We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common def---aw, f*#@ it, let's just be Socialists!
It's hard to believe that it's been 9 months since my first post here at IACLAYST. I can remember back then that we were suffering under the leadership of the first truly moron President in history, unemployment was near 10%, the people were staging protests against the socialistic nature of the government, banks were failing and so on. My how things have changed. During this time there has been an intensification of the effort by many on the left to paint free market capitalism as an evil, and as being responsible for the financial mess that we are in now. I've struggled with how to address this and how to remind people that it is because of this nation and our economic situation that we've experienced the growths wealth and freedom as well as the medical breakthroughs that we have.
I just so happens that during this time, I was also rekindling a friendship with one of the men who has been a teacher to me. He is one of those who taught me how our free market system works, and why it is superior to any other economic system in the world. When I shared with him my blogging efforts, and asked for his input, he decided that he would guest author a few posts from time to time about economic issues. In his desire to keep a low profile, he chose a pseudonym which I think is quite apt. Keep a look out for some upcoming guest posts from our new contributor, Jean Baptiste Say.
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
CARPE DIEM has an excellent post up today recounting, once again, the myth of the lack equality in wages between men and women. This post explicitly details the discrepancy in on the job deaths between men and women. Here's a small excerpt:
The next "Equal Occupational Fatality Day" is Sunday October 11, 2020. This date symbolizes how far into the future women are expected to work to experience the same loss of life from work-related deaths that men experienced in just the single year 2008 (4,703 deaths for men compared to only 368 for women), according to BLS data (see chart above).
California's best days are behind her unless drastic action is taken
California leads the nation in self-spiting, anti-business, nonsensical legislation. Leading the charge in our effort to completely destroy anyone's reason for living and working in California is the Air Resources Board, an unelected board of officials who have the ability to set and enforce regulations on air quality. Ask any truck driver about SCR, Urea, DPF's or any other emissions equipment and you're liable to get an earful about CARB.
Four years ago, California passed legislation lead by CARB to force oil refineries, manufacturers, cement plants, utilities and other businesses to cut carbon emissions by 30%, or, in other words, to pre-1990 levels. The legislation was hailed by anti-growth, business hating, global warming advocates across the US as a model for slashing greenhouse gasses. Even though the greenhouse effect assertion is nothing more than a lie.
Fast forward to 2010. California is leading the nation in state budget deficits and it's bleeding individual and corporate tax payers. However, California is also facing an upcoming gubernatorial election which will prove to be a referendum on green policies and the progressive agenda. There has always been a large segment of the state that was against the legislation, but now that there is a full blown depression, the effort to take down the law is gaining traction. Republican candidate Meg Whitman has said on her first day in office as Governor she would suspend the legislation. However, there are still people and non-elected officials within the state who want to move forward with the job killing, business destroying legislation. I know, you're completely shocked...
Until the California Air Resources Board is disbanded, and common sense solutions are applied to problems (yes, even pollution) the state and nation face, we will be enslaved to a cycle where the highest and often best tax payers are the target of draconian legislation, ultimately prompting them to relocate to somewhere more tax friendly.
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
Yeah, that's a Prius with Dubs and a Body Kit. That's how we roll!
A friend who works for a state official reported that they have today off. What, you don't know about the holiday of today?! What are you, some kind of holiday denier? Oh! That's right, you're probably not from California and don't know about all the batshit crazy things we do here. Good news for you, I am going to attempt to compile a list of some of them so you can learn. Ready? Only in California:
We celebrate illegal immigration. March 31st is Cesar Chavez day in CA and 7 other states. It's the day that California has set aside to celebrate Cesar Chavez's contribution to provide illegal immigrants with better working conditions. !Viva California!
The courts protect useless fish. What, your fish aren't court protected? In California, we provide legal rights to fish. Especially bait fish. Why? Who the f*ck knows. Apparently, Delta Smelt are on the brink of extinction because they're so goddam stupid that they swim into pumps designed to move water from California's delta system into the aqueduct system which supplies water to everywhere else in the state. No water, means no agriculture in central California. No Ag means no grapes, tomatoes, almonds, cotton, peaches, apples, citrus, roses, garlic, onions and virtually every other selection in your produce department.
We have unelected bureaucrats that dictate pollution standards for the rest of the nation! Drive a truck? Know someone who does? Ask them about DPF's and Urea. Diesel Particulate Filters are part of a heavy trucks emissions equipment which collect and trap diesel particulates. Everyone in the nation who owns a truck has or will have one of these in the very near future because California's Air Resources Board says so! You see, when DPF systems and ACR systems were added to trucks, the conservative cost increases for each technology were roughly 10% of the cost of the vehicle. Figure an average class 8 truck runs about $110,000 then do the math. All courtesy of California!
If it's yellow, let it mellow, but if it's brown flush it down. Have you ever given a thought to what to do with your business once you've, you know, off loaded it? We do in California. See, since about 1987, we've been in a perpetual state of drought. This means when you finish up, you have to remember, if it's yellow, let it mellow. This means that you don't flush. I'll let your mind take it away from there.
We let gay men take over a downtown street and perform explicit sexual acts in public. What, you don't do this in your home town? It's called the Folsom Street Fair and there are pictures of it up at Zombie Time. The link is here, but do not click it unless you haven't eaten recently and there are no kids within a quarter mile. EXTREME CONTENT WARNING.
So now that you're all jealous and stuff, California is just aching to have you! Hell, we've only lost 112 businesses explicitly seeking another location from which to conduct business. Probably has something to do with the tax rate:
California's State/Local Tax Burden is above the national average
California's 2010 Business Tax Climate ranks 48th nationally.
California's Top Individual Income Tax Rate is 4th highest in the nation.
California's Corporate Income Tax Rate is highest in the west.
California's Sales Tax Rate is highest in the nation
As long as we're on the subject of how great California is, here's a list from The Business Relocation Coach of the top ten reasons businesses leave California.
