Bad Policy Creates Uncertainty To Be Followed By More Unemployment?

Stella Paul hits the nail on the head! (See 1 below.)

--

It is only worthless money chasing bad ideas!  (See 2 below.)

----

No doubt this black American is an Uncle Tom because she saw the light and tells it like it is. (See 3 below.)

And then there is Dennis Prager.  (See 3a below.)

---

Sent to me by a conservative and frustrated friend with whom I agree.  (See 4 below.)

And then.  (See 4a below.)

---

Bad policies create uncertainty.  Uncertainty leads to reluctance to invest. This, in turn, will lead to higher unemployment.

Hope and change was a mirage and a false premise upon which to base economic policies.

Obama remains an incompetent and lying president. 

Re-elect him at the continuing peril of our nation. (See 5 below.)

---
Conrad Black expresses disillusionment. (See 6 below.)
---

A great lady, Ethyl Rosenzweig, who with her late husband were a powerful cultural force in our beloved city.  May God rest her soul!

---  

Dick

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) What I Miss About America

By Stella Paul

 Here are just a few of the things I miss since America entered the golden age of Hope and Change in January 2009.

 

Optimism

 Going for minutes, hours, even days, without worrying about what weird insanity the government is dreaming up next

 Having money

 The Border Patrol

 Looking up at the moon and thinking, "America - we own space!"

 Having a president whose background isn't more closely guarded than the formula for Coke

 Going on vacation without the TSA auditioning me for "Stella Does Dallas"

 Jobs

 Not feeling like I have to whisper, if I say something that's not completely, 100% complimentary about our president

 Listening to the latest rant against Israel at the UN, without wondering if it's coming from the American Ambassador

 Feeling protected 

 Having a president who doesn't want to fundamentally transform me

 Getting a doctor's appointment right away and not thinking, "That was nice while it lasted."

 Having a president who would never, ever bow to the Saudi king, the Chinese premier, the Japanese prime minister and the mayor of Tampa

  Gazing up at the sky and not wondering if that's a bird or a drone

  Snacking on whatever I want, while the First Lady remains calm and indifferent

 Having a president who thinks it would be unimaginably crazy to bring the 9/11 conspirators to New York for a civil trial

 Privacy

 Separation of State and Media 

 College graduates with a future in America, not China or Hong Kong

 Having a president who inspires us to feel that Americans are all in this game together

 A dollar that's worth 100 cents and isn't signed by a tax cheat

 America's Triple-A rating

 Having a president who doesn't seem needier for attention than Paris Hilton

 Strolling through the mall without worrying about racially-motivated flash mobs

 Looking at maps without trying to figure out where I can run 

 Reading 1984 as an interesting work of fiction

 Dignity

 Pride

What do you miss?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)Nevada Solar Co

The Solar thing just got a little more interesting.......REALLY!

The Tonopah Solar Company in Harry Reid's Nevada is getting a $737 million loan from Obama's DOE. The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system and employ 45 permanent workers.

That's costing us just $16 million per job.  One of the investment partners in this endeavor is Pacific Corporate Group (PCG).  The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi who is the brother to Nancy 's husband.

Just move along folks.... nuthing goin on here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) I had not heard of Anita Moncrief until I watched these videos. I am sure she has been vilified by her former colleagues.

This is an insider’s look at ACORN/Barack Obama and the fraud they have perpetrated on the USA.

Anita Moncrief is a long time employee of ACORN and this is her story.
 This reinforces the critical nature of what happens on November 6, 2012.
This is very interesting (each about 10 minutes) . These go together and are eye openers. Watch them in order. Well worth your time.

Part I http://www.youtube.com/embed/3CmkbShVqNA?feature=player_embedded

Part II http://www.youtube.com/embed/gy6odnqyLeU?feature=player_embedded

3a)The clip features Dennis Prager on a panel at the University of Denver .

This is a sobering clip and such an important message about where the US is headed, not about party lines.  You will recognize the other panelists, but never mind; this is about Prager and what he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=XNUc8nuo7HI

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 )I wish I knew the author, but in my opinion this is right on the mark.

Liberals have one unique characteristic. This is something we can say about the liberals of 100 years ago, who gave us the first big bite of liberalism, namely the income tax, and compare it to contemporary liberals who are trying to force socialist healthcare on America.

What is the characteristic all liberals share? What is it about them that we need to exploit in order to defeat liberalism once and for all?

It is simple. Liberals are generally and consistently  wrong.

