Biden:The Stimulus Is Working

VP Joe Biden defended the Generational Theft Act today saying "The recovery act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy, and changing the conversation in the country. Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession."

Biden, of course, is a moron.

Let's put aside the fact that the administration has been claiming that the "Stimulus Is Working" since last April. Even today, only about 10% of the stimulus has been spent, and if you look at how much of it was spent, there is no way you can credit whatever improvements in the economy that have occurred on the stimulus. It simply isn't logical.

In fact, most economists are now saying that the bottom of the recession occurred in late February. Remember when the stimulus was signed? That's right. The turn around occurred BEFORE A DIME HAD BEEN SPENT.

Furthermore, the purpose (at the time) of the stimulus was to create jobs. Yet, that is the one area in which the economy is not recovering. The stock market has stabilized and begun moving upwards. The housing decline has also stabilized in many areas. But unemployment continues to rise in most parts of the country. Economists are still predicting the unemployment rate to top 10% for the first time since the Carter administration by the end of this year.

Still, this is the mantra of the administration. They have to get this message out. One of the biggest reasons that Obama's poll numbers have continued to fall is that the American people are concerned about government spending. If the administration can make everyone believe that their spending is fixing things, they think the poll numbers will come back up. And as far as that goes, they are probably right.

Just wait, however, until the impending inflation kicks in.

Quote of the Day

Lawyer politicians like Barack Obama and D.C. bureaucrats do not comprehend even Lemonade Stand real-world economics. If it were up to them, instead of five cents per paper cupful you'd have $4 filtered water in a glass, scrupulously maintained at a carefully monitored 38 degrees Fahrenheit and sold only by appropriately trained and attired food service workers making an approved wage -- with approved benefits.

Eric Peters in this Spectator article explaining how America could produce affordable cars that could get 60+ mpg, if only government would eliminate some of their excessive regulations.

Most Popular Blog Entry

Sometimes when you stay up late at night your mind drifts in directions it would not normally go. Such was the case when I wrote my blog entry dated August 30 entitled "How to Destroy America."

That entry seems to have struck a nerve. I've gotten more comments on it than any other entry I've ever put on this blog, and it's still getting comments four days later.

That entry was actually composed around and just after midnight on Saturday night. Had I known it was going to create a "mini-firestorm," I might have actually put more effort into it. I wrote most of the entry just randomly as the thoughts came to mind, although the entry that exists now contains a few additions and edits suggested by the comments it has received. (If you've only read it once, you might want to scan through it again for additions.) I probably should have put it in a word processor, organized the thoughts better and then posted it.

Often when I'm up past midnight (and not out on the town) it's for studying. Of course, sometimes I come back in from a night on the town and can't get to sleep right away. That's when I cruise the net and these sorts of thoughts come to mind.

The primary reason for this entry is to direct anyone who has not read that entry to check it out. In retrospect, it's one of my better posts. I seldom go back and re-read my own entries, but this one I have gone back to a couple of times.

I also want to use this entry to once again thank my regular readers and commenters for your support of this blog. With Congress and Obama on vacation, the news has been a little slower lately, so the number of posts have decreased in the last few days, but I'm sure before long, they will pick up again. Keep up the fight. I'm not convinced we (conservatives) will win, but without a fight we will certainly lose.

Quote of the Day

"The American people are winning this debate. We do not need any help, nor do we want any help, from the "me too" Republicans."

From the Patriot Page, referring to John McCain's Town Hall meetings in which he is trying to persuade attendees that Republicans should reach across the aisle and reach "compromises" in order to pass a health care reform bill.

Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste

Is Health Care Reform "Dead"?

I'm hearing talk from pundits (radio, TV and print) that health care reform, or at least health care reform with the "public option" being the cornerstone, is dead. Do you think it is?

I think this is unabashed optimism on the part of conservative commentators. It may even be part of the strategy to get people to relax a little bit, only to get people going again if and when Congress tries to push through a plan that will destroy our current system.

I don't think there is any way health care reform is dead. And when I say that, I mean a leftist view of health care reform that includes either long term or short term plans to include a government-run system that would be designed to eventually run insurance companies out of business, leaving us with a single-payor, socialist program.

The left has been drooling over socialized medicine since the 1950's (or earlier). This is their big chance. What conservatives fail to understand about the left is that they have really drunk the kool-aid. They believe that socialism is the solution to America's problems. They really believe they can push through a plan that Americans don't want, and when the voting public sees just how "good" it is, and how much it "helps" America, they will be redeemed and be voted back into power. They want to be part of the legacy. They want to have their name attached to the biggest sweeping socialist takeover in the history of our country. They think that's a good thing.

Keep in mind that many of these leftists are nearing or well past what most of the rest of us would consider "retirement" age. Even if they get voted out of office, they have pensions, not to mention the opportunity to be lobbyists and speaking opportunities. They don't necessarily need to be in power, if they think they can accomplish a huge majority of what they have been working for all their lives in this one year.

(Don't pick apart the sentence "they don't need to be in power." It's all relative, and I'm trying to get inside their thinking. Yes, they want to be in power.)

The bottom line is, the left sees 2009 as their one chance to do "everything."

Health care "reform" is not dead. Nor is any other liberal program they think they might be able to ram through between now and when the campaigns heat up next year.

What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know it?

From Pajama's Media:

The Left used to have a chant: “No war for oil.” But now that Britain has let a terrorist who killed 243 passengers go free, because to do so meant access to a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal for British Petroleum (BP), we have not heard a word. This is especially the case for the British Left, who, for some time now, has been anti-Israel to the hilt and excessively silent about the crimes committed by Arab nations.

The facts are clear, as the London Times reported. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government, after discussions between Libya and BP, made the decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber who brought down Pam Am 103 in 1988. Among the passengers who died were 180 Americans.

Until now, it was thought that Scotland made the deal alone to free al-Megrahi. But investigative reporting found firm evidence that, as Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, put it, “the British government has been involved for a long time in talks over al-Megrahi in which commercial considerations have been central to their thinking.”

It was a decision, Justice Secretary Jack Straw said, that was in the British national interest. Britain agreed that the terrorist could go free. Six weeks later, Libya ratified the BP deal that the government wanted concluded. So much for “compassionate grounds,” the so-called official reason that led to Al-Megrhai’s freedom.

One other issue has to be raised. After al-Megrahi was freed and given a hero’s welcome when his plane landed in Libya, the Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton protested. But this was after he gained his freedom. So the question must be stated: Would Britain have allowed this deal to be undertaken without informing President Obama in advance?

After all, scores of Americans were murdered by his action. The families have suffered for close to twenty years. A moving account of one family’s trauma appeared in an op-ed yesterday written by Robert P. George. As George writes: “What did American officials know about the decision to free Megrahi and when did they know it? What, if anything, did our government do to try to prevent it? Remember, 180 of Megrahi’s victims were our fellow citizens. President Obama had a right to be informed in advance of what Scotland was planning to do and a duty to do everything in his power diplomatically to prevent this outrage.”

Did Barack Obama phone Gordon Brown and object strenuously before the release? Did he really not know of Britain’s plans until after it was too late? Frankly, this is rather hard to believe. If almost 200 British subjects were killed on American soil in a terrorist attack, and the perpetrator was freed in a commercial deal by the U.S. government, it is hard to imagine that any administration would not first have informed the British government of what was going to take place.

So the question remains: What did Barack Obama know, and when did he know it?