“They don’t get us..”

Mr. Biden that could be the most profound statement of your public life. Last week The Veep delivered a fiery speech where he indicated that those evil rich guys (read Romney) don't get us. For your viewing pleasure here is a video:



The link is from Business Insider and Michael Brendan Dougherty tries to make the case that Biden can pander, er, I mean connect with southern middle class workers:

And that's where Biden comes in. He is the only populist in this 2012 presidential race. He can speak to a crowd of middle and working class voters in Youngstown and say "They don't get it. They don't get who we are," and that crowd just instantly connects with him in a way that they can't with either of the men at the top of the ticket. 

For all his verbal-gaffes, Biden has the feel for a part of America that Romney and Obama don't. 

I am on the other side of that fence. While this sort of class envy nonsense works for some I'm guessing most see right through it. And given the performance of these economic titans over the past 3 plus years they should have about as much credibility as a clever garden slug.

I mean if Biden's message is that Romney takes risks on businesses that sometimes fail, um, so what. By implication the Obama team is suggesting that the country is far better off under the governance of two people with no experience except, ahem, public service. Call me old fashioned but I'd rather have a president who has actually signed the front of a paycheck not just the back of one.

Stephen is King of Crap

(Editor’s Note: I have read just about everything Stephen King has written and am a big big fan of his fiction.)

Mr. King has an Op Ed over at the Daily Beast that is nothing short of a drunken profanity laced tirade. 

While I don't mind that Mr. King speaks his mind, knock yourself out big guy, but if there is anything I've learned doing what I do here at 6079 you gotta back up your words. I don't want to go through Mr. King's point with his column but rather how he tries to make his point and just how badly it hurts his cause. Let's start with this paragraph:

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they're giving right-wing creepazoids. Here's an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won't do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions.

Creepazoids? Based on what? Have you ever actually met either of the Koch brothers Mr. King? Fish with lesions due to the BP Oil spill? There is no evidence that the BP spill is causing any such thing. Yet King says it as if it is fact.

In his first sentence he manages to call Governor Christie Fat. (Stay classy Stevie!) But what is really ironic about the first paragraph? Well check it out for yourself:

Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain't Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey's governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm.

King has the gall to chastise Christie's 'coarseness' and then spends the next several thousand words profanely deriding the right in a seemingly stream of consciousness rant.

Again, big fan of his fiction but this one should never have made it past the editor's desk. It reflects badly on both King and the Daily Beast.

Once again government is the answer

I found this report over at the Royal Society's web site called: People and the Planet Report. The purpose of the report is to emphasize the precariousness of the planet as it relates to population growth and the scarceness of resources and how badly the resources that do exist are poorly distributed. But the best part is their recommendations on how to avoid the looming catastrophe that awaits us (emphasis theirs):

Recommendation 1

The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health.

By 'international community' they mean the dysfunctional UN of course. But more importantly the 'reduce the inequality that persists in the world today' should give you the real purpose. You guessed it income redistribution on a global scale.

Recommendation 2

The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.

'Investment in sustainable resources' read: the same pixie dust Obama and the greenies have been pandering for the last thirty years.

Recommendation 3

Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.

Sandra Fluke would be so proud - international governments paying for other people to have sex without consequences!

Recommendation 4

Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.

Sweeeet - gotta get the climate change nonsense in there!

Recommendation 5

Governments should realise the potential of urbanisation to reduce material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency measures. The well planned provision of water supply, waste disposal, power and other services will avoid slum conditions and increase the welfare of inhabitants.

This is nothing short of the collectivists' wettest of wet dreams. Gotta get everybody close together because it is so much easier to control them when they are in one place and all services will be provided by the omnipresent government.

Recommendation 6

In order to meet previously agreed goals for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school attendance need to work with international funders and organisations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and Education for All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all the world's young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and boys.

By and large I could agree with this in principle, however, I do have a problem with the 'non-financial barrier'. And the greatest 'non-financial barrier' that exists are the varying types of governments around the world that they suggest we help and in many cases (North Korea, China, any one of the dysfunctional African countries) are run by tyrants/dictators who have no interest in educating the masses because it will only undermine their power.

The Buffet Rule: Libs vs. Conservatives

By now we have all heard the President's campaign rhetoric deriding the evil gazillionaires and how they game the system to pick the pockets of the rest of us. Now I know that by and large this is Obama's only strategy to get elected in November. He will have to create a populist platform pitting one class against the other.