In two years, we will mark the 50th anniversary of the beginning of Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty.

How’s that one working out?

For fifty years, we have seen massive increases in welfare spending. Welfare spending is now the third largest item in the Federal Budget. It is actually so large and so confusing, the General Accountability Office cannot identify all of the welfare programs the government has nor can it identify all of the money spent on welfare programs.

Welfare programs, at as of 2010, cost the average American household $638 a month.

If we suddenly eliminated all welfare spending and allowed Americans to keep that money, almost every American household could immediately afford at least one new car, if not two. That would do more for the American economy and the American people than welfare has.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson announced his war on poverty. If it is a war, we are supposed to win, right?

According to the Cato Institute, we spend $1 trillion a year. To what result? The poverty rate is the same as it was when the war on poverty started in 1964. The Obama Regime has increased welfare spending by over 40% during its three year  tenure.

Poverty? Still the same and we now have the Great Obama Depression, which if anything is only making poverty worse.

Here is a simple question. Has welfare ever eliminated poverty?

The answer is no.

America is not the only nation with welfare programs. Have any of them ever eliminated poverty?

Can a liberal name a single nation anywhere that has implemented a socialist welfare system and has been able to shut it down because the programs have succeeded in eliminating poverty?

The answer is no.

Welfare programs do not work. All they do is subsidize poverty and anyone who has studied economics knows, anything you subsidize, you get more.

If you try the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, you are not just insane. You are perpetually wrong and terminally stupid.

This is the story of liberalism.

Liberals are seldom if ever right.

That is why the left must resort to their typical ad hominem attacks. That is why they produce commercials showing Republicans pushing granny off the cliff. That is why they go through the minority communities screaming racism. Liberals cannot handle the truth and the truth is, their ideas suck.

We the people have the right to demand that if our government is going to spend money on anything, the money be spent wisely and if a program or programs do not work, they must be eliminated.

Unfortunately, the government does not have a clue if welfare programs do anything other than buy votes for the Party of Failure.

On June 1, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing on Welfare Spending and Inefficiencies.

Patricia Dalton, the Chief Operating Officer of the General Accountability Office testified she could not identify the number of welfare programs, how much money was spent on them or even the percentage of programs that were actually accomplishing the purposes for which they were created.

Only a government run by liberals thinks this is a good idea.

Not only has government never eliminated poverty through welfare programs, no nation has ever provided decent healthcare through a massive socialist government program. They have all failed.

In Britain, they are now privatizing their National Health Service. Back in April, the far left Guardian reported the delays in healthcare were becoming intolerable, forcing the British Prime Minister to act. Patients were being denied joint replacements, cataracts surgery and hernia repairs because the socialist healthcare system was broke.

In Britain, like all other places where socialist healthcare has been tried, it has failed. Yet what does the left want to impose on America?

 You guessed it.

Those on the left are terminally stupid and perpetually wrong. They do not deserve respect; they deserve contempt for what they are doing.

What we need is an aggressive Republican Party that will not only call them on their stupidity but will also push a strongly conservative agenda. If the Republicans will not lead on this, we must force them to.

Liberalism has failed every time it has been tried. The Free Market not only works but it has made America great. It is time we forgot about the war on poverty and started a war on socialism.

Unlike those on the left, we conservatives believe in winning our wars.

4a)

Barack Obama - "Personal Jesus"

By Christopher| 1 video

Watch

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)Gross: Unemployment Will Be Higher This Time Next Year

The unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high in the U.S. despite a slew of policy responses from the Federal Reserve to put more people back to work.

But Fed action can only do so much, and joblessness is set to worsen, says Bill Gross, founder of Pimco, manager of the world's largest bond fund.

The U.S. unemployment rate has hovered over 8 percent for more than three years, yet for seven decades after the Great Depression, the rate averaged 5.4 percent, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Since the downturn, the Fed has cut its benchmark interest rate, the fed funds target, to near zero and has also injected trillions of dollars into the economy via bond buybacks from banks, an accommodative policy tool known as quantitative easing (QE).

Still, until banks begin to lend again and businesses feel like growing and borrowing, all the monetary policy tools in the world are likely to have muted effects.

"I think by this time next year we'll see unemployment higher than it is. We'll see production relatively flat," Gross tells CNBC.

Headwinds from abroad can slow recovery in the U.S. as well by continuing to crimp demand.

"This economy and the global economy itself needs credit. And it depends on credit and credit expansion," Gross adds.

