Blog Archives

Obama’s facts vs. Fact Checker McMannes

First of all, the job report numbers for August 2012 came in at 96,000 jobs. Horrific. But unemployment went down because, AGAIN, people are dropping out of the job hunting market. Obama knew these numbers last night…but didn’t say anything. Why? Well, of course, that’s why.

Second thing is the is a fantastic fib that Obama’s deputy campaign manager told about job growth under the current president. Here’s Stephanie Cutter’s quote in full from MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” just so no one can accuse anyone of taking anything out of context:
20120907-163857.jpg
“Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what’s happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around. And over the past, you know, 27 months we’ve created 4.5 million private-sector jobs. That’s more jobs than in the Bush recovery (or) in the Reagan recovery.”

You’d think that if the Obama campaign wanted to peddle outright fabrications, they’d at least do it so they weren’t so easily debunked. But you don’t have to look very hard to see that Cutter, as Obama might say, is “just making stuff up.”

She starts counting private-sector job growth under Obama in February 2010 and, sure enough, in the 29 months since then (not 27 as Cutter says), there have been 4.5 million private-sector jobs created, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But keep in mind that February 2010 was fully eight months into the economic recovery. So Cutter has simply picked the worst month under Obama as her starting point, in order to make Obama’s job growth look as impressive as possible.

So, in fairness, let’s do the same for Reagan and Bush:

In the aftermath of the 1981-82 recession, private-sector jobs bottomed out in December 1982, the month after that recession ended. Twenty-nine months later, the private sector under Reagan had created 8 million jobs — nearly twice as many as under Obama.

How about Bush? Surely job growth during his administration was worse. After all, the president keeps telling us that his predecessor’s policies “resulted in the most sluggish job growth in decades.”

Except if you use the Cutter method, the private sector created 4.7 million jobs in the 29 months after July 2003, when the job market bottomed. In other words, Bush beat Obama by his own preferred measuring technique by 200,000 jobs.

It’s worth noting, too, that jobs started growing under Bush ONE MONTH after he signed his second major tax cut into law. It chopped capital gains and dividend tax rates and accelerated the schedule for the Bush income-tax rate cuts.

Advertisements

Competition Matters, Mr. President!

First off, let me say that I do not hate Pres. Obama like some of the right-wing nut jobs in our country. I also don’t automatically disagree with everything he says or does, like those aforementioned nut jobs (I mean, nobody could be wrong 100% of the time even if they tried!!). But DAMN, Mr. President, you talk on television about how you’ve lowered taxes for three years, yet directly underneath you are the words, BUSH TAX CUTS! Two months ago, you were opposed to ANY extension of these Bush tax cuts, but now…now, it’s re-election time and its time to do what works, what sells.

So what does work? More jobs? Less taxes? No….what works is ‘the government getting the hell out of the way’ and letting people compete. Capitalism…not socialism. I understand that this is his ‘FIRST’ job but surely someone has advised him on the particulars of how a job is created, right? Surely he realizes who creates these jobs, right? Certainly he must grasp the fact that high taxes, forced healthcare, more restrictions, and more regulations will hurt this country, right? Well, obviously not. Wait, you don’t think he’s doing this on purpose, do you?
Just as a chain letter or Ponzi scheme can’t work in the long run, likewise, collectivism, socialism, etc…is unsustainable in the long run because it is based on a theory that is flawed. Socialism and heavy government run systems that fail because they disregard basic principles of human behavior: incentives and competition. What’s happening in Europe, the US, and now China, can be traced back to one specific flaw that guarantees failure – governments eliminating incentives. We can feel that happening here in the US; our mentality becoming a “Why should I?” mentality.
In our economy, incentives are the backbone of driving our our country forward. Capitalism is based on the theory that COMPETITION IS REQUIRED and that INCENTIVES MATTER!
Under socialism (or liberalism) incentives play almost no role and are virtually disregarded. Socialism (or liberalism) is a philosophy that goes against the very fabric of human nature and is therefore must fail. Socialism is based on the theory that COMPETITION IS IRRELEVANT and that INCENTIVES DON’T MATTER!
Capitalism will be the biggest player in this global revival of liberty and freedom and prosperity because it prods humanity, inspires creative thinking, and instills the enterprising spirit in all human beings. Providing incentives promotes desire, effort, and efficiency. Capitalism creates wealth. Period. The government does not, never has, and all the evidence you need is in the history books…and those books speak volumes to this.
I understand some people ‘feel better’ by thinking of themselves as fair-minded and kind and wanting everyone to get everything they want. But that mentality is crippling – that type of ‘kindness’ is destructive. People must compete. People must win. People must lose. It’s in our nature, at our very core. The lazy man should not be rewarded on par with the working man. Our president disagrees with that. I understand that and I will never hate him as a person because of it. That’s a terrible thing. But facts are facts, Mr. President – – the difference between my capitalism, my Reagan-omics, my trickle-down, my less govt. and your be-all, do-all, tax-all, everything-for-all socialism is this: Capitalism works. Your philosophy does not. It never has. Never.

