http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008924-503544.html

This guy literally has no clue what he is talking about.  How can someone so ignorant to economics hold the position of Vice President of the United States of America? 

I am curious.  Joe, how did the economy create those 8 million jobs in the first place?  Was it magic?  Did people just wake up one day and decide “Hey, I think I’ll have a job today”?  Please Joe, help me out here…

I mean, I’m no Vice President of the United States so I don’t expect to understand how  the economy works, however, historically speaking it looks like low taxes, pro business laws, less restrictions on the free market have all led to an increase in jobs and prosperity.  But, like I said, I’m no Vice President.

In closing, the intellectual, liberal, elites have spoken and I am truly, truly sorry if you were one of the 8 million that lost their job.  My heart breaks for you, since you will never, ever, be able to work again (not my words, Joe’s).

As much as this characterizes our government, it is also becoming a universal sentiment of an entitled society.

Last week, President Obama lashed out at the financial institutions on Wall Street, again.

When the President of the United States flippantly refers to private citizens and their businesses as ‘fat cat bankers on Wall Street’ there is a problem with the president. When the public sees nothing wrong with this, there is a larger problem with the public itself.

The irony of this particular instance of class warfare populism exhibited by Barack Obama, is that as he delivers these remarks, we learn that government employees are much better paid than private workers. This may seem unrelated at first glance, however, the president petulantly proclaimed these so called ‘fat-cats’ the architects of our current recession, seemingly excusing the federal government of any and all responsibility in the matter. I won’t get into all the intricacies and arguments here, but suffice it to say this is a more than generous revision on the president’s part. So the age old question ‘cui bono?’ does not reflect well on those ‘fat cats’ in D.C. if we understand their role in the unraveling of our economy compared to their ever increasing compensation.

The cycle is a vicious yet convenient one: Support and push policies that loudly proclaim help for the helpless while quietly destroying the free market, which action directly creates more ‘helpless’ to promise more for while also creating the circumstances in which people will more likely cede power to ‘the only people’ who can fix things. Oh, and they need to be better compensated for all the extra work of saving us.

In fact, USA Today reported the following:

• On average, federal employees earned $71,206 per year, compared to $40,331 in the private sector.

• From December 2007 through June 2009, average federal employee salaries increased by 6.6 percent, while average private-sector salaries increased by 3.9 percent. Federal employees at the top of the pay scale received pay increases of 8.6 percent during that period.

• Federal employment is getting top-heavy. Federal employees making more than $100,000 increased from 14 percent to 19 percent of total government employment. In fact, the number of federal employees making more than $100,000 has more than doubled in less than two years. There are now more federal employees making more than $100,000 per year than $40,000 per year.

How could anyone say no to this face?

In light of these facts, how can any government employee begrudge any private citizen their salary? The fact is that these ‘fat cats’ on Wall Street are creating something. They are creating jobs and wealth for millions. The ‘fat cats’ in Washington are best known for creating hurdles for those that would create jobs and wealth.

Worse still, Obama warns that the ‘fat cats’ had better stop opposing government control of their pay and strict oversight of their day-to-day operations because, basically, they owe him for the bailout, which coincidentally many of them have paid back and others have been deterred from paying back.

Obama’s ignorance seems only matched and perhaps exceeded by his unmitigated arrogance. These comments were made just before the president was to meet with said ‘fat cats’ to persuade them to comply with his wishes.

Who says this guy isn’t smooth?

• George Will on America’s debt

• Stephen Spruiell on the SEIU

 and viewing…

•  Bill Whittle being excellent and sharp as always.

Health-care…

• faulty figures

 plus

• tax increases

 equals an

• historical achievement

 that will prove

• ultimately disasterous

Can either marriage or health-care reasonably be labeled a right?

I’ve recently been involved in a few debates over at a liberal blog called meoutsidethebox . The irony of the name is made clear by hopelessly captive thinking which permeates each leftist-talking-point-turned-article on the site. Regardless of the slant, the editor doesn’t shrink from a good debate, no matter how much he may avoid answering a direct question.

The latest article on the site poses the question ‘Is health insurance a right?’ . The obvious answer is, ‘no’ with the reason being, ‘because it’s not.’ But for people who might need a little more hand holding let’s explore it a bit further.

First, let’s clarify that there is a difference between health care and health insurance, the latter simply being one of many means of providing the former. I think that the title of the article is a bit misleading because what is subsequently discussed is care, not insurance. So let’s focus on the care.

