Thursday, August 25, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, August 25, 2011


What can I tell ya, folks... I'm a hopelessly romantic libertarian-leaning constitutionist conservative!

Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.infowars.com/cops-confiscate-cameras-at-ohio-congressmans-town-hall/

A congressman from Ohio had cops grab the cameras of constituents during a town hall meeting.

* FIRST OF ALL... (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)... SINCE WHEN DO LOCAL COPS ANSWER TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?

Steve Chabot, a Republican, had cell phones and cameras confiscated...

* JEEZUS FRIGG'N CHRIST... A FRIGG'N REPUBLICAN... CHABOT... SOMEONE WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER...

...in order to “prevent an embarrassing Youtube video from making the rounds,” according to Carlos Miller, who runs a blog documenting efforts by the state to stifle the First Amendment rights of photographers.

* OBVIOUSLY MILLER AND HIS FELLOW ACTIVISTS (THERE'S A VIDEO - CHECK IT OUT) WERE DELIBERATELY BAITING THE CONGRESSMAN. MY RESPONSE: TOUGH! MAN UP, CHABOT! IF I WANNA RECORD AT A PUBLIC FORUM AND I'M NOT BEING DISRUPTIVE THAT'S MY RIGHT - MEANING IT'S THIS GUY MILLER'S RIGHT TOO!

* HERE'S ANOTHER REPORT: http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/24/democrats-cameras-seized-by-police-at-chabot-town-hall-meeting/

* SEEMS AS IF THE "ORDER" TO COPS CAME FROM A STAFFER, NOT THE CONGRESSMAN PERSONALLY.

Signs were taped to the doors to the hall where the Monday night meeting was held saying that no video cameras were allowed inside.

* SORRY, PAL... THIS WASN'T A PRIVATE EVENT... THIS WASN'T A CONCERT OR FOR-PROFIT ACTIVITY... (*SNORT*)

* HEY... THEY CAN TAPE ALL THE SIGNS ON DOORS THEY WANT... BUT NON-DISRUPTIVE USE OF CAMERAS SHOULD OBVIOUSLY BE ALLOWED AT A PUBLIC FORUM HELD ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. (IT'S A FRIGG'N NO BRAINER!)

August 25, 2011 at 9:26 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576528561315604774.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[S]pending in fiscal 2011 (which ends on September 30) will hit a new high of $3.6 trillion, up $141 billion from 2010.

* UP $141 BILLION FROM 2010... UP $141 BILLION FROM 2010... UP $141 BILLION FROM 2010... UP $141 BILLION FROM 2010... UP $141 BILLION FROM 2010... UP $141 BILLION FROM 2010... UP $141 BILLION FROM 2010... UP $141 BILLION FROM 2010...

That's higher than the previous record in 2009 of $3.5 trillion, which was supposed to be the peak of the "temporary" stimulus spending.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... LIKE I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG... (*SIGH*)... NO FRIGG'N CUTS.

[T]hat is also nearly $900 billion more spending than in 2007.

* HMM... 2007... WASN'T THAT THE FIRST YEAR NANCY PELOSI RAN THE HOUSE AND HARRY REID RAN THE SENATE?

(*SMIRK*)

Total federal outlays will have increased by roughly one third in a mere four years. This hasn't happened since the Great Inflation of the late 1970s.

(*FEELING THAT MIGRAINE COMING ON*)

Give President Obama and the two Pelosi Congresses credit for this much: They said they would spend our way out of recession, and they sure gave it the old Beltway try. The problem is that we got the spending without the promised economic growth.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

As a share of the economy, spending will once again come in at nearly 23.8%, up from 20.7% as recently as 2008. Defense spending is expected to increase by only $14 billion to $703 billion in 2011, despite the surge in Afghanistan. The bigger increases are in Medicare, Medicaid, and the usual panoply of entitlements and other payments to individuals.

* I WANT DEFENSE SPENDING - AND NON-ESSENTIAL DEFENSE COMMITMENTS - CUT. PERIOD! SAME WITH THE SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

All of this means the deficit will roll in at nearly $1.3 trillion, or 8.5% of GDP this year. That's down a mere $10 billion from fiscal 2010, and we suppose taxpayers should be grateful for small fiscal favors.

* THE REASON THE DEFICIT IS DOWN IS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT TOOK IN GREATER REVENUES. THE PROBLEM... THEY SPENT THESE GREATER REVENUES! THUS... FEDERAL SPENDING IS UP $141 BILLION THIS YEAR OVER LAST YEAR.

(Revenues would have been about $115 billion higher without the "temporary" payroll tax cut pressed by President Obama.)

* THE ONE HE'S CALLING FOR EXTENDING...

(*SIGH*)

August 25, 2011 at 9:50 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530541979579446.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

Harrisburg, the financially strapped capital of Pennsylvania, will likely miss a bond payment next month if a deal to secure a $7.5 million loan falls through, a spokesman for the mayor said Thursday.