#10 -- Unfair Taxes: The Tax Foundation in their newest report lists California at No. 48 for tax fairness – ahead of only New York and New Jersey.
#9 -- Most Expensive Business Locations: The Rose Institute of State and Local Government reported in the latest "Cost of Doing Business Survey" that California cities continue to be some of the most expensive locations to do business in the United States.
#8 -- Worst Performing Labor: The Pacific Research Institute found that California’s labor performance in a recent five-year period is among the worst performing in the nation.
#7 -- Dreadful Legal Treatment: The Civil Justice Association of California said the state ranks 44th in legal fairness to business. Los Angeles was again named the least fair and reasonable litigation environment in the entire country.
#6 -- Worst Regulatory Burden: A study by the consulting firm Bain & Co. measured the cost, uncertainty and complexity of regulations and in constructing a “regulatory hassle index” found that "California is farworse than any other state by a very significant margin."
#5 -- Harsh Treatment Motivates Exists: Again Bain & Co. (they’re a busy group) found that more than half of California business leaders – an astonishing 60 percent – said they have policies in place to restrict job growth in the state or move jobs to other U.S. locations.
#4 -- Downright Unfriendliness:: The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council in Virginia found that California ranked 49th overall in terms of business friendliness.
#3 -- High Misery Index: The Associated Press calculates what it calls a monthly "misery index" – California is close to the bottom of the list.
#2 -- Uncontrollable Spending: Extravagant state spending continues and pollsters have found people are much angrier about California government – more than they've ever been in recorded polling history.
And the #1 reason why California companies are calling the moving companies” – Chief Executive magazine recently found California to be the worst state in the nation in which to do business. Texas was found to be the best.
It’s no wonder that California has lost more than one million jobs in recent years while Texas employment levels have remained relatively stable.>
So, you know, we got that going for us. What've you got?!
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
In a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Nobel Economist Gary Becker explains how health care reform could have been made to actually work. You know, reduce costs and meet demand?
"The health-care legislation? It's a bad bill," Mr. Becker replies. "Health care in the United States is pretty good, but it does have a number of weaknesses. This bill doesn't address them. It adds taxation and regulation. It's going to increase health costs—not contain them."
Drafting a good bill would have been easy, he continues. Health savings accounts could have been expanded. Consumers could have been permitted to purchase insurance across state lines, which would have increased competition among insurers. The tax deductibility of health-care spending could have been extended from employers to individuals, giving the same tax treatment to all consumers. And incentives could have been put in place to prompt consumers to pay a larger portion of their health-care costs out of their own pockets..."
Go right now and read the rest at CARPE DIEM. You need to read the post at CARPE DIEM if for nothing more than the outstanding graph at the top of the post. I was shocked to find out what it shows.
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
My apologies on not having been around today. Late night trips to the emergency room suck goat balls. By the way, I have to admit, the level of care I witnessed increased dramatically today almost as soon as PeeBo signed the 'health care deform' bill.
Taken together, the return of these two important market indicators of: a) stock market volatility (VIX), and b) the overall conditions in U.S. financial and credit markets (BFCIUS), to their pre-crisis levels of the summer of 2007 provide further evidence that the worst is far behind us, and U.S. financial markets are once again stable and healthy.
Until the taxes from Obamacare go into effect and amnesty is passed. Those should be sufficient enough to drive the final stake through the heart of the economy.
Regardless of whether or not Reuters withdrew the story, you're about have some taxes shoved through your back door:
Published under the headline “Backdoor taxes hit middle class,” the article opened by describing the Obama Administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade as relying “heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.” Four hours and three minutes after it hit the wire, the story was “withdrawn” with a promise that “a] replacement story will run later in the week.”
Why did Reuters pull the story? One site cited a Reuters rep as saying the piece was withdrawn “due to significant errors of fact” and “should not have gone out.” I think it was the language used in the article that prompted Reuters to pull it. In particular, it was the series of phrases shown below that, combined with the one mentioned above, must have made the hair stand up on the back of Rahm Emanuel’s neck:
“…effectively a tax hike by stealth.”
“middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.”
Perhaps the largest contributing factor to the article being yanked is a list of tax break provisions popular among middle-class families that Obama might allow to expire:
* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes.
* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies.
* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses.
* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid.
* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.
The last line of the story was, perhaps, the proverbial “nail in the coffin” for the Reuter’s piece:
Here's why. "If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent." This is what they all were before Bush cut them. "The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated." This is all true. Every bit of it is true. If you're going to let these tax cuts sunset, it means we're going to go back to what they were before Bush cut them, and those are the rates that I just gave you. That means that everybody paying income taxes is going to effectively get an increase, a tax increase, despite Obama's constant pledges that 95% of the American people get a tax cut, and he's calling one-time tax rebates a tax cut. So obviously the White House did not like this story.
If you just relax your muscles and stop resisting, the 'Hope and Change' will slide in much easier.
There has been quite the hot debate going on in the comment section of this blog post over at The Bakersfield Californian. Essentially, what's up for debate is the causal reason of the foreclosure crisis, and the subsequent recession. So, in an attempt to lay out what happened, when and who was involved, I submit the following.
Before we get to everything, there are two very important points I wish to make. First, were the Democratics solely responsible for the foreclosure crisis? No, not solely. They were, as you'll see below, primarily responsible. Second, every elected official (well, damn near all of them anyway) is scum. They primarily seek to enrich themselves and their specific interests. Why be a conservative then and not an anarchist? Because, I understand that some government is needed. The less, the better. How can anyone benefit with an over-reaching bureaucratic mess entangled in every part of your life? Better to support a party who, at least in theory, is for smaller and less government.
Let's begin.
In 1977, while Jimmuh Carter was President and Tip O'Neill and Robert 'KKK' Byrd were Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, respectively, the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, law was passed. Passed with the best intentions, the CRA was intended to cut down on discriminatory lending practices and open up loans to borrowers in low and moderate income neighborhoods.