‘That’s ridiculous’ you might say, to which I’ll respond, ‘we are finally beginning to agree’. Let’s call it a right if that makes for a more amiable starting point. Now that we agree on the labels we still have the solution to flesh out.

Government run health-care means 'til death do us part may not seem so long.

Calling health-care a right does not mean we suspend our knowledge of history or our tendency toward logic. The idea that determining health-care a right automatically translates to support for this ruinous and ignorant proposal is embarrassingly short-sighted. As some people are painstakingly thorough to claim, ‘we are all in this together’, so let’s figure out what works so we don’t screw things up for everyone. Does history tell us anything about socialized medicine? Do economics tell us anything about incentives, or competition? Where quality is paramount, can we afford to eliminate these considerations?

Perhaps, as with marriage, government should more appropriately leave well enough alone so as to allow the American people to pursue their rights, and the ensuing costs, as they see fit.

In response to our current government or The Daily Switch for their long absence?

Things have been crazy and we’ve been away for far too long. The Daily Switch has an official stance on the matter: We apologize. This does not mean that we will be able to keep up the near heroic pace our readers had previously become accustomed to. We will, however, do better.

Let’s kick things off with some essential reading…

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110309.php3

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110409.php3

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110509.php3

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110609.php3

If you don’t know Sowell, you’ve got no soul, or so the saying goes now that I’ve said it.

Also, our friends over at TruPolitics have been going strong and even experienced a political victory in a local election. Congratulations Matt!

http://trupolitics.net/2009/10/16/freedom-bureaucracy-and-healthcare/

Guest author Edward Mahee has added a great tone to TruPolitics.

A nice summation of Obama’s actual successes…

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzYzZTY2ZmM1MjFmNGU3MjhmZmIxZjJmOTNiYjU0ZDg=

Victor Davis Hanson has become for me as essential a read as anything out there. He doesn’t mince words nor seemingly miss a thing.

Anyway, that should keep you busy for a few minutes. Thanks for your patience and continued interest. ‘Til next time…

How can we explain this issue being politicized? Is there any conclusion to be drawn other than undue influence of, and pandering to, special interest groups like the NEA?

There are moral dilemmas involved as well as straightforward pragmatic implications. What message is sent to those who were involved in the program and experienced success only to have it taken away? More importantly, what message does it send to those who hoped to one day be part of the program? If it works and it’s cheaper why not do it?

This seems to be yet another example of the government squashing the success inherent in a competitive free market. Let’s treat it as an opportunity to reverse the tide. Talk to your family, friends and neighbors about it and then call your representatives, senators or even the White House.

Like the democrats always say, it’s for the children.

"Obama: I'm not a miracle-worker" Don't be so modest.

 I’m sure everyone has seen this one, but its suggestiveness is worth noting. My fear here is for those that think it more than mere opportunistic propaganda or coincidence.

Does Obama approve of vigilante justice?

Which comic was W. featured in? It’s an honest question. I can’t recall any, but am open to correction. Do you think being wrapped in a web and hung from a street light could be considered torture? What about the Green Goblin’s civil liberties?

Not at all racist.

This is just unfortunate. But how else should Germany have responded to that rousing speech Obama delivered to the world from their soil? And what’s the deal with the curry dip?

Action for action's sake

More Obama and Superfriends. Is this portending assassination attempts? Seriously? The news didn’t hype Obama’s being a target enough that it had to bleed into comic book fantasy?

This should be a mandatory accessory for the dashboard of all GM cars. The price is even Union ready.

Is there anything that says you’ve made it more than having your very own bobble-head? The pop-culture overtones are obvious, but the physical action indicating yes, yes, yes may be the most telling.

German engineering at its lowest.

This may be the most disturbing simply for the lack of effort. Is this doll not a child? It comes off as a hurried instance of white babe in black-face. The Germans should probably stick to cars, beer and fantasies of EU domination.

Change Everything

What the heck?!?!?

If you have any images worth sharing please email them to me. My email is listed on the ‘About’ page under maker.

Justice Souter

There are two sides to the debate over the Constitution and its legitamacy. On the one hand, there are those that believe that it is a ’living, breathing’ document that changes over time as cultural or societal norms shift or decay. On the other are those who say the Constitution means what it says and says what it means, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Unfortunately, this is another issue that is pretty clearly divided along ideological lines. Liberals, or more accurately, Statists tend to believe that as times change the Constitution must adapt and change as well. Conservatives trend towards acknowledging that the values and morals implicit in the Constitution are timeless and just as applicable today as they were at their writing. It seems that in valuing the Constitution we are faced with an ‘all or nothing’ decision. As Mark Levin writes in his new book Liberty and Tyranny ,

“If the Constitution’s meaning can be erased or rewritten, and the Framers’ intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it.”

