Original Post: Weasel Zippers
Product of government school education?
Looks like geography lessons may be in order for the U.S. Senate.
Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu made an embarrassing gaffe Thursday during a debate on the Senate Floor, stating that South Dakota borders Canada.
The Southerner seemed to have overlooked the state’s northern neighbor, North Dakota.
The comment came during a floor discussion on an amendment regarding a security fence, presented by South Dakota Republican John Thune.
She was trying to express her opposition to Thune’s proposal about constructing a 350-mile double layered fence along the Mexico border, saying that she places more trust in the opinion of Arizona Sen. John McCain — because McCain’s state borders Mexico.
“A smart fence which is what Senator McCain and I want to build – since he’s from Arizona, I think he knows more about this than the Senator from South Dakota, who only has a border with Canada that is quite different.”
Landrieu, 57, chairs the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.
Her office did not respond to a request for comment about the buzz over the mistake.\
This isn't the first time a Democrat lawmaker has made huge blunders in regards to basic geography. Remember how much flak they gave Sarah Palin for her Russian comment? Peggy West doesn't know where Arizona is. Maybe Democrat policy is so screwed up because they don't know where things are. As though they're detached from reality.
Showing posts with label astoundingly idiotic liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label astoundingly idiotic liberals. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Obama condemns violence tied to anti-Muslim film
Apparently I have to post this because the President and Crowley have forgotten that it has happened. It has already gone down the Memory Hole.
Original Post:Yahoo
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Barack Obama is condemning an anti-Muslim film and the violence in the Middle East that has followed its release, saying there is "no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Obama says in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly that "there are no words that excuse the killing of innocent" and "no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."
Obama says the video "is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well." The president was speaking in the aftermath of violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa connected to the release of an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States.
Four Americans were killed in Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with more than 50 others in the violence.
During the Presidential debate tonight, Obama claims that he was standing in the Rose Garden on 9/11/12 and blamed the Libyan attack on terrorists. Mitt Romney called him on his lie and Obama turned to back him up. SHE AGREED WITH OBAMA!
She went along with the story that Obama called it a terrorist attack from day 1 and did not, in fact blame it on the video. That was less than a month ago. We have stories, we have video. It happened. I felt so bad for Mitt Romney standing there incredulously. It was a fact that the President said what he said and everyone knows it. Everyone, except apparently, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley. The thing is, I don't even think Obama thinks he was lying. I'll bet he's convinced himself that it's the truth. "It's not a lie if you believe it."
Information cannot stay buried. Candy goes on CNN later and recants her idiotic position and lets the world know that Romney was right, Obama lied and she's a fool. Maybe she should have stuck to the moderators traditional position of moderator and not Obama flunky.
Original Post:Yahoo
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Barack Obama is condemning an anti-Muslim film and the violence in the Middle East that has followed its release, saying there is "no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Obama says in a speech Tuesday before the U.N. General Assembly that "there are no words that excuse the killing of innocent" and "no video that justifies an attack on an embassy."
Obama says the video "is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well." The president was speaking in the aftermath of violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa connected to the release of an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States.
Four Americans were killed in Libya, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, along with more than 50 others in the violence.
During the Presidential debate tonight, Obama claims that he was standing in the Rose Garden on 9/11/12 and blamed the Libyan attack on terrorists. Mitt Romney called him on his lie and Obama turned to back him up. SHE AGREED WITH OBAMA!
She went along with the story that Obama called it a terrorist attack from day 1 and did not, in fact blame it on the video. That was less than a month ago. We have stories, we have video. It happened. I felt so bad for Mitt Romney standing there incredulously. It was a fact that the President said what he said and everyone knows it. Everyone, except apparently, Barack Obama and Candy Crowley. The thing is, I don't even think Obama thinks he was lying. I'll bet he's convinced himself that it's the truth. "It's not a lie if you believe it."
Information cannot stay buried. Candy goes on CNN later and recants her idiotic position and lets the world know that Romney was right, Obama lied and she's a fool. Maybe she should have stuck to the moderators traditional position of moderator and not Obama flunky.
Friday, October 12, 2012
US officials: We didn't link Libya attack to video
Original Post: Yahoo
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.