Then in 1980, with the same players in power, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. This act removed the state limits on interest rates banks could charge on mortgages. Amongst other things, this legislation was a continuation of the policy to get more low and moderate income home ownership, by giving banks more incentive to lend to riskier parties.
In 1982, with Reagan in the White House, and Democratics still in control of both houses of congress, the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act was passed. AMTPA specifically allowed alternative types of financing on home loans other than traditional fixed rate mortgages. Again, here as with before, the intention was to open up home ownership to low and moderate-income households by offering additional methods to finance a house.
Starting in 1995, the GSE's (read: oxymoron), Government Sponsored Enterprises, began to receive government tax incentives to purchase mortgage backed securities. This is a critical turning point in the foreclosure crisis, because later it will be shown that after HUD set goals for the GSE's to buy more subprime paper, which are riskier than traditional mortgages and have a higher rate of failure, the GSE's turned around and sold to investment banks as low-risk investments.
In 1997, congress passed, and President Clinton signed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This legislation reduced the capital gains on the sale of homes under $500,000. This action alone did nothing to impact the foreclosure crisis. However, when coupled with insane subprime lending practices, these tax rates made home sales the best return on the dollar investment for the average person. Thus began the home speculation wave.
In 1998, HUD Director Andrew Cuomo held a press conference detailing a settlement reached with a major bank on a lending discrimination case, presumably based on the CRA. The result of the settlement was $2.1 Billion for subprime loan offers. He admits that the lawsuit forced the bank to lower it's qualification standards as a remedy to the 'discriminatory' lending practices. This is is another crucial turn in the foreclosure crisis. The press conference was a warning to other lending institutions that the administration intended to interpret the CRA laws broadly and that the full force of the Clinton Administration would be aligned against any company that did not meet their standards of the CRA.
It is these enforcement techniques coupled with the marketing of the MBS as low-risk investments which spurred the enthusiastic subprime lending from the private lenders. What was the risk? Offer risky loans to low-income applicants making a large profit, then sell the asset to the GSE's which then acquired the risk. No risk, high profit subprime loans then became a no lose option for the private lenders.
The next step is one of supply and demand. With a flood of new 'qualified buyers' on the market for homes, the new home builders went gonzo. New home starts went through the roof, as demand never seemed to dry up. Demand out paced supply until sometime during mid 2006. Once the supply of homes outweighed the demand by consumers, home prices began to fall. It is this fall coupled with insane personal debt amounts that would begin the foreclosure crisis. During the boom years between 1998 and 2006, home owners were able to use their homes as banks, borrowing against the equity in their home at values higher than the home's actual value, all while banking on the increasing value of the home. Also at this time, Adjustable Rate Mortgages were in demand allowing a home owner to purchase the home with an introductory, low interest rate, which would adjust after 3-5 years. The expectation was that the value of the home would have risen during that time, allowing the owner to refinance into another ARM or traditional loan, at a lower interest rate. It was this expectation of an ever increasing home value that lead home owner after home owner to extend their personal debt beyond the sustainable point.
Once home values began to fall, and adjustable rate mortgages adjusted, many home owners were no longer able to afford their monthly mortgage payments. As a result, foreclosures began to rise. In turn home values fell further causing the housing bubble to burst.
Finally, and most despicably, the systematic fraud committed by the two GSE's in mis-stating earnings as to increase the bonus compensation for the executive staff's allowed the crisis to continue on long after it should have. The GSE's were government entities, so they could borrow money at lower interest rates, they required less capitalization and they had less regulations all of which were supposed to translate into more money available to securitize mortgages. Instead, names like Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson all cooked the books in order to increase their bonuses. At the same time, Alan Greenspan was pointing out the dangers of the GSE's weak capitalization. There were voices of reason, but few had ears to listen.
Liberals, Progressives and Democratics are all quick to point at the Republicans and claim that it was through deregulation that the subprime mortgage crisis began. As a point of fact, Democratics repeatedly attacked and undermined the regulators which oversaw the two GSE's, accusing them of being bigoted and attacking Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae. In reality the foreclosure crisis is as a result of the Carter Administration's efforts to expand low and moderate-income home ownership through the CRA along with DIDMCA's removal of interest rate caps and AMTPA's opening up of non-traditional loan types, coupled with the Clinton Administration's aggressive enforcement of it's own broad interpretation of the CRA which coerced the free market into supporting subprime loans. The deregulation in and of itself had little to do with the foreclosure crisis. It was primarily through the efforts of the Clinton Administration that brought us the crisis.
In the early 2000's, some Republicans in congress were able to see the policy which kept the GSE's under capitalized and allowed the GSE's to purchase risky subprime paper and resell them as low risk investments had the potential to bring the financial system to its knees. These Republicans proposed new regulation attempting to increase the capital which the GSE's had on hand and attempted to reduce the quota's for subprime acquisitions set up by earlier sessions of congress. In the end, however, the Republicans failed to use their majority in both houses of congress to force the regulation instead acquiescing to the minority party. Watch below as several Democratic congresscritters attack the regulators from OFHEO.
So, here we are on the other side of this orgy of destruction, and who is to be held responsible?
Christopher Dodd (D-CT) The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee blocked legislation from Republicans which attempted to rein in the GSE's undercapitalized vacuuming of subprime paper. He, the largest recipient of campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie, killed the legislation in committee.
William Jefferson 'BJ' Clinton (D-AR) The former President was instrumental in pushing the banking industry into expanding home loans to the low and moderate-income markets. So set on the increase in ownership that he was willfully ignorant of the destruction his policies would have on the financial markets of this country in the coming years.
Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) As Director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cuomo set the standard by which all lending institutions would be judged. He used his bully pulpit to praise his department's efforts in winning a $2.1 Billion settlement which would be used to provide subprime loans. He went as far as to admit that the loans were riskier and had a higher rate of failure, yet did nothing to undo the damage he'd begun.
