Thursday, October 18, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, October 18, 2012


My friends... this could happen to YOU!

Posted by at

10 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444799904578052200695767968.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Since World War II, the five incumbent presidents who were re-elected enjoyed an economy where the unemployment rate averaged 5.4% in September of their election year, real GDP growth was 5.9% in the second quarter, and the University of Michigan Consumer Confidence Index in August was 97. Today the unemployment rate is 7.8%, real GDP growth in the second quarter was 1.3%, and the Consumer Confidence Index in August was 74.

Based on these economic measures, President Obama's re-election would seem to be doomed.

But there is a new dynamic at work in 2012. Voter behavior in the past has been based on the performance of the private economy. Markedly different today is the dramatic growth of public-sector benefits.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... WHILE I DO BELIEVE ROMNEY WILL WIN (AND PERHAPS BY AS MUCH AS 4 OR 5 POINTS)... HISTORY SHOWS THAT FDR "BOUGHT" TWO RE-ELECTIONS VIA MISUSING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PRIVATE POLITICAL PURPOSES.

In 1980 and 1992, only 3% of the American labor force drew disability benefits from the government.

Today it is 6%.

(The number of workers qualifying for disability since the recession ended in 2009 has grown twice as fast as private employment.)

How would Presidents Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush have fared on their Election Day if 40% of the Americans who were unemployed had instead qualified for disability benefits?

How would voters have reacted in 1980 or 1992 if food-stamp benefits had grown by 65%...?

(*PURSED LIPS*)

During the past four years, the Obama administration's aggressive promotion of the food-stamp program has increased the number of recipients by 18.5 million. Do these people feel the same level of discontent about economic conditions as the rest of the voting population?

* SOME DO. MANY PROBABLY DO. BUT THE FLIP SIDE IS... MANY DON'T. AND... PERHAPS... MOST DON'T. (CERTAINLY THE SCAMMERS DON'T!)

Unemployment insurance that lasted no longer than 55 weeks in 1980 and 72 weeks in 1992 now can last 99 weeks.

* AGAIN, FOLKS... THESE BASTARDS HAVE DELIBERATELY GROWN THE WELFARE STATE!

The federal government's 120 means-tested programs today provide $1 trillion of benefits. The spending for these programs has grown 2½ times faster during the Obama presidency than in any other comparable period in American history.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

To what extent might these benefits not just foster dependency but also make the economy's performance seem less of a deciding factor in voters' choices?

(*SHRUG*)

If you are concerned about your well-being and worried about a failed recovery — but getting new "help" from the government — do you vote for the candidate who promises more jobs or do you support the candidate who promises more government benefits?

(*SHRUG*)

When tens of millions of people are gaining from the massive expansion of government programs in the past four years, the question is extremely relevant, especially when Mr. Obama's victory in 2008, widely described as a blowout, involved a national margin of only 10 million votes.

Based on the economy, Mr. Obama should lose on Nov. 6. Yet it seems implausible that tens of millions of Americans who have received additional government benefits during his presidency can be completely unaffected by that largess. The election will test the relative power of private-sector aspirations and public-sector dependence.

October 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444734804578062721764365776.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

One of the feats of President Obama's re-election campaign is its ability to describe his record in a way that bears little or no relation to the reality of the last four years.

Exhibit A is Mr. Obama's riff on energy at Tuesday night's debate, when he all but ran to the right of Mitt Romney, and maybe Sarah Palin.

The exchange began when an audience member asked Mr. Obama about Steven Chu's job description, which the Energy Secretary has repeatedly said does not include helping to lower gasoline prices.

Mr. Obama never answered that one, but he did use the opportunity to pose as the John the Baptist of fossil fuels, invoking oil drilling, the natural gas fracking boom and even coal production.

Mr. Obama (and his green allies) must have died a little on the inside when he said that, given that he ran in 2008 on a promise to build a "new energy economy" - by which he meant everything but fossil fuels.

As we have learned, the plan was to subsidize dozens of companies with little commercial potential but that were often owned by Mr. Obama's green allies.

