Friday, September 10, 2010

Even a Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day

Well it has taken Obama 1 year, 7 months and 17 days to finally propose an economic initiative that is positive for the people. It must be finally dawning on him that he is not Hugo Chavez and those peasants out there in the streets really are armed, dangerous and do have the capacity to seize power from the imbecile and his Marie Antoinette bride. Maybe it was Joe Biden who slipped him a little note at lunch telling him his reign was coming to a end. Maybe one of his kids at school was teased because their dad was such a goof ball. Who knows? Whatever it was or whoever it is the message seems to have gotten through to the dolt that this is not Venezuela and he is not Hugo Chavez.

This man represents all us “typical white people” out there who hate the half Negro in the White House

Apparently from his last “they treat me like a dog” speech the half Negro is showing some all African-American Negro ass to the American people. How dare we the people question his 95 IQ and his Harvard credentials? We should know he learned Marxism from the finest professors the world has to offer. We just need to shut up and not treat the anointed one like a “dog.”
See my middle finger? Can you see my middle finder? It’s from me and all the American people you dismiss so casually just as King Luis XVI and Marie Antoinette did in 1789. “Let them eat cake” is now “Let them have health care” as the unemployment of the peasants continues throughout the land.
Well anyway it’s apparent somebody on the Obama team does understand economics because they have proposed reducing capital investment write offs from 3 to 20 years to one year. A fancy way of getting a lot of bang for the buck while avoiding the appearance of giving the rich a tax cut. Of course a better option would be to cut corporate taxes to 0%, capital gains to 0% and returning the top personal rate to 28.6%. We can only dream the chosen one had attended Utah State or some real university. As it is this tax proposal shocks me. It actually is something positive.
As soon as the election is over I am sure Obama will return to his Karl Marx ways “”There is only one way to kill capitalism-by taxes, taxes, and, more taxes.” Our communist educated dolt of a president will go right back to his programming from Harvard because it’s all he knows and he is not a bright man like Bill Clinton and does not have the capacity to separate reality from fiction.
For those of you who think I am insensitive please report me to Tea Party Tracker at http://www.teapartytracker.org/
The following appeared in the WSJ on 9-7-2010
Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com
President Barack Obama, in one of his most dramatic gestures to business, will propose that companies be allowed to more quickly write off 100% of their new investment in plants and equipment through 2011.

Obama most closely related political figure from the past. King Louis XVI eventually lost his head.

The president is proposing that companies be allowed to write off 100% of new investment in plants and equipment through 2011, a plan White House economists say would cut business taxes by nearly $200 billion. John McKinnon, Bob O’Brien and Neal Lipschutz discuss. Also, Jerry Seib discusses the latest WSJ poll, which shows that the clouds may be darkening for Democrats in the final run-up to November’s elections.
The proposal, to be laid out Wednesday in a speech in Cleveland, tops a raft of announcements, from a proposed expansion of the research and experimentation tax credit to $50 billion in additional spending on roads, railways and runways.
Companies can now deduct new investment expenses, but over a longer period of time—three to 20 years. The proposed change, which would let companies keep more cash now, is meant to give companies who may be hesitant to invest an incentive to expand, acting as a spur to the overall economy.
While some economists praised the investment-incentive idea, some business groups and congressional Republicans said their higher priority remained an extension of the Bush income-tax rates for higher earners that are set to expire at the end of 2010. Mr. Obama and many congressional Democrats want to let those breaks expire.
Jade West, senior vice president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, said she hoped the tax proposal “is something we could get behind, but the devil is in the details.”
Administration officials hope businesses spooked by the faltering recovery but with investments already on the drawing board will rush to take advantage of the tax break. The tax break would be retroactive to Sept. 8, the day it is announced, so businesses won’t delay planned investments while waiting for congressional action. It would extend to Dec. 31, 2011.
White House economists said the plan would cut business taxes by nearly $200 billion over two years. Officials said that over the long run the government would only lose $30 billion, because deductions that businesses would have taken in future years under current rules would disappear.
Congress must approve the proposal, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday the White House hasn’t yet discussed legislative strategy. The House and Senate return from recess the week of Sept. 13 with a separate, small-business lending measure as their first priority.
Lawmakers plan to leave Washington again after a few weeks in session to campaign ahead of the hotly contested midterm elections Nov. 2, so any action on the new proposal may have to wait until a lame-duck session after Election Day, or early next year.
Mr. Obama will follow his economic address Wednesday with a full White House press conference on Friday. “Without a doubt with this series, the president has seized the economic initiative,” Mr. Emanuel said.
Still, Mr. Obama’s proposal drew skepticism from some of his administration’s prominent opponents.

Michelle Obama’s extravagant vacations and luxurious parties would make Marie Antoinette blush with envy. Let’s hope the peasants have the same success with Michelle as they did with Marie

“The White House is missing the big picture. These aren’t necessarily bad proposals, but they don’t address the two big problems that are hurting our economy—excessive government spending, and the uncertainty that Washington Democrats’ policies, especially their massive tax hike, are creating for small businesses,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R, Ohio).
A senior administration official said about 1.5 million companies—those with tax liabilities and investments in the works—are expected to take advantage of the proposal.
Businesses would be able to lower their taxable income for the full amount of new investments they make in plants, equipment and virtually any investment besides real estate, an administration official said.
Under current law, if a company spends $10 million on a new factory, it gets to deduct the full amount of the cost over a period of between three and 20 years, depending on the investment. So it cuts its stated pre-tax profits by a varying amount each year, thus reducing taxes until the cost of the investment has been written off.
Under the new proposal, the company would get to deduct the full $10 million in the first year. That would give it an immediate cash infusion to offset the costs of investment. It would also give certainty that the full tax benefit would be realized. Companies often don’t get to write off the full cost of an investment over an extended time. They might go out of business during that window, or other tax complications could arise.
The investment incentive would embrace a long-held wish by conservative economists that had never won support from either Republican or Democratic administrations. “Temporary investment incentives like this can have big effects because they really pull investment forward,” said R. Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia University School of Business and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. “This could have a big stimulative effect.”
An Idea Evolves
History of the tax break:
2002: Allowed 30% write-off for three years.
2003: Rate rises to 50%
2008: Small businesses allowed to write off value of investment up to $250,000. 50% allowed for larger companies.
2009: Both extended a year
2010: Both under consideration in Congress.
Source: Tax Policy Center
Kevin Hassett, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, praised the Obama plan, saying it “goes to show they’ve learned their lesson” from the 2009 stimulus. He estimated the tax change would expand business equipment investment by 5% to 10%.
But another economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, of Harvard University, and another former CEA chairman under President Bush, questioned whether the Obama proposal would have a big impact. Businesses can already take out a bank loan at extremely low interest rates to pay for new investments in plants and equipment, but they are not doing so, he said. It’s unclear why they would make those investments for a tax break.
The business investment deduction would supplement other Obama proposals, notably a permanent extension of an expanded research and experimentation tax credit, an idea Mr. Obama has touted since his presidential campaign.
At a Labor Day union rally in Milwaukee Monday, Mr. Obama also proposed the $50 billion round of infrastructure investments. Administration officials say the money would pay for 150,000 miles of refurbished roads, 4,000 miles of high-speed rail and 150 miles of airport runway, along with advances in air-traffic control technology.
Mr. Emanuel said the three proposals together would move money quickly into the economy through the government and the private sector.
Some in the business community said a higher priority for them continued to be the extension of the Bush-era income-tax rates for higher earners, set to expire at the end of 2010.
President Obama today unveiled a new plan to upgrade American infrastructure, bring the country’s highways and railroads into the 21st Century while creating jobs. Video courtesy of NewsCore and photo courtesy of Associated Press.
Mr. Obama and many congressional Democrats want to eliminate the current 33% and 35% rates for higher earners, and return them to pre-Bush levels of 36% and 39.6%.
“The best thing to do is to get rid of uncertainty, and that includes the cliff we’re falling off with all these [tax] provisions that are expiring,” said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business group.
Many NFIB members also are concerned about a new requirement for reporting purchases of more than $600 to the Internal Revenue Service, he added. He questioned whether many business owners would choose to buy more equipment, at least until sales pick up.
Ms. West, of the wholesaler-distributors group, said, “If this will be offered as a tradeoff for raising the top two rates, it’s a non-starter.”
“That said,” she added, “I am delighted to see the administration move toward policies that acknowledge that tax policy has consequences.”
Jay Timmons, executive vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, described the expensing proposal as “good at face value.”
But he questioned the administration’s logic in proposing to raise some business taxes in order to lower others.
“The good news [is that] the administration recognizes that manufacturing is key to getting the economy back on track and ensuring we are able to sustain economic growth and job creation. But you can’t do that if you’re penalizing one sector of manufacturing while trying to incent another.”
Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com and John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com

The Rest of the World is Moving Forward and we are Stuck with the Afro Leninist

Well the housing bubble and bust have come and gone. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have polluted the world financial system with sub prime loans and the world economy was sick for months, years. We the world citizens suffered the miserable disastrous social engineering policies of the elites together. And now two and a half years later as the United States continues to be plagued with Harvard educated Marxist in the White House the rest of the world has had enough and has decided they will be moving on. That sound you are hearing is the rest of the world decoupling from the United States and leaving us behind to fight it out with our dull affirmative action president and his Ivy League progressives.

Obama must be asking Geithner “Bush got a housing bubble, Reagan got a Savings and Loan bubble, Clinton got a NASDAQ bubble so where is my money bubble?”