But as I've looked at the speechifying from the administration it struck me that the One actually may believe what he is saying. I am convinced that he has no interest in improving the economy with the Buffet Rule. Point in fact. Many folks out there are reporting that if we implement the Buffet Rule it will have negligible effect on the deficit/debt and in some cases there are those who believe that it will actually hurt job creation. This from Sal Bommarito at Policymic:

The [Buffet Rule) proposal is dramatic in name only as it is predicted to generate only $47 billion of new revenue over 10 years, or less than $5 billion annually. This compares to annual national deficits of over a trillion dollars during the past four years (three of these years were during Obama's tenure).

If the capital gains tax rate were to be increased to 20% or 30% or even 35%, the vast majority of those people earning up to $10 million annually would be affected only to a small degree. Keep in mind, one would need to sell assets of $20 million for a 5% gain to earn $1 million of capital gains, or $100 million to produce $5 million of capital gains. Very few people earning $5-$10 million annually (pretax) have assets (or earnings from them) large enough to generate those types of capital gains.

The Buffett Rule would yield a relatively small amount of increased revenue for the Treasury. Frankly, I do not object to the proposal out of hand; but one must be concerned about the derivative impact of changing the capital gains tax rate on investment income in this country. Would it hurt job creation? Probably.

So if the experts are right why does Obama keep trotting out this class warfare nonsense? He must know how little effect (if any) it will actually have on economic growth. I truly believe that his intentions are not  to help the economy, rather, the Buffet Rule is in line with how he sees the economy in general and specifically how each of the participants contribute. In his (and most liberals') minds, they think that if one person is succeeding then it obviously is at the direct expense of another. Thus he views the U.S. economy as little more than Zero sum game. From Wikipedia:

In game theory and economic theory, a "zero-sum game" is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

From Karl Marx to Mao Tse Tung to the lunatics in North Korea and any other communist worth his salt - this is their view of economic development. In other words their faith in fair economic growth is dependent upon who controls the resources and more importantly how those resources are re-distributed. And ultimately that distribution of resources MUST inherently be defined by a centralized government because left to their own devices the evil 1% will ultimately end up with all the resources.

Counter this theory with what evil capitalists believe. In the capitalist world we believe the theory that a "rising tide lifts all boats". Again from Wikipedia:

The aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" is associated with the idea that improvements in the general economy will benefit all participants in that economy, and that economic policy, particularly government economic policy, should therefore focus on the general macroeconomic environment first and foremost.

Simply put the "zero sum game" theory suggests that the economic 'pie' is one static size and will always remain so, while the "rising tide" theorists believe that the pie is ever changing depending upon economic factors including how much the government gets involved. Rising tide folks believe that when the pie grows it benefits every participant in the economy regardless of where they are in the economic strata.

The big difference in these competing theories is that the "rising tide" theory requires little government intrusion assistance and that is where if falls out of bed with any hard working socialist. After all, how can they find votes if they can't inflame unproductive folks looking for a handout?

In business school I remember using the 'decision tree' process to help managers make decisions. At some point the decision comes down to a few options and one of those options is it to do absolutely nothing. In other words there is always the option not to act. I believe that Liberals are perfectly incapable of taking the ' do nothing' option because they always see themselves as the smartest guy in the room and have to try their hand at social engineering regardless of the consequences.

The bottom line is that the liberals have no faith in the population whereas the conservatives nothing but faith in their common man.

The election this November couldn't be starker in its contrast. On one side you have the liberal elite who want to keep the pie the same size (and through their policies actually shrink it) and distribute the wealth in this country as they see fit 'fairly'. On the other side, you have conservatives who want to throw off the shackles of centralized government so they can create wealth, not only for themselves, but for everyone.

If you can’t convince them with substance, dazzle them with bulls*%t

Sorry folks, one more post today. I know, I know it's almost two o'clock and I'm not drunk yet, but I just couldn't let this go without at least a brief comment. Obama had this to say to his supporters via video conference:

President Obama counseled supporters Wednesday evening "not to get too bogged down" in details when explaining his record to voters during the campaign.

"If somebody asks about taxes, nobody is really interested in hearing what precise marginal tax rate change would you like to see in the tax code," Obama said. "What they want to know is that our campaign stands for a fair, just approach to the tax code that says everybody has to chip in, and that it's not right if a hedge fund manager is being taxed at a lower rate than his or her secretary."

Um excuse me Mr. President, I'm just a little interested in those pesky marginal rates as I'm sure many other small business owners are as well. It will be the difference in hiring a new programmer this year or not. Oh and that nonsense you keep jabbering about the hedge fund manager and his secretary, that's just not true. So you are either being willfully obtuse or you are obtuse.

Okay class, let's all say together, the capital gains tax is a flat 15%. The payroll tax is graduated tax that penalizes success. As you make more the Feds get more of it at a higher rate. So that means if the hedge fund manager is drawing a paycheck then he is paying a higher payroll tax rate than his secretary.

Okay everybody back to your beers.