White House Plan Would End Subsidies to Student Lenders

By Alejandro Lazo and Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 27, 2009; A08

arne_duncan

The Obama administration has proposed a sweeping change in the $85 billion-a-year student loan industry, one that could fundamentally alter the business of lenders such as Sallie Mae.

The proposal, included in yesterday’s budget outline, would end a program that pays government subsidies to private student loan companies. The administration said the shift, which would mean that all federal loans would come directly through the government, would save $4 billion annually and $47.5 billion over the next decade.

The changes could be a blow to companies such as Sallie Mae of Reston that receive subsidies to originate federally backed student loans. Shares of Sallie Mae, formally known as SLM Corp., plunged 31 percent yesterday on the news. The profitability of the student loan industry has faltered in recent years, first as Congress cut subsidies and then because of turmoil in the credit markets. Last year, dozens of lenders stopped issuing federally guaranteed loans, prompting concerns about whether students would get the money they needed for college. The Bush administration took several steps to shore up student lenders. 

Yesterday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan signaled a shift from that approach, saying the program that subsidizes private lenders is “on life support.”

“Rather than continuing to subsidize banks, we want to help dramatically more students get more access to more aid,” Duncan said in a conference call with reporters. “Big picture . . . We’re going to save about $24 billion dollars over the next five years, and we want to actively invest that money in our students.”

aaaSince the early 1990s, federal student loans have been implemented through two programs. The program that the administration proposes ending, the Federal Family Education Loan Program, uses private-sector lenders such as Sallie Mae and Citigroup to originate and service the education loans, keeping the debt off the government’s books. Under this program, the government pays a subsidy to private lenders. Congress sets the interest rate on loans, and the federal government covers nearly all the losses if a student defaults.

The other program, Direct Loan, is administered by the government and includes student loan debt in the government’s deficit. Under the proposal, this program would handle all federal loans. The approach outlined yesterday echoes one long favored by Democrats. House Education Committee Chairman Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who has been a vocal critic of what he has called “corrupt practices” in the student loan industry, said the proposal was a “a solid plan to make federal student loans more reliable while saving taxpayers billions of dollars.”

The proposal to do away with the Federal Family Education Loan Program stunned investors and Wall Street analysts who follow Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student lender. Loans originated through that program made up about 80 percent of the company’s total student loan portfolio at the end of 2008, with the rest being private loans.

“It could precipitate a collapse of the . . . industry because a lot of the lenders were holding on and hoping to survive until the end of the credit crisis,” said Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of the Web site FinAid.org. “But they could pull out completely because if there is no future, then there is no reason to stay.” Under the administration’s proposal, the private sector wouldn’t be completely cut out of the equation. The Education Department would contract with companies to service loans and collect payments. Officials yesterday said they expected some companies that now participate in the loan program to take part in a competitive process to service the loans. Sallie Mae made clear yesterday that it intended to bid for such contracts.

“We also note that the budget proposal looks to obtain ‘high-quality services for students by using competitive, private providers to service loans,’ ” the company said in a statement. “Sallie Mae is the largest and lowest-cost provider of student loan services, and we deliver the highest quality for students, schools and families.

Obama IS Black, Right?

And Jessie is a racist, right?

The often-idiotic, rhyming-reverend Jesse Jackson apologized for some “regretfully crude” comments he made about Barack Obama’s speeches in black churches during what he thought was a private conversation. Do you wonder if Jackson is sorry that he said them or if he’s just sorry that he got caught? He says that the black community has more problems than just moral problems: housing, jobs, prison, etc… and that Obama is speaking down to the black community by emphasizing the lack of a black father. It’s actually funny but it’s THIS type of rhetoric that is the most racist of all: blacks chastising blacks because they’re acting TOO white. Being white implies some sort of birthright to intelligence? It’s this intelligence, genetically isolated to the country-club socialites that should be avoided by blacks? Wait…wait…wait – it’s not because they’d be ’sell-outs’ is it? That really is quite the 1980’s!

If I were black, all of this would be completely offensive to me. But it’s typical of this kind of leadership, or lack thereof, that has dominated the black community for far too long. White people have for years seen this but for years have been unable to say it. Why? The public out crying of “RACIST!! RACIST!!” can be a little much at times. Whites don’t like to talk about blacks. It makes them uncomfortable. Could they help the black community in some ways? Sure. Will they? No. Why? Leaders like Jackson and Sharpton don’t want white people’s help. They need the black community to look to them, the REV’s, for guidance. Yeah, well, there’s this new kid named Obama. Yeaaaahhhhhhh uh…he just might be the President. Yeaaaahhhhhh…..

