Monday, July 29, 2013

Is This The Recovery 0bama Is Talking About?

Somehow I don't feel 'better off'

0bama: "...the economy is far stronger now than it was four and a half years ago." long as one ignores the reality of the chart...

We've seen macro "Hope"and micro "Reality", but for the man in the street, it would appear from the chart that the trajectory for 'recovery' green shoots is decidedly down and getting worse... even as the President tells the American public they are so much better off...

(h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer)

Fed Gov Fudge

Just great, let the Democrats run things, and they revise, fudge, cheat and most of all, lie; all to keep themselves in power...

The Government "Revises" 84 Years Of Economic History This Week
  by Tyler Durden  

Don't like how high debt-to-GDP figures are? Revise 'em. Unhappy at the post-'recovery' growth rates? Revise 'em. Disappointed at the pace of economic improvement in the last decade or two compared to the rest of the world? Revise 'em. This week "we are essentially rewriting economic history" as the BEA is set to revise GDP data from as far back as 1929. The 'adjustments' to account for intangibles (that best known of micro- accounting fudge factors) and as we noted previously in great detail, will increase GDP by around $500 billion. Of course, these changes are defended aggressively (just as the hedonic adjustments to inflation calculations 'make perfect sense') as GDP will now reflect spending on research, development, and copyrights as investment - and reflect pension deficits for the first time (think of all that potential future GDP from massive pension deficits now). With Q2 GDP growth estimates set for a dismal 1.1%, expectations are for the short-term economic data to be revised upwards (and with any luck the great recession never happened at all).
Via WSJ,
US economic history will be rewritten this week, as the most far-reaching methodological changes in years will add the equivalent of a country the size of Belgium to output in the world's largest economy.
The most important change by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, to be announced on Wednesday, will be to start counting spending on research, development and copyrights as investment, and reflect pension deficits for the first time.  
Combined they are expected to add 3 per cent to gross domestic product.
"We are carrying these major changes all the way back in time – which for us means to 1929 – so we are essentially rewriting economic history," Brent Moulton, who manages the national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Which brings up an important question: will government spending on R&D on how to fudge GDP result in the most spectacular Excel circular reference ever created?


Friday, July 26, 2013

President Asterisk

Like Barry Bonds, Obama's second term should come with an asterisk. Won, but with help from the IRS.

(James Taranto came up with the asterisk)

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Hey 0bama: drop the politics

"President Obama should park the campaign bus and plane, drop the politics and work on fiscal solutions with Congress." -- Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) (from

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Prince Arthur...?

Conway, Shlomo, Buzz, Neville, Jethro, Gordy, Dinsdale, Gaylord, Ivan, Fiddy, Tex, RuPaul, Dzhokhar, Guido.

I think the new royal baby should be called Prince Arthur.

In other news..  Congratulations to Mitt & Ann Romney on the birth of their 22nd grandchild!

Saturday, July 20, 2013

50 years of Democrats ruling the city of Detroit

Fresh from the Image Gallery. This graphic is in honor of the end result of 50 years of Democrats ruling the city of Detroit with an iron fist.

Thursday, July 18, 2013


Crossroads GPS is drafting a new video off of the Sharknado meme, that it hopes will go viral: "ObamaCareNado"

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Easy Money, Opiate of the American Economy

well written..... and true...

Much like a drug addict, the U.S. economy is hooked on the Fed's easy money policies.

Since the financial crisis, the Fed has pumped trillions of dollars into banks and financial markets—first, by buying banks' troubled real estate loans and then by purchasing long-term Treasury and mortgage backed securities to push down mortgage rates.

This rescued Wall Street banks from near-death experiences, while Federal regulators shuttered more than 480 smaller banks. Unable to cope with more cumbersome regulation, many other regional banks sold out to bigger institutions.

Bank consolidation reduces competition for deposits and drives down CD rates. Retired Americans who rely on interest from savings to help pay bills have taken an enormous loss. At resorts around the country, for example, many once prosperous seniors are tending bar and waiting on tables.

Yield-hungry investors have scarfed up the junk bonds of troubled companies. Should the Fed permit interest rates to rise, defaults would burn investors in a replay of the financial crisis.

Homebuyers, farmers, and speculators, armed with cheap mortgages, have bid up home and agricultural land values; should the Fed let mortgage rates rise, many would not be able to sell properties as needed and ultimately would default on loans.

Smaller businesses can't get credit from disappearing regional banks. Smaller real estate developers are selling out to big national builders, which can access the bond market to finance projects. Reduced competition pushes up new home prices, but when cheap money goes away, those mega-builders will be unable to sell options-laden homes and some will default on their bonds.

Like the first hit taken by the dysfunctional personality, easy money made the economy function somewhat better for a brief period. From the beginning of the recovery through September of last year, GDP grew at a modest 2.2 percent.