But asked about the administration's initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.
The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."
The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack.
She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists." Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.
According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote. Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.
Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.
"You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions," Nordstrom's email stated.
"This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.
"Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi," he added. Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to 'normalize' operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."
Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills.
Democrats on the Oversight committee were sharply critical of Issa, the chairman, calling his investigation "extremely partisan."
"The chairman and his staff failed to consult with Democratic members prior to issuing public letters with unverified allegations, concealed witnesses and refused to make one hearing witness available to Democratic staff, withheld documents obtained by the committee during the investigation, and effectively excluded Democratic committee members from joining a poorly-planned congressional delegation to Libya," a Democratic memo said.
It said in the previous two years, House Republicans voted to cut the Obama administration's requests for embassy security by some $459 million.
The Democratic memo said Nordstrom told committee investigators that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses. He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low and that Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.
Issa had a phone conversation Monday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about the committee's investigation.
The FBI is still investigating the attack. Clinton also has named a State Department review panel to look into the security arrangements in Libya.
By BRADLEY KLAPPER and LARRY MARGASAK
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Briefing reporters ahead of a hotly anticipated congressional hearing Wednesday, State Department officials provided their most detailed rundown of how a peaceful day in Benghazi devolved into a sustained attack that involved multiple groups of men armed with weapons such as machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars over an expanse of more than a mile.
But asked about the administration's initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet, one official said, "That was not our conclusion." He called it a question for "others" to answer, without specifying. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, and provided no evidence that might suggest a case of spontaneous violence or angry protests that went too far.
The attack has become a major issue in the presidential campaign, featuring prominently in Republican candidate Mitt Romney's latest foreign policy address on Monday. He called it an example of President Barack Obama's weakness in foreign policy matters, noting: "As the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists."
The administration counters that it has provided its best intelligence on the attack, and that it refined its explanation as more information came to light. But five days after the attack, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, gave a series of interviews saying the administration believed the violence was unplanned and that extremists with heavier weapons "hijacked" the protest and turned it into an outright attack.
She has since denied trying to mislead Congress, and a concurrent CIA memo that was obtained by The Associated Press cited intelligence suggesting the demonstrations in Benghazi "were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" and "evolved into a direct assault" on the diplomatic posts by "extremists." Alongside defining the nature of the Benghazi attack, Congress is looking into whether adequate security was in place.
According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote. Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.
Nordstrom is among the witnesses set to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. According to the panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and the head of a subcommittee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the State Department refused repeated requests to provide more security for U.S. diplomats in Libya.
"You will note that there were a number of incidents that targeted diplomatic missions and underscored the GoL's (government of Libya) inability to secure and protect diplomatic missions," Nordstrom's email stated.
"This was a significant part of (the diplomatic) post's and my argument for maintaining continued DS (diplomatic security) and DOD (Department of Defense) security assets into Sept/Oct. 2012; the GoL was overwhelmed and could not guarantee our protection.
"Sadly, that point was reaffirmed on Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi," he added. Nordstrom said the incidents demonstrated that security in Libya was fragile and could degrade quickly. He added that Libya was "certainly not an environment where (the diplomatic) post would be directed to 'normalize' operations and reduce security resources in accordance with an artificial time table."
Nordstrom also said diplomats in Libya were told not to request an extension of a 16-member special operations military team that left in August, according to an official of the Oversight panel. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and thus spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
The State Department has said it never received a request to extend the military team beyond August, and added that its members were replaced with a security team that had the same skills.
Democrats on the Oversight committee were sharply critical of Issa, the chairman, calling his investigation "extremely partisan."
"The chairman and his staff failed to consult with Democratic members prior to issuing public letters with unverified allegations, concealed witnesses and refused to make one hearing witness available to Democratic staff, withheld documents obtained by the committee during the investigation, and effectively excluded Democratic committee members from joining a poorly-planned congressional delegation to Libya," a Democratic memo said.
It said in the previous two years, House Republicans voted to cut the Obama administration's requests for embassy security by some $459 million.
The Democratic memo said Nordstrom told committee investigators that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses. He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low and that Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.