Meanwhile, the EPA would go on a regulatory binge like nothing in modern U.S. history against traditional carbon-based sources of energy - coal in particular.

Mr. Romney went small bore in the debate, noting that the Administration has not in practice promoted the production of U.S. energy resources on federal lands and waters, in fact the opposite.

Mr. Obama responded by flatly stating that "very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We've opened up public lands. We're actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous Administration." He said he supported "an all-of-the-above strategy."

"But that's not what you've done in the last four years," Mr. Romney said. "That's the problem."

Mr. Obama: "Sure it is."

Mr. Romney: "In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half."

Mr. Obama: "Not true, Governor Romney."

Then there was this timeless bit:

Mr. Obama: "The production is up."

Mr. Romney: "Production on government land of oil is down 14%."

Mr. Obama: "Governor..."

Mr. Romney: "And production of gas is down 9%."

Mr Obama: "What you're saying is just not true. It's just not true."

* TO BE CONTINUED...

October 18, 2012 at 9:12 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The problem for the President is that a government outfit called the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) compiles these statistics.

That's where Mr. Romney got his accurate figures on oil and gas production on government land and permitting in Mr. Obama's first term.

The EIA also reports that total fossil fuel production in public areas — oil, gas and coal — has plunged to a nine-year low, to 18.6 quadrillion BTUs from 21.2 quadrillion in 2003.

Mr. Obama is correct that overall domestic energy production is up, thanks largely to the shale boom in states like Pennsylvania and North Dakota. But he's trying to take credit for something he had nothing to do with, given that this surge is taking place on private property and the EPA is searching for an excuse to supplant state regulation and slow down drilling.

(*NOD*)

The President's cameo as a coal guy is even more amazing. In 2008 Mr. Obama declared that he wanted electricity rates for so-called dirty fuels to "necessarily skyrocket" and "if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it's just that it will bankrupt them."

* ONE CORRECTION: OBAMA DIDN'T SAY HE "WANTED" ELECTRICITY RATES TO SKYROCKET; WHAT HE SAID WAS THAT "UNDER MY PLAN, ELECTRICITY RATES WILL NECESSARILY SKYROCKET." WHILE THAT MAY BE NO COMFORT TO THE FOLKS PAYING THE BILLS... STILL... IT'S BEST TO BE COMPLETELY ACCURATE - WHICH I ALWAYS TRY TO BE NO MATTER WHO THE TRUTH "HELPS" OR "HURTS."

For the first time, coal is in decline, with production falling 6.5% since 2008, according to the EIA. Part of the reason is a shock from cheap natural gas. But the major reason is a surge of EPA air and water rules, such as an unrealistic and pointless $9.6 billion rule for trace mercury emissions that the agency put out last year.

The EIA expects 8.5% of the coal-fired fleet to retire by 2016, and 17% by 2020, and those are very conservative estimates. Coal has fallen to 32% of U.S. net electric generation, according to preliminary EIA data for 2012. This share stood at about 48% when Mr. Obama took office.

Amid mine closings and layoffs, the United Mine Workers of America declined to endorse Mr. Obama this year, though the union did in 2008.

And let us not forget the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, which Mr. Obama personally rejected amid a furious green lobbying campaign. His debate answer to that fact was to assert that "we've built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire Earth once" - whatever that means.

It reflects well on Mr. Romney's temperament that he didn't pull the full Joe Biden and start hooting.

October 18, 2012 at 9:13 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443675404578058881976354280.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Democrats want voters to believe that the Detroit auto bailout was a cost-free gift to Midwest jobs.

* NOW... FOLKS... THERE'S SOME INDIANA "INSIDE BASEBALL" GOING ON WITH THIS STORY, BUT BEAR WITH IT... IT'S WORTH READING OR ELSE I WOULDN'T BE NEWSBITING IT!

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock knows better, which is why he deserves a defense in his race for the U.S. Senate.

Democratic Congressman Joe Donnelly is pounding Mr. Mourdock for opposing the 2009 government-assisted Chrysler bankruptcy. The Democrat and liberal SuperPACs like American Bridge are claiming that Mr. Mourdock wanted to "kill" the Chrysler reorganization, and had he succeeded he would have "put 100,000 Indiana jobs at risk." Joe Biden has a word for this, and it's earthier than malarkey.