Honorable Mentions:
Barney Frank (D-MA) As the ranking Democratic on the House Financial Services Committee, he opposed a proposal in 2003 to remove the oversight of Fannie and Freddie to a new agency under the Treasury Department. The justification for the proposal was that congress neither had the tools nor the stature for adequate oversight, however, Frank opposed the move stating "These two entities... are not facing any type of financial crisis... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." It should also be noted that Mr. Frank had a relationship with Herb Moses, the CEO of Fannie Mae and referred to him as his "spouse" and his "lover."
Barack Obama (D-IL) The Race Baiter in Chief sued Citibank under the CRA laws to force them to make risky loans. Obama was listed in a class action lawsuit along with ACORN against Citibank alleging that the bank had specifically denied loans based upon racism. This NY Post article makes it clear that Obama was aware of the intimidation tactics being used against Citibank and yet still supported the plaintiff in the lawsuit. This leaves little doubt that Obama was not only aware of ACORN's tactics in attempting to strong arm banks into making risky loans, but was complicit, as well.
A word about lenders, borrowers and the free market. It is often alleged that predatory lenders were responsible for the foreclosure crisis by preying upon unsuspecting borrowers, encouraging them to take loans that the borrowers could never possibly afford to pay back. One would be foolish to believe that this did not happen. However, this scenario was spawned by every other action listed in this post. Predatory lenders had no influence on the CRA, DIDMCA, AMTPA, the dropping of capital gains taxes, the increased mandate for the GSE's to purchase subprime paper, and on and on. This was a by product of the failure of the government, period. In the list of people who need be held responsible, the consumer themselves should not be ruled out. Similarly to the predatory lenders, they were not responsible in starting the foreclosure crisis, but without their uninformed and greedy borrowing, this crisis would never has gotten as large as it became. Ultimately, when you place your signature on those 200 different forms, you are in effect saying that you understand the terms of the loan for which you are signing. It is your responsibility to understand what your are getting yourself into. When a person loses their home and cries that they had no idea, I feel little sorrow. For that person claimed on a legal document that they did, in fact, understand what they were getting into.
The free market is not to blame for what went wrong here. It was only through the manipulation of that free market and players within that market that this crisis came to be. The market left to it's own devices will regulate itself. Greedy and predatory lenders will go out of business as customers become wise to their practices and purchase from someone else. Lending institutions will offer loans which will be competitive with other lenders, but secure enough as not to be overly risky. No company goes into business looking to scare away potential customers and few customers go into a business relationship without knowing exactly what they are consuming and for how much. It is these principles that guide the free market to function and correct when it needs to.
-UPDATE-
Paul pointed out in the comments some facts I left out on predatory lenders: Uncollateralized loans.
The idea that someone could approve the loan of and move someone into a house without the borrower so much as having a job was also begun during the Clinton Administration's Gestapo forced lending tactics. A whole new cottage industry called "Mortgage Origination Offices" cropped up in all the neighborhoods where payday loan places do good business.
Paul goes on to reference this Wall Street Journal Article which shows the areas that are hardest hit by default rates. Paul notes the areas which are hardest hit also seem to have the highest unemployment rates, and the lowest incomes. The areas are referred to as Urban Enterprise Zones, which are areas in which development of blighted neighborhoods is encouraged through tax and regulatory relief. With the revelation of tactics used by community advocate groups such as ACORN, there is a strong possibility that these groups were instrumental in securing loans for some of those now in default.
-UPDATE II-
This subject is so large, and the damage so widespread that it is difficult to sum up all of the factors that played a roll in the eventual meltdown in a single post, let alone at 3:00 in the morning. A commenter at TBC points out that artificially low interest rates in the early 2000's encouraged lending practices that were out of control. This is true, however, it's important to note that low interest rates alone could not have caused this crisis. It is only when all of the pieces are strung together that you get the financial meltdown we are all currently experiencing.
Fed policy in the early 2000's was to keep the economy afloat after the dot com bubble and 9/11. In order to encourage people to continue spending money and making investments, and with the help of a wave of foreign cash from growing Asian economies, money was made cheap and available. The Fed policy was foolish, but, as pointed out with several other steps in the eventual crisis, not without good intentions. The intent was to keep the economy moving and minimize the downturn. As a result, the dot com bubble was not burst, but instead moved to become the housing bubble. This is why conservatives, but primarily libertarians believe that the Federal Government should not get involved in financial downturns or crashes. With limited exception, the FedGov always makes the situation worse.
Frankly, there is only one real take away from the election last night. Blue Dogs are skeerd, period. Regardless of the spin that the MSM tried to give the election results, the electorate voted their pocketbooks. One question for you; who is in charge of the economy? That's right, the libtards.
The Obama train is no longer the train to Democratic shangri la. Blue dogs understand that if they want any shot at re-election, they must NOT vote for the Healthcare debacle currently threatening a floor vote tomorrow or Friday. Politicians live for two things, earmarks and re-election. Rest assured they will not give up either without a fight.
Okay, is anyone really shocked to learn this? Do I need to spend any time telling you, 'I told you so?'
My own, beloved, California was projected to gain 396,000 jobs by the wishful thinking department of the Obama Administration. Instead the GoldenBrass Tin State has lost 336,000 jobs. And just in case you thought it couldn't get much worse, home prices are projected to fall even more.
This is certainly not an original thought, but as I've been pondering the recent political landscape one thing seems clear to me: Libertarians and Conservatives have more in common than they do not, and need each other in order for reason to once again rule Washington, DC.
It was very apparent to me shortly after iWon's inauguration that the political right had fractured into its thousand tiny little sects, each claiming had their brand of politics been adhered, the White House would never have been lost. The truth is the political right is as varied as the individuals that make it up. The reason for it's diversity is that in order to be on the right, you must be able to think for yourself. As Limbaugh is repeatedly saying, 'Conservatism is an intellectual persuit...' It takes nothing more than 'feelings' in order to be a liberal. All one must do is let their heart lead them in matters to know what being a liberal is all about. Unfortunately, what the heart desires is hardly ever what is best for anyone.