Issa had a phone conversation Monday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton about the committee's investigation.
The FBI is still investigating the attack. Clinton also has named a State Department review panel to look into the security arrangements in Libya.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Neither the President nor the Vice President can count to four
Original Post: ABC News
by Mary Bruce and Jake Tapper
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — After bashing Mitt Romney’s “bad math” tax plan all day, it looks like President Obama is also having some trouble adding things up.
It’s a standard part of the president’s stump speech to tout his plan to create jobs by rewarding companies that make goods “stamped with three proud words: Made in America.” Rallying supporters in Kissimmee, Fla., Saturday, however, the president said this: “We can create a million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years, because we’re selling goods around the world stamped with three proud words: Made in the USA.” For those counting, that’s more than just three words.
The president repeated the flub again today in Melbourne, Fla., once again rallying supporters to back his plan to “change our tax code so we stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.”
“Let’s reward them for investing in new plants and equipment here in the U.S., and training new workers here in the U.S. … creating jobs right here in the U.S., making products that we sell around the world stamped with three proud words: Made in the USA. That’s what we’re fighting for. That’s the future we want,” he said as the crowd chanted three proud letters, “U-S-A!”
And you'll all remember this one.
Dan Quayle was ridiculed for years for using an archaic albiet correct spelling of potato. Let's recap the things the president doesn't know.
How many states are in America.
How long he's allowed to serve as president.
How big the deficit is.
And finally how to count to four. Truly amazing.
by Mary Bruce and Jake Tapper
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — After bashing Mitt Romney’s “bad math” tax plan all day, it looks like President Obama is also having some trouble adding things up.
It’s a standard part of the president’s stump speech to tout his plan to create jobs by rewarding companies that make goods “stamped with three proud words: Made in America.” Rallying supporters in Kissimmee, Fla., Saturday, however, the president said this: “We can create a million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years, because we’re selling goods around the world stamped with three proud words: Made in the USA.” For those counting, that’s more than just three words.
The president repeated the flub again today in Melbourne, Fla., once again rallying supporters to back his plan to “change our tax code so we stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas.”
“Let’s reward them for investing in new plants and equipment here in the U.S., and training new workers here in the U.S. … creating jobs right here in the U.S., making products that we sell around the world stamped with three proud words: Made in the USA. That’s what we’re fighting for. That’s the future we want,” he said as the crowd chanted three proud letters, “U-S-A!”
And you'll all remember this one.
Dan Quayle was ridiculed for years for using an archaic albiet correct spelling of potato. Let's recap the things the president doesn't know.
How many states are in America.
How long he's allowed to serve as president.
How big the deficit is.
And finally how to count to four. Truly amazing.
Stupid Obama voters
Four years later.
It troubles me that one of those people's votes will cancel out mine.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Occupy wall street protester shits on civil servant's car
Original Post: The Blaze
The Daily Mail obtained this photo of an unidentified male who appears to be defecating on a New York City patrol car during the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street” protests.
The Daily Mail reported:
According to eye witnesses, when people ran to tell nearby police about the man defecating on the squad car they were ignored.
Standing downwind of the piles of rubbish, bankers walking past the man did a double take before hurrying away.
The shocking photo surfaced one day after Brookfield Office Properties — which owns the private Zuccotti Park where the protesters are camped out — railed against the protesters and said the park has reached unsanitary levels as a result of the cramped occupation, CBS reported.
According to the network, the property company cannot simply kick the demonstrators out because the park’s charter allows 24-hour public access.
“Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every week night,” they said in a statement. “Because the protestors refuse to cooperate…the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”
Have You Seen the Photo of the Wall Street Protester Defecating on a Cop Car?
The Daily Mail reported:
According to eye witnesses, when people ran to tell nearby police about the man defecating on the squad car they were ignored.
Standing downwind of the piles of rubbish, bankers walking past the man did a double take before hurrying away.
The shocking photo surfaced one day after Brookfield Office Properties — which owns the private Zuccotti Park where the protesters are camped out — railed against the protesters and said the park has reached unsanitary levels as a result of the cramped occupation, CBS reported.
According to the network, the property company cannot simply kick the demonstrators out because the park’s charter allows 24-hour public access.
“Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every week night,” they said in a statement. “Because the protestors refuse to cooperate…the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16th and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels.”
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Neither our VP nor our President can count
You may remember this.
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it." - Barack Obama
And this one.
“Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S,” the Democratic veep nominee said at a morning rally in Athens." - Vice President Joe Biden
Here we go again. Proving this administration can't count up to double digits. But the media will still claim that Sarah Palin is the dumb one for what someone lampooning her on SNL said.
Original Post: .Human Events
An interview with George Stephanopoulos. by John Hayward 10/04/2011
ABC News has posted a full transcript of President Obama’s October 3rd interview with George Stephanopoulos. It’s the one where he says Solyndra was “a good bet.” That incredible comment doesn’t sound any better in the context of the full interview.
Much of the interview is the same old tedious nonsense that has made Barack Obama one of the most boring speakers in public life. I wonder how many of his girlish pants-crease devotees thought he’d be ridiculed as a human-sized dose of Valium before his term was done. He just says the same things, over and over again, no matter how absurd or thoroughly debunked they’ve been. Evidently, he thinks repetition produces hypnotic effects.
Thus, we have yet more whining about what a tough job Obama consented to accept, when the American people persuaded him to take the Oval Office in 2008. Told by Stephanopoulos that many people “simply don’t think they’re better off than they were four years ago,” the President responds:
Well, I don't think they're better off than they were four years ago. They're not better off than they were before Lehman's collapse, before the financial crisis-- before this extraordinary recession we're going through. I think that-- what we've seen is that we've been able to make steady progress to stabilize the economy.
It’s not his fault, he just got here, and he’s ready to roll up his sleeves and get to work! What on Earth does the Lehman’s collapse have to do with passing a job-killing health care bill, imposing a job-killing moratorium on offshore drilling, sending the National Labor Relations Board to kill jobs in South Carolina, and handing billions to Obama cronies so they can produce 3500 “green jobs” at a cost of $4.8 million apiece?
Naturally, Obama follows this forget-my-record appeal with a fresh demand to pass his silly jobs bill, which currently cannot attract any Democrat sponsors in the House, thanks to their mortal terror of being associated with job-smashing tax increases. The man who skated through the entire debt-ceiling crisis without any concrete proposals takes to whining that he’s the only one with a plan, after Stephanopoulos tells him House GOP leader Eric Cantor thinks Obama’s “all or nothing approach” on his jobs bill is “unreasonable”:
Now if he's got other ideas, we're happy to look at those other ideas. But what-- what I think the American people cannot abide by is us doing nothing. We can't sit here and pretend that somehow-- you know, Washington just cutting spending, in and of itself, is going to be putting people back to work.
Well, heck, I can agree with the President there. Let’s not “pretend” that cutting spending will put people back to work. Let’s do it, right now, and see what happens. We’ll repeal the President’s job-killing health care disaster, defund job-devouring agencies like the EPA, pass some pro-growth tax cuts, and see how employment looks. That’s the one thing we never actually do: cut government spending. We’ve never tried it.
We know Obama’s policies are disastrous, but we’ve never tried the alternative of turning off the money and regulatory spigots in Washington, and giving economic liberty a chance to bloom. Everyone who suggests that simple approach is dismissed as unserious by default. Where’s Eric Cantor’s trillion dollar tax hike, $450 billion spending plan, and $200 billion infrastructure bank? He doesn’t have one? Why, he doesn’t have a “plan” at all!
As is his tiresome custom, Obama demanded more money for “infrastructure,” and appeared to catch himself during a clumsy attempt to refer back to his expensive photo-op at the Brent Spence Bridge in Ohio, which even the local papers were quick to point out would not be affected in any way by the President’s new “stimulus” bill:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And, you know, for example, you talk to Republican governors, Republican mayors, and they'll tell you that the need for them to rebuild roads and bridges, including some-- you know, that-- I visited in-- in-- in Virginia, but also-- some that I've visited-- between Kentucky and Ohio, where-- both-- Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell hail from-- those are projects that need to happen anyway. Why not do them now at a time when we've got construction workers out of work, contractors-- are able to come in under budget, on time. This is the time to do it.