In case anybody didn’t bother to look China’s economic growth slowed down to 10.30% in June down from 11.90% in May. India’s economy grew at an 8.8% in the first quarter. India’s manufacturing sector grew 12.4%. Even high tax Germany has shown signs of recovery with a 5.7% growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2009 and a modest 2.2% growth rate in the first quarter and a astonishing 9.0% in the second quarter of 2010. Meanwhile the United States staggers along with massive borrowing to achieve a 1.6% second quarter GDP growth rate. While the rest of the world is busting their ass and getting back to work the Afro Leninist whips out another credit card and charges up more debt and proclaims he is the savior of the economy.
So we will get more economic proposals from the statist in the White House, more stagnation and eventually inflation.
What Obama, Bernanke and Geithner have so desperately been trying to do is ignite another bubble like the one John Law did from 1715 to 1720 in France. None of their economic play book is new. It’s been around for centuries. And the Marxist, Keynesian and Wiz Kid have played it by the book inflating the monetary base 160%, the money stock almost 17% since 2008 and still no bubble. Obama must be pissed as well as the Democrats who will be losing this 2010 election in record numbers. $825 billion stimulus package, cash for clunkers, mortgage deduction credits, small business loans, take over of the banking industry, automotive industry and still billions of dollars sitting with banks and corporations on the sidelines. Obama has to be asking Geithner “Where is my bubble?” Why would Obama want another bubble just like the last one but only bigger?

John Law 1671-1729 would teach Geithner and Bernanke a lesson on how to create another financial bubble.

Bubbles tend to last 4 years give or take. If John Law was alive today he could tell you. Four years is just long enough to get people intoxicated on false hope and cheap money, just long enough to get people to abandon their rational thought and re-elect a Hugo Chavez wanna be. Just long enough to get the pieces of the dictatorship in place before the inevitable bust.
And then silence. There is no bubble for the 2010 elections. Hitler had the people behind him. Obama does not and in most jurisdictions in America elections are very difficult to fix, excluding Minnesota and Washington State. Bad new for the dictator wanna be.
As it stands there are billions of dollars sitting on the sidelines. Thousands of banks waiting for the Federal Reserve to capitulate to the forces of economics and raise interest rates. And what will unleash the forces of inflation on our nation? Remember those world economic growth rates? As China figures out it doesn’t need to buy American bonds, as Germany continues to practice fiscally conservative financial policies, as India discovers capitalism works the world will start to look elsewhere for economic markets and leadership.
As the rest of the world moves forward with real growth financed by investment and savings the United States cheap money policies will come back to haunt them and the dollar will plunge even more than today. Inflation will increase as the price of imported goods rise. Eventually the Federal Reserve will have to defend the dollar and hike interest rates. And when banks finally think they have a chance at making a profit all those billions of dollars will come out of the closet flooding the US economy creating the long awaited money bubble Obama has desperately been praying for. All those billions flooding the market at the same time all those sub prime mortgages from the last bubble come due at Fannie, Freddie and the zombie banks.
And that sums up the Obama and Democratic economic strategy. Now maybe some are too stupid (Obama) to understand the strategy but some are not (Geithner, Bernanke, Frank) and know exactly what they are doing. In the end it’s a simple strategy of blowing up the money supply, getting the peasants drunk and then when it all comes crashing down clamp the dictatorship screws and nail the coffin shut on freedom and liberty.
This Labor Day we can all be thankful Obama is asking Geithner “Where’s my bubble?” and not “How long do I have before it burst?” Maybe we peasants have enough time to get some adults in charge in Washington.

8-28-2010 Restoring Honor

The Glen Beck Restoring Honor event came and went. There were easily half a million people at this event. It was a pleasure to attend and not without some pain as the temperature and humidity caused several to be taken away to be treated for heat exhaustion. Everyone in attendance will remember the day for the rest of their lives.
At 9:59 a flock of geese flew strait over the reflecting pond to the Lincoln Memorial as if to alert the crowd of the coming event. At 10:00 AM the show began. Sarah Palin was the first notable speaker delivering a speech in praise of three wounded warriors both physically and mentally.

8-28-2010 Restoring Honor

The crowd was respectful and peaceful. For those of you who missed it here is a link to watch the event.
The only downer on the day was Dr. Alveda King complaining about “white privileged” and hoping it became “human privileged” at 2:03:20 of the video. I don’t know any white man that got a free pass in life. Blacks need to look in the mirror for the answers to their problems and stop blaming the white man.
Dr. Alveda King should praise God every day that she was born in America where the average black man makes six to thirty times more than the average impoverished black man in Africa. In some African countries the purchasing power parity is $300 a year which is barley above the $140 a year mankind survived on in the middle ages.
Skip ahead to 2:08:30 if you want to skip the build up to Beck and his speech. Skip ahead to 3:02:50 for the dramatic and emotional ending.

8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor


8-28-2010 Restoring Honor

Bush “Miss Me Yet?”

You know the propaganda police are out in force when the T-Shirt sellers are sold out of “Miss me Yet?” T-shirts. And what can you say? Unemployment was 4.4% under Bush. 5.5 million more people were working for America. What can you say?
I say Bush was the jerk that got his screwballs in the Republican Party to team up with the incompetent Pelosi and Obama in the (at that time) Senate to pass the ultimate poison pill condemning the United States of America to years of debt and internal strife. Yes the goof ball “Do you miss me yet?” progressive sort of guy functioned as the approval stamp for the poison pill sent up to congress and the senate by then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

Now it is debatable if these (Goldman Sacks) geniuses knew what the fu.. they were doing but the result was the same. Their infamous 700 billion no strings attached bailout set the stage for Obama’s colossal $825 billion bail out fiasco.
These bastards knew what the f… they were doing; the financial equivalent of a (WWII) scorched earth policy.
Now can we fault Bush for realizing Obama and his trolls would be as stupid as to step right into the Keynesian sh..? When your opponent is so predictable do we fault people for taking advantage of that? Well yes we do when it is America and our taxpayers’ money at stake. Bush played a smart political game for the benefit of the Republican Party at the expense of the people in 2008. I hope America understands what bastards these Republicans are in 2012.
Vote Libertarian in 2012.

Fixing Social Security

In the article below Michael Tanner discusses the stupidity of the Republicans, like our local Republican candidate Karen Diebel in Florida Congressional District 24, who stick their head in the sand and refuse to discuss Social Security in a rational manner with the voters. The solution for a rational plan that will be acceptable is one that is not controversial or complex.
Something as simple as personal accounts where the individual had to devote 5% of their gross income to the purchase of federal, state, local government bonds or AAA rated corporate bonds. That’s about as safe as a investment can get and frankly a lot safer than Social Security that is going bust in 2015 not 2019 as was predicted.
Pay off the over 55 recipients. Pay out over time the amount owed with interest to current contributers. Maybe a federal savings bond swap than can be cashed in by the individuals at their retirement date in the future. This would spread the obligation over time preventing a one time charge off for the program. The point is to keep it simple and stick to the plan.
Another factor completely ignored is the threat of inflation for Social Security recipients. With the Federal Reserve monetizing the debt, China favoring the Euro, and the monetary base blown up 162% the last couple of years its not a question of if but when we will get inflation. With bank lending up this last month another bubble could be just around the corner. Republicans need to explain to the public the danger inflation poses to the Social Security program and the importance of eliminating the program for the safety and security of their benefits. Not a easy sell.
Republicans need to show their cards. There is only three ways this game will end. They cave into the Democrats (again) and raise Social Security taxes from 12.4% to 18%. Benefits are cut dramatically or personal accounts are set up.

Michael Tanner of CATO

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on August 18, 2010.
by Michael D. Tanner
So, President Obama believes that Republican leaders are “pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall.”
To which one responds, “If only!”
There is no doubt that Social Security desperately needs reform. Social Security is already running a temporary deficit, and that deficit will turn permanent in just five years. In theory, the Social Security Trust Fund will pay benefits until 2037. That’s not much comfort to today’s 35-year-olds, who will face a 27 percent cut in benefits unless the program is reformed before they retire. But even that figure is misleading, because the trust fund contains no actual assets. The government bonds it holds are simply IOUs, a measure of how much money the government owes the system. It says nothing about where the government will get the $2.6 trillion to pay off those IOUs.
Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.
More by Michael D. Tanner
Even if Congress can find a way to redeem the bonds, the trust-fund surplus will be completely exhausted by 2037. At that point, Social Security will have to rely solely on revenue from the payroll tax — and that won’t be sufficient to pay all the promised benefits. Overall, the amount the system has promised beyond what it can actually pay now totals $18.7 trillion.
Moreover, Social Security taxes are already so high, relative to benefits, that Social Security has simply become a bad deal for younger workers, providing a below-market rate of return. In fact, many young workers will end up paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. And most important, workers have no ownership of their benefits. This means that they are left totally dependent on the goodwill of 535 politicians to determine what they’ll receive in retirement.
Benefits are not inheritable, and the program is a barrier to wealth accumulation. Lower-income families, African-Americans, and working women suffer disproportionately.
But Republican leaders, battered by the failure of President Bush’s reform initiative and years of Democratic demagoguery, show no signs of venturing back into this issue. In fact, the only senior Republican willing to support personal accounts these days appears to be Rep. Paul Ryan, who has included in his “roadmap” a plan to allow younger workers the option of investing slightly less than half of their Social Security taxes. However, it is telling that Ryan’s roadmap has just 13 co-sponsors, none of whom are among the Republican leadership.
Given their large lead in current polls, it is perhaps understandable that Republicans don’t want to risk offending voters, particularly seniors, by wading back into the Social Security thicket. But they are making a mistake.
From a purely political standpoint, if Republicans think that remaining silent on the issue will protect them from Democratic attacks, they are the stupid party indeed. The president’s comments should serve clear notice that Democrats are not going to let a simple thing like Republicans’ actual position to get in the way of a good political weapon. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has run television ads attacking his opponent, Sharron Angle, for wanting “to wipe the program out,” even though she’s made clear she wants to keep it. In Kentucky, Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul is being criticized for remarks he made in favor of Social Security privatization — in 1998. There isn’t any escape.
Even worse, as a matter of policy, by taking personal accounts off the table, Republicans may be boxing themselves into a very bad corner. There are, after all, only three options for Social Security reform: raise taxes, cut benefits, or switch to personal accounts. While benefit cuts are defensible economically, they are not likely to prove any more politically popular than personal accounts, probably less so. Democrats are already organizing to fight any reductions. And, if Republican opposition to the Medicare cuts under Obamacare is any indication, no one should expect an overabundance of courage in fighting to cut Social Security benefits.
Therefore, if Republicans are not willing to embrace personal accounts, they will be left with … tax hikes, which has been the Democrats’ goal all along.
One reason the Democrats have been so successful in expanding the government year after year is that they have the courage of their convictions. They lose on an issue time after time, but they keep coming back until they win. Take national health care: After Hillarycare went down to defeat in 1993, the Left didn’t give up. And today we have Obamacare. Republicans lost on Social Security and curled up into a fetal position, begging for mercy.
Factcheck.org rates the president’s statement that Republicans want to privatize Social Security as “mostly false.” Before too long, we may come to wish that this time he had been telling the truth.