The Fed adheres to two mandates: keep consumer prices stable, which all central banks follow, and secondly, keep unemployment rates at optimal levels, which is one reason why the Fed has acted so aggressively to stimulate the economy.

More action could follow, including a new round of quantitative easing or even cutting the rate that banks receive when parking money in Federal Reserve overnight deposits.

Still, by their nature, monetary policy measures suffer from diminishing returns, which is why further actions aren't likely to make much of a dent in today's high employment rates.

Low interest rates and loose policies can also cut into savings, which hurt businesses as well.

"These provisions have increasingly grown weaker and weaker and weaker. Basically the reason for that is simply that as interest rates move down to the zero line and this is sort of a twist in terms of logic, but as interest rates move down towards the zero line, it's not necessarily positive but it has negative implications, as well," Gross says.

"Business models, money market funds, banks, insurance companies and pension funds all imploded based upon the low rates opposed to high rates they're used to so there's a negative twist to the twist."

The Fed remains ready to inject more liquidity into the economy though has stopped short of hinting at any specifics of such lately.

The U.S. central bank on Wednesday released the minutes of its latest monetary policy meeting in June, and reveals some voting members have grown increasingly concerned the economy may cool to the point that response will be needed.

"A few members expressed the view that further policy stimulus likely would be necessary to promote satisfactory growth in employment and to ensure that the inflation rate would be at the Committee's goal," the minutes from the Fed's June 19-20 meeting read.

"Several others noted that additional policy action could be warranted if the economic recovery were to lose momentum, if the downside risks to the forecast became sufficiently pronounced, or if inflation seemed likely to run persistently below the Committee's longer-run objective."

© 2012 Moneynews. All rights reserved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) As Obama Falters and Romney Consults, 2012 Election Exposes an Office Looking for The Man

By CONRAD BLACK

As we plod into the final two months before the presidential election campaign officially begins (although they in fact begin about two years before the election that precedes the one for which the campaign is intended), there is still time to review what the purpose and principal issues are, before the fog of myth-making, sound-back-biting, wedge issues from imaginary wars on women to the ethics of private equity, and more traditional polemical and fabulist nostrums reduce the electorate to prostrations of boredom and insensibility. This is, in straight sociological terms, an interesting, and even perhaps unprecedented election, as it is not clear what either party or candidate is advocating, apart from the avoidance of the purgatorial misery his opponent would inflict on the nation.

President Obama cannot run on his record and makes no effort to do so. The economic recovery that was coming and coming and coming, is allegedly still coming, but isn’t here. That is the same recovery that he could not produce overnight, and now cannot produce because of the shambles in Europe, which falls on America because Europe is “our greatest trading partner.” This is more diaphanous rubbish than most such apologia: Foreign trade takes less than 15 percent of American production; Europe, even when taken as a whole, is only the fifth trading partner (after Canada, China, Mexico, and Japan); Europe generally is not in worse condition than the U.S. (Germany especially is functioning much better); and concerns about the 17-nation euro have largely driven the investment of $900 billion by Europeans in the United States since 2008, almost twice the previous traditional rate.

Unemployment and under-employment have effectively doubled from the average of the Clinton-George W. Bush years, while national debt has increased a stupefying 50% in this term, most of it bogus debt issued to the Federal Reserve and paid for in Monopoly Money notes. There is a broad national consensus for the repeal of Obamacare, whose constitutionality has been upheld, provided it is recognized as a tax. Not content with that, the administration’s media spear-carriers have denied that it is a tax, though it does appear to be an obligatory payment of about $525 billion, one of the largest fiscal impositions in history. Apart from the killing of bin Laden, it escapes my ability to find one success in any field that can be credited to this singularly self-satisfied administration.

But facing it is an opponent who seems incapable of credibly embracing anything more precise than the most soporific generalities. W. M. Romney is a consultant who assembles data and experts and who has no apparent notion of the nature, history, destiny, or national purpose of America. That charge cannot be leveled at the incumbent. Barack Obama does feel that the United States has missed the humanitarian bus and is overinvested in capitalism, meritocracy, and private enterprise, and as a result has been excessively plagued by racism, war, and economic inequalities. He has a completely unoriginal tax-and-spend notion of how to deal with that, though he has packaged it fairly innocuously as reform, fairness, ecological protection, and the spirit of charity; and has enacted it through regulation and executive order, having little ability to gain congressional adoption of any of his program.