As Mr. Mourdock can attest, the Washington-directed Chrysler bankruptcy was also about paying off Democratic constituencies at the expense of everyone else.

As state Treasurer, Mr. Mourdock is the fiduciary responsible for state funds, including two pension funds (for cops and teachers) and a transportation fund that in 2009 had $42.5 million invested in Chrysler debt. The funds had even paid a premium to gain "secured" status, in order to guarantee that they would be first in line to get repaid in a bankruptcy. Yet when bankruptcy came, the Obama Administration turned established law on its head by first paying off unsecured creditors such as the United Auto Workers.

* TO REITERATE:

The funds had even paid a premium to gain "secured" status, in order to guarantee that they would be first in line to get repaid in a bankruptcy. Yet when bankruptcy came, the Obama Administration turned established law on its head by first paying off unsecured creditors such as the United Auto Workers.

* GOT IT?!

Indiana's retired teachers and cops (and its taxpayers) were left with 29 cents on the dollar — suffering a loss of at least $5.6 million — while the politically connected UAW received higher values and a 55% ownership stake in new Chrysler.

* FOLKS... (*SHRUG*)... THIS... IS... ALL... TRUE...!!!

The Obama Administration bullied most secured creditors into accepting this deal, and most had little choice.

Not so Mr. Mourdock, who sued on behalf of the Indiana public funds.

Democrats now claim that Mr. Mourdock's lawsuit put jobs at risk — even though it intended to protect state pensioners, many of whom belong to unions other than the UAW.

The Obama Administration so rushed the auto reorganization through the lower courts that by the time Mr. Mourdock's appeal hit the U.S. Supreme Court, the Chrysler deal was done. While recognizing that Indiana's claims were therefore moot, the High Court nonetheless ordered the lower court's decision vacated and awarded the state court costs.

* BIG WOOP! JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. THE RULE OF LAW WAS TRAMPLED AND OBAMA AND HIS CRONIES GOT AWAY WITH IT.

October 18, 2012 at 9:24 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/18/welfare-spending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/

Welfare spending has grown substantially over the past four years, reaching $746 billion in 2011 — or more than Social Security, basic defense spending or any other single chunk of the federal government, according to a new memo by the Congressional Research Service.

The steady rise in welfare spending...got a big boost from the 2009 stimulus and has grown, albeit somewhat more slowly, in 2010 and 2011. One reason is that more people are qualifying...

* AND WHY IS THAT...?

...the federal government also has broadened eligibility so that more people qualify for programs.

(*SMIRK*)

* FOLKS... HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO REPEAT: D*E*L*I*B*E*R*A*T*E*L*Y SO...!!!

Overall, welfare spending as measured by obligations has grown from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011, or a jump of 32%.

* NOW LET'S SEE... WHEN DID DEMOCRATS TAKE OVER BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE...? OH, YEAH... JANUARY OF 2007!

Sen. Jeff Sessions' (the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who requested the Congressional Research Service report) [staff] calculated that states contributed another $283 billion to low-income assistance, chiefly through Medicaid.

Combined, that means the federal and state governments spent $1.03 trillion on welfare programs.

The CRS report looked at obligations for each program as its measure of spending. It included every program that had eligibility requirements that seemed designed chiefly to benefit those with lower incomes. The report looked at programs that had obligations of at least $100 million in a fiscal year, which meant some "small-dollar" welfare assistance wasn’t included.

* SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... ANY WELFARE PROGRAM WHICH SPENDS... SAY... "ONLY" $99,999,999.99 A YEAR SIMPLY... er... ISN'T COUNTED AS WELFARE SPENDING...???

* ONLY IN OBAMA'S AMERICA, FOLKS... ONLY IN OBAMA'S AMERICA...

October 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659

Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months. The increase represents a rebound from the previous week's sharp drop. Both swings were largely due to technical factors.

* OK. RE-READ THE ABOVE OPENING PARAGRAPH. THEN... READ MY DECONSTRUCTION OF IT!