You know, Jessie, you’re not the ONLY black leader that’s out there these days. They’re closing in on you Jessie, they’re closing! They’re the new and improved, younger blacks who ***GASP*** think for themselves. They don’t follow your cracked up ‘If there wasn’t racism, blacks would rule the world’ philosophy. These are the new speakers – the new leaders – with new ideals. There are now plenty of leaders in the black community that would have no problem listening to another point of view, maybe even from a white, Hispanic or Jewish perspective and these idealists aren’t quite so closed-minded as the dear REV. In time, they’re going to achieve what the good REV. never did: fundamental change within a community as opposed to the diamond-laced crutches they’ve been given (Fake diamonds, yes, but they look real and that’s what’s important!).

One man would be Harold Ford, Jr. Here is an absolutely brilliant man with fantastic insight into realm of good ol’ common sense. He’s articulate and well-spoken, and not in the bad, racist way of ‘talking white.’ He’d listen, I’m sure of it and he’s black, Reverend. I would propose a dare for you to say about Mr. Ford that he talks white just because he’s a professor of public policy at Vanderbilt University teaching American political leadership. Or, because he joined Merrill Lynch financial as a vice chairman and senior policy advisor and in 2007, was appointed the inaugural Barbara Jordan Visiting Professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He’s also light-skinned. Be VERY careful here, Mr. Jackson when determining whether or not he’s black enough for you. I mean, he is, isn’t he? Even with all of these credentials, even though he does ’speak white’ and actually look a little white, please tell me that he IS black enough?

Perhaps Condy? She’s a little darker skinned. But at how many parties have you bashed the talented, genius-walking, former National Security Advisor, current Sec. of State, and future President? Is she too white because she balanced an entire university’s budget? If I told you that Dr. Rice (That’s DR. not REV.) is an accomplished pianist and at 15, she played Mozart with the Denver Symphony, would this be her ‘acting white’ or just being an accomplished black? Let’s see, she’s performed at diplomatic events, at embassies and has performed in public with cellist Yo-Yo Ma, who is Chinese (If you want to criticize Yo-Yo Ma for being born in Paris, well, I’m actually ok with that!) She has stated that her favorite composer is Johannes Brahms, not because he was German and white, which you most assuredly could find cause to accuse her, but because she thinks Brahms’s music is “passionate but not sentimental.”

She’s not listening to Snoop – she must be ‘listening down’ to black people. AND OFF GOES MR. JACKSON TO FIND THE NEAREST CNN TELEVISION CAMERA!!

Jackson is the old school, racist, ‘keep blacks in their place’ type of spiritual leader that actually offers no spiritual leadership whatsoever. If I were black (Actually, my genealogy found that Booker T. Washington is a not so distant cousin of mine so, I guess I am black!) …ok, if I were MORE black than I am, I would jettison these type of idiots faster than Rosa Parks could sit down on a bus seat (Rosa Parks grandfather was Irish. See? She was a fighter!).

But seriously with these clowns, when was the last time you heard REV. Jesse Jackson, or REV. Al Sharpton, for that matter, utter the name Jesus Christ in a public setting? You probably haven’t. You know who has said it and does say it? Sen. Barack Obama! Remember REV –

“The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,” 1 Peter 2:7

Maybe those two, old, tired men are actually jealous of Barack Obama. I mean, he’s done something those two never did – ever: he’s put himself in a position to be President of the United States of America. Who knows? Maybe I’m wrong and am giving these men too much grief. Perhaps they are just envious because Obama ACTUALLY IS African-American.

Riding the coat tails of the great MLK, Jr. can only last for so long. Would Dr. King ever utter such vile sentiment? Methinks not. Can you see Dr. King doing this? No. In 1984, Jackson called New York City “Hymietown,” referring to the city’s large Jewish population. I’m sure Dr. King would’ve been proud then just as he is now! Nice job, Jess!

Jackson’s opinions and rhetoric are stale. He no religious leader, he’s no political player. In fact, he’s laid no groundwork to support any recent political commentary at all. Here’s the best thing I can say about Jackson: you are a freak show and side-show act…and no, I’m not talking about Michael Jackson. You’re getting to be more and more irrelevant and that has got to hurt more than anything. You so desperately want to be relevant, but you’re just not. The 60’s have come and gone, my friend.
He said Wednesday that Obama’s speeches “come off as speaking down to black people” and that there were other important issues to be addressed in the black community, such as unemployment, the mortgage crisis and the number of blacks in prison. The black community has MANY issues that it needs to fix – MANY. But if you were to pick one issue to fix, one which could be the foundation by which all other issues would be built upon, that issue would be the absence the black father. Period!
Look, Obama panders to his base just like everyone else. It’s just politics. He’s a politician. You vote for the guy who’s the best looking on television. We all know that – we’re Americans! But Obama is dead on the money here.

Jessie Jackson just accused a black presidential candidate of ‘talking down to black people.’

Hmm…that’s just weird and actually, pretty funny!

%d bloggers like this: