Why Democrats Are Losing in Politics

Rick Santelli gives a great explaination on just why Democrats are losing their grip on...not just Congress, but reality.



Hot Air, gives the best concise reasons why businesses aren't expanding and hiring again, despite the recession having ended almost two years ago.

We’re not seeing growth because of the hostile environment for investors, and a lack of consumer demand related to high unemployment. We could solve those tomorrow by reducing regulation (especially the arbitrary ObamaCare legislation that makes risk calculation nearly impossible), unfettering American energy exploration and extraction to create jobs and lower energy costs, and reform the tax system to put all investors on an even playing field and reduce the corporatism that drags down small-business creation and innovation. We don’t need social engineers tinkering with the economic system to achieve their notion of “fairness” — we need actual economic growth, which the social engineers have proven completely incompetent at delivering. {emphasis is mine, Ed.}

 That's why the Democratic party is losing in the market place of ideas in America.  They just  don't get it.  The GOP has an inkling of what's wrong, but the leadership in Washington has sold their souls by "going along to get along" for so long, that they're very nearly as corrupt as the Democrats.  Bottom line?  Ezra Klein is an idiot who  doesn't understand the very basics of economics or economic theory, but he often pontificates as if he does..."fairness"...what an idiot.

Hat tip to the BlogFather

Another (Secret) Bailout To Banks

If you're not angry enough  at the Fed and the Federal Government watch this video:

The Tipping Point....?????

I live in metropolitan Baltimore area.  In the past several months, I and my wife have struggled to get by.  Rising prices of basic staples such as...bread, beef, chicken combined with a steep rise in the cost of gasoline-diesel have nearly pushed us back over the edge.  The Obama administration and their enabler's in the MSM would have us believe that we're not on the brink of another recession, but we are.

The combination of rising gasoline prices and the steepest increase in the cost of food in a generation is threatening to push the US economy into a recession, according to Craig Johnson, president of Customer Growth Partners....With gas prices now standing at about $3.90 a gallon, energy costs have now passed 6 percent of spending—a level that Johnson says is a "tipping point" for consumers. "Energy is not quite as essential as food and water, but is a necessity in today's economy, and when gasoline costs more than bottled water—like now—then it takes a huge bite out of disposable spending," he said, in a research note.

I personally, can't afford another recession as the last one has rendered me nearly desitute.

Failure of Logic: Keynesian Economics

Why Keynesian Economics and the Obama Economic model are a failure...I've always thought that the definion of insanity is repeating the same thing over and  over and expecting a different outcome...Keynesian economics failed during the Great Depression and directly contributed to another 7 years of depression following the small recovery of 1934 that was smothered by FDR's economic policies in 1935.

The Obama administration has basically admitted that the "Stimulus Package" was an utter failure...and has contributed to the extension of the current recession.  His SOTU address has asked for more of the same...how long will it take this president to realize that his policies are hurting the economy?  When will this administration realize that business creates jobs, not government?

The Great Recession

Here's a small picture of just how the 20 largest (population) states are weathing the Great Recession.

I live in Maryland...and I'm only working part-time as a bartender for a catering company.  Once upon a time, America used to add jobs to the economy...now, because of over regulation and a huge burden of government...very few states are adding jobs.

The Housing Double Dip Is Here

From Businessinsider.com is a chart showing the current and past housing market...

This is NOT good news...and portends bad things for our economy over the next year or so...

The chart (below) depicts the annual returns of the U.S. National, the 10-City Composite and the 20-City Composite Home Price Indices. The S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index, which covers all nine U.S. census divisions, recorded a 1.5% decline in the third quarter of 2010 over the third quarter of 2009. In September, the 10-City and 20-City Composites recorded annual returns of +1.6% and +0.6%, respectively.

I expect that our double dip recession is here as well...the government is just too clueless to figure it out.

The Failing Economy Explained: FEDERALIST No. 62

Clayton Cramer makes an interesting point on why the economy is still failing.  He quotes from The Federalist papers #62.  I'm bolding and italisizing what he quotes as the reason.  Here it is in it's entirety
: 

FEDERALIST No. 62
The Senate
For the Independent Journal.
Alexander Hamilton or James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate.

The heads into which this member of the government may be considered are: I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; III. The equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of senators, and the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the Senate.

I. The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished from those of representatives, consist in a more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship. A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and tability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils. II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.

IV. The number of senators, and the duration of their appointment, come next to be considered. In order to form an accurate judgment on both of these points, it will be proper to inquire into the purposes which are to be answered by a senate; and in order to ascertain these, it will be necessary to review the inconveniences which a republic must suffer from the want of such an institution.

First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.

Secondly. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.

Thirdly. Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation. It is not possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust. It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted senate?

A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.

Fourthly. The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.

To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.

In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.

But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

PUBLIUS.

If you haven't  a copy of the Federalist Papers, I strongly suggest you buy one.  Most book stores keep it in stock.  It's not on the "best seller's list" but it should be required reading in High School civics class.  But alas, our schools no longer actually teach anything useful...

How Our Financial System Collapsed

From the comments on an article in the Washington Examiner comes this insightful comment on the origins of the financial collapse. 

