” appears to be just another head-fake in the direction of capitalism with the intention of growing more government.Obama's “Start-Up America” Initiative: Stalling Entrepreneurs
We do not have true capitalism, and have not for maybe a century or more. True innovation thrives without regulation and governmental burden, not under it's thumb and seeking it's approval. What we have is state-capitalism (it's no big secret, even the Economist understands this), with it's complex system of regulations, it's involuntary and intrusive taxation system for redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who do not. While many establishment supporters claim capitalism is the cause of our economic woes, they are at least correct about the methods, if not the name itself.
America saw free markets in the Not So Wild, Wild West, where government was absent until the turn of the twentieth century. Property rights were maintained, entrepreneurs thrived, society benefited, jobs grew, taxation did not yet exist before the government saw an opportunity to feed. Once the state stepped in, all that changed, just as it has changed across the world as the interventionism and it's proponents intervene and claim that they are the reason for the success of others, despite being an obstacle rather than a support system.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Political Rhetoric - Obama Edition
Either way, he is no better than his predecessor, and in some terms likely significantly worse.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Neither Romney/Bloomberg a 'Man of The People'
Who cares if he has a car elevator? How is that relevant?Tough day at the office? In the market for some mood-brightening mirth? Try this for a guaranteed giggle: Donny Deutsch claims that unlike Mitt Romney, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, while also rich, is a "man of the people."
Let's leave aside Bloomberg's massive wealth and a lifestyle that includes multiple mansions around the world and a fleet of personal aircraft. What makes Nanny Mike perhaps the least "man of the people" you'd ever meet is his haughty, condescending view that he knows better than the mere masses what they should eat, drink and smoke, and is willing to use his power to enforce his preferences by government fiat. View the video after the jump.
Watch Deutsch supply an unintentional side-splitter.
DONNY DEUTSCH: Here's the bottom line: there are two kinds of rich guys. There's Mike Bloomberg, who's 20 times, 100 hundred times richer than Mitt Romney, but is a man of the people and then there's a rich guy who's a private equity guy, who won't show his tax returns --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Who has a car elevator.
I don't trust either, but don't think one is worse than the other. The idea that people like these can be trusted to make decisions on behalf of society is the real joke, and a dangerous one at that.DEUTSCH: Who has got a car elevator. Who is playing fudgy, fudgy ball as far as when he was and when he wasn't CEO and that's a rich guy who plays outside the lines that I can't trust. And that's not an electable figure.
When fools give power to despots, liberty fails, as it should be expected.
Wells Fargo To Pay $175 Mil. To Settle Racial Discrimination Accusations
While I would like nothing more than to see Wells Fargo collapse (sans taxpayer bailouts), companies should be allowed to operate as they choose without state intervention. If they make decisions that segments of society are negatively affected by, those consumers have the option to choose other businesses which do not discriminate. By intervening, the government is promoting the discriminatory practices in part, but primarily increasing costs to consumers.
Yesterday, the Justice Department announced an agreement by Wells Fargo to pay $175 million in order to settle claims that its independent brokers discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers. The Wells Fargo settlement, if approved, will be the second largest residential fair-lending settlement in DOJ's history.
Wait, what? $50 million out of $175 goes to a "relief fund?" Seems a bit inefficient to me...DOJ found that Wells Fargo's discriminatory lending practices resulted in African-American and Hispanic borrowers paying higher rates for loans solely because of the color of their skin. Minority borrowers were both steered into sub-prime loans and charged higher fees.
An investigation by the department's civil rights division found that mortgage brokers working with Wells Fargo had charged higher fees and rates to more than 30,000 minority borrowers across the country than they had to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk, according to a complaint filed on Thursday along with the proposed settlement.
Wells Fargo brokers also steered more than 4,000 minority borrowers into costlier subprime mortgages when white borrowers with similar credit risk profiles had received regular loans, a Justice Department complaint found. The deal covers the subprime bubble years of 2004 to 2009.
Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, said the practices amounted to a "racial surtax," adding: "All too frequently, Wells Fargo's African-American and Latino borrowers had no idea they could have gotten a better deal — no idea that white borrowers with similar credit would pay less."
