Saturday, January 21, 2012
Obama loses touch with reality.
http://cnsnews-test.s3.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/videos/converted/Gingrich Affair.mp4
Newt 1, liberal media 0.
Gingrich 'Tired of the Elite Media Protecting Barack Obama by Attacking Republicans'
Obama fleeces the taxpayers again.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-says-no-oil-yes-biofuels
Obama is in campaign mode, and the taxpayers are going to fund it, no matter the cost. Obama kills keystone to appease the enviro-mental-ists, then rushes through another solyndra type government energy scheme "creating or saving" as many as 54 jobs, at a cost of $463,000 a piece. That's another $25 million wasted just to say he's creating alternative energy. When it goes belly up, no matter, he'll be reelected or out of office, so he won't care.
Obama is in campaign mode, and the taxpayers are going to fund it, no matter the cost. Obama kills keystone to appease the enviro-mental-ists, then rushes through another solyndra type government energy scheme "creating or saving" as many as 54 jobs, at a cost of $463,000 a piece. That's another $25 million wasted just to say he's creating alternative energy. When it goes belly up, no matter, he'll be reelected or out of office, so he won't care.
CBO says ObamaCare-Like Programs Don’t Save Money or Reduce Costs
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-obamacare-programs-don-t-save-money-or-reduce-costs
60% of the population know better, which is why the democrats had to ram it though. Remember, don't read it, we can't wait, just pass it?
60% of the population know better, which is why the democrats had to ram it though. Remember, don't read it, we can't wait, just pass it?
Supreme court rejects voting maps based on race.
It’s about time. The more our government claims to guarantee equality through bureaucracy, the more they disenfranchise Americans. Stop creating districts to protect legislators, the real goal of gerrymandering, and start representing your constituents.
“The justices said the lower court had not paid enough deference to the Legislature’s choices and seemed to have improperly substituted its own values for those of elected officials.” How about that. Now all we need to do is extend the same thinking to Obama’s Czars and other federal agencies unaccountable to the electorate.
Fire Judge Samuel Ray Cummings of North Texas.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7261
Apparently, according to this colossal fool, the second amendment only applies inside your home. SO, lets apply that logic to the other amendments:
1 freedom of speech is gone at the threshold, and don't talk too loud inside, if your voice carries beyond the wall you're in trouble.
5 Probable cause is no longer needed, you can be search and detained at any time on a whim.
6 You have no right to a trial once you step outside your home.
13 Slavery is legal so long as you abduct the person outside their home.
15 You can deny voting rights based on race and color, as long as the voter isn't inside their home.
19 Women can't vote unless inside their home.
We need to remove this fool from office for attempting to limit our freedom and clearly ruling against the constitution of Texas and the United States.
Apparently, according to this colossal fool, the second amendment only applies inside your home. SO, lets apply that logic to the other amendments:
1 freedom of speech is gone at the threshold, and don't talk too loud inside, if your voice carries beyond the wall you're in trouble.
5 Probable cause is no longer needed, you can be search and detained at any time on a whim.
6 You have no right to a trial once you step outside your home.
13 Slavery is legal so long as you abduct the person outside their home.
15 You can deny voting rights based on race and color, as long as the voter isn't inside their home.
19 Women can't vote unless inside their home.
We need to remove this fool from office for attempting to limit our freedom and clearly ruling against the constitution of Texas and the United States.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Some people shouldn't vote.
Simple answers are so satisfying: Green jobs will fix the economy. Stimulus will create jobs. Charity helps people more than commerce. Everyone should vote.
Well, all those instinctive solutions are wrong. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out in "The Fatal Conceit," it's a problem that in our complex, extended economy, we rely on instincts developed during our ancestors' existence in small bands. In those old days, everyone knew everyone else, so affairs could be micromanaged. Today, we live in a global economy where strangers deal with each other. The rules need to be different.
Hayek said: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
You might think people have begun to understand this. Opinion polls show Americans are very dissatisfied with government. Congress has only a 12 percent approval rating. Good. People should be suspicious of what Congress would design. Central planners failed in the Soviet Union and Cuba and America's public schools and at the post office.
Despite all that failure, however, whenever a crisis hits, the natural instinct is to say, "Government must do something."
Look at this piece of instinctual wisdom: Everyone should vote. In the last big election, only 90 million people voted out of more than 200 million eligible voters. That's terrible, we're told. But it's not terrible because a lot of people are ignorant. When I asked people to identify pictures of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, almost half couldn't.
This is one reason I say those "get out the vote" drives are dumb. I take heat for saying that, but Bryan Caplan agrees. He's a professor of economics at George Mason University and author of "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies."