But like the addict, it needs ever larger doses to stay on task. Last September, the Fed nearly doubled purchases of long-term securities, but growth has since slowed to about 1 percent.

Early in June, Chairman Ben Bernanke caused panic by merely stating that as the economy improved the Fed would scale back securities purchases. Two weeks later, forced to backtrack, he stated easy money would continue as long as it takes—that may be forever.

The White House and Congress have done little to fix what caused the Great Recession: a growing trade deficit with China that saps demand for U.S. goods and destroys jobs; dysfunctional federal policies that invest in bogus alternative energy schemes and limit drilling for oil offshore; burdensome business regulations that raise the cost of new projects; and bank reforms that enrich the Wall Street Banks, while starving America's biggest jobs creators—small businesses—of credit.

Easy money is the opiate of the American economy. It has few prospects for genuine improvement as long as President Obama pursues an extreme left-wing agenda; conservatives in the House indulge in the fantasy that free markets can solve every malady of mankind right down to athletes' foot; and Senators posture like toga-clad aristocrats attending the games on Mount Olympus.

With growth slowing, the Fed may have to pump even more cash into the economy with diminishing results. Sooner or later the recovery could falter, and much like Europe, a few pockets will prosper but much of the rest of the country, like Spain and Italy, will sink into double digit unemployment.

Peter Morici is a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School, and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Follow him on Twitter.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Moving millions of people from work to welfare is Obama's point

Obamacare Succeeding

In 2008, Barack Obama spoke proudly of the upcoming "fundamental transformation of the nation." Five years and countless policies later, we now know exactly what he meant: moving America away from a society built on individual liberty, the free market, and economic freedom, and toward a government dependency and welfare state. Immediately after Obama was sworn in in 2009, the Left focused immediately on health care, since that was/is the biggest single lever they could use to effect that "fundamental transformation." Health care "reform" was never about health care or health insurance or reform. It was ONLY and ALWAYS about government power and control. If the government controls your health care, the government controls you.

Remember: central to the Left's "fundamental transformation of the nation" are three objectives: 1) grow government as fast and as widespread as possible; 2) get as many people dependent on government as possible; 3) and voila!---create a permanent Democrat voting majority.

Obamacare was always the most critical part of the mission. And now, despite Democrats' complaints about it now catching up with longstanding Republicans' and others' complaints, it is achieving its goal of moving people out of private insurance and into government exchanges (and ultimately forcing pressure to create a single-payer system). And it's achieving its goal of getting people to quit their jobs and become government-dependent. See this study, released this week, indicating nearly 1 million Americans would likely quit their jobs and become ever-more dependent on government: . One million is probably a low-ball estimate.

Moving millions of people from work to welfare is, of course, the point. This is the "fundamental transformation of the nation." And it's proceeding apace.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Wash Post: Obama fiddles, Syria burns

you can't google: "Mr. Obama fiddles, Syria burns." if its only in the print version of Washington Post.

> This is a much tougher headline than the online version, "Obama's feckless Syria policy is likely to fail." 

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Kansas congressman: Trusting Obama with border security like trusting Bill Clinton with your daughter


Margaret Thatcher used to say, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding"

from Sarah Palin's Facebook post:

Really, Mark? Really?

Margaret Thatcher used to say, "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." So, thank you, Mark Begich, for making me and others exceptionally cheery today! Mark, after looking at your voting record I can see why you are looking for a distraction. You have voted FOR Obamacare, FOR massive tax increases, FOR carbon taxes which could cost Alaskans 21,000 jobs, AGAINST pro-life legislation, and there's so much more. You even flip-flopped to oppose the nation's balanced budget amendment. You agree with, and vote with, ultra-liberal Senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid approximately 90% of the time. Mark, you recently said, "Alaskans pick who they want based on what's good for Alaska." Couldn't agree more, Mark, which is why many hope to see great changes for our great state following the upcoming 2014 election. In the meantime, we suppose we'll see much more playing of the ol' Washington political game using those inside D.C. reporters each time you have to distract from yet another bad vote for Alaska in the U.S. Senate. It cheers us up and gives us good opportunity to remind Alaskans just how loyal to the Obama agenda you have been.

- Sarah Palin


Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity that she is considering a run for senate in Alaska. Her response today seems to indicate it may be more than just considering.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Palin considering running for the U.S. Senate next year


Was Sarah Palin just teasing us last night when she let drop on Sean Hannity's Fox News show that she was considering running for the U.S. Senate next year? Maybe. 

But, at least for the sake of argument, let's take her at her word and say that she really is considering challenging incumbent Democrat Mark Begich in 2014. If so, my advice to her is that she should do it.

Doing so might not be the safest play for preserving her "brand" as a pundit at least in the short term since it would take her off of television and the lecture circuit and possibly bring her career as a bankable personality to a premature end. Nor would it necessarily be what Senate Republicans want to happen since they would probably prefer a less controversial mainstream conservative to be the GOP nominee in a race for what ought to be a winnable seat for the party. But if Palin really wants to have an impact on the future of her party and her country and to revive her flagging popularity and chances for a future presidential run, trying for the Senate in 2014 is the only choice.

