Wednesday, November 18, 2009 this thing on?

I quote President Barack Obama from what he said yesterday.
"It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."
I have to ask, did he keep a straight face when he said this? Yes President Bush left a deficit, when he left office. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. But President Obama came in and TRIPLED the deficit. T-R-I-P-L-E-D it. Now he says that adding more to the debt could weaken the economy? But he wants a universal health care plan that according to current estimates will cost 1.3 trillion over 10 years. And given the fact that Medicare has cost roughly 9 times more than originally estimated, this monster could easily cost 10 trillion dollars. And there are rumblings from congress that another "stimulus" package is needed. MORE DEBT.

Does Obama really mean what he said here? He keeps spending more and more money and the debt is so huge that it is practically unfathomable.

I actually agree with his statement, but how can can he say it with a straight face? His policies have set up this house of cards to fall. The dollar is weak and there is nothing being done to strengthen it. Inflation is coming. There is so much money sitting out there not being spent, that when it is, the economy could overheat causing massive inflation. If (in my opinion it is a matter of when) this happens say goodbye to the minuscule growth that is happening right now, and this depression (yes I think it is a depression) will worsen.

I think I have seen this movie before.

Friday, November 13, 2009

The Fundamental Problem with Liberal and economics.

It is quite simple really. Liberals believe the purpose of a business is to employ people. Therefore regulating said business to force it to provide higher wages, better employee benefits, etc. for its workforce is not only the right thing to do, but is a moral imperative. This thinking however is fundamentally flawed. People start and run businesses to make money. From the little mom and pop store in a strip mall to the largest corporations in the world, their purpose is to make money and for the owners, CEO's and executives to become wealthy. A company that does not turn a profit will go out of business. Jobs that are created are a result of said company's quest for profits.

To raise taxes or to create more regulations that cost businesses more money is to essentially kill jobs. Consider the entrepreneur who opens his dream restaurant. After paying for food and operating costs, wages and other expenses the entrepreneur hopes to take what profits, if any are left, so that he or she will be able to provide for him or herself and hopefully get ahead financially. If, because of regulations or taxes, the business's profit margin is reduced or begins to lose money, the owner has two choices: 1) make cut backs to remain profitable or 2) go out of business.

Its really simple. If you cut taxes and reduce regulations on business, businesses will be able to expand, hire more people, turn greater profits and thus pay more taxes on said profits.

"In this present crisis, government is not the answer to the problem. Government IS THE PROBLEM." Ronald Reagan.

Monday, November 09, 2009

Political Correctness caused the massacre at Ft. Hood

Despite all the warning signs including the fact that investigators found out that Nidal Hassan had tried to contact people associated with Al Qaeda in the recent past, The US Army failed to act. I believe they did not act for one reason: fear being accused of racial profiling and racism.

President Obama has said that we should not "jump to any conclusions" and has said little else about this massacre. Here is what investigators know so far about this man and the attack at Ft. Hood.

  1. Hassan went around saying goodbye to his neighbors in the days before the attack.
  2. He had been passing out Korans to people.
  3. Dr. Hassan was disciplined and reprimanded for attempting to convert his patients to Islam.
  4. He was known by his associate to have radical views and was opposed to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  5. Hassan was known to be sympathetic toward the very people that the US was fighting.
  6. Multiple witnesses have stated Hassan yelled Allah u Akbar before opening fire, and during the rampage was reported to be calm and calculating during the shooting.
  7. The place he chose for his rampage was a pre-deployment center for soldiers going to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Put all this together and it is pretty hard not to draw the conclusion that this was done by a radical Muslim, intent on killing Americans.

Sounds like an act of terrorism to me.

No, there is no anti-Israel Bias at the NY Times.

Recently the New York Times published an Op-Ed of a Palestinian who describes the deplorable conditions that he says exist in Israeli prison...