Social Security Deficits Soon Will Be Permanent

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute expert on entitlement programs.
This article appeared in The Orange County Register on August 13, 2010.
When last we heard from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he was proclaiming that there was no need to reform Social Security because the program “is on solid ground for decades to come.”
Well, apparently that’s true — if by “decades” Reid, D-Nev., meant “five years.”
Social Security’s trustees this month finally released their long-delayed report on the system’s finances. According to the trustees, who include President Barack Obama’s secretaries of Labor and Treasury, Social Security is actually running a cash-flow deficit today, spending more money on benefits than it takes in through taxes. Most of that deficit has been caused by the recent economic downturn and, hopefully, will be only temporary.

Michael D. Tanner of CATO

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute expert on entitlement programs.
More by Michael D. Tanner
But regardless of how the economy performs in the next few years, the trustees warn that by 2015, just five years from now, Social Security will again start to run deficits — and this time they will be permanent. That’s a year sooner than predicted in last year’s report.
While, in theory, the Social Security Trust Fund will be able to pay benefits until 2037, the same as in last year’s report, that figure is misleading because the trust fund contains no actual assets. The government bonds it holds are simply a form of IOU, a measure of how much money the government owes the system, $2.6 trillion, according to the report.
Of course, no one is saying that the government will default on its obligations, but one might ask where the government will get the money to pay back that $2.6 trillion. It’s not as though the government has it laying around. To say that Social Security is fine because the Treasury will find a way to pay its debts is like saying you have plenty of money for your mortgage — as long as you don’t eat.
Even if Congress can find a way to redeem the bonds, the trust fund surplus will be completely exhausted by 2037. At that point, Social Security will have to rely solely on revenue from the payroll tax — and that won’t be sufficient to pay all promised benefits. Overall, the amount the system has promised beyond what it can actually pay now totals $18.7 trillion.
Not surprisingly, Reid and others have suggested that all of this could be fixed with a simple tax increase. They have suggested, for instance, taking the cap off the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. This would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history, and would give this country a higher marginal tax rate than, say, Sweden. And it wouldn’t come close to fixing Social security’s financial shortfall.
In fact, even if you took the cap off completely, without giving anyone additional benefits in exchange for the higher taxes, you would extend the date at which Social Security begins to run a deficit by seven years — to 2022. That’s not much gain for all that pain.
To actually “save” Social Security would require a 50 percent hike in the payroll tax, from 12.4 percent to at least 18 percent, or the equivalent in other taxes. That’s a big tax hike.
And all this says nothing about Social Security’s other problems. Social Security taxes are already so high, relative to benefits, that Social Security has simply become a bad deal for younger workers, providing a low, below-market rate of return. Many young workers will end up paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. They will actually lose money under the program.
And, most importantly, under the current system, workers do not actually own their Social Security benefits. They are left totally dependent on the goodwill of the 535 politicians in Congress to determine what they’ll receive in retirement. Benefits are not inheritable, and the program is a barrier to wealth accumulation.
Politicians like Reid can no longer be allowed to duck this vital issue. The trustees’ report makes it clear that Social Security is not “on solid ground.” Social Security must be reformed, sooner rather than later.

Florida Congressional District 24 Recommendations

Florida Congressional District 24 is currently occupied by Suzanne Kosmas the owner of Prestige Properties (real estate) and a former Florida legislature. The reason she will be losing this fall can be summed up in one bad vote for health care. She had previously flip flopped on this issue but when the final vote came last March and thousands of her constituents were pleading with her not to vote for Obamacare she caved in and that was all she wrote. Bad choice in an R+3 district. She’s gone.

Florida District 24 Congressional Candidate Sandy Adams

Of the three challengers with a legitimate chance I have mixed feeling about all of them. Adams has the least amount of private sector experience and a criminal justice degree in a time when we need to understand the money bomb the Federal Reserve has hanging over our heads. Craig Miller was the last to enter the race and is the least known of the three. Miller has also been endorsed by the far left Orlando Sentinel which gives Libertarians the chills. Karen Diebel is the Republican establishment candidate having been endorsed by Mike Huckabee. She clearly has the most potential but has not achieved what she is capable of. This is a contest of imperfect choices but here goes.
Sandy Adams has been a Florida House representative in District 33 for the last eight so she has excellent name recognition. She was a law enforcement officer for 17 years and her mannerisms reflect that ability to cut the small talk and get to the issues. Everyone likes her direct and helpful approach for her constituents. That is defiantly a huge positive for her.
She voted for the billion dollar boondoggle known locally as Sun Rail translated a huge government waste of money on a train through our communities that will snarl traffic and add to congestion. This is a huge negative on her record and why it is so painful to support her but the alternatives seem worse. What was she thinking?
On the positive side she is for states rights and she has pledged to not accept earmarks until the process is reformed. She is not the worse RINO in the Florida Legislature but no one will confuse her record with Marco Rubio’s.
When she is in Washington her door will always be open to the “small people.” And I guess that’s what it comes down to in this race. With Miller not even living in the district he will be surrounded by his business buddies in the restaurant industry. Diebel will be surrounded by her aristocratic friends in Winter Park and where does that leave the average guy? With no representation. I know Adams will be my representative and not my master. The other two?

Craig Miller is the former CEO of Ruth Chris Steak House

Craig Miller is the former CEO of Ruth Chris Steak House and very polished and concise in his discussion of issues. When asked by the Orlando Sentinel why he was fired in 2008 he was candid and up front that the new management didn’t like his performance. When he was asked did his companies ever hire illegals he was candid and said yes they did. That kind of honesty is common in the private business world but rare in government. He is a strait talker much like Adams.
On the negative side he was endorsed by the Orlando Sentinel. Anytime the Orlando Sentinel likes a candidate for national office you need to wonder what they know and question their ulterior motives. He is the least know candidate in the race. Both his opponents have a track record to look at. Miller doesn’t.
Miller seems like a hoarse trader who will swap this for that. We don’t need that kind of person in congress. We need cold hearted ideologues that will refuse to negotiate with the progressives infiltrating every orifice of the federal government. People who are repelled by progressives and feel violated being around them. We have a $13.3 trillion dollar debt and transfer payments are consuming 44.7% of the federal budget. The time for negotiation has come and gone. Miller seems like the guy always looking to get the best deal from the other side and the country has its back against the wall. He’s a great guy and I wish he had more of a public track record or was more economically Austrian in his approach. Living in the district would also help.

Winter Park Commissioner Karen Diebel

Karen Diebel is the biggest disappointment in this race. She has the best education and most compelling personal story but has repeatedly fallen short of her potential time after time. She is running a 1990 Republican campaign supporting Social Security and all the entitlement programs at a time when the national deficit is 92% of the GDP. Surly she understands that we cannot sustain Social Security without raising payroll taxes to at least 18% by 2020. Combined with a projected debt that if it continues might be 120% of GDP? 150% of GDP?
She is touted as a leader but shies away from controversy and can give a completely flat speech when the pressure is on her to deliver. There have been complaints about her following and not leading in her role as Winter Park commissioner. Todd Long is a leader. Adams is not afraid to lead. We don’t need a back marker in District 24 in congress.
You just have to stand back and wonder why her parents wasted their money sending her to Notre Dame for a business degree. Why is this lady refusing to acknowledge reality and at least give some sort of halfway plausible defense of Social Security. Please explain how the Ponzi scheme is going to work in 2042, I am all ears. Shall we let 60 million Mexicans and Central Americans enter the United States so we can continue paying into the system making it viable? Please let us know the plan. Inquiring minds want to know.

Deon Long is the most Libertarian an “Austrian” of all the candidates. The sentimental favorite for freedom loving voters.