After four years as the queen of conservative snark, it's hard to remember that once upon a time, Palin was one of the bright, young stars of the Republican Party with a hard-won reputation as a fresh, independent voice that was willing to challenge a corrupt state party establishment. That Sarah Palin was not so much an ideologue as she was a doer. Perhaps if John McCain had not listened to those conservative pundits who swooned over Palin's obvious political talent and good looks and made her his personal Hail Mary play to transform a 2008 presidential election that he was bound to lose anyway, she might now be in the middle of a second successful term as Alaska governor and be one of the GOP's favorites for 2016. A few more years in Anchorage being a good governor and a careful rollout of her national profile in which she could portray herself as conversant on national issues would probably have been the best thing for her career, as well as for her family.

But that was not to be. Palin made a powerful first impression on the country with as brilliant a convention speech as could have been imagined, but soon crashed and burned in national interviews and, unfortunately, became the scapegoat for a poorly run McCain campaign as well as the primary focus for left-wing hate and liberal media bias. In the next year, she ditched her governorship and then proceeded to make a spectacle of herself on reality TV. The worst of it wasn't so much her poor career choices and the way her family became a tabloid staple. The most dispiriting thing about Palin's career arc is the way her bitterness at the media and other Republicans became the primary focus of her rhetoric. Rather than going to school on the issues and making herself ready for the next political challenge, she seemed content to become a sideshow for the grass roots, pandering to the worst instincts of her party and often appeared foolish rather than being a thoughtful contributor.

To note this unfortunate descent is not to ignore her still potent ability to generate publicity and draw crowds. Her interventions in some Republican primaries helped conservatives like Ted Cruz and Kelly Ayotte win Senate seats. Her raw political talent and speaking ability is still there even if it is most often used to rail at her enemies rather than to demonstrate thoughtful stands on the issues.

Doing so has kept her admirers happy and preserved her niche as a flame-throwing snark machine of the right. But she has to know that this routine has a limited shelf life. With the GOP now possessed of a deep bench of stars who are potential 2016 candidates, Palin is very much yesterday's news and has already been eclipsed by people like Cruz and Rand Paul even among her own fan base. As the years go by, her appeal and her celebrity are bound to wane. Sooner or later, if she is to go on being treated–at least by people like Hannity, if few others even in the conservative media–as a big deal, she's going to have to do something more than talk shows. The 2014 Alaska Senate race may be the best opportunity to do so that she will ever get.

A Senate campaign would put her to the test and even her sternest critics should not assume she would fail this time. It may be that Palin has become too polarizing a political personality to win any election, even in deep red Alaska. But she owes to herself and to her supporters to try. She almost certainly will never be president, but a Senate seat is not beyond her grasp. While I'm far from sure that her contribution to the national debate would be enlightening, it would be entertaining.   

Why not delay individual mandate, too?

Indeed. Why not delay the whole stupid bill, for say, 50 years.

Why not delay individual mandate, too?
by Rick Moran

Indeed, why not? With employers given a reprieve in being forced to offer insurance to their employees, why not do the same for the average American?


Congressional Republicans pressed President Barack Obama on Tuesday to delay a requirement under his healthcare law that Americans obtain insurance next year after the administration gave employers a one-year reprieve from having to provide it to staff.

"Next year, millions of Americans will get the help they need to purchase quality health insurance they currently cannot afford," he said.

But White House spokesman Jay Carney said the individual mandate would go forward because Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides financial assistance to help lower-income people pay for insurance while exempting those who cannot afford coverage.

"Please ... provide to Congress your justification for only delaying the employer mandate at this time and not the new mandate on individuals and families," they wrote. "We agree with you that the burden was overwhelming for employers, but we also believe American families need the same relief."

In a letter on Tuesday signed by House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner and 10 other leading House Republicans, they asked Obama for a detailed explanation of the delay of the "employer mandate," asking for a reply from the president by August 1.

The move sparked a new wave of Republican efforts to discredit Obama's healthcare reform law and raised questions over whether the effort will be launched as planned.

The U.S. Treasury and White House announced last week that businesses would not be required to offer health coverage, or pay a fine, in 2014 because the administration had yet to issue final regulations in time for employers to comply.

It's not going to happen. Without the mandate, there would be a lot fewer people buying insurance to subsidize those with chronic or pre-existing conditions. The sick folks are going to be paying exactly the same as healthy people (which calls into question why we are calling it "insurance" in the first place). The cost of health care would go through the roof unless the "young invincibles" are forced to buy into the insurance market.

Besides, the individual mandate is the cornerstone of Obamacare. The administration will fight tooth and nail to keep it as it is a symbol of the law as much as it is a working part of it.