The right, naturally breaks down into multiple small interest groups congregating around which ever conservative principles they deem most important. Unfortunately, following an elector defeat, the party out of power turns inward upon itself blaming other sects of the same ideology for the defeats. Most recently I've witnessed a very bitter battle brewing between the self proclaimed 'Libertarians' and 'Neocons.' Now, as we all know, the Necons must be stopped. Libertarians, just like most other sects on the right, believe that they have the magic formula for ultimate happiness and peace and harmony and political power. Yes mom, I realize that was a run on sentence. Stick with me. As most political sects do, Libertarians have rallied around a leader which they believe best speaks for their movement. That charismatic (read loony) leader is Ron Paul. Paulnuts have targeted another conservative leader for their ire and disdain. That charismatic (read loony) leader is Glenn Beck. Hilarity ensues, or not:
By the way, the unedited, uncorrected title of that Video on YouTube is as follows:
Glenn Beck is a Neocon Not a Libertarian And he never supported Dr Ron Paul true constitutionalist Glenn is trying to infest a true grass roots people with his pretender fairytales
Now, here's the deal... Ron Paul is dead on about some things, and batshit crazy about others. Let's start with the good. I am all for (as are most on the right) returning this country to it's founding principles, and to taking a much more originalist interpretation of the Constitution. I am also all for the government staying the hell out of my personal life. He's a little off on Tax policy, advocating no income taxes what-so-ever, but I'd much rather have his tax system than our current one. However, to insinuate that the United States was somehow responsible for what happened in Manhattan on 9/11/01 makes the man certifiable. His isolationist policies make him a perfect candidate for Congress... in 1911. To somehow believe that the economic and security interests of the United States can be served, while simultaneously closing all military bases in every foriegn country is naive at best. Also, to even consider going back to the Gold Standard is novel idea, but no where near pragmatic. From the Wikipedia:
The total value of all gold ever mined would be US$4.78 trillion
Last year's GDP: $14.2 Trillion
Anyone see the problem with going back onto the gold standard? Here's a hint: $4.7 Trillion < $14.2 Trillion. Now, as to Beck... Where to begin? Beck has been right in intent and poor in execution. His recent program on Communist symbology in the artwork at the Rockefeller Plaza in New York made 9/11 truthers look sane by comparison. However, he seems to be the only 'major media figure' inquiring about corruption within the appointments of the Obama Administration. Many today would have no idea who Van Jones is, were it not for Beck's investigations, and 'asking reasonable questions.' Here's the dirty little secret, though... we all need eachother. True story. We need those on the right who advocate for originalist interpretation of the Constitution, who shed light on the inner workings (both good and bad) of the government, who understand governments place in our lives a la the founders intent. We need all these views, together. The fact is Libertarians and the rest of the Conservative movement need each other to succeed. Let's reclaim the White House, Capitol Hill, and get a Conservative bench, then we can fuss over legalizing pot, mmkay?
For the record, I consider both Ron Paul and Glenn Beck conservatives. They are both to be found on the right side of the political spectrum, however, they both self identify as Libertarians. I am not insinuating, as Paul supporters do, that Beck is a Neocon and not a Libertarian.
Joey Plugs ran to the microphones earlier this week to declare, unequivocally, that the Stimulus has worked! Not only has it worked, he said, it's worked better than expected! That's fantastic, considering that the Stimulus was touted as the single greatest way to not only save jobs, but completely turn around the economy. I guess that means it's going gangbusters out there!!!
Video credit The Associated Press
Thank G*d! I was beginning to think that my family members unemployment was going to last forever. Imagine then my surprise when I picked up the phone to ask said family members how they were enjoying their new employment. It's going to be a rough Thanksgiving this year...
Turns out, unsurprisingly, that Joey got it wrong, AGAIN! Or, is 9.7% unemployment (a 26-year high) a recovery?
Exit quote:
"Eight out of 10 of the largest banking institutions in the country... as well as sixteen smaller banks have repaid the government in full. And, I might add, at a $4 Billion profit for the taxpayer..."
Superb! I'll take a check. Please make it payable to...
Before we get started, I would like to warn everyone that reads this post, for your own safety and the safety of those around you, please do not click on any of the links in the post below, unless you are wearing full body protective gear, and carrying a can of Lysol. You have been warned.
In a turd of a story that originated from the bowels of the shemale with a talk show on PMSNBC, was then pulled out of the sewer byFiredoglake, and finally has the DUmmies are feasting upon it: GM is back, baby!!!! According to the post headline, 'CashForClunkers is sooo bad... GM increases production, rehires workers.'
Anybody with a computer in the audience who wants to perform a little experiment? Great, first thing I want you to do is go to your webby browser of choice (NOT SAFARI, CJ) and type the words 'GM' and 'Layoff' in the search box and hit the button. What do the search results read? You'll notice that in spite of reports that GM is going to hire back, wait for it... One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty!!!!!! workers, there are published reports from real news sources that state GM has already bought 6,000 workers out of their contracts this year and is going to layoff an additional 7,500 before year's end. Now, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure 1,350 < 13,500.
While everyone else in the state is dealing with unemployment or severely cut wages, including many state employees who were forced to take unpaid days off, the CA Assembly is handing out raises! Looks like I chose the wrong career path, how about you? From an article posted at KMJ580:
"Here is a list of California lawmakers who increased pay for their staff members between January and June [2009]. Explanations are included where lawmakers chose to comment.
ASSEMBLY:
Assemblyman Joel Anderson, R-La Mesa
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,500 to $2,279. Anderson's office said the staffer went from part-time to full-time and moved to a new position.
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $17,745 to $19,593.
Democratic Caucus
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $15,756 to $17,696.
Assemblyman Jim Beall, D-San Jose
_ Four staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $26,199 to $27,510.
Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo:
_ One staffer whose monthly pay rose from $1,666 to $2,916.