Gneubeck 23 hours ago

15 people liked this.

With the election of Obama, the American electorate signaled its intention to retreat from greatness; and, to initiate a descent into the financial abyss of Socialism. However, it would be prudent to cushion our landing at the bottom of the pit by curtailing Obama's redistribution technique of providing "a home in every pot".

Our current fiscal crisis, purely and simply, was initially set-in-motion by the cheerleading of the Politically Correct Social Engineering that flourished under the Clinton Administration in the artificially inflated boom years of the 1990s.

In an effort to increase minority home ownership, the Clinton regime threw sound fiscal discipline under-the-bus; and, promulgated policies that forbid mortgage lenders from using common-sense criteria such as : income; ability to afford a reasonable down payment; and, credit history, as metrics in the evaluation of mortgage applications. Charges of racism in mortgage lending practices flourished during this era; and, the lending institutions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, flamed by Congressional diatribe that had been massaged by enormous contributions and favorable loan rates to select politicians, were appointed to lead the charge to "create" and to "absorb" non-performing assets from such institutions as Country-Wide Financial. Assets which were, by sheer definition, fraudulent loans with no ability to repay; and, "via the Quasi's" with the implied guarantee of Government backing, were proliferated throughout our financial sector as presumed safe mortgage backed securities. Aided and abetted by congressional left-wingers who, with their own insatiable appetite for social engineering, later vehemently rejected Bush Administration efforts in 2003 to re-implement sound regulatory practices, and to reign in the quasi-federal entities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Entities which the Obama Administration has now granted "UNLIMITED" liability.

In brief, mortgage lenders were compelled BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to abandon fiscal discipline and "RISK" as guiding principles in mortgage creation. Policies that were obscured so long as housing values continued to escalate; but, when the bubble burst similar to the dot-com fever; and, housing values began to implode, the crisis was set in motion.

Unless we own up to the historically documented cause factors of this self-constructed economic crisis that proliferated these toxic assets throughout our financial industry, we may well be doomed by current Obama policies which: seeks to forgive the principal on defaulting mortgages; continues to pressure lending institutions to continue issuing suspect loans to low-income recipients; and, blatantly excludes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from financial regulatory reform, to repeat this debacle. Obama and his Democrat colleagues such as Frank, Dodd, Schumer, etc., continue to militantly protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Republican efforts to tighten the Quasi's grossly irresponsible lending practices in the acquisition and disposition of fraudulent/worthless mortgage assets.

Barack Obama, as the second leading Senatorial recipient of lending institution largess; and, as the ACORN guru who instructed ACORN operatives in the strong-arm techniques and procedures to pressure mortgage lenders to issue loans to individuals who clearly did not have the capacity to repay, is unequivocally a principal initiator of our financial crisis; and, a determined advocate of the continuation of dangerous redistribution practices which promise to usher in still further financial meltdown.

2010, followed by 2012, have become the most important elections in American history. If left unrestrained, Obama, rather thru sheer incompetence or willful intention, will do irreparable harm to America's economic, and National Security interests.

Greg Neubeck

 It's the best concise description of why we fell into a recession I've ever seen.  I would only add this...that the credit crunch of the past 2 years has been heavily exacerbated by all of the bailouts that Congress has initiated.  TARP  ($850,000,000,000.00), GM/Chrysler ($100,000,000,000.00+), the "Stimulus" (or rather Porkulus) Package ($1,000,000,000,000.00 and counting) have all contributed to the drying up of credit in this country.  Those funds were floated by the sale of government bonds and sucked up money that would have gone into the private sector as credit/loans to commerical enterprises.  The construction/light manufacuring industries only thrive when credit is readily available.  Once huge amounts of "rock-solid" government bonds dried up monies that would ordinarily been used by industry to finance projects...the possibility of a short recession was diminished, if not eliminated altogether.

CNN Poll Says Most American Think Recession NOT Over

A new poll by CNN and published in LA Times says most American's think the recession is far from over. This despite what our political betters, aka the "political elite" of Washington DC, tell us...

a new poll indicates it's gonna take a whole lot more than repeated rhetoric to....convince skeptical Americans not feeling the $787 billion economic stimulus. The new CNN / Opinion Research Poll finds an overwhelming majority of Americans see the country as good and stuck in a recession and have no doubts about it.

Fully 86% of the 1,012 adults surveyed said the country remained mired in a recession; 13% disagreed. Seventy-seven percent call it a severe or moderate recession; only 10% light. More than half said their economic position had not improved in the past year and nearly 40% said it was worse.

Gee, the people of this country are obviously not nearly as smart as those in DC. We must genuinely be a violently dumb mob of NAZI's...what do you think?

Employment Trends In Recessions

Via Instapundit...an interesting graph on the last few recessions, as well as an average of the same. It's rather disconcerting. They show that perhaps unemployment will go deeper, and last longer than any other time in the past 50 years. If this holds true, we are looking at unemployment rates that are comparable to the Depression of the late 1920's and 1930's.

Please bear with me as I learn how to publish pictures/graphs, etc. I'm rather new at this.