"A lot of bad policies ... pass by popular demand," Caplan told me. "In order to do the right thing, you have to know something."
The "informed citizen" is the ideal of democratic societies, but Caplan points out that average citizens have no incentive to become informed, while special interests do. The rest of us have lives. We are busy with things other than politics. That's why our democratic government inflates the price of sugar through trade restrictions, even though American sugar consumers far outnumber American sugar producers.
Caplan has a radical proposal for citizens: Be honest. If you know nothing about a subject, don't have an opinion about it. "And don't reward or penalize candidates for their position on an issue you don't understand."
Political life differs from private life. If you vote for a candidate while ignorant about issues, you'll pay no more than a tiny fraction of the price of your ignorance. Not so in your private affairs. If you're dumb when you buy a car, you get stuck with a bad car. You get punished right away.
"And you may look back and say, 'I'm not going to do that again.' ... It's not so much that voters are dumb. Even smart people act dumb when they vote. I know an engineer who is very clever. ... But his views on economics (are) ridiculous."
It's not what people don't know that gets them into trouble. It's what they know that isn't so.
"A very common view is that foreign aid is actually the largest item in the budget," Caplan said. "It's about 1 percent."
Actually, even less. Medicare, Social Security, the military and interest on the debt make up over half the budget. But surveys show that people believe foreign aid and welfare are the biggest items.
So, you ignorant people, please stay home on Election Day. And those of you who do vote, please resist the instinctive urge to give our tribal elders more power.
If Americans keep voting for politicians who want to pass more laws and spend more money, the result will not be a country with fewer problems, but a country that's governed by piecemeal socialism. Or corporatism. We can debate the meaning of those words, but there's no doubt that such central planning leaves us less prosperous and less free.
Well, all those instinctive solutions are wrong. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out in "The Fatal Conceit," it's a problem that in our complex, extended economy, we rely on instincts developed during our ancestors' existence in small bands. In those old days, everyone knew everyone else, so affairs could be micromanaged. Today, we live in a global economy where strangers deal with each other. The rules need to be different.
Hayek said: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
You might think people have begun to understand this. Opinion polls show Americans are very dissatisfied with government. Congress has only a 12 percent approval rating. Good. People should be suspicious of what Congress would design. Central planners failed in the Soviet Union and Cuba and America's public schools and at the post office.
Despite all that failure, however, whenever a crisis hits, the natural instinct is to say, "Government must do something."
Look at this piece of instinctual wisdom: Everyone should vote. In the last big election, only 90 million people voted out of more than 200 million eligible voters. That's terrible, we're told. But it's not terrible because a lot of people are ignorant. When I asked people to identify pictures of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, almost half couldn't.
This is one reason I say those "get out the vote" drives are dumb. I take heat for saying that, but Bryan Caplan agrees. He's a professor of economics at George Mason University and author of "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies."
"A lot of bad policies ... pass by popular demand," Caplan told me. "In order to do the right thing, you have to know something."
The "informed citizen" is the ideal of democratic societies, but Caplan points out that average citizens have no incentive to become informed, while special interests do. The rest of us have lives. We are busy with things other than politics. That's why our democratic government inflates the price of sugar through trade restrictions, even though American sugar consumers far outnumber American sugar producers.
Caplan has a radical proposal for citizens: Be honest. If you know nothing about a subject, don't have an opinion about it. "And don't reward or penalize candidates for their position on an issue you don't understand."
Political life differs from private life. If you vote for a candidate while ignorant about issues, you'll pay no more than a tiny fraction of the price of your ignorance. Not so in your private affairs. If you're dumb when you buy a car, you get stuck with a bad car. You get punished right away.
"And you may look back and say, 'I'm not going to do that again.' ... It's not so much that voters are dumb. Even smart people act dumb when they vote. I know an engineer who is very clever. ... But his views on economics (are) ridiculous."
It's not what people don't know that gets them into trouble. It's what they know that isn't so.
"A very common view is that foreign aid is actually the largest item in the budget," Caplan said. "It's about 1 percent."
Actually, even less. Medicare, Social Security, the military and interest on the debt make up over half the budget. But surveys show that people believe foreign aid and welfare are the biggest items.
So, you ignorant people, please stay home on Election Day. And those of you who do vote, please resist the instinctive urge to give our tribal elders more power.
If Americans keep voting for politicians who want to pass more laws and spend more money, the result will not be a country with fewer problems, but a country that's governed by piecemeal socialism. Or corporatism. We can debate the meaning of those words, but there's no doubt that such central planning leaves us less prosperous and less free.
Presidential Nonsense
Presidential Nonsense
Last week, President Barack Obama, at a Capital Hilton fundraising event, told the crowd, "We can't go back to this brand of you're-on-your-own economics." Throughout my professional career as an economist, I've never come across the theory of "you're-on-your-own economics."