Hey look I like to go to work during the week, drink some Jack Daniels and be intimate with the wife on the weekends. I like the American dream of being stupid and enjoying life just as much as the rest of America does. Times change, bad people get power and the widow to take back the country is narrowing and closing by the day. I don’t want to hear a 1990’s politician in 2010.
I don’t want to be a super economist any more than Diebel wants to criticize Social Security but now is the time for all good men and women to rise up to the occasion. I was blessed with the ability for economics and math. I have the degrees in economics and math. I feel compelled to offer up the best analysis I can to anyone who will listen of the danger this country is in and offer solutions as best I can. I would feel like a complete jerk in 2020 when the USA has stagnated to USSR circa 1990 status if I didn’t do what I could to change the course that we are on.
That money bomb out there is real Mrs. Diebel and if you have any business talent we would like to see it. Defending the stats quo is not good enough. In ten years my kids will know what I did and what I stood for. Your kids are watching you and what you do today. Here is a video of the Austrian economics and the Keynesian economics in 2006. You are on the side of the Keynesian. Bad choice and you will look just as ignorant 10 years from now as these Keynesian clowns do now. I may not have a $1.9 million dollar house but I do understand business and use my degrees to help and explain to others what is happening today.

Former Top Gun fighter pilot Tom Garcia is the Tea Party favorite

Deon Long has been the biggest surprise in this race. He has come out of nowhere to raise a very respectable $161,000. He is probably the most “Austrian” economically orientated of the candidates. He supports the gold standard and does see problems with our nation’s debt structure. Everybody likes Deon and we all will be pulling for him come August 24, 2010. I wish he had a realistic chance and would jump up and down with joy if he won.
Tom Garcia is another disappointment in this race. He is the best fit for “Tea Party” candidate but never has been a factor to date. He has raised $55,000 to date. His volunteer army is modest but dedicated. He is a great public speaker and on paper he should have done much better. Diebel, Miller and Adams have all sucked the oxygen out of this race leaving very little for Long and Garcia.
Come August 24, 2010 it would not surprise me to see Miller pull this out. His fund raising is at $620,000 far ahead of Adams at $365,000. Adams best chance is for her name recognition and reputation to carry the day. If she does she can thank her tenacity and army of volunteers who have been working for many months to get her message out. Sandy is a very honest and hard worker and I would be proud to have her as my congressional representative. Good luck Sandy.

Florida Congressional District 8 Recommendations

Florida Congressional District 8 is the infamous home of national jerk Alan “Die Quickly” Grayson. In a Zogby poll Todd Long was leading Grayson by 8%. Grayson is despised by both independents and the right for his outrageous statements pandering to the left. Whoever wins the August 24th primary will have little trouble firing up the base. Grayson is probably the most hated congressperson since Dan Rostenkowski had the nerve to tax the gimme generation for the Medicare catastrophic coverage act of 1994. Grayson is truly a despicable devil’s spawn bastard who needs to be in a psychiatric ward and not congress. And with that here they are.

Todd Long on the campaign trail with his book “The Conservative Comeback” that has been reportedly sent to 30,000 Republican voters in Florida District 8. Quite a impressive logistical feat.

Todd Long is a local lawyer who has written a campaign book, The Conservative Comeback, where he expresses his desire to return the federal government back to its original small size and purpose of basic national functions like defense and environmental policy. He would like to eventually eliminate over time all social engineering programs from the federal government like Social Security and Medicare and delegate those responsibilities to the states or local government. He understands the Laffer Curve which states that when you increase taxes more than 30% revenue collection declines not increases in most cases and especially in the area of the productive sector of the economy, translated personal taxes, corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. He along with Rubio is one of the few politicians with the balls to admit Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable and will bankrupt America. He has my support and I would “walk for this man” as they say in politics. His volunteer workers have distributed his book to a reported 30,000 potential voters in District 8. Clearly the best educated and economically Austrian candidate of the bunch. Clearly he has a dedicated army of volunteers who believe in his message.
On the negative side Todd has quite a colorful past including a DUI in 1998, a “drunk and disorderly” warning at the local Orlando Millennium Mall in 2005, allegations of sexual harassment (denied 8-16-2010), allegations of financial hard times (denied 8-16-2010) and a police report of how a cop found Mr. Long drunk and asleep on a sidewalk in Tallahassee in 2007. There is a reason when I get trashed I do it at home Todd. The worst thing that happens to me is I say something stupid on face book or my wife kicks my ass. Enough said.

Patricia Sullivan is living the American dream with four home schooled children, a loving husband and running for congress at the same time.

The press certainly would enjoy a Todd Long congressional tenure. Todd claims to have found salvation in Christian principals and no matter what happens in this election I hope he keeps his faith strong. We all need our faith in these times of trouble.
Patricia Sullivan is living the American Dream. She is the mother of four and has home schooled all of them. Her first daughter is graduating and on her way to college. She is the organizer of the 2009 Tea Parties in Lake County. She has no political connections or great wealth but has amassed a sizable army of volunteers to spread the message of this citizen warrior. Despite being on a shoe string budget of $56,000 she will finish well in the August 24th primary.
What she has going for her is charisma. She speaks strongly with a slow clear purpose and cadence making her thoughts clear to her audience expressing her anger over the current state of affairs. I suspect this comes from her years of homeschooling trying to make lessons both interesting and clear to her children. Whatever it is it creates compelling political drama from the normal political speech. Charisma is hard to define but she clearly has it in abundance.

Dan Fanelli is a former Navy pilot and former commercial airliner pilot.

Negatives: I have been involved in Orlando politics regularly for a year now and have talked with hundreds of volunteers and politicians. Nobody has said a bad thing about Mrs. Sullivan. She is highly respected by friends and foes. She is a very inspiring local figure to everyone who knows her. If there is any criticism of her is she lacks (she has an Associate of Arts degree) the depth of understanding a graduate degree provides in law or business. Life is complex and knowledge is power.
Dan Fanelli is a Navy pilot veteran and if you don’t know that talk to him for five minutes. He will surly remind you. He is the only military veteran in the race and a formal commercial airline pilot who was flying when 9-11 happened. He is an honorable man and as far as we can tell has never been awaken by police for sleeping on a sidewalk in public.

Ross Bieling is a successful businessman who earned his law degree as a non traditional student in 2008

He is most famous for being trashed by Jon Steward for his politically incorrect ad telling the public to “send me to Washington and I will send our enemies to where they belong and that not to a courtroom” and “send me to Washington and get rid of that bum Alan Grayson.” So he’s not on Michael Moore’s Christmas list. We all love Dan but in a seven candidate race his message is falling on deaf ears. There are no negatives for Dan other than his fund raising has been the second worst of the other six and even falling behind third party candidate Peg Dunmire of the now infamous Florida Tea Party. His volunteer force is minimal compared to Long, Kelly or Sullivan. Mr. Fanelli is a very honorable man who has had a very hard time gaining momentum in this hotly contested race.
Ross Bieling is a very intelligent self made businessman and I would be comfortable if he was elected to congress. His list of accomplishments with his private business in the medical field is impressive as well as his education obtaining a law degree as a working nontraditional student in 2008. Very impressive.

Businessman Bruce O’Donoghue is the most successful Republican fundraiser but has a recent 2008 DUI. A very organized and intelligent political foe.

On the negative side he has not filed a fund raising report at this time according to Open Secrets. He has no name recognition that I am aware of. His public speaking is more suited for a business meeting than inspiring the troops. I respect this man but come August 24th it would not surprise me if he finishes seventh.
Bruce O’Donoghue is a local small businessperson who started in his parent’s traffic engineering business and eventually took it over. He has raised an impressive $478,000 in contributions (compared to Todd Long’s $220,000) with 79% from fund raising efforts and not his personal financing. On the issues he is standard Republican fare, cut waste, taxes, spending, repeal Obamacare. In person he is very articulate and in command. Mr. O’Donoghue is a very respectable opponent and very intelligent.
On the negative there is a report of a 2008 DUI and tax trouble in 2009. The recent DUI is very damaging to Mr. O’Donoghue. I think everyone is having recent financial troubles with the exception of government workers. The recent DUI drops Mr. O’Donoghue from second to fifth, what a shame. He is a very accomplished and polished individual.

Kurt Kelly’s vote supporting a multibillion dollar federal government rail system has been costly for his chances in District 8.

Kurt Kelly is another challenger who is a strong passionate speaker but lacks the charisma of Sullivan. On the positive side he has a clean record and brags about it every chance he gets. He is an adequate fund raiser and has a good volunteer army.
On the negative side he can be a weak speaker when trying to justify his stand on the ground rail system here in Central Florida. He has a hard time justifying his votes for massive government projects that will waste billions while touting himself as a fiscal conservative. Pathetic political double talk. We don’t need double talk we need a leader with a clear vision to reduce the federal governments share of the GDP.
Daniel Webster is the former Florida Speaker of the House. He is the Republican establishment candidate in a very anti-establishment year. He has been endorsed by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee along with much of the Republican establishment. His fund raising is slightly above average at $228,000 with no personal contributions. He is an honorable man who is a career politician.
On the negative side he is elderly and not a very inspiring speaker. Unlike O’Donoghue or Long you don’t get the sense that there is much in his intellect beyond the standard Republican talking points. His biggest claim to fame is he has never lost a election. One could attribute that to his skills but one could also comment on the fact that he has one of the most universally recognizable names in modern political history. Who knows how many last minute voters who failed to research the candidates voted for him simply due to his name recognition? Hopefully the District 8 voters will be educated come August 24th.

Daniel Webster’s days of never suffering a political defeat are about to end August 24th. Uninspiring and standard Republican establishment candidate in a anti establishment year.

Orange County Florida Mayoral Recommendations

For Florida residents’ crunch time is just around the corner. August 24th is our primary where the contenders separate themselves from the pretenders. In some of the contest it’s easy to see the separation but in some the competitors are similar in positions and finances. For Orange County Mayor this does not apply. There is a huge contrast between bloated government and the private sector approach to problems. So from the Libertarian perspective here are my recommendations.

