Some insight into the mind of the latest mass murderer.
This was sent to me by a follower – enjoy!
A woman from Los Angeles, who was a tree hugger, a liberal democrat and an anti-hunter, purchased a piece of timberland near Colville,WA. There was a large tree on one of the highest points in the tract. She wanted a good view of the natural splendor of her land so she started to climb the big tree. As she neared the top she encountered a spotted owl that attacked her.
In her haste to escape, the woman slid down the tree and got many splinters in her crotch. In considerable pain, she hurried to a local E.R. to see a doctor. She told him she was an environmentalist, a democrat and an anti-hunter and how she came to get all the splinters.
The doctor listened to her story with great patience and then told her to go wait in the examining room and he would see if he could help her.
She sat and waited three hours before he reappeared.
The angry woman demanded, “What took you so long?”.
He smiled and then told her, “Well, I had to get permits from the Environmental Protection Agency, The Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management before I could remove old-growth timber from a “recreational area” so close to a waste treatment facility. I’m sorry, but due to Obama-care, they turned you down.”
You know, it’s bad enough that our Federal Government utilizes our tax dollars to choose winners and losers in the marketplace. It’s worse when we lose $1.3 billion on the so-called ‘investment’. Furthermore, it’s really bad when we bailed out a failed company just to see them become a foreign automaker. Next week, that will come to fruition when the Treasury completes the sale of it’s 6% stake in Chrysler to Italian automaker Fiat. Here’s the story.
I don’t think you’ll see that little fact being touted by the chest-thumping Obama cronies who have been running around declaring the auto bailouts a huge success. Somehow, I missed it. Losing $1.3 billion in our money? Failure. Bailing out a failed company while delivering an uppercut to the stakeholders in the process? Failure. Bailing out a foreign automaker with our tax dollars? Failure.
Per usual, the mis-information campaign would have you believe that had we not stepped in, Chrysler would have simply ceased to exist. All of its jobs would have simply vanished. All of its assets would disappear. Wiped off the face of the earth. Wrong.
A structured, orderly bankruptcy would have occurred. The stakeholders would have been paid off in a normal manner without simply being wiped out with the union and Fiat coming out smelling like a rose thanks to the Obama brokered deal bypassing existing bankruptcy law. No $1.3 billion in tax dollars wasted. And the reformed company would be back open for business whether it simply be a re-structured Chrysler or under the banner of new ownership. Capitalism at work. Losers with failed business plans lose. They get out of the way for someone else to give it a try.
Not in this environment. You are rewarded for your indiscretions. I would imagine a poll would reflect that the auto bailouts were a good thing. Despite the tax money lost. Despite the stakeholder losses. Despite the fact that the incentive has now been increased to engage in shoddy business practices. Why wouldn’t you? Take some risky gambles, you can’t fail because even when you do, our federal government is standing by to reward you even further. And to top it all off, Chrysler is now officially going to become a foreign automaker. No longer number 3 of the Big 3. Now just another foreign automaker operating within our shores. Pathetic.
If you still had any doubt about the validity of Moody’s as a neutral ratings agency, the statement they released today should eliminate that doubt. Moody’s analyst Steven Hess said this
“We would reduce our assessment of event risk if the government changed its
framework for managing government debt to lessen or eliminate that uncertainty”
How convenient is this? As if the Federal Government needed another cheerleader for unbridled spending. Bothered by these inconvenient votes on raising the debt limit? How about just completely eliminating it? In my book, Moody’s has already exposed itself as inept at best and complicit at worst in the run-up of the housing bubble with their bond ratings of the derivatives market. Yet, no one was held to account whatsoever in the role they played in blowing up the housing market.
Now they are actively lobbying for completely unchecked Federal deficit spending. I can’t argue with their assessment that our Federal Government violates our spending limits with regularity. However, a solution which encompasses simply eliminating any threshold whatsoever theoretically to ease bondholder fears is counterproductive and irresponsible.
Here’s the link to the story. Moody’s position doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. On the surface, one may think that bond purchasers would think it a good thing to know there are never any limits to the government purchasing debt. However, no accounting for the risk and costs related to increasing our nation’s debt level will result in even more uncertainty over time. Can you imagine giving Obama a credit card without a spending limit? Would that make you feel more at ease? Of course not.
I’d like to see a real investigative reporter start to dig into the links between Moody’s and the Federal Government. It’s already easy to smell the smoke with this relationship and where there’s smoke, you know what we’ll likely find. It appears to me that Moody’s is just another arm of the Federal Government.