I'm guessing what the president means by — and finds offensive in — "you're-on-your-own economics" is that it's a system in which people are held responsible for their actions, that they take risks and must live with the results, that people can't force others to pay for their mistakes, and that they can't live at the expense of other people.
President Obama's vision was shared by our Pilgrim Fathers of the Plymouth Colony in modern-day Massachusetts. They established a communist system. They all farmed together, and whatever they produced was put in a common storehouse. A certain amount of food was rationed to each person regardless of his contribution to the work. Many Pilgrims complained that they were too weak from hunger to do their share of the work. As deeply religious as the Pilgrims were, they took to stealing from one another. Gov. William Bradford, writing his history of the colony in "Of Plymouth Plantation," said, "So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue, the next year also if not some way prevented."
In 1623, after much debate, a new system was set up, in which every family was assigned a parcel of land, and whatever they produced belonged to the family. Gov. Bradford then observed, "The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." After Gov. Bradford's establishment of what Obama calls "you're-on-your-own economics," harvests were so bountiful that Bradford is credited with establishing what we now call Thanksgiving.
There are several seemingly immutable, hard-wired characteristics about humans that socialists, liberals and progressives find difficult to deal with and would like to change.
People tend to work harder and produce more when they own what they produce. Property is better cared for when it is privately owned. People love to exchange, what Adam Smith called a "propensity to truck (and) barter." To suppress these characteristics requires brute force.
President Obama also told the Washington Hilton crowd that "we are not a country that was built on the idea of survival of the fittest." Obama is not by himself, but "survival of the fittest" is one of the greatest misunderstandings of Charles Darwin's pathbreaking work "On the Origin of Species."
When Obama and most other people use the expression "survival of the fittest," they suggest that a bunch of people or animals are competing with one another and the strongest, smartest or cleverest survives. That's not what Darwin and evolutionary biologists have in mind. Instead, what they have in mind is that those who survive have characteristics that make them better-equipped to survive and hence reproduce themselves in a particular environment. They are not laying waste to their competitors.
Let's try a few survival of the fittest questions. Which companies do you think should survive and expand, those that can meet the changing wants of their customers in a least-cost fashion or those that cannot do so? If the means of communication become cheaper through fax machines, the Internet and telephones, should subsidies be expended to help the U.S. Postal Service survive?
Years ago, typing was done on a mechanical typewriter; milk was delivered to doorsteps via horse and wagon; slide rules were used to make calculations. Should any of these products and practices have survived, or was it OK for natural selection to consign them to the dustbin of history?
Try cornering the president or his supporters, and ask them whether they believe government should ensure that the unfit survive and rather than "you're-on-your-own economics" there should be "you're-on-somebody-else economics."
I'm guessing what the president means by — and finds offensive in — "you're-on-your-own economics" is that it's a system in which people are held responsible for their actions, that they take risks and must live with the results, that people can't force others to pay for their mistakes, and that they can't live at the expense of other people.
President Obama's vision was shared by our Pilgrim Fathers of the Plymouth Colony in modern-day Massachusetts. They established a communist system. They all farmed together, and whatever they produced was put in a common storehouse. A certain amount of food was rationed to each person regardless of his contribution to the work. Many Pilgrims complained that they were too weak from hunger to do their share of the work. As deeply religious as the Pilgrims were, they took to stealing from one another. Gov. William Bradford, writing his history of the colony in "Of Plymouth Plantation," said, "So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue, the next year also if not some way prevented."
In 1623, after much debate, a new system was set up, in which every family was assigned a parcel of land, and whatever they produced belonged to the family. Gov. Bradford then observed, "The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." After Gov. Bradford's establishment of what Obama calls "you're-on-your-own economics," harvests were so bountiful that Bradford is credited with establishing what we now call Thanksgiving.
There are several seemingly immutable, hard-wired characteristics about humans that socialists, liberals and progressives find difficult to deal with and would like to change.
People tend to work harder and produce more when they own what they produce. Property is better cared for when it is privately owned. People love to exchange, what Adam Smith called a "propensity to truck (and) barter." To suppress these characteristics requires brute force.
President Obama also told the Washington Hilton crowd that "we are not a country that was built on the idea of survival of the fittest." Obama is not by himself, but "survival of the fittest" is one of the greatest misunderstandings of Charles Darwin's pathbreaking work "On the Origin of Species."
When Obama and most other people use the expression "survival of the fittest," they suggest that a bunch of people or animals are competing with one another and the strongest, smartest or cleverest survives. That's not what Darwin and evolutionary biologists have in mind. Instead, what they have in mind is that those who survive have characteristics that make them better-equipped to survive and hence reproduce themselves in a particular environment. They are not laying waste to their competitors.