She of the Angry Perm and limited math skills

(Ed Note: Full credit for 'She of the Angry Perm' is from Monica Crowley from The Five on Fox News.)

Okay, for the month of July, I started a new drinking game where every time the talking heads from the left (Obama, Biden, Wasserman Shultz, Carney, anyone who works for MSNBC, etc.) says the word 'balance', as in "a balanced approach" I had to take a drink. I've been hammered drunk for the entire month of July. Fortunately, the debt nonsense is over. So, after my three-day raging hangover I decided to take a look-see at what the aforementioned talking heads' latest talking point is. Drum roll please - Surprise everyone. Apparently, when no one was looking, the economy has suddenly turned around!

Whew! That's a load of my mind. Maybe now I can get back to some serious drinking… right after I take a quick look to see what's on MSNBC. Oh, hey there's good ol' Debbie Wasserman Shultz talking up the economy on MSNBC (emphasis mine):

"Well, we're going to focus on what we know is the number one priorities on Americans ease minds right now, that is creating jobs and continuing to get this economy turned around. If we have to drag the Republicans with us, then we'll do that, but, you know, it's been a whole lot of months, eight months they have controlled the house with no jobs bills coming to the Floor. Hopefully now with this compromise on the debt ceiling behind us, with the opportunity, with the economic to sit down and focus on longer-term deficit reduction that will have some balance(damn gotta take a drink) and ask some sacrifice for our most fortunate,"

"We are creating jobs each month in the private sector."

Well thank you Debbie, now I can nurse my hangover without worry, right? Let's just take a quick peek at some of the latest economic news. I'm sure Ms. Wasserman Schultz's research is spot on.

Oh, looky here, some economic news this week from the Bureau of Economic Analysis that came out July 29th:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2011, (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.

A whopping 0.4 percent! Holy cow looks like Angry Perm girl's got a point.

Look some more sterling news today from Reuters:

Overall manufacturing fell 0.8% in June, new orders down 1.9%

Wow, only down 1.9%! She's really on a roll!

And lastly, let's take a look at the latest Job numbers from ADP via CNBC:

The pace of private sector job growth slowed in July with employers adding 114,000 positions, a report by a payrolls processor showed. Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast the ADP National Employment Report would show a gain of 100,000 jobs. June's private payrolls were revised down to an increase of 145,000 from the previously reported 157,000.

Wow, well done Debbie! Well done indeed. I swear these guys should have Charlie Sheen stumping for them, all they do in the face of any bad economic news is simply say "I'm Winning!" Okay, back to drinking!


 

 

The case of the evil jet owners

0200 local time, at an undisclosed private airport in Wisconsin. Super-Duper Way-Cool Secrete Agent BO (Code name Bambi) and his trusty sidekick Joe B (Code name Gaffe Machine) are about about to blow the lid off the super secrete society of corporate jet owners. Let's listen in on the operation:


Agent BO: We got'em now trusty sidekick Joe B.

Trusty sidekick Joe B: Got who?

Agent BO, turned to find Joe B looking through his night binoculars the wrong way and sighed.

Agent BO: The dastardly evil Jet Owners, of course.

Trusty sidekick Joe B: There're kind small aren't they. I mean I thought they'd be much bigger.

Agent BO sighed again, reached over, and turned the binoculars around.

Trusty sidekick Joe B: Holy cow! that's much better everything's so big.

Agent BO: Keep it down will'ya we don't need to get caught this close to their lair.

Trusty sidekick Joe B: Golly, we sure don't. Um, by the way what's a lair?

Agent BO: Never mind. Here comes the big man himself.

Agent BO trained his own binoculars to the tarmac of the seemingly deserted airport in the middle of nowhere, while Trusty sidekick Joe B trained his on the moon.

Trusty sidekick Joe B: Wowsers, the moon is really big when you look at it through these binocular thingy's.

Agent BO: Pay attention and hold this super cool Whisper 2000 I got at Radio Shack so we can hear what they are saying.

Through the speaker:

"Well, the jig is up."

"What do you mean, Mr. Lear?"

"That wily, community organizer, Miss Gulfstream, he's got the goods on us."

"But I thought we had the world convinced that the true secrete cabal behind the new world order was George Soros.

"Guess we were wrong."

"I don't understand, Mr. Lear, what do they have on us?"

"Oh, everything, Miss Gulfstream, everything. Creating jobs, exporting American made products overseas, paying taxes and worst of all, making a profit for our shareholders."

The agents heard an audible gasp from Miss Gulfstream and couldn't help but grin. Although in truth, Trusty sidekick Job B's grin could have just been gas.

Agent BO: Okay, Trusty sidekick Joe B we got what we came for let's make like an egg and beat it.

Trusty sidekick Joe B: We got eggs! That's great let's eat!