Federal law requires only that a lending practice have a disparate effect on minority borrowers to be illegal. No discriminatory intent is necessary. Data analyzed by DOJ showed that African-American borrowers, who qualified for a regular loan, were 2.9 times more likely to be steered into a sub-prime loan than white borrowers with similar credit ratings. Similarly, Hispanic borrowers were 1.8 times more likely than their white-counterparts to be steered into a sub-prime loan.
$125 million of the settlement will go to individual borrowers, while the remaining $50 million will go to a program that assists people in Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, an area east of Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco/Oakland, Philadelphia, and Washington make down payments and home repairs.
Those metropolitan areas were found to have particularly large numbers of individual discrimination victims. In addition to ending subprime lending in 2008, Wells Fargo annouced that it will no longer finance mortgages through independent brokers.
Original Page: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/13/515964/wells-fargo-to-pay-175-mil-to-settle-racial-discrimination-accusations/
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Harry Reid vs. The Bimbos (and Reality)
Reid believes that taxing producers to supplement incomes of consumers I a viable alternative to real market function. The problem is that idea creates inefficiencies in markets and actually drives production and revenues down. Too much burden and producers suffer or collapse, and the tax base dries up. Too bad career politician rarely understand the market system the attempt (and fail) to control.Love them or hate them, Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton "create" plenty of jobs. Harry Reid? Not so much.
In a fit of frustration, the Senate majority leader recently remarked that "fabulously rich so-called small business owners like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton could qualify for these wasteful giveaways." (By "giveaways," Reid means tax rates that are not yet instituted.)
By pointing out that these two stupendously wealthy airheads are supposedly beneficiaries of some undue "breaks," Reid might believes he's found the perfect tax villains. He's wrong. Because, as counterintuitive as it may seem, Kardashian and Hilton are effective job creators, the kind that Reid shouldn't be punishing.
In the same way that millions of Nevadans unfathomably vote for Reid, millions of Americans purchase goods bearing the names of young women who are famous merely for being famous.
Paris Hilton has reportedly generated more than $1 billion from her ventures — and, one expects, that most of that money isn't tucked under a diamond-studded duvet, but invested.
Her name graces the packaging of fragrances ("Tease" by Paris Hilton!), accessories, shoes and an array of other wholly overpriced merchandise. There are stores hawking her stuff and investors clamoring to get involved. As Hilton explained to FHM magazine: "They've produced more than $1.3 billion in revenue since 2005. I have 35 stores and 17 product lines and then there's my racing team, my 14 fragrances …"
That's a lot of jobs.
[...]
Best of all, unlike Reid, Hilton and Kardashian, as far as I can tell, don't believe they're entitled to your money.
[...]
Original Page: http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/12/harry-reid-vs-the-bimbos/
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Ron Paul Marginalized Before and After Win, Big Surprise...
Ron Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve and end wars. The last president to try that dropped the top in Dallas. His policies are consistent. His values show through his voting record. His minimalist view of the scope and authority is a step in the right direction, while Obamney are seeking increased socialist efforts from the Right and Left. A pig by any other name...
Those points should be enough to champion him, but the game is rigged and the lamestream state media is in bed with the regime (look up the media coverage of the sinking of the Lusitania, and the willful sacrifice of those passengers by the US as an excuse to join the war). We are down to about six corporations that control most news, so even a win is severely marginalized and written off, if it is covered at all.
What? Our only options worth voting for are Obamney? Even moderate voters are looking to Ron Paul for lack of differentiation between those poor excuses for political candidates. How many reports of back room deals or special interest influence has Paul been involved in? None I can find. Obama, Romney, Bush, Clinton, etc.; all enriched and pandering to lobbyists and special interests.
His consistent voting record for over thirty years (almost as long as I've been alive!) should be the other leg on which voters find support. Paul is a true statesman while the others are simply career politicians with no respect for those they claim to represent, while selling us and our descendants down the river through inflation (theft) of the currency.
http://m.reason.com/26821/show/a648fbedf65f2fec662d69b2cf292243/?