Let's try a few survival of the fittest questions. Which companies do you think should survive and expand, those that can meet the changing wants of their customers in a least-cost fashion or those that cannot do so? If the means of communication become cheaper through fax machines, the Internet and telephones, should subsidies be expended to help the U.S. Postal Service survive?
Years ago, typing was done on a mechanical typewriter; milk was delivered to doorsteps via horse and wagon; slide rules were used to make calculations. Should any of these products and practices have survived, or was it OK for natural selection to consign them to the dustbin of history?
Try cornering the president or his supporters, and ask them whether they believe government should ensure that the unfit survive and rather than "you're-on-your-own economics" there should be "you're-on-somebody-else economics."
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Gingrich: Reagan Began Turning Around ‘Terrible Economy’ Within 3 Hours
Gingrich: Reagan Began Turning Around ‘Terrible Economy’ Within 3 Hours
Republican presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks at a campaign town hall at the Art Trail Gallery, Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012, in Florence, S.C. (AP Photo/David Goldman)
(CNSNews.com) – GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told supporters in West Columbia, S.C., on Tuesday that President Ronald Reagan “inherited a terrible economy and began turning it around within about three hours.”
Gingrich said unlike President Obama, Reagan “understood that the trick was not to spend your whole first term blaming the past but to create the future.” Reagan’s campaign slogan when he ran for re-election was ‘Leadership that is working,’ Gingrich said.
“I think as of the present moment, it’s going to be relatively hard for President Obama to suggest this is working. I was told by somebody that they were shifting from ‘Yes, we can’ to ‘Why we couldn’t’ as their slogan,” Gingrich said at a town hall meeting at the South Carolina Farmers Market.
Gingrich said the White House press secretary called him on Tuesday to object to comments the former House speaker made about Obama “being the best food stamp president in American history.”
“First of all, as a matter of statistical fact, President Obama is the most effective person at putting people on food stamps in American history. Now that’s just a fact. Second, what seemed to really rattle the White House is that I suggested that the president’s policies might have something to do with this – it wasn’t just random bad luck,” Gingrich said.
The press secretary said the Obama administration “he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression,” Gingrich said. “I think that’s fair,” the Republican candidate added.
“But let me be very clear just so the White House can understand this: When the president adopts a stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars that nobody has read, and then discovers to his great surprise two years later – as he himself put it – that the shovel-ready jobs weren’t shovel ready, and the stimulus fails but leaves us $800 billion deeper in debt, at some point, he has to take responsibility,” Gingrich said.
“That was his plan, his proposal, and it failed. When the president adopts an anti-American energy policy against developing energy, I mean, they claimed at one point they were lifting the moratorium in the Gulf and replacing it with a permit system, but they weren’t issuing any permits. Now, you know, we just have to explain to the White House: the American people aren’t that dumb,” he added.
Gingrich called Obama “an anti-American energy” president, “who goes off to Brazil, congratulates the Brazilians on developing oil offshore, tells them how glad he is we could guarantee $2 billion of equipment purchases – much of it from a George Soros-backed company – and then goes on to say that he really wants America to become Brazil’s best customer.”
“Now I thought he had it exactly backwards. We do not send the president of the United States around the world to be a purchasing agent for foreigners. We send the president around the world to be a salesman for American goods and services,” he said.
Gingrich urged Obama and his press secretary to travel to Charleston, S.C., “and look at the Boeing plant they tried to close.”
“I mean, every time you turn around, this is an administration which is against American business, against American jobs, against American energy, and then they seem surprised that they’re putting people on food stamps, and think it’s just an act of nature. You know, this must have been the food stamp winter,” Gingrich said.
Stop Obama's Green Energy Scam
Stop Obama's Green Energy Scam: Watch the Video and Sign the Petition Today!
Email16 8 46 President Obama spent $535 million of taxpayer stimulus money to prop up Solyndra, a solar panel company run by his political campaign contributors. Even though Department of Energy and White House staffers warned that the company's business model would never work, the loan was rushed out the door anyway. Now that Solyndra has gone belly up, taxpayers are left holding the bill. When government steps in to pick winners and losers based on politics it opens the door to even more crony capitalism. As we've already seen with Solyndra, government betting taxpayer dollars on unproven technologies is a very bad deal. A restrained federal government that doesn't have taxpayer cash to spread around is essential to stopping the crony capitalism that's ruining our markets. |
Read more: http://www.americansforprosperity.com/green-scams-2?tr=y&auid=10162146#ixzz1jrRZ3XXR
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)