Matt Falconer

Matt Falconer is a private developer commercial real estate owner. He has seen his business crash down from soaring heights at the top of the housing bubble to the point now where he is “collecting rent.” He’s not just the average run of the mill developer he has actually studied and written two fantastic books about government arrogance. This is what economist refer to as “rent seeking behavior” or extracting the maximum tax revenues possible from the peasants and then creating government bureaucracies that fit the revenue extraction with no regard for the level of services needed or pay scale needed to match the private sector. A sick parasitic relationship between the peasants and the politically powerful.
Positives: Mr. Falconer dislikes the hugely extravagant waste of government and has been on the receiving end of government abuse throughout his career. He would make Orange County government responsive to the people and not special interest unions. I would say Mr. Falconer dislikes wasteful government as much or more, well maybe not more, than I do. That is saying a lot. The end result would be the press and unions would hate him and taxpayers would love him. He’s the kind of a…… we need in charge of government.
Negatives: Mr. Falconer, if he is elected, would be very wise to surround himself with a couple of nonpolitical statistician, economist, accountant types that could check and recheck his math which is known to run astray at times. This same team should recheck Mr. Falconer’s public statements which also tend to get him in trouble. In other words he is the kind of guy who needs handlers to filter out rash statements and incomplete evaluations BEFORE he talks to the press or public. He needs to transition from a developer to a politician. If he is elected Orange County mayor the public will expect a more polished presentation from Mr. Falconer devoid of the petty politics exhibited by bush leaguers like Obama who will soon find himself the most hated president of the 21st century. Matt needs a class in how to kiss ass.
Overall this guy is a genius when it comes to local issues. He is by profession very micro management orientated and pays attention to the minutest detail. With a few good handlers and fact checkers on his team he could make a huge positive impact on Orange County government.

Alan Grayson and Bill Segal

Bill Segal has been an Orange county commissioner six years. This is both good from an experience level and bad in that he has been overseeing a 59% increase in the Orange County budget from 2006 to present. He is reportedly a “Republican type” but there are web sites out there as well as photos of him with prominent Democrats including Alan “Die Quickly” Grayson.
Positives: Mr. Segal is the nerd who everyone loves to be around. He is the fun guy at the party. He’s a clown and does all the politically correct functions. He is a polished politician.
Negatives: As far as I can tell he has no real agenda other than to make money. Mike Thomas the local village idiot progressive reporter has called out Segal several times on questionable business dealings and associations.
Overall this guy seems devoid of any ethics or political leanings. He is there to make money and he doesn’t give a hoot one way or the other if he uses the democrats or republicans to make money. He’s a old fashion country commissioner using his inside knowledge of planed future development to make money the old fashioned way with real estate. His goal is to get the taxpayers to pay his associates inflated prices for his holdings. As for the taxpayers I seriously don’t think he gives a damn one way or the other.

Teresa Jacobs

Teresa Jacobs is truly a scary proposition for the voters. The local Pravda rag Orlando Sentinel has endorsed her and that means taxpayers should not walk but run from this progressive. She scares the hell out of me because she is a cold hearted highly intelligent progressive that cares not one iota for the taxpayers’ property or funds. She would most likely balloon the Orange County budget to astronomical levels to satisfy her union friends and move the progressive agenda forward.
Positives: She is easily the most intelligent of the candidates. Her speaking skills are clear and coherent. She is a polished public speaker and will do the hard work to research and present data to the public favorable to her position. She would do the work required of her and not delegate to subordinates any major evaluations that need to be performed.
Negatives: She is easily the most intelligent of the candidates. She is clearly a very competent and dangerous progressive much in the mold of Jacob Schiff and others who have promoted the progressive agenda. Orange County voters should be scared strait of this very competent progressive who has the capabilities to take Orange County into a far left direction over the next four years. With enough support Orange County, Florida could resemble Orange County, California. Huge union expenditures, deficit riddle budgets, progressive schools and government, no Republican government workers, illegal immigration and an end to an opposition political party in Orange County. Teresa Jacobs is a very dangerous politician.

Linda Stewart

Linda Stewart’s biggest problem is Teresa Jacobs. Mrs. Steward is an Anglo-Saxon clone of Teresa Jacobs. Same position, same nanny state, same mommy dearest mentality of we need to “take care” of the constituents. When both candidates are the same who gets the votes? The more organized and articulate candidate.
Positives: She’s not bright enough to lie in public. We know if she is elected she will be truthful.
Negatives: Jacobs outshines her by a good 15 IQ points. Sorry but that is the reality of it.
Overall I think Mrs. Stewart realizes she cant outshine Jacobs on the left, Falconer has the Tea Party vote on the right and Segal will capture the “moderate” vote in the middle. And where does that leave her? Most likely come August 24th in 4th place.
I think this race comes down to how well Mr. Falconer has communicated his message to the Tea Party. Mr. Segal has the Republican establishment as well as moderate vote locked in. Despite his shortcomings he is well liked in the community. The real race here is to see if Falconer can hold off Jacobs and the progressives on the left who support her. If no candidate gets 50% there will be a run off.
While the other three traditional candidates, Jacobs, Segal and Stewart are politicians and can keep a lid on their public statements Mr. Falconer is not. He should have had two or three handlers around him at all times during this campaign fact checking his statements and muzzling him when needed. If the Tea Party voters and rational taxpayers show up at the polls and he is elected he will need to get his group of handlers ASAP and become a politician whether he likes it or not. He needs to learn how to talk in a non offensive way to progressives and democrats. Despite his lack of polish he has the one quality that all taxpaying voters should cherish, a genuine hatred of government elitism, fraud and abuse of the taxpayers. If this rough diamond can get his team together and become a polished gem the Orange County taxpayers will be the beneficiaries.

No Politicians Brave Enough to Talk about Race or Social Security

What has deeply disappointed me this political year is the lack of candor about two of the biggest issues tearing America apart, race and social security. Both are talked about indirectly or not at all by the Republicans. Democrats and their lab dogs like the NAACP cry racism over any and everything. Then the Republican and Tea Party people beg and plead that they are not racist. And then the Democrats and their lap dogs cry racism again and again. Mindless Saul Alinsky tactics that work. What happened to the real men and women of yesteryear who would just reply “You don’t like it? Take a walk buster!”
Immigration has become the substitute issue for race. We all know the illegals south of the border like the old country one party rule formula and vote democratic 65% of the time. We all know Republican businessmen love the fact that 10 million uneducated undocumented workers drive down blue collar wages 37%. It wasn’t until 22,000 people were killed in a civil war just south of the border that anyone payed any attention and now the Republicans have taken up this issue. Oh great and where was Reagan, Bush I, Bush II or Ford? And now we are suppose to believe the Republicans are serious? Sorry the track record isn’t there.

Florida District 24 Republican Candidate Karen Diebel is fine with Social Security and federal entitlement programs

Social Security is the other taboo issue no politician wants to mention except in passing giving the standard “I do believe with some digging we can find 10% (savings)” crap answer. Translated that means they support the Ponzi scheme or are too afraid to piss off the gimme generation. Both issues are more damaging to freedom and liberty because they cut to the real issues that have been destroying America for decades.
Blacks have been radicalized by mostly Jews since the NAACP was founded by the white man Moorfield Storey as an almost all white organization exploiting black issues for the benefit of the communist movement. How else to we explain 95% of blacks voting for the party of Jim Crow, slavery and segregation? The Republican Party was formed to destroy slavery. The Democratic Party actively promoted segregation for decades. How did a small group of radicals brainwash the American Negroes so thoroughly?
Of course the official answer given is Lyndon Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights legislation. A more politically incorrect answer is blacks allowed themselves to be enslaved by Democrats (this time voluntarily) with the 1965 Great Society programs. Give mama a welfare check programs that have destroyed the black family in America. Today blacks have been so dumb down and left fatherless they cannot do nothing more that react like a Pavlov dog when the dinner bell rings. With government education and propaganda you can walk up to almost any black and tell them the democrat candidate supports black genocide and they would still support and vote for the democrat. This kind of brainwashing of 12% of voters is killing America along with the 5th grade educated immigrants pouring over the border. Is it racism? Maybe but if you don’t identify the problem there is no hope of solving the problem.

Florida District 8 Congressional Candidate Todd Long has the courage to question federal entitlement programs. A breath of much needed fresh air. Open the link in this blog and look at how a man answers the though questions showing political courage with a strong sense of direction. Todd is a leader.