Left and Right are both Wrong.
Ron Paul 2012
Obama wants your wedding presents
Liberals are trying to pound home the idea that Mitt Romney is out of touch with regular Americans. At least he's not trying to take away their wedding presents.
None of these career politicians are connected to real people by any measure, and it shows.
This week MSNBC played a selectively edited videotape of Mr. Romney seemingly showing his fascination with the process of ordering food at a Wawa restaurant in Pennsylvania. Reporter Andrea Mitchell compared the visit to George H. W. Bush's alleged amazement with a grocery store scanner in 1992. MSNBC was called on the doctored tape, but the news organization failed to apologize. This follows closely after three journalists were fired from an NBC affiliate in Miami for editing the audio tape of George Zimmerman's 911 call the night he shot Trayvon Martin to make it more inflammatory.
Other media outlets are behaving more responsibly. Late Thursday, Politico suspended White House correspondent Joseph Williams for saying that Mr. Romney is only relaxed among white people. Appearing on MSNBC, Mr. Williams had said that Mr. Romney is "stiff and awkward in town hall settings" because he "can't relate to people" who aren't like him, but he can relax on "Fox and Friends" because "they're white folks who are very much relaxed in their own company." Politico said these comments "fell short of our standards for fairness and judgment in an especially unfortunate way."
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a survey last week finding most respondents believed Mr. Obama "connects well with ordinary Americans" much more so than Mr. Romney. Even so, Mr. Obama is hardly a man of the people. Never known for his warmth and affability, Mr. Obama was often compared during the 2008 campaign to the unemotional Mr. Spock from Star Trek.
I love that more media outlets recognize the failures of political figures from both sides of the institution, rather than focusing on one and ignoring the other.
This contrasts with his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, who was much more skilled as a politician. Mr. Clinton felt our pain; Mr. Obama thinks record unemployment rates are a sign the private sector is doing "just fine." Mr. Clinton smiled with his eyes; Mr. Obama does so with a hint of a sneer. Mr. Clinton was a classic populist politician; Mr. Obama comes across more as a marketing concept. His record numbers of golf outings and fundraisers with Hollywood celebrities will not enhance his image as someone who fundamentally connects with America.
The latest Obama campaign fundraising vehicle will not help, either. The "Obama Event Registry" asks people planning weddings to have guests send a donation to the campaign in place of a gift to the newlyweds. "Let your friends know how important this election is to you," the site exhorts. "It's a great way to support the president on your big day" and "goes a lot further than a gravy bowl."
This may very well go down as the tackiest political appeal in history, at least until the campaign suggests that people organizing funerals have donations sent to Mr. Obama in lieu of flowers.
Obama might do well to request flowers sent to the funeral of the US economy, although it has yet to be taken off life support. His fiscal policies have done as much damage as his predecessors.
More: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/22/obama-wants-your-wedding-presents/
Friday, June 15, 2012
Obama’s immigration amnesty: is it motivated by humanity, economics or crude politics?
The Obama administration has announced that it's granting what effectively amounts to amnesty to 800,000 children of illegal immigrants.
Good. Let them come, freely and without state support or opposition. Immigration was natural and unencumbered when the US grew into the power it once was, because of the people not the government.
Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, says this is about reducing expenditure on "low priority" cases so as to beef up enforcement elsewhere. You have to hand it to Obama: this is bold, radical, liberal stuff. [...]
I would take this a step further and remove immigration law completely, returning the uninhibited right to travel, work, and freely live anywhere one chooses.
If too many immigrants more to an area where work can be found, unemployment will rise. With fewer jobs, more labored will migrate elsewhere where jobs are available.
As interventionist governments try to guide markets to promote growth and surplus jobs? Those efforts have the opposite effect. They create inefficiencies, reduce available jobs, and discourage employers from hiring due to higher taxes for business that increase in size, and creating complex regulations requiring more capital diverted to navigate those regulations.
The state is in fact a barrier to job growth despite claims by statists that those inefficient and despotic methods are even slightly productive.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Wisconsin Union Changes Saving Schools Millions
Just days before recall elections, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker sent out a news release saying the union reforms he pushed are already saving school districts millions.I actually have to hand it to Walker, he is making progress in cutting wasteful spending and relieving potential tax burden the private sector labor force.