* SO IT'S EITHER DEFAULT NOW, OR, GO FURTHER INTO DEBT AND THEREFORE RISK A LATER DEFAULT - ONLY AT THAT POINT EVEN MORE OF "INVESTOR'S" MONEY WILL BE LOST. GREAT! OUTFRIGG'NSTANDING!

Harrisburg officials are seeking to extend a lease on city parking facilities for 10 years in exchange for an upfront payment of $7.5 million from the authority that runs the properties. A group of financial institutions have offered to loan the authority the cash so it can make the lump-sum payment to the city.

* FROM..."THE AUTHORITY" THAT RUNS THE PROPERTIES...??? WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN...?!?! (FOLKS... IT'S ALWAYS THREE CARD MONTY WITH THESE CLOWNS...) (*SIGH*)

In addition to the bond payments, the city faces about $3 million in payroll expenses next month, said Harrisburg Comptroller Dan Miller. The city currently has $1 million in cash on hand.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

Harrisburg has been weighed down by more than $221 million in debt tied to a troubled incinerator. A year ago, with Harrisburg facing a similar cash crunch, the state advanced the city financial aid that was to have been paid later in the year. The funding advance helped Harrisburg avoid a default, but its long-term fiscal problems remained unsolved.

(*SNORT*)

* KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, FOLKS - THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FROM THESE POLITICAL SCUMBAGS.

August 25, 2011 at 2:21 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/how_education_schools_fail_the_nation_XqhgOtRklbn3Ly1NWJ4JZJ

Which college field of study has the lowest standards and the highest grades - a magical Lake Wobegon world in which all the students are not just above average but way above average?

(*RAISING MY HAND*)

* OH! OH! I KNOW! I KNOW!

If you guessed “teaching,” you’d be right.

(*PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK*) (*HIGH FIVING MYSELF*)

That’s the conclusion of a new study from the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, “Grade Inflation for Education Majors and Low Standards for Teachers.”

* AH... BUT I KNOW IT NOT BECAUSE OF ANY SURVEY - BUT BECAUSE THIS HAS LONG BEEN THE FACT!

“Students who take education classes at universities receive significantly higher grades than students who take classes in every other academic discipline,” says the report. “The ... explanation is that the higher grades in education classes are the result of low grading standards.”

* DUH!

The study, authored by Corey Koedel, notes that education majors -- the future teachers of America, especially at the grade-school and high-school level - routinely get top marks in the gut courses that ed majors generally take. And yet they consistently score lower on college entrance exams than students in other disciplines.

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

And for this we spend more than $600 billion on public primary and secondary education in America?

(*SIGH*)

August 25, 2011 at 3:07 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/582597/201108241815/Payroll-Tax-Cut-A-Political-Trap-.aspx

The Democrats' aggressive push to extend the payroll tax cut for another year has nothing to do with boosting economic growth...

* AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HOPING TO TRICK REPUBLICANS INTO VOTING FOR IT AND THUS IDENTIFYING THEM AS "ME TOO" POLITICIANS!

In January, Vice President Joe Biden took to the pages of USA Today to boast that the just-enacted payroll tax cut "will put $112 billion into the pockets of 155 million workers, who will then inject it back into the economy, spurring growth and creating jobs."

Things haven't quite work out the way he predicted.

(*SNORT*)

So far this year, real consumer spending has been flat, after climbing steadily in 2010. GDP growth has been almost nonexistent, climbing at annualized rates of just 0.4% in the first quarter and 1.3% in the second. ... And the unemployment rate is 9.1%, up from 9% in January.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The simple fact is that this sort of temporary tax gimmick has repeatedly failed to stimulate anything beyond bigger federal deficits.

(*NOD*)

* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... AS LONG AS THEY'RE DEFICIT SPENDING... WHAT THEY'RE "GIVING" US ON THE ONE HAND IS BEING TAKEN BACK IN SPADES IN THE SENSE THAT THEY'RE RUNNING UP EVEN BIGGER DEBTS WHICH WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAYING (WITH INTEREST) THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD!

It didn't work when President Bush handed out $600 rebate checks in 2001...

* CORRECTION: "...WHEN THE RINO CONGRESS - WITH THE DEMS SUPPORTING THE MEASURE - HANDED OUT $600 "REBATE" CHECKS IN 2001..."

* FOLKS... YES... BUSH SUPPORTED THIS SENSELESS, IRRESPONSIBLE GIVEAWAY... BUT IT'S REALLY CONGRESS - NOT PRESIDENT BUSH... NOT PRESIDENT OBAMA - WHICH PISSES AWAY OUR MONEY AND ADDS DEBTS TO OUR ACCOUNT.