Republicans are now just starting to talk about immigration but only because they think they can score political points with it. As soon as the passions die out they will sell out to the Chamber of Commerce once again and allow cheap uneducated labor to flood the US marketplace. I have said it for years voting Republican is a waste of time. They sell out every time. Ronald Reagan, Bush I and II, Congressman Keller, Boehner and so forth. When it comes to crunch time they have no instincts for a fight and cave in to special interest. Its what they know. Its who they are.
Social Security is the elephant in the tent, like racism, that everyone pretends is not there. The Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility but they blew the budget up under their idol Reagan 76% and 56% during the Bush years when they were in control of the House, Senate and Presidency. If they will not talk about a program that generates 37.8% of federal revenues and the fact that it is already in deficit status 10 years ahead of schedule then what chance is there they will change once back in power? Do any of these Republicans realize 44.7% of the federal government is transfer payments? All of them rail against the 13.1 trillion deficit and not a peep out of them about the massive federal programs already in place. What the ……? Where is the intelligent life forms?
Okay so the Republicans, we assume, like Social Security and the taxes will be raised from 12.4% to 18%? 20% by 2020? I would like a strait answer on that. Never mind Obamacare its DOA. Entitlements will soon be 15% of the GDP and will climb to 25% in 2042 if nothing is done. Hey we all like grandma but its past time someone stood up to the gimme generation and told them Roosevelt was a bad economic president and the entitlements from the federal government need to end. Adopt the Todd Long rule and just say no to all social engineering at the federal level. It was a lie back in 1935 and the lie is destroying America from within.
Finally has any of these Republican thought of what will happen, god forbid, we get into a real war? Lets just say there is a economic stagnation or collapse. China owns $2.5 trillion in foreign debt. At least $800 billion in US notes and bonds. And with a dollar and Euro collapse they lose what? 30%? 50%? Or more? Who knows but with a $8.9 trillion dollar economy economically they are not that far off from challenging the US for world power status. Lets say the Chinese become just a little pissed seeing all their foreign debt become useless and their economy in the toilet. Lets say the peasants at the factories put pressure on their communist slave masters to keep paying that $56 dollars a month wage and the communist slave masters don’t have the cash. So what do tyrants throughout history do? War.
North Korea is a basket case and South Korea has a $1.35 trillion dollar economy there for the taking. Taiwan has a nice $731 billion dollar economy. Burma is another basket case and all of a sudden you have a real situation on your hands. China has a lot of interest in Africa and the Middle East. And there you are America $15 trillion or more in debt with Chinese troop movements throughout the Southeast Asia and Africa and your response is what? You cant even afford to pay Social Security and all of a sudden the boys are going to suit up and fight a war with China? Who will buy the debt?
For those who don’t know history Russia had a similar situation in 1914 to 1916 with weak leadership and a poorly run Czarist federal government. It didn’t end very well. Russia suffered 73 years of communism because the Czarist leadership was not prepared militarily or financially for WWI. When the citizens are starving some Bolshevik Jew promising bread and land sounds pretty good.
What Social Security and the national debt represent is the removal of the United States of America as the number one superpower…and the Republicans are silent on Social Security and entitlements. What the hell its just our nation and national security at stake. And no one says a word about anything of importance. All we get is mindless crap about the deficit and how they will fix the problem. They will put their heads together and “dig” real deep to save 10% off the federal budget. Wow the money bubble set to explode and they worry about saving that 10%. Funny and tragic.
We are at the equivalent of 1931 with 10% unemployment and looking into the abyss. The Republicans have shown no real indication in the time I have spent with them locally (my apologies to Marco Rubio and Todd Long) that they grasp the severity of our economic situation. In 2011 when the capital gains tax goes up to 20% and the artificial growth is over what will America be looking at with the communist in the White House having another party with Lady GaGa? The economic abyss.
We don’t need another Ronald Reagan that hiked Social Security taxes, ran huge deficits and spend like a drunken sailor. We don’t need the ra ra BS talk and the long winded talks about fiscal responsibility while voting to hike Social Security taxes. Ronald Reagan is not the role model we want or need. He was a talker and not a doer. The one good thing about Reagan was he had Arthur Laffer. That’s it.
Lets move on and kill Social Security and adopt a Switzerland type of retirement. Its simple. 5% of your gross goes towards federal, state, local or AAA rated corporate bonds. Your account and your choice. Pay back the taxpayers the billions ripped off from them in the Ponzi scheme. Apologize to the tax payers. End Medicaid and Medicare. Give the elderly and pre-existing condition people who qualify a voucher to buy private insurance. Split the cost of the Social Security buy out and vouchers with the states. Kill the program and move on. Its time for Republicans to get real or lose the country.
There is a reason I am a Libertarian. We have no political power but we do sleep well at night.

Krugman contra Hayek

The following is from Ludwig von Misis Institute. Sorry for the copy and paste but I just cannot help myself being overcome with glee when Krugman is put in his place. That place would be as a political hack and not a economics unless you are into centralized planning and statism.
Mises Daily: Thursday, July 29, 2010 by Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan

F. A. Hayek and Paul Krugman

The current recession has brought back discussion on the merits of countercyclical fiscal and monetary policy. Broadly speaking, the economics profession is divided into two camps. One side is made up of “liquidationists” and “deficit hawks,” supporting tight monetary policy and low — or no — government spending. The other group is composed of those fearing a fall in prices, who support easy credit and expansive fiscal policy to combat it. While most economists probably fall in between, this dichotomy represents the two poles. The extremes are occupied by the Austrian School on one end and Paul Krugman on (or close enough to) the other.
The growth of the Austrian School has forced economists like Paul Krugman — who, for the sake of simplicity, we will refer to as Keynesians[1] — to reconsider these opposing viewpoints. Krugman originally addressed Austrian business-cycle theory in 1998 and since then has continued to provide criticism.[2]
A recent contribution to the debate, “Antipathy to Low Rates,” swipes at Friedrich Hayek’s “liquidationism.” The argument Krugman makes is that those who disapprove of countercyclical quantitative easing and fiscal policy inevitably support a long period of depression, and thus equally “persistent” high unemployment.
Krugman bases his antiliquidationism thesis on the following passage written by Hayek and quoted by Bradford DeLong in a as of yet unpublished history of economic thought in the 20th Century,[3]
still more difficult to see what lasting good effects can come from credit expansion. The thing which is most needed to secure healthy conditions is the most speedy and complete adaptation possible of the structure of production. If the proportion as determined by the voluntary decisions of individuals is distorted by the creation of artificial demand[,] resources [are] again led into a wrong direction and a definite and lasting adjustment is again postponed. The only way permanently to ‘mobilise’ all available resources is, therefore to leave it to time to effect a permanent cure by the slow process of adapting the structure of production.[4]
Krugman then provides his interpretation,
These days, relatively few economists are willing to say straight out that they regard persistent high unemployment as a good thing. But they find reasons to oppose any and all suggestions to use government policy — including monetary policy — to alleviate the slump.
While Krugman’s position is erroneous, regarding both fiscal and monetary policy, it is important to understand Krugman’s exact argument. The concept of the liquidity trap is the keystone to Krugman’s thesis,[5] according to which the rules of the game change when there is a lack of private investment.[6]
As a general concept, the liquidity trap is legitimate in the sense that we are currently in a situation in which, despite the extreme provision of liquidity on the part of the Federal Reserve, there has not been a substantial increase in real private investment. As such, any Austrian rebuttal to Krugman should concede this point.
The real debate is whether or not fiscal stimulus can effectively revive an economy (or pull it out of a “liquidity trap”) or if fiscal stimulus contributes to the existence of a liquidity trap — there is the distinct possibility that this so-called liquidity trap is the product of regime uncertainty, which may or may not be aggravated by government policy.
All considered — even conceding that we are in what Krugman would call a liquidity trap — within the Misesian-Hayekian framework, the only permanent solution to existing malinvestment is to allow its liquidation and the readaptation of the structure of production.
This suggests — like Krugman accuses — that following a boom of malinvestment there will be a period of relatively high unemployment. Krugman would temporarily alleviate the fall in employment and production through public expenditure; however, the problem with loose fiscal policy is that government cannot distribute and invest capital efficiently or profitably. Furthermore, government countercyclical policy tends to create regime uncertainty, which may directly contribute to the existence of this “liquidity trap.”
Brief Overview of the Keynesian Liquidity Trap: From Keynes to Krugman
The concept of the “liquidity trap,” a term coined by economist Dennis Robertson,[7] has returned to the forefront of Keynesian economic analysis. While Krugman’s liquidity trap bears the same name as that of Robertson, Hicks, and Keynes, Krugman’s liquidity-trap theory is fundamentally different.[8] In general, however, all liquidity-trap theories are meant to detail the limitations of monetary policy and the advantages of fiscal policy.
“Within the Misesian-Hayekian framework, the only permanent solution to existing malinvestment is to allow its liquidation and the readaptation of the structure of production.”
While the liquidity trap does not play an important or major role in Keynes’s General Theory, there is a mention of it in the fifteenth chapter of the Keynesian magnum opus,
There is the possibility, for the reasons discussed above, that, after the rate of interest has fallen to a certain level, liquidity-preference may become virtually absolute in the sense that almost everyone prefers cash to holding a debt which yields so low a rate of interest.[9]
Keynes believed that such a situation occurs out of a change in the “state of expectation.”[10] In other words, an increase in uncertainty leads to an increase in the demand to hold money and a decrease in investment,[11] based on the belief that money’s relatively riskless qualities makes it more desirable to hold than bonds and assets.[12] Given a “virtually absolute” liquidity preference, monetary policy becomes ineffective at stimulating “aggregate demand” since an increase in the supply of money cannot increase wage-earners’ incomes.[13] Furthermore, even supposing a fall in the “pure rate of interest,” Keynes argued that monetary stimulus cannot diminish the cost of lending, and therefore moneylenders are unwilling to lend under a certain rate of interest.[14] Keynes’s solution to such an event is government spending.[15]
While Keynes provided the groundwork, it was John Hicks who refined the theory within the bounds of what was to become known as the Investment-Saving/Liquidity Preference-Money Supply (IS/LM) model. Hicks originally formulated the IS/LM in 1937, in “Mr. Keynes and the Classics,”[16] and later elucidated it in his 1939 book Value and Capital. Hicks believed that while monetary policy could check an increase in the price inflation by increasing the rate of interest, the central bank is effectively unable to stop price deflation[17] because of the positive floor to the interest rate — which prohibits newly created money from being introduced into circulation.[18]
Hicks also introduced key differences to interest rate theory, contra Keynes, including putting emphasis on the idea of the elasticity or inelasticity of the long-term rate of interest based on expectations.[19] Writes Hicks,
If the costs of holding money can be neglected, it will always be profitable to hold money rather than lend it out, if the rate of interest is not greater than zero. Consequently the rate of interest must always be positive. In an extreme case, the shortest short-term rate may perhaps be nearly zero. But if so, the long-term rate must lie above it, for the long rate has to allow for the risk that the short rate may rise during the currency of the loan, and it should be observed that the short rate can only rise, it cannot fall. This does not only mean that the long rate must be a sort of average of the probable short rates over its duration, and that this average must lie above the current short rate. There is also the more important risk to be considered, that the lender on long term may desire to have cash before the agreed date of repayment, and then, if the short rate has risen meanwhile, he may be involved in a substantial capital loss. It is this last risk which provides Mr. Keynes’ “speculative motive” and which ensures that the rate for loans of infinite duration (which he always has in mind as the rate of interest) cannot fall very near zero.[20]
After receiving much attention from the likes of Nicholas Kaldor,[21] Franco Modigliani,[22] and Lawrence Klein, Hicks’s IS/LM formulation of the liquidity-trap theory became the standard Keynesian representation.[23] Between 1940 and 1970, the liquidity-trap theory went through major changes and reformulations, only for Hicks to recant, suggesting that, “[w]hile one can understand that large balances may be held idle for considerable periods, for a speculative motive, it is harder to grant that they can be so held indefinitely.”[24]
The prominence of liquidity-trap theory in mainstream macroeconomics began to rescind by the early 1970s. A change in focus in macroeconomics factored into this shift in thought,[25] as did high rates of interest throughout the 1970s and 1980s that made the idea of a liquidity trap largely irrelevant.[26] Furthermore, research by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz questioned the belief that the Great Depression was beset by a liquidity trap,[27] denying the Keynesian camp from any clear empirical evidence supporting their position.[28]
Interest in the liquidity trap resurfaced when Paul Krugman applied his own version of the concept to Japan’s economic stagnation of the 1990s. Krugman explains that
[a] liquidity trap may be defined as a situation in which conventional monetary policies have become impotent, because nominal interest rates are at or near zero: injecting monetary base into the economy has no effect, because base and bonds are viewed by the private sector as perfect substitutes. By this definition, a liquidity trap could occur in a flexible price, full-employment economy; and although any reasonable model of the United States in the 1930s or Japan in the 1990s must invoke some form of price stickiness, one can think of the unemployment and output slump that occurs under such circumstances as what happens when an economy is trying to have deflation — a deflationary tendency that monetary expansion is powerless to prevent.[29]
Where Krugman parts ways with Keynesian precedents is in applying a theory of intertemporal expectations, where monetary policy is ineffective because of the expectation of future deflation — the public believes monetary policy to be only temporary, as opposed to sustained.[30] In effect, expectations of future deflation cause individuals to shift time preference: they prefer holding cash to investment, believing that in the foreseeable future the value of said cash will rise. As such, injections of liquidity have no impact on present aggregate demand.[31] Note, Krugman is not arguing that monetary policy is temporary, only that the public perceives it to be temporary. Krugman cites two reasons why: the public’s knowledge that the Bank of Japan was unwilling to allow for a radical depreciation of the Yen, and its reputation for maintaining price stability and low inflation.[32]
There are two general “New Keynesian” solutions to Krugman’s liquidity-trap problem,
1. Expansionary fiscal policy;
2. Expansionary monetary policy targeting for long-term inflation.
The case for fiscal policy claims that a sufficiently large temporary fiscal stimulus to the economy would “jolt” the economy towards equilibrium, by increasing output and aggregate demand,[33] where expansionary monetary policy would once again be effective.[34] Krugman cites the Second World War as an example and writes that “the massive one-time fiscal jolt from the war pushed the economy into a more favorable equilibrium.”[35]
Writing in support of deficit spending, Bradford DeLong puts it much more crudely, stating that “at this point, anything that boosts the government’s deficit over the next two years passes the benefit-cost test — anything at all.”[36]
While Keynes and Hicks would have perhaps shied away from massive monetary stimulus, operating with the understanding that monetary policy was ineffective during a liquidity trap, New Keynesian theory puts much more importance on a growing money supply. In fact, Krugman’s monetary solution to a liquidity trap is sustained inflation, where the central bank reverses fears of future deflation by instead causing an increase in the price level through massive monetary pumping (Krugman estimates this to be in the area of $10 trillion, borrowing the figure from a prior study conducted by Goldman Sachs).[37] Periods of relatively high inflation would not be temporary, as to assuage fears of future deflation. Instead, the “optimum” monetary policy is one that targets relatively high inflation for a period long enough to shift the public’s rational expectations.[38]
As is, the Keynesian “solutions” to a liquidity-trap run in the face of Austrian capital and calculation theory. The idea that government investment is as good as private investment is highly suspect, while a policy of monetary inflation is bound to lead to malinvestment. Thus, the Austrian capital and business-cycle theory are highly relevant. Understanding the Keynesian argument, we can now delve into Hayek’s work.
Austrian Economics and Economic Restructuring
Although Austrian business-cycle theory is not simple — especially since it is rooted in a wealth of capital and monetary theory developed by a multitude of economists[39] — it can be concisely explained as a theory that recognizes disequilibrium between savings and investment.[40]
$8 $5
The relationship between consumption, saving, and investment is intertemporal in the sense that in order to accumulate the capital necessary to invest one must refrain from present consumption and opt for future consumption.[41]
This intertemporal relationship between consumption and investment is reflected through the interest rate, which serves as a price mechanism, transmitting information to the entrepreneur. An increase in savings, or a societal shift towards the preference to refrain from present consumption, leads entrepreneurs to borrow these savings and invest them to satiate the needs of these savers in the future. Austrians call this a lengthening and a widening of the structure of production, as entrepreneurs invest in stages farther away from the final consumer good.[42]
Given that the rate of interest reflects society’s time preference — or preference towards present or future consumption — it thus acts as a mechanism by which savings and investments strive to reach equilibrium (or where the two are equal).[43] Disequilibrium would therefore imply that savings are unequal to investments, or, in other words, that the market is not acting according to society’s time preference. Instead, a disequilibrium caused by credit expansion lowers the rate of interest, makes capital-good investment more lucrative,[44] and thusly lengthens the structure of production without a prior increase in savings.[45] In this case, an increase in investment is not met by an equal decrease in consumption, and so investment outstrips savings.
The productive boom, caused by this disequilibrium, must inevitably end when the price mechanism adjusts — or when the credit boom ends.[46] The structure of production is now pressured to return towards equilibrium.
“The idea that government investment is as good as private investment is highly suspect, while a policy of monetary inflation is bound to lead to malinvestment.”
Despite this notion of disequilibrium, Austrian theory does not argue in favor of blaming “overinvestment,” as the supply of capital goods does not necessarily increase. Instead, it examines price distortion where a price ceiling is effectively installed causing entrepreneurs to not recognize the actual scarcity of the capital goods in question — the adjustment of the price mechanism reveals this scarcity, and entrepreneurs must liquidate their “malinvestments.”[47]
Knowing where Hayek was coming from makes his comment, as quoted by Bradford DeLong and Paul Krugman, far more understandable. The depression period is one in which the structure of production readjusts according to society’s time preference, and so the most sensible approach to returning to economic stability is allowing this readjustment to take place the fastest possible.
One of the results of this readjustment is a fall in the supply of money — what Austrians refer to as deflation. There are three main reasons this occurs,[48]
1. A rise in demand for money, or a rise in demand for liquidity, in expectation of falling prices;[49]
2. Credit contraction due to a reduction in outstanding loans by banks fearing bankruptcy, or predicting a greater need for liquidity;
3. A fall in outstanding credit and loans caused by default or liquidation of malinvestment.
The common Keynesian argument is that of the “deflationary spiral.” Finding its modern origins with Irving Fisher,[50] this argument suggests that a fall in prices makes it more difficult for debt to be repaid, increases demand for money, and feeds on itself in the sense that it causes a cycle of deflation.[51] It is not necessarily rejected by Austrians.[52] Where the Keynesians and the Austrians differ, at least on this point, is on the solution. While Keynesians, such as Krugman, argue for inflationary monetary policy,[53] Austrians instead see the resulting fall in the price level as the cure for deflation (or fall in the money supply).[54]
Recognizing the problem as the result of a fall in profit, due to the deceleration of credit expansion, the problem of demand necessarily stems from the inability to pay for products demanded. The solution is a fall in prices of relevant goods and services, to the point where demand for them can once again rise.[55] In other words, conceding that a fall in the money supply will lead to a decline in spending, the only method by which spending can rise is through a fall in the price level.
“The depression period is one in which the structure of production readjusts according to society’s time preference, and so the most sensible approach to returning to economic stability is allowing this readjustment to take place the fastest possible.”
The alternative method, or the Keynesian “solution” of inflation, can lead to a temporary “recovery.”[56] Nonetheless, such a policy would inevitably result in greater malinvestment and a greater net loss of wealth.[57]
While the Keynesian case for inflation has been dealt with, there still lies the supposed problem of the liquidity trap. Krugman’s liquidity trap becomes theoretically unsustainable once we dispel the myth of the supposed deflationary spiral.
However, rising uncertainty and low expectations for the future, brought about by economic depression, can be considered legitimate factors behind a liquidity trap. In this case, we define a liquidity trap as a situation in which private investment stagnates despite the readjustment of the structure of production. One such situation of this occurring was during the Great Depression. This topic is tackled by Robert Higgs, in which he attaches the blame to “regime uncertainty,” or uncertainty caused by a general antibusiness climate produced by the government.[58]
While we cannot accuse the current government of causing the same disruption as did the Roosevelt administration during the Great Depression, it nevertheless stands that the onset of the current recession and the sheer amount of bankruptcies that resulted were enough to shatter confidence. While the bailouts perhaps managed to salvage the balance sheets of those banks fortunate enough to receive government money, it failed to aid these banks to stabilize. Since there are low expectations for stability, it only makes sense that private investment remains stagnant. Furthermore, it is very possible that the threat of higher taxes due to increased government debt and deficits has also factored into business expectations.
The final remaining question is whether or not a natural readaptation of the structure of production to society’s time preference can be aided through government spending. This is, of course, the other side of the Keynesian coin — if not monetary policy, then fiscal policy must be the solution.[59]
An Austrian would argue a resounding “no.” Wealth-producing investment relies on two underlying factors: that there exists a demand for the product and that the producer can satisfy that demand at a profit or by receiving greater satisfaction in return. That government cannot satisfy another’s demand at a profit can be extrapolated empirically, because if it could, there would be no need for deficit spending — the capital necessary to fund these programs would come from received profits. As such, government spending usually results in a net loss in wealth, as less wealth is produced than the amount invested in the first place. Ergo, government spending absolutely cannot replace private investment.
The typical “redistribution of wealth” argument doesn’t directly pertain to the Keynesian case for deficit spending, because the Keynesians adamantly believe that government spending will cause an increase in net and sustainable output, and as a result the burden of these deficits in terms of percentage of income taxed will be much smaller in the future than they are in the present (thus, the point of running deficits). But, the argument for deficit spending falls to pieces if government spending does not result in higher economic growth.
Fulfillment of satisfaction is dependent on individual subjective evaluations and voluntary exchange. Government, instead, distributes capital towards otherwise unwanted ends, taking it away from the private sector and “producing” at a net loss. The ultimate consequence is the destruction of wealth.[60] While in a vibrant economy wealth creation by the private sector may outstrip wealth destruction by the public sector, in eras of depressed private investment government spending could be potentially disastrous.
Hayek and Unemployment
Paul Krugman frequently suggests that “facts have a well-known liberal bias.”[61] The present essay argues otherwise. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the best possible route to economic recovery is through the free-market and by allowing the structure of production to readapt itself. The Austrian case shows why monetary policy and fiscal policy are not effective methods by which to accelerate the pace at which this readaptation occurs.
Krugman accuses Hayek of seeing unemployment as a good thing, but nothing could be further from the truth. Hayek clearly considers unemployment a result of interference with the price mechanism, caused by credit expansion. Hayek, like anybody else, would rather see as many individuals employed as possible, as he was a defender of capitalism and as such valued economic growth through voluntary exchange. The difference between Hayek and Krugman is that Hayek was not a utopian, and realized that economic growth can only once again take place if the structure of production adapts to society’s time preference — there is no formula by which government can centrally plan wealth creation.
While Krugman’s policy could perhaps lead to a temporary surge in employment, we have shown that over the long run such policies are unsustainable. The only long-run results are the destruction of wealth and even greater unemployment. If Hayek supported “persistent unemployment,” then there are few good words one could offer to describe Krugman’s position.