Assemblywoman Anna Caballero, D-Salinas
_ Six staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $17,756 to $19,278.
Caballero said through frugal spending, she was able to reward staffers who have taken on extra responsibilities, several of whom were hired at below-average pay. Five of the six still earn $40,000 or less.
"It did not seem excessive given that we had taken the cuts that we were asked to take. ... It's also important to keep good staff,'' she said.
Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $16,790 to $18,387.
Assemblyman Joe Coto, D-San Jose
_ Two staffers who received promotions, increasing their cumulative monthly pay from $3,950 to $4,740.
Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate
_ Six staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $27,484 to $29,170.
Assemblyman Mike Duvall, R-Yorba Linda
_ One staffer's pay rose from $2,000 to $2,917. Duvall's office said she went from part-time to full-time and the office is still down in staff.
Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park
_ Two staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $7,561 to $8,304.
Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa
_ Five employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $20,124 to $22,401.
Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles
_ Seven employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $40,157 to $43,356.
Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Granite Bay
_ Two employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $4,833 to $5,798. Gaines' office said both employees have taken on new duties and more hours.
Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Tracy
_ One employee who received a promotion, increasing his monthly pay from $4,600 to $4,825.
Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $6,731 to $7,419. Hagman's office said all three are working extra hours.
Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton
_ One staff member received a promotion, increasing his monthly pay from $4,583 to $5,133.
Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael
_ Three staffers whose cumulative monthly pay increased from $25,507 to $26,782.
Assemblyman Steve Knight, R-Lancaster
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,500 to $3,000. Knight's office said the employee started at halftime and moved to full-time.
Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia
_ Two employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $13,918 to $13,989. Mendoza said both are doing more work after other employees left and were not replaced.
Assemblyman Bill Monning, D-Monterey
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $3,378 to $3,716. The employee now works for Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, who took over chairmanship of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.
Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $6,122 to $6,734. Nava's office said the employee was promoted from senior field representative to principal assistant and took on additional work when another employee left.
Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $2,120 to $3,095. Portantino's office said he went from part-time to full-time.
Assembly Republican Caucus
_ Two employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $6,667 to $7,125. Raises occurred while Assemblyman Mike Villines, R-Clovis, was minority leader. Villines' office said the employees took on additional duties when two higher paid staffers left and were not replaced.
Assemblyman Ira Ruskin, D-Redwood City
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $2,917 to $3,063.
Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego
_ Five employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $22,065 to $25,478. One employee was promoted from legislative assistant to senior field representative.
Sergeant-at-Arms (Capitol Security)
_ Twelve employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $43,956 to $46,740. One employee's duties changed to working for the Rules Committee, which also oversees the Sergeant-at-Arms office.
Assemblyman Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana
_ Three employees whose cumulative monthly pay rose from $7,131 to $7,488.
Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $6,714 to $8,393. Strickland's office said the chief of staff and some other employees shifted from part-time to full-time based on legislative activity, such as the budget, to save money: "That's part of the assemblywoman's budget plan _ we have various staffers who come in and out,'' said Rondi Guthrie, district director for Strickland.
Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $3,200 to $3,429.
Two Assembly employees moved from the Chief Clerk's office to new jobs with Assembly members, increasing their cumulative monthly pay from $5,600 to $5,880.
SENATE:
Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $4,348 to $4,493.
Sen. Ron Calderon,
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $5,060 to $5,412.
Alicia Trost, a spokeswoman for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said the following raises were due to employees working increased hours or returning to regular hours after being on leave:
Sen. David Cogdill, R-Modesto:
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $10,078 to $11,540.
Sen. Robert Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,646 to $3,292.
Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Temecula
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $2,750 to $4,604.
Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,424 to $2,652.
Revenue & Taxation Committee
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $5,674 to $11,348
Senate Office of Research
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $9,416 to $10,594.
Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento
_ One employee whose monthly pay rose from $1,810 to $2,424."
In some Assembly Members' future, I foresee unemployment...
One of the leading stories within the last 24 hours at Memeorandum was this post by Mike Stark over at FDL. Mike attended a recent YAF event where Newt Gingrich was the featured speaker, and found the two young conservatives who produced the 'Young Cons' rap video. Admittedly, I am not a huge fan of rap, and this isn't the greatest representation of conservatism or rap, however, they had the ballz to get on the interwebbynets and post thier beliefs, so bravo. Anyhow, Mike Stark begins to question the two gentlemen about Reagan's legacy stating that he was 'sorry to put [them] on the spot like this,' but justifying it by stating that the two have 'taken on a very public role.'
Stark asked the following questions of the Young Cons:
Did you know that Reagan doubled the Social Security Tax? It was at 6% and he took it to 12?
Did you know that Jimmy Carter didn't give an inch to 'those Iranian bastards' who took the American hostages, refused to negotiate? What he did do is send in some helecopters that got lost in a sand storm, kind of like the sand storm in Iraq that slowed our progress right in the beginning. On the other hand, Regan traded arms for hostages with the Iranians. Did you guys know about-?
Did you know that he bailed out of Lebanon? I spent four years in the Marines, he kind of bailed out of Lebanon, you know, after, you know, 280 some of our 'Devil Dogs' got blown up. Do you think that- does that improve or diminish his image in your view?
Do you think Barack Obama is in a 'terrible time' in Iraq and he should pull us out of Iraq as soon as he can to get us out of that terrible [crosstalk]?
Why didn't you guys join, just out of curiosity, why didn't you join the military?
What did you think was more important than serving your country?
So, as we've done before, let's analyze the questions and posit the answers that should have been given and would have, had the Young Cons known that they were going to get ambushed at the YAF event.