This is America’s conundrum: a president who believes in rather silly things, even if his instincts are benign (and that is not what Julia Roberts called, in Pretty Woman, “a sure thing”), against a challenger whose beliefs are likely to be reasonably acceptable, although they emerge only after extensive consultation with pollsters and are, at the best of times, likely to change without notice on the basis of the ebb and flow of opinion.

Mr. Obama has the benefit of being a conviction politician, though most of the convictions are bad and the execution is sloppy — or malevolent and cynical, as in his inchoate war against the Roman Catholic leadership, assumedly based on the theory that the Catholic bishops were just a bunch of irrelevant ninnies. As William Daley and Joe Biden and other administration Catholics who know something about their faith warned him, Mr. Obama struck the shoals of Roman Catholic belief. Mr. Obama had no idea what he was getting into, and moved on to injudicious comments about the Trayvon Martin race-relations trial in Florida.

Mr. Romney is apparently a conviction-free zone, apart from marriage, faith (a version of Christianity that has gotten a pass on polygamy but hasn’t run yet the full media gauntlet on the discovery of sacred texts near Rochester, N.Y., any more than Romney has heard the last of taking his dog to Canada on the roof of his car), and a recognizable notion of the enterprise economy, which does distinguish him from his opponent. The positive side of his policy vacuity is that there is no more reason to believe that Mr. Romney is a fanatical homophobe, or a believer in balancing the budget by simply cutting expenses by blindfolded dart-throwing at a wall on which government programs are enumerated, or sending women who have abortions to prison, than there is to think that he really believes what he currently professes to regard as his bedrock of political convictions.

In his policy goals, he is a clock that not only faces in all four directions, but revolves as it does so. That is preferable to being fixed on bad policy options, and Mr. Romney’s record as an executive, contrary to the scandalous imputations of his long under-employed opponents, indicates a competence to find and execute a sensible course. Even if, which is not the case, he were, as has been alleged, just an asset-stripper who promoted unemployment, at least he demonstrated some considerable competence at running a company.

If Mr. Romney wins, the country will get better government than it has had for some years; if Mr. Obama wins, the condition of the country will become so dire that it will certainly do better next time. The burning questions are, Why has the United States had such poor government since its great victory in the Cold War, after 60 years of administration that has generally ranged from competent to inspired (Carter having been the only one of the ten presidents from FDR to Bush Senior who was probably not up to it); and, How confident can anyone be that the Constitution really is working?

Whatever the legalities in the Obamacare case, the speculation that the chief justice flipped to avoid a political crisis has helped reveal the under-worked, over-lionized Supreme Court for the opinionated, capricious gang of sinecure-holders that it is. Its popularity, while still far ahead of that of the other branches, has finally descended to about 40%, a trend that, barring the greatest resuscitation since Lazarus, will continue. It persisted in its levitation for so long only because the public doesn’t much focus on it, and the court doesn’t generally tax, spend, or go to war. But it has sat, as mute and inert as a suet pudding, while the prosecutocracy has gutted the Bill of Rights; turned the plea bargain into an infamy of inquisition, extortion, and perjury; made a mockery of due process and the rights of man; and upheld the absolute immunity even of prosecutors who willfully lie and suppress exculpatory evidence (in the unspeakable Supreme Court decision in Connick v. Thompson). Much of the American problem is in the trifecta of having 5% of the world’s population, 25% of its prisoners, and 50% of its lawyers.

The high court is a disenthralled Nero, the Congress is an anthill of lobbyists and special interests, and it is probably 20 years since the country has had a president with the character, intelligence, and judgment that great office requires. But in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve, and the fault is in ourselves. The judges haven’t judged; the legislators haven’t legislated, the presidents haven’t presided, but nor have the teachers taught, the information industry informed, or the beneficiaries and inheritors of responsible government acted responsibly. The United States still has an incomparably talented and motivated workforce and a patriotic population in a naturally rich and stable country. The Constitution is as magnificent as ever. But the electorate cleaned house in 1992, 1994, 2000, 2006, and 2008, and the condition of the country has gotten worse and not better.

The United States has been one of the most innovative political societies in history; if it can’t find a Lincoln or Roosevelt (of either party) to lead, perhaps it should govern itself by referendary, participatory democracy (which does not mean poll-taking). Put every important question to the voters, like the Swiss do. The political class has failed, at least for the time being. Mr. Romney is a consultant who loves to consult experts and examine data. The office may be seeking the man after all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------