The Real Job Numbers

Getting tired of the propaganda bull crap coming out of the White House about the “jobs saved?” Tired of garbage being feed to the ignorant masses gobbling it up like the press corps as if it was something more than hot air? Well this blog is for you.
The first one is a look at the productive sector of the economy or “total non-farm payrolls.” Currently it shows the Obama Administration has lost 3,961,000 private sector productive jobs since January of 2009. The numbers bottomed out at 129,588 (thousands) in December of 2009 and increased to 130,595 as of May 2010, a modest increase of 1.9% annually, but have resumed a downward decline to 130,470 indicating the strong possibility of a “double dip” recession in the future.

Civilian Participation Rate at a 26 year low of 64.7%

A double dip recession would be most likely when that capital gains tax returns to 20% and all capital sales are exhausted at the old rate of 15% at the end of 2010. In other words corporations and companies are artificially inflating GDP numbers in 2010 at the expense of GDP numbers in 2011. Much like the cash for clunkers and real estate tax credit artificially inflated sales numbers for a short periods of time so to is the looming capital gains tax hike scheduled to go up to 20% just a few short months from now. Everybody including Democrats knows this which is why you see the sudden activity by some to extend the Bush tax cuts from the few remaining rational congressmen and women.
The second bull crap eliminator that you need to look at is the “civilian participation rate” in the labor market. This closely follows true economic activity and is pretty self explanatory. As the private sector economy heats up more people find it lucrative to find a job and participate in the economy. This number peaked at 66.4% in January of 2007 and was 65.7% in January of 2009. Recently it has hit a 26 year low at 64.4%. Anyone reading about the press reporting this statistic? Just a 1.8% drop represents 5.5 million people no longer participating in the labor force. 5.5 million people out of work who in 2007 were employed. That’s a staggering number few people realize or can relate to.
The next one is the one the White House likes to point to as “we are reducing the jobs losses because of our economic programs. Job losses were xyz and now they are abc” spiel using the “4-Week Moving Average of Initial Claims (IC4WSA), Number, Weekly, Seasonally Adjusted.” What they hope is that you are dumb enough and misinformed enough to not look at statistics one and two above or the fact that during a strong economy the number should be around 250,000.
The White House trumpets reports of “only” 454,000 job losses celebrating because it’s below the peak of 643,000 in April of 2009. This is an incredibly delusional way of looking at economic growth and policy. I guess if one were a progressive and shrinking the economy to 50% civilian participation rate was the short term goal, eventually as more and more unemployed were not counted as economic participants the unemployment rate could be reduced to 5% and weekly jobless claims reduced to 200,000 as the economic sector shrunk. Millions would be out of work and discouraged but not counted in the official statistics. The Obama Administration would be touting “only 200,000 initial unemployment claims for the week of February 13, 2013, unemployment plunges to 5%!” Something out of George Orwell. Something that fits in with the goals of Obama and his communist friends.
There are other measurements, 67 at least listed but the total non-farm payrolls and civilian participation rate give a good snapshot of productive employment and total participants in the economy. This allows a more accurate look at the employment picture.

White America Getting a “Low Negro Tolerance” for Obama

Anybody who knows anything about politics knew it was coming sooner or latter. The progressives are desperate. They call white Republicans racist; accuse them of stealing Social Security checks or stealing Medicare funds. Same crap different year. The only difference is this year the democrats are stealing the gimme generations Medicare money. Neither side wants to talk about Social Security going in the red, my apologies to Marco Rubio, so that leaves the race card. Whitey Republican man is a racist and now the whitey Tea Party man is racist also. Hell just call all whites racist and get it over with.
Unfortunately for the progressives information flows freely and they just can’t shut down Fox News yet so all the economic myths about health care costing less, bail outs and “financial reform” are out there for the informed public to read about. Just too many of those pesky white folks who love freedom and liberty out there making trouble. All those nasty Tea Party people causing a ruckus and worse getting tired of being called racist. And to make it worse those white folks at Fox seem to be getting what the former Georgia communist jihadist congresswoman Cynthia A. McKinney referred to as a “low Negro tolerance.” Yea I guess every white man and woman is getting tired of being called a racist especially since their second class citizenship is coming to the forefront at the Department of Justice, Dealership closings 0f 2009, and any policy touched by Obama and his “redistribution” economic policies. White people are finally learning how Negroes think. Everything is in terms of black and white. Any decision that doesn’t go their way is racist. Anyone who disagrees with them is racist. White people are learning the hard way blacks are by far, no one else even close, the most racist people on the planet.

W. E. B. DuBois, who later joined the Communist Party, was the NAACP organization's first director of publicity and research, as well as the editor of the group's monthly publication The Osiris.

Anyone who has had extensive contact with blacks knows this. They are not all asshole racist but I would guess the majority are. They demand special status decades after discrimination was eliminated. They demand public schools with lower standards that permanently penalize white kids so their kids fit in. They turn a blind eye to the 68% out of wedlock birth rate and blame the white man. They ignore the fact that black men are 6.5 times more likely to end up in jail that white men. Their voting patterns of going for one party 95% of the time is killing democracy in America. And when their party is about to get their clock cleaned in the 2010 elections they trot out Jim Crow and racism. Never mind most of the real racist are in their party.
Of course if we want to be really racially intolerant I guess we should give the Jews who founded the NAACP their share of credit for radicalizing our America Negroes. If blacks were paying attention they would have noticed a black man was never in charge of the NAACP until 1975. The NAACP was an almost all white organization for 60 years. One gentile and nothing but Jews ran the NAACP up until 1975. Blacks were made servants by the NAACP for progressive political proposes by Jews. Funny thing is today the Muslims are using blacks for the same reasons and the Jews at the ADL are shocked that this is allowed to happen in America. I don’t know but if the Jews formed a National Association of American White People and told me to worship Karl Marx I might just get out some rope and use it on them. I don’t know that’s just me an intolerant freedom loving white man.
And so here we have a real live Negro racist in the White House who believes in Black Liberation Theology for all the lily white folks like Megan Kelly of Fox News to see. It’s hilarious for those of the millions of poor abandoned white people left in the inner cities to rot surrounded by violence, drugs, rape, bigotry, prejudice and inferior schools to see the privilege white folks starting to comprehend what its like to be a second class citizen. How does it feel Megan when your own government treat you like crap? How does it feel white America to be a second class citizen? As Eric Holder properly called white people a “nation of cowards.” Can’t argue with the man about that.
Just keep letting those 5th grade educated immigrants keep piling in and the white folks will soon have to give up on America and move to Canada. It’s amazing to see a once proud nation brought down by a few rich Jew bastards and a 12% Negro population. What a lousy way to go out. Having China kick our ass in a war would have been so much nobler than rotting from within on stupid crap like being called a “racist.”