Thanks for reminding us that you blew a couple million dollars of taxpayer money, and snarled local traffic for hours, to pull a stupid political stunt at a bridge chosen entirely because two specific politicians hail from the states on either end of it, Mr. President. How do we get you to stop burning through our money again? Oh, that’s right, we vote you out of office next year.
Comedy gold was struck during this exchange, which would become an immortal moment in political history, casually referenced in popular entertainment years from now, if a Republican had said it:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We actually got a great question on Twitter about 2008. It's from Gale Glover, and he asks, "If hope and change define the 2008 campaign, what two words are going to make-- are going to define 2012?"
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I-- you know, I haven't quite boiled it down to a bumper sticker yet. But I think what'll-- define 2012 is-- you know, our vision for the future. That's three words. Four.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It's five, actually.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: ...Vision for the future. Four. There is-- going to be a contest of values and-- and vision in 2012.
After stammering his way through an uncomfortable question about the undeniable divisiveness of his new class warfare re-election campaign, Barack the Mad resurfaced, with the kind of delusion that makes you wonder how far off the deep end a President can go before questions must be asked about his mental fitness for office:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: --the-- well, the-- you know, the way it's going to change is because the American people are gonna have the say about where we want to go, you know? They're going to have a decision to make. And they're going to say to themselves, "You know what? President Obama wanted to reduce the deficit by not only cutting spending, as he's already done, but also by making sure that-- the most fortunate in our society are paying their fair share. That we're closing corporate loopholes that small businesses don't get. The Republicans have said no to that." Well, that's a contrast in approaches. And-- you know, when you tick down which approach the American people generally prefer, they'll say mine.
Federal spending 2008: $2.9 trillion. Federal spending 2011: $3.8 trillion. How do you like those wonderful Obama “spending cuts?” And the public agrees with the Obama approach so much that they’ve given him rock-bottom approval ratings.
Surprisingly, Stephanopoulos asked Obama about the “Durbin tax,” the regressive tax Democrats slapped on the poor by using raw government power to distort the financial system on behalf of retail industry lobbyists. Obama disintegrated into the kind of incoherent stammering that characterizes most of his off-teleprompter speeches these days:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- what we did was we put a stop through-- The Financial Reform Act of them charging fees-- for credit cards.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And the banks are saying--
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And so-- Well-- what-- what the banks are saying is-- that "Rather than take a little bit less of a profit. Rather than paying multimillion dollar bonuses. Let's treat our customers right." And this is exactly why we need this consumer finance-- protection bureau that we set up that is ready to go.
When Stephanopoulos asked if these bank surcharges could be “stopped,” Obama displayed the stunning appreciation for American economic liberty that has made him such a remarkable leader:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you can stop it because it-- if you-- if you say to the banks, "You don't have some inherent right just to-- you know, get a certain amount of profit. If your customers-- are being mistreated. That you have to treat them fairly and transparently." And-- and my hope is is that you're going to see a bunch of-- the banks, who say to themselves, "You know what? This is actually not good business practice."
Banks can make money. They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning it. By lending to small businesses. By lending to consumers. By making sure that-- you know, we are building the economy together. But-- you know, without the kinds of protections that we're starting to see the Republicans try to roll back-- we're going to continue to have these kinds of problems. And this is exactly-- the sort of stuff that folks are frustrated by. This, by the way, is an example of the-- the contrasting visions that we have. If-- if-- if-- the Republican Party believes that we should do nothing to curb abuses on Wall Street and roll back regulations put in place to prevent the next big financial crisis, well, I've got a big difference with them. And I think the American people are going to be on my side on that. No, the Financial Reform Act had nothing to do with preventing banks from charging fees for credit cards or debit cards. It capped the fees banks can charge retailers, which is why many Americans suddenly found themselves paying surcharges for debit card usage and checking over the past few weeks.
Obama’s solution, of course, is bigger government. “You don’t have some inherent right to, you know, get a certain amount of profit?” He’s always been an absurd joke as a “constitutional scholar,” but now I’m starting to wonder if we’ve just been misinformed about which national Constitution he supposedly studied.