* OH... LAST POINT, FOLKS... YOU KNOW WHAT THE PAYROLL TAX IS, RIGHT? IT'S NOT YOUR INCOME TAX... IT'S YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY "CONTRIBUTION." AND AS REGULAR READERS KNOW... SOCIAL SECURITY WENT UPSIDE DOWN LAST YEAR AND IS UPSIDE DOWN THIS YEAR. WHAT THE POLITICIANS WOULD BE DOING IS DIGGING AN EVEN DEEPER HOLE...!!!

August 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/582596/201108241815/Rigged-For-Failure.aspx

A year ago, three oil rigs fled the Gulf of Mexico for better opportunities abroad.

Now, it's ten.

It's a sorry spectacle when rigs, the mighty instruments for extracting oil and gas from miles under the sea floor, are quietly pulling away from U.S. coasts for better business environments oceans away - namely the Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Egypt and Brazil.

* WELL... AT LEAST NONE ARE GOING TO KENYA. (*HUGE FRIGG'N GRIN*)

"When you have companies that would be spending hundreds of millions of dollars, or in some cases billions of dollars, they need certainty," Louisiana Oil & Gas Association President Don Briggs told BigGovernment.com. "We don't have that now, and I don't expect we will anytime soon." Make no mistake, the toll is rising on a business environment marked by the Obama administration's uncertainty.

The massive planning, capital, project management and luck required to produce energy are uncertain enough. The climate of government caprice makes it even worse.

(*NOD*)

August 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.europac.net/commentaries/there_they_go_again

Picking up where they left off in 2008, the media is in the midst of a campaign to ignore and undermine the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul...

(*NOD*)

* LISTEN... EVEN IF PAUL ISN'T YOUR CUP OF TEA, THERE NO OTHER CANDIDATE RUNNING WHO KNOWS AS MUCH AS HIM, HAS AS MUCH EXPERIENCE AS HIM, AND HAS BEEN PROVEN RIGHT AS OFTEN AS HIM. THE BEST WAY TO GAUGE THE OTHER CANDIDATES IS BY HOW THEY REACT TO PAUL'S ACTUAL PROPOSALS AND BELIEFS. A TRUE INTELLECTUAL DEBATE IS THE LAST THING MANY OF THESE CANDIDATES WANT... AND UNFORTUNATELY... IT'S THE LAST THING THE MEDIA WANTS AS WELL.

Political pundits just do not know what to do with a candidate who fails to fit into the blue and red boxes that form the simple narrative of American politics. They are perturbed by the grass roots nature of the campaign, by the strange honesty and earnestness of the candidate and his supporters, and the odd mixture of conservative values and liberty-minded policies.

The media's revulsion reached a fever pitch in the wake of the August 12 Iowa Straw Poll, the first test of the strength of Republican Presidential candidates. Objectively the results were a dead heat between Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul, who captured 28% and 27% of the votes respectively. But you would never have known that based on the subsequent media coverage.

The story that almost all news outlets ran with was that the poll produced a "top-tier" of candidates that included Bachman, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry (both Romney and Perry received less than 5% of the Iowa vote). There was almost no mention of Congressman Paul's strong performance. The media also ignored how Perry's entrance into the race will draw votes away from Bachman, thereby benefiting Paul.

The media silence even prompted comedian Jon Stewart to issue a hilarious and scathing indictment. (SEE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM)

Now the media is even impugning what should be seen as the Congressman's most successful accomplishment: the performance of his investment portfolio.

In an August 20 article entitled "Candidate of Doom and Gloom," Barron's Magazine goes out of its way to characterize Ron Paul's gold mining-heavy portfolio allocation as simplistic, robotic, and unpatriotic. And while the reporter, Barron's Washington bureau chief Jim McTague, grudgingly recognized how these "stopped clock" investments had made strong gains over the last few years, he glaringly under-reported the long term success and wisdom of the Congressman's strategy.

By any objective standard the portfolio would make any financial superstar green with jealousy.

Fueled by his understanding of the inflationary policies unrelentingly pushed by his colleagues in Washington, Ron wisely loaded up on gold and gold mining stocks in the mid to late 1990s when those assets were regarded as the poor stepchildren of Wall Street. Although these assets have significantly beaten the broad markets over the one and three year time frames used in the article, most of their phenomenal gains occurred earlier in the last decade. McTague, however, completely neglects to mention this despite his noting that Ron Paul favored a "buy and hold" strategy that surely gave him exposure to those fat years.

Amazingly, the average 10 year return of the 8 stocks listed in his top 10 holdings (that have 10 year track records - the two other positions have not been around that long) came in at more than 600%!

During that time frame the S&P 500 was down 3%.

Is there any stock mutual fund that can even touch that performance over a decade? Not likely.

* FOLKS... YOU SHOULD READ THE FULL PIECE. IT'S FASCINATING!

August 25, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)