Reagan doubled the Social Security Tax from 6% to 12%. The question makes it seem as if on the morning of January 20, 1981 the Social Security Tax rate was 6.0% and by the morning of January 21, 1981 Reagan had doubled it to 12.0%. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case. Looking at this chart we can see that in 1981 when Reagan took office the total rate of contribution from Employees and Employers, each to Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Hospital Insurance combined was at 6.65%. The rate of contribution from the self employed to Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Hospital Insurance combined was at 9.3%. When Reagan left office in 1989, the Employee/Employer rate had risen to 7.51% and Self-Employed rate had risen to 15.02%, neither considered a doubling. Here is another chart for comparison. Something liberals tend to forget when going after Reagan is that during his entire Presidency, the congress was controlled by Democrats. Even though he won with a large majority of the electorate voting for him in '80 and in '84, Reagan's policies still had to pass through the Democratic controlled congress for approval. I can't remember anyone claiming that Reagan never raised taxes, as a matter of fact, he raised taxes in a few areas. However, Reagan was also able to cut taxes in several other areas, most notably corporate tax rates. We can see here what the result of those tax cuts have been.
Reagan traded arms for hostages with Iran That's right, Reagan himself handed Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket the keys to a hummer, 1,000,000 lbs. of C4 and the triggering device for a nuclear device. Or not... That insinuation is patently false and intellectually dishonest. After a long investigation by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, it was never proven that Reagan even knew about let alone authorized the arms sales to Iran. This, of course, has come to be known as the Iran Contra. Certain individuals within the Defense Department authorized the sale of military weapons to Iran in order to help secure the release of 6 US hostages being held by Hezbollah. A portion of the monies generated from the sales of these weapons was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua. So Reagan did not trade weapons for hostages. As to the Jimmy Carter thing, what can I say that hasn't already been said. Arguably, if it weren't for him turning his back on the Shah, Iranian riots never would have taken place and the US Embassy in Tehran never would have been over run leading to the (separate) hostage crisis in Iran.
Reagan 'bailed out' of Lebanon after the Marine Barracks Bombing, In Beirut. Here is Reagan in his own words on why we were in Lebanon to start with:
"The purpose of having our troops and those of the other three nations in Beirut was to help keep the peace and to free the Lebanese army to go after the various militias and warlords who were terrorizing the country. We never had the intention of getting involved in Lebanon's civil war. For a while, our policy seemed to be working. There was genuine peace on the streets of Beirut. Still, as we were learning, the situation in Beirut was much more difficult and complex than we initially believed."
In fact, the Syrians were informed that the Marine presence in Beirut was defensive in nature. After the attack on the US Marines, Ronald Reagan authorized retaliatory attacks against enemy artillery points. Here is Reagan in his own words on that event:
"Although there was some resistance from Cap and the Joint Chiefs over whether we should retaliate, I told him to give the order for an air strike against the offending antiaircraft batteries. We had previously let the Syrians know that our reconnaissance operations in support of the marines were only defensive in nature. Our marines were not adversaries in the conflict, and any offensive act directed against them would be replied to. The following morning, more than two dozen navy aircraft carried out the mission. One crewman was killed and another captured by the Syrians. Our planes subsequently took out almost a dozen Syrian antiaircraft and missile-launching sites, a radar installation, and an ammo dump. When the Syrians fired again at one of our reconnaissance aircraft, I gave the order to fire the sixteen-inch guns of the battleship New Jersey on them. Two days later, we had a new cease-fire in Lebanon, a result, I'm sure, of the pressure of the long guns of the New Jersey..."
And finally, here is Reagan on the decision to pull the Marines out of Lebanon:
"As 1984 began, it was becoming clearer that the Lebanese army was either unwilling or unable to end the civil war into which we had been dragged reluctantly. It was clear that the war was likely to go on for an extended period of time. As the sniping and shelling of their camp continued, I gave an order to evacuate all the marines to anchored off Lebanon. At the end of March, the ships of the Sixth Fleet and the marines who had fought to keep peace in Lebanon moved on to other assignments. We had to pull out. By then, there was no question about it: Our policy wasn't working. We couldn't stay there and run the risk of another suicide attack on the marines. No one wanted to commit our troops to a full-scale war in the middle East. But we couldn't remain in Lebanon and be in the war on a halfway basis, leaving our men vulnerable to terrorists with one hand tied behind their backs."
The insinuation, again, here by Mike Stark is that we were attacked and Reagan immediately ordered the withdrawal, and the US left with it's tail between it's legs. In fact, the original attack was on October 23, 1983 and the order for withdrawal wasn't given until February 7, 1984, three and half months later.
Should Barack Obama pull US troops out of Iraq. Mike attempts to draw a parallel between the circumstances of Lebanon 1983 and Iraq 2009, a comparison that is murky at best. The Marines had been stationed in Beirut as part of an international peace keeping force, something liberals love, and to free the Lebanese Army to do battle with the PLO. Our involvement in Iraq was to dispose the despotic murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein. A military presence in Iraq must be maintained until such time as the Iraqi government and military can take over the daily security concerns for the fledgling democracy. For the United States to pull out before said time could possibly result in a massive civil war, or lead to an invasion by a more powerful neighbor, further destabilizing the region. The Marine presence in Lebanon was merely defensive in nature and their presence ultimately was inconsequential to the security of the government as a whole. The force of 800 marines were part of a larger Multi-National Force assigned to cover the evacuation of Syrian troops and PLO fighters from Beirut. Different mission, different stakes.
Why didn't the Young Cons enlist and serve in the Military? What was more important to them than serving the country? The beautiful thing about the United States Military is that it is an all volunteer force, and no one can be compelled to serve. Each person has their own reasons for why they choose to, or not to enlist and serve in the military. However, an individual's viewpoint on political matters cannot and should not be discounted because of their involvement or lack thereof in the military. Where the hell would Barack Obama be as POTUS if his views were discounted as a result of him choosing not to serve in the military? As a Marine, Mike has the right to ask these two why they did not serve, but again their choice to serve, or not to serve should have no bearing on the validity of their political philosophy.
Overall, I think it was bullshit for Mike to grab these guys coming out of a speech by Newt Gingrich and put them on the spot regarding some political history, most of which occurred before these guys entered grade school. His justification for putting them on the spot is worthless... Using his reasoning, these guys should be Obama experts, and ready to give a defense of the $1.3 trillion stimulus package and his attendance at Reverend Wright's church for 20 years.