From Madison to Hudson, angry protesters promised dire consequences if Wisconsin lawmakers voted to strip government union members of some of their collective bargaining rights. The reforms did pass and a Madison think tank says they're already having an impact.Public unions should rightly have little bargaining power, as their market is driven by private sector successes. We were warned against allowing public unions decades ago, but socialism sees no limit to it's malignant potential in a free society.
Imagine that. Shifting to private sector markets for services and goods saves significant resources over public alternatives, where accountability is no more than a word and politicians come and go through the revolving door, replaced by another who serves special interest groups rather than the true social good. They were forced to purchase marked-up, low-value insurance and not given choices. This lack of choice is a big problem with unions. Rock out with voluntarism.
"With collective bargaining not an option for teachers outside of salary concerns, we're seeing a lot more freedom for these school boards to find new and creative ways to save money," said Christian D'Andrea of the MacIver Institute. His organization says many school districts are shopping around for health insurance for the first time. In the past, they had to buy it from the Wisconsin Education Assocation, the teachers union.
"The problem there is that, once you become static... and this is true with any company, I'm not just picking on WEA. But once you become static within one company, you tend to settle for higher rates," said D'Andrea.
"It means that we can save teacher jobs and really provide a better value for the taxpayers of the state," said Senator Sheila Harsdorf of River Falls. Harsdorf faces a recall election Tuesday because of her support for union reforms and Governor Walker's budget.
In Harsdorf's Senate district, MacIver found savings at Ellsworth, Prescott, Menomonie, Somerset and Hudson school districts. The Hudson Superintendent tells 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS her district stands to save more than $800,000.
"They would have seen that same savings if they'd done it in cooperation with the teachers," said Shelly Moore, a teacher in Ellsworth who is running against Harsdorf in the recall election.This might be one of the few instances of politicians using the power of the state to promote social good and reduce forced coercion (mandatory union dues) on a captive audience (teachers). Usually the state is doing the opposite, reducing individual liberties and choices, while increasing burden.
Local teachers union President Kris Ohman (OH-mun) said before the union reforms, teachers were already agreeing to cheaper insurance options. Under state law, a district could limit an increase in teacher pay and benefits combined could be limited to 3.8%. If health insurance was more expensive, teachers would have to take less pay to offset it.The last thing the public sector needs to be able to do is limit things which the private sector can not. If service costs go up in the private, they must be allowed to do so in the public, for it not the costs through taxation will increase disproportionately affecting private sector workers.
"So it had always been in our best interest to keep those costs down so that our pay could be comparable and competitive with districts around us," said Ohman.
The MacIver Institute says if all districts in Wisconsin reconfigured teacher benefits packages, the state could save $451 million.
Report: Wisconsin Union Changes Saving Schools Millions | KSTP TV - Minneapolis and St. Paul
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Political Liars - Economic Edition - Tax Subsidies
I've been on an economics kick for the last couple of years, learning all I can. One issue that gets under my skin is is subsidies to industries through theft (taxation, since I is not voluntary). Some politicians believe that subsidizing markets, services, or products will help the economy, but this is a falsehood. Here is why we should end subsidies and involuntary taxation.
By subsidizing those costs to consumers, the public believes that those costs are lower. This is false, since costs are actually higher, but only the direct costs are experienced in transactions. Indirect costs round out the overall transaction, with producers receiving the balance of their revenue from the state, which extorts through taxes that revenue which drives costs and production higher.
This theft from consumers through forced coercion (taxation is theft) affects all taxpayers, even those who do not directly consume those goods or services. By ending subsidies, producers will lower costs to equilibrium and consumers will pay directly or indirectly pay for those goods and services they choose to. In turn, taxation can decrease, since need for taxes is negated by the market.
Beyond that problem, subsidization leads directly to increase costs to consumers, since producers see it as an increased demand (which we know not to be the case). By artificially driving up demand, producers see that demand can go higher, so in turn increase costs to consumers. Subsidies actually increase the total cost, rather than decreasing them.