Last week we heard Obama pull out one of the really big fear cards he has to play. He claimed he wasn’t sure if grandma would get her social security check if the GOP doesn’t buckle under soon and hand him a new book of blank checks. The debt crisis debate has nothing to do with our nation’s debt and everything to do with politics, posturing and agenda. Even the most optimistic of proposals such as a balanced budget amendment and trillions in cuts only address the deficit and not the debt. But since it’s all being done behind closed doors, we don’t really know what is actually on the table except what is leaked for public opinion purposes.
How many people do you think even picked up on what he said when he threw out the SS nugget? If this were any municipality, or even state across America, threatening to cut public services or other high-profile jobs is always the first arrow drawn from the quiver. Every politician knows to get the public outraged ASAP is the fastest way to sway public opinion your way and get the people more open to the idea of tax hikes. Social security is akin to that strategy on the federal level.
What he is openly admitting is what is not publicly accepted as fact. There is no such thing as a social security trust fund. Never has been. The courts have ruled on it. It simply doesn’t exist. First, lets take a look at what the common perception is today.
You get your 6.2% FICA withholding taken out of your paycheck each week which is then matched by your employer, or doubled by you if your self-employed. That part is fact. What happens next is the myth. People are told that their withholding is cumulatively used to pay out benefits to recipients each month. Any surplus is deposited into the social security trust fund. In fact, the Treasury reports in excess of a $2.5 trillion dollar balance just sitting there as of Dec. of 2010.
With the rhetoric really starting to ramp up now concerning the debt crisis, there is one thing we can all be sure of. The American people will come out on the short end of the stick. As far as I’m concerned, Boehner has completely blown this issue. Once again he is allowing Obama to dictate the argument and skew the debate. The headlines are centered around the stale old ‘tax the rich’ scheme. There is no excuse for allowing this to regress into another debate about how to raise government revenue. In fact, the GOP never even had to open negotiations on this issue period. There was nothing to gain and everything to lose.
After all, let’s remember this is called the DEBT crisis. Not the ‘how much more should we spend beyond our means and how to pay for it’ crisis. Why aren’t people screaming from the rooftop “Hey, is anybody even going to propose something resembling a plan dealing with the debt?”. Again, no one is even talking about dealing with the DEBT. All we are hearing about is how much more of a DEFICIT to add to that DEBT over the next ten years. It’s like an alcoholic who already has a 4.0 alcohol blood level and is on his death-bed and can’t decide whether to drink another 12 pack or go for a whole case.
Even at the high-end of the proposals being floated, they’re talking about $4 trillion over ten years when we spend potentially $40 trillion. We’ll never reach $40 trillion in spending because the system will implode long before that anyway.
When it comes to dealing with issues such as this, you can usually count on one thing. The wrong premise. When you get the premise wrong and subsequently ask the wrong questions, you have no chance of ever getting to the right answer. Everything that follows a bad premise is then wrong. This is where we are with the debt issue.
Which scenario is worse? A clueless POTUS with no idea how to formulate effective policy or an ideologue with no regard for policy outcome? I suspect that Obama can fit the profile of several variants when it comes to policy, none of them any good. Perhaps the larger question is does it even matter? I’ve been listening to a variety of pundits opine on the direction Obama is taking and those seem to be the two main theories.
Is Obama just the generic community organizer who has never held a real job and thus really has no idea how to make competent decisions concerning policy? I don’t think there’s any question about that. Yet, he’s also the agenda driven ideologue who is directed primarily by a narrowly focused thought process on how to implement his fundamental change of America. Thus the explanation for the seemingly incoherent comedy of errors when it comes to solving the economy.
He really can be both at the same time. Clueless and laser focused. It’s important to understand your enemy if you wish to defeat them. Much of his agenda was spelled out for us prior to his election in 2008. Unfortunately, so many of us were caught up in ‘hope and change’ and couldn’t see the forest for the trees in front of us. Those of us who saw through him are not at all surprised by the course he has taken because he said as much.
So the logic seems to be that no one will be fooled this time around. We’ve all heard the stats thrown around such as no incumbent ever being re-elected with an unemployment rate higher than 7.2%. Will it be in Nov. 2012? Absolutely. Does that guarantee an Obama defeat? Absolutely not. One would think it to be impossible for him to even have a chance with the pathetic state of affairs in America. Yet that isn’t how politics works. Having the statistics on your side simply isn’t enough.