As an aside, the Young Cons can't be any more than 26 years old, which would place them being born in 1983. Do you have a real good grasp on the President or policies that were in place the year that you were born, or the first 6 years of your life? Can you be a vocal proponent of a political philosophy, or a fan of an individual without knowing all the details on their life? I certainly hope so, otherwise there is no explanation for all the Bill Clinton fans running around the world...
People want to believe that the Government has their best interests in mind. Although they know politicians lie on a minute by minute basis, people want to believe their representatives are telling them the truth. People want the simple answers. People want something new that costs them little to nothing.
I have just given you all the reasons why the support for nationalizing health care is as high as it is. As we all know, the people who give in to the temptations listed above, are naive. You see, the Government already runs 3 major health care programs; Medicare/Medicaid, Veterans Benefits(VA), and Native American health care(IHS). A couple of weeks ago, Ed Morrissey brought to light the perils of the IHS system.
Question, what do you think happens to medical benefits provided by the government in a recession or depression cycle? Let's look at California to see! 'Wait a minute!!! Nobody told me that if we go to a nationalized health care system, in recessionary or depressionary cycles my benefits will get cut!' That's right Sherlock, Government cuts spending in the most cost intensive areas; terminally ill, handicapped, seniors and in CA's case, children.
Joey gets all misty when he thinks about the success of the stimulus.
My successor, Joey Plugs, has an Op Ed over at the Terrorist Times. In it, he claims that as a result of quick action on the part of PeeBo and hisself, we were brought back from 'the precipice.' He claims that because of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the sky high monthly unemployment claims of 700,000 experienced before it was enacted have plummeted. The whole basis of his piece is that without the quick action of the executive and legislative branches of government, we'd be in hell right now.
Let's examine the miracle afforded us by PeeBo and Plugs! Unemployment claims in January 2009 were 598,000 which have fallen to 467,000, effectively 22%. The overall national unemployment percentage has gone from approximately 7.5% in January 2009 to 9.5% in June 2009. A report entitled 'The Employment Situation: June 2009' states:
"The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) increased by 433,000 over the month to 4.4 million."
In fact, from January all unemployment duration measurements except the 'Less than 5 weeks' category increased. Total unemployment for this period jumped from 16.4 Million to 22.9 Million a loss of nearly 6.5 million additional jobs... So why the back patting by Joey Plugs?
Joey then goes on to explain the ARRA so that he can 'set the record straight.' If there are two things we can all agree upon, it's that Joey ain't nothin' if he ain't a straight talker and Joey speaks for everyone in the Administration! He claims that 1/3 of the 787 Billion Dollar stimulus (before interest) goes to tax cuts, and that 95% of the American public has experienced a tax cut as a result of it's passage. Question: Who in their right mind would believe that as a result of the Government spending money, the public has received a tax cut?
Let's see, the government gets its money through taxation of the citizenry. A tax cut is the government allowing me to keep the money that it would normally take as a tax. So... where exactly did this money come from? I mean it's impossible to have the government both take money from me and allow me to keep it at the same time. Those two things are mutually exclusive.
Two nuggets of truth in Joey's piece; unemployment benefits have been extended for the unemployed, and money is being spent on roads. However, he also claims that rural water systems are being improved... Has he ever been to California?! Has he ever heard of the Delta? Has he heard about the major dairy owners who have committed suicide just this year due to many economic reasons one of which being access to water?
Joey then goes on to tout the Recovery.gov website. That's be the same website that disclosed the $2 Million 2lb. ham purchase earlier this week...
See, here's the overall problem with Joey's Op Ed piece, even he doesn't believe the horsepucky he's peddling. He spends nearly the whole piece extolling the outstanding job they have done with this debacle after he told ABC that the White House had misread the economy just three short weeks ago. So first he goes out and admits they didn't know what the f#@% they were doing, then just three short weeks later SUCCESS!
Exit question: If the stimulus is working so great, why do we need another one?
Rasmussen is reporting in a recent poll that 54% of Americans still blame George Bush for our current Economic situation... Seriously, sometimes I just want to pack it all in and hang myself by my scrotum from a tree, as I believe that would be less painful than dealing with these 54% of Americans, but I digress. In another poll, roughly the same percentage of those surveyed state that they look at the toilet paper after they wipe... coincidence?!
Help me out here... which President wanted their legacy to include the greatest increase in minority homeowners in spite of the risk of increased loan defaults? Which President's Justice Department threatened banks with investigation if they did not increase the number of home loans to at risk (read: minority) borrowers? Which President recently flushed $1.3 Trillion down the toilet?
The answer? NOT BUSH!
Which Congressional Members denied there was inherent risks in allowing Fannie May and Freddie Mac to continue the sub-prime loan insuring? Which Congressional Members got sweet heart deals from Lenders for homes for themselves? Which (gay) Congressional Member got their boyfriend a sweet executive position at one of the GSO's? Which Congressional Members recently passed a jobs killing Minimum Wage increase?
The answer? NOT REPUBLICANS!
Okay, so where and how does blame land on Bush's shoulders?
Paul at Mean Ol' Meany has a post about his personal experience with the recently (today) raised federal minimum wage. He also has an extensive post history regarding the truth of minimum wage and it's effect on the economy and business.
The reality is that the argument for a minimum wage is ludicrous. Why is $7.50 an hour an acceptable wage, but $7.25 is not? If $7.25 is unacceptable, why stop at $7.50? Why isn't minimum wage $10/hour or $15/hour or even $1,500/hour?! Why is there an artificial floor and ceiling on the permissible lowest wage that can be paid? Questions libtards cannot answer...
This report is old, but the facts remain true, and if I weren't nearly as lazy as I am, I could link to newer studies which confirm the fact that minimum wage, and specifically raising the minimum wage kills small business and hurts the economy.