By subsidizing those costs to consumers, the public believes that those costs are lower. This is false, since costs are actually higher, but only the direct costs are experienced in transactions. Indirect costs round out the overall transaction, with producers receiving the balance of their revenue from the state, which extorts through taxes that revenue which drives costs and production higher.
This theft from consumers through forced coercion (taxation is theft) affects all taxpayers, even those who do not directly consume those goods or services. By ending subsidies, producers will lower costs to equilibrium and consumers will pay directly or indirectly pay for those goods and services they choose to. In turn, taxation can decrease, since need for taxes is negated by the market.
Beyond that problem, subsidization leads directly to increase costs to consumers, since producers see it as an increased demand (which we know not to be the case). By artificially driving up demand, producers see that demand can go higher, so in turn increase costs to consumers. Subsidies actually increase the total cost, rather than decreasing them.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Obama’s Unwelcome Jubilee Present to Britain
Barack Obama was all smiles in his carefully scripted message of congratulation to Queen Elizabeth II on her Diamond Jubilee. But at the same time as he recorded his message, his administration was actively undermining Great Britain at the annual meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS), held in Bolivia.
Well that's a fine how do you do. The US despotic regime honors the Queen by engaging in talks regarding the Malvinas. What if China were to approach Puerto Rico and support their cessation from American rule, while also celebrating the US? It's basically the same concept. Rather conniving, no?
The OAS General Assembly, which includes the United States, has just re-adopted the 2010 "Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands," which backed Argentina's call for negotiations between London and Buenos Aires over the Falkland Islands.
Not that I even slightly support a monarchy which removes the natural right to self defense from its citizens (read: subjects).
GOP rejects Obama's "fine" assessment of private sector
Speaker John Boehner and Republicans leaders responded to President Obama's statement and press conference on the economy on Friday, rejecting his statement that the private sector is "doing fine."
With increasing regulation and taxation on the private sector, while production is anything but increasing, it's no wonder that those actually producing believe Obama's statement to be false. As government spending increases supported by both Left and Right, any opinion that increasing debt while decreasing production is sustainable is laughable, but also an insight that fiat government is well removed from reality. Maybe the state should e removed entirely?
Original Page: http://feeds.cbsnews.com/~r/cbsnews/feed/~3/zyBwzJEHadM/
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
New bumper stickers for President Obama
Here are just a few suggestions for Obama Campaign slogans to help everyone understand who he is and why we must reelect him. Providing them is the least I can do and he needs all the help we can give. Suggest more, please. Give until it hurts.
Vegans for Obama. There's no Meat There!
Unemployment Pays. Vote Obama!
Michelle Vacations for Us so We don't have to.
Original Page: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/20888/
Obama vs Romney; What's the Difference?
When potential votes are this close, it reminds me why many people can't tell the difference between Romney and Obama. The population can't tell policy differences because there are none of significance. We're arguing over which flavor of statism we want!President Obama leads Republican Mitt Romney by 4 points overall in a new poll of Florida from Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling (PPP). Romney still struggles on favorability with Florida voters, largely unchanged in PPP's polling since the depths of the Republican primary fight earlier in the year.
Polls like these ate meant to drive voters toward predestined outcomes rather than present likely conclusions."Obama's strength is based on what's become a pretty predictable set of groups. He's up 57-39 with women, 61-36 with Hispanics, 93-7 with African Americans, and 65-27 with voters under 30," PPP pollsters wrote. "Romney's up 52-46 with seniors and 55-41 with whites but he'd need larger advantages with those demographics to be ahead overall."
Romney's personal rating is at 39 percent favorable, while 51 percent say they have an unfavorable view of the former Massachusetts governor. Obama's approval rating is at 49 percent in the poll, while 46 percent disapprove of his performance.
[...]
Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/tpm-news/~3/WRHDSTF-1Ic/poll-obama-leads-romney-by-4-in-florida.php
Allen West on the American Gene Pool
Sounds just about right to me, but I get the same feeling from Romney stickers as well. It's enough to consider bringing eugenics back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)