Is the Constitution a binding contract prescribing the standards for governing? Or, can the laws be changed based on trends or feelings indicative of different social ‘values’? Levin goes on to say,

“To say the Constitution is a ‘living and breathing document’ is to give license to arbitrary and lawless activism. It is a mantra that gained purchase in the early twentieth century and is paraded around by the Statist as if to legitimate that which is illegitimate.”

Article V of the Constitution addresses the ways that changes can be made to the Constitution. There are but two, and only one has ever been used. The built-in difficulty of changing the Constitution speaks to the critical nature of its reliability. A constitution is made powerful by its permanence. If it is something easily altered or ‘reinterpreted ‘ it is a sand-like foundation at best.

The Constitution

 We can mostly agree that the founding of our country was a net good. And, judging by the 200 plus years since, it has birthed the greatest nation in history, both in might and benefit to the rest of the world. This success is owed entirely to the Constitution that has liberated, prospered and strengthened generations of people united under its protections, and to the principles and faith upon which it was founded.

 The question I submit for your consideration is this: If the Constitution is a malleable thing, upon what foundation is our country now built?

Deficits

Aside from the glaring inaccuracies there are other problems with this statement. I think we have to address the tax issue. The commenter claims that taxes would have to be raised as a result of Bush’s spending. The purpose of raising taxes I would assume would be to get rid of the deficit. Please reference the chart on the right. These numbers include all war spending. Now if we look at this chart we can see that even including the wars Bush’s deficit was drastically less than the proposed Obama deficit. So, if the purpose of raising taxes is to reduce the deficit then I am thoroughly confused. What is the point of raising taxes if you are going to increase spending by astronomical amounts? Even with tax increases Obama’s deficit will be more than all previous Presidents’ combined.

The commenter also claims that Obama had to reflect the wars in his budget which is causing it to look so bad. Although it is true that Bush funded the wars through emergency supplementals; it is false to say that this is the reason Obama’s budget is horrible. The spending although not in the budget had to surface somewhere. It surfaced in the deficit. Riedl writes, “President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.” So, forget about the budget and focus on the end result, the deficit.

Another similar misconception (not voiced by the commenter) is that Obama is creating $2 Trillion in savings with his plan. “During his recent address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama previewed his budget by asserting that the Administration has “already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.”[9] This is simply not true. His budget increases spending by $1 trillion over the next decade, which he attempts to offset by reclassifying as “savings” $1.4 trillion in tax increases and $1.5 trillion in reduced spending in Iraq. However, gov¬ernment savings have always referred to spending cuts that save taxpayer dollars, not tax increases that feed the government. Furthermore, the Iraq “sav¬ings” are measured against an implausible spending baseline that assumes a permanent $180 billion bud¬get for the global war on terrorism, without any troop withdrawals through 2019. This is the equiv¬alent of a family deciding to “save” $10,000 by first assuming an expensive vacation and then not taking it. Without these false savings, only the $1 trillion spending hike remains, and that does not account for the extra $250 billion proposed for another round of financial bailouts in the current fiscal year.”

The poster also wrote “I don’t believe in a recession that giving tax breaks to the rich is the answer.” This is also hopelessly false. Firstly, the cuts benefit everyone. Secondly, “In the 18 months following the 2003 tax rate cuts, economic growth rates doubled, the stock market surged 32 percent, and the economy created 1.8 million jobs, followed by 5.2 million more jobs in the next 27 months.” The fact of the matter is that tax cuts encourage spending, investment and growth. Even extremely liberal and economically ignorant people like Alec Baldwin admit this. In an interview, Baldwin said “I’m telling you right now, if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television production is going to collapse, and it’s all going to go to California.” The only thing Baldwin got wrong here is that the business will not move to California where the taxes are already worse and driving the movie industry to places like New Mexico, Montana and Canada. Taxes hurt business more than anything else. Reducing taxes on businesses as well as individuals will bring us out of the recession. To look back at the Bush years as having no economic prosperity is completely shortsighted and biased. Even taking into account the housing bubble burst; the economy is still better off then before.

Unfortunately, arguments based on false information never end well. The fact of the matter is that Obama has drastically increased unaccounted for spending to levels that will be detrimental to the economy. I’ll end with a quote:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.-John Adams