* "SEASONALLY ADJUSTED." UH-HUH. WITH THE KEY WORD BEING "ADJUSTMENT" - AS IN "ADJUSTMENT" UP!

* "REBOUND FROM THE PREVIOUS WEEK'S SHARP DROP." HMM... IN OTHER WORDS... THERE REALLY WAS NO "SHARP DROP" LAST WEEK.

(*SNORT*)

* "TECHNICAL FACTORS." IN PLAIN ENGLISH: THEY'RE LYING WITH STATISTICS.

(*SHRUG*)

Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008. This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week.

* IN PLAIN ENGLISH: THAT "DROP" IN UNEMPLOYMENT YOU READ ABOUT LAST WEEK? ER... CALIFORNIA'S UNEMPLOYEED APPARENTLY WEREN'T FIGURED INTO THE MIX! OOPS...

(*SMIRK*)

A department spokesman says the seasonally adjusted numbers "are being distorted ... by an issue of timing."

* HMM... AND WHO DECIDED UPON LAST WEEK'S... er... "TIMING?"

* FOLKS... IT'S LOOKING MORE AND MORE AS IF THEY ACTUALLY DID "FIX" LAST WEEK'S REPORT!

Retail sales grew in September at a healthy clip.

* BASED UPON WHAT... PRICES...? (MEANING IF IN AUGUST YOU SPENT $3.50/GAL. FOR GAS AND IN SEPTEMBER YOU SPENT $3.75/GAL. FOR GAS THIS WOULD READ AS "GOOD NEWS?"

(*SNORT*)

* FOLKS... DON'T YOU GET TIRED OF THESE BASTARDS TRYING TO MANIPULATE YOU...???

And builders started construction on new homes and apartments last month at the fastest pace in more than four years.

* PERHAPS BECAUSE BERNANKE IS BUYING UP BAD MORTGAGES (WITH MONEY CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR BUT THAT STILL MUST BE REPAID) AT A RATE OF $40 BILLION A MONTH?

* OH... AND SPEAKING OF "HOUSING," WHAT'S THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK LOOK LIKE? AS FAR AS I KNOW IT'S STILL A MESS! AS FAR AS I KNOW WE STILL HAVE FAR MORE HOUSING STOCK - UNOCCUPIED - THAN WE NEED... THAT THE MARKET CAN BEAR! SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? I SUSPECT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTINUED RE-INFLATION OF THE HOUSING MARKET. HOW'D THAT WORK OUT FOR US LAST TIME...?!

October 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-also-has-investments-chinese-com/

One of the many tense moments in the second presidential debate turned on a new topic in the race: President Barack Obama’s pension account.

Here’s how it came up: Early in the face-off, Obama scoffed at Mitt Romney’s pledge to crack down on unfair trading practices by China, saying Romney is currently invested in companies "that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks."

Romney later explained that, yes, he understands that his blind trust has invested in foreign firms, including companies in China. Then he confronted Obama.

Romney: "Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?"

Obama: "You know, I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often."

Romney: "Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Caymans trust."

* SO... WHAT ARE THE FACTS...? LET'S SEE...

Obama, you may recall, was an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004 before winning election to the U.S. Senate. He is a participant in the General Assembly Retirement System in Illinois, said William Atwood, executive director of the Board of Investment, who confirmed that for us.

The Romney campaign pointed us to that pension fund’s holding in an entity that is part of Advent International. Advent has described itself as "one of the world’s most global private equity firms" and has buyout offices in 16 countries.

Atwood confirmed that the pension fund has invested $30 million in one of Advent’s limited partnerships, Advent International GPE VI-A. That partnership was organized in the Cayman Islands, Atwood said.

* THE CAYMAN ISLANDS...

* HEY... FOLKS... WHY WASN'T THIS INFO ON THE MSM RADAR SCREEN BY... OH... I DON'T KNOW... WITHIN 24 HRS. OF THE DEBATE AT LEAST?

(*SMIRK*)

What about Romney’s broader claims, about Obama’s foreign investments?

* YES... WHAT ABOUT THEM...?

The Illinois pension fund also has numerous foreign investments, including in Chinese companies, as part of its diversified portfolio, Atwood said.

(*SNORT*)

October 18, 2012 at 4:44 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450057

Retirement packages sparked one of a series of confrontations during the Tuesday debate between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. In one of the debate's lighter moments, Obama [quipped], "I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long. I don't check it that often."

* YEP. OBAMA'S LINE GOT SOME LAUGHTER AND ACTUAL APPLAUSE FROM... er... MICHELLE OBAMA WHO WAS SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE.

From the standpoint of a public pension, Obama is well-heeled.

* MORE "WELL-HEELED" THAN ROMNEY IN FACT! KEEP READING...

As president, he will receive $191,300 annually for life — win or lose in next month's election — and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Obama also will get Secret Service protection.

* I BELIEVE HE GETS AN "OFFICE ALLOWANCE" AS WELL... (*SHRUG*)

In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.

* MAY BE...??? (*SNORT*)

Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension plan for former lawmakers. A Freedom of Information Act request for Obama's pension amount submitted Wednesday to the General Assembly Retirement System of Illinois was not immediately answered, nor was a call to the Obama campaign.

(*SMIRK*)

But what about Romney?

* YEAH! WHAT ABOUT ROMNEY...! HE WAS THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS!

Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.

* "...DID NOT TAKE A SALARY..."

* "DID NOT TAKE A SALARY, SO HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR NOTHING."

UPDATE: PolitiFact, the fact-checking arm of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has confirmed that Obama does participate in the Illinois pension fund, which was organized in the Cayman Islands and has interests in China.

* YEAH, YEAH... WE KNOW. (BUT DOES THE AVERAGE AMERICAN...???)

* FUNNY... CINDY CROWLEY KNEW ABOUT OBAMA'S ROSE GARDEN COMMENTS... EVEN AS SHE MISCHARACTERIZED THEM IN AN ATTEMPT TO ASSIST THE PRESIDENT IN HIS DEBATE PERFORMANCE... BUT APPARENTLY SHE DIDN'T CARE TO RESEARCH THIS.

(*SMIRK*)

October 18, 2012 at 4:55 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/another-doe-backed-solar-company-goes-bankrupt/

A[nother] solar company that got a multi-million-dollar grant from the Department of Energy earlier this year announced Wednesday that it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, making it the second taxpayer-backed green energy company to file for bankruptcy this week.

As Scribe’s Michael Sandoval reported on Tuesday, electric vehicle battery manufacturer A123 Systems filed for Chapter 11 despite receiving a $249 million DOE grant.

A123 and Satcon mark the latest in a long line of taxpayer-funded green energy failures.

October 18, 2012 at 5:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219867/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-If-Americans-killed-OPTIMAL-Obamas-extraordinary-response-security-fiasco-Benghazi-massacre.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DToby%2BHarnden%2BIn%2BWashington

President Barack Obama, during an interview to be shown on Comedy Central, has responded to a question about his administration's confused communication after the Benghazi attack, by saying: 'If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.'

* ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME...?!?!

Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith and security men and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by terrorists on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 - an attack that the White House initially blamed on a spontaneous protest about an anti-Islam movie made in California.

Stewart asked: "Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within? Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page."

Obama responded: "Here's what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal."

* I CAN'T FUCKING BELIEVE WHAT I'M READING HERE!

He continued: "We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up."

* THIS SON OF A BITCH SHOULD BE TARRED, FEATHERED, AND KICKED ACROSS MANHATTAN FROM THE GWB TO THE BBT!

* FOLKS... THIS GUY IS SICK! HE'S BEYOND INCOMPETENT. HE'S BEYOND A LIAR. HE'S A PIECE OF SHIT. FOUR OF OUR COUNTRYMEN ARE DEAD AND HE'S GONNA "FIX IT?" HOW? DEAD IS DEAD! THIS CAN'T BE "FIXED." THIS GUY JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO CARE. IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM... ALL ABOUT EVADING RESPONSIBILITY... ALL ABOUT COVERING HIS ASS.

October 18, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)