You’ll get the same answer out of his successors if we don’t repeal ObamaCare, and it destroys the private insurance industry. The only solution to that government-mandated disaster will be a huge increase in the size of government, as the health industry is nationalized. Obama’s right that Americans face a stark choice in 2012. Choosing Obama means choosing a death spiral of Big Government failure, followed by urgent demands to accept Titanic Government as our savior.
Anyone foolish enough to have believed Obama when he said he was opposed to gay marriage will be shocked to know his position is “evolving” into whatever will get him the most votes in 2012:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you've said your position is evolving. You said you're struggling with it. What more do you need to know?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- you know-- I probably won't-- make news right now, George. But I-- I think that there's no doubt that-- as I see-- friends, families-- children of gay couples-- who are thriving-- you know, that-- that has an impact on how I think about these issues. It's also one of the reasons that I made the decision for us not to defend-- The Defense of Marriage Act, which-- I believe violated the Constitution. And, you know, is going to be-- decided in the courts probably-- in the next-- next few terms.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You think you'll change your mind before the election?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know-- I-- I'm-- I'm-- still working on it.
The President made the horse-laugh claim that he’s the “underdog” in the upcoming election, as if the incumbent President of the United States somehow has fewer electoral advantages than his as-yet-undetermined opponent. On the other hand, I wouldn’t envy anyone who has to run on the Obama record. The history he keeps insisting Americans should forget casts a long shadow.
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it." - Barack Obama
And this one.
“Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S,” the Democratic veep nominee said at a morning rally in Athens." - Vice President Joe Biden
Here we go again. Proving this administration can't count up to double digits. But the media will still claim that Sarah Palin is the dumb one for what someone lampooning her on SNL said.
Obama’s Three Words To Define The Future
Original Post: .Human Events
An interview with George Stephanopoulos. by John Hayward 10/04/2011
ABC News has posted a full transcript of President Obama’s October 3rd interview with George Stephanopoulos. It’s the one where he says Solyndra was “a good bet.” That incredible comment doesn’t sound any better in the context of the full interview.
Much of the interview is the same old tedious nonsense that has made Barack Obama one of the most boring speakers in public life. I wonder how many of his girlish pants-crease devotees thought he’d be ridiculed as a human-sized dose of Valium before his term was done. He just says the same things, over and over again, no matter how absurd or thoroughly debunked they’ve been. Evidently, he thinks repetition produces hypnotic effects.
Thus, we have yet more whining about what a tough job Obama consented to accept, when the American people persuaded him to take the Oval Office in 2008. Told by Stephanopoulos that many people “simply don’t think they’re better off than they were four years ago,” the President responds:
Well, I don't think they're better off than they were four years ago. They're not better off than they were before Lehman's collapse, before the financial crisis-- before this extraordinary recession we're going through. I think that-- what we've seen is that we've been able to make steady progress to stabilize the economy.
It’s not his fault, he just got here, and he’s ready to roll up his sleeves and get to work! What on Earth does the Lehman’s collapse have to do with passing a job-killing health care bill, imposing a job-killing moratorium on offshore drilling, sending the National Labor Relations Board to kill jobs in South Carolina, and handing billions to Obama cronies so they can produce 3500 “green jobs” at a cost of $4.8 million apiece?
Naturally, Obama follows this forget-my-record appeal with a fresh demand to pass his silly jobs bill, which currently cannot attract any Democrat sponsors in the House, thanks to their mortal terror of being associated with job-smashing tax increases. The man who skated through the entire debt-ceiling crisis without any concrete proposals takes to whining that he’s the only one with a plan, after Stephanopoulos tells him House GOP leader Eric Cantor thinks Obama’s “all or nothing approach” on his jobs bill is “unreasonable”:
Now if he's got other ideas, we're happy to look at those other ideas. But what-- what I think the American people cannot abide by is us doing nothing. We can't sit here and pretend that somehow-- you know, Washington just cutting spending, in and of itself, is going to be putting people back to work.
Well, heck, I can agree with the President there. Let’s not “pretend” that cutting spending will put people back to work. Let’s do it, right now, and see what happens. We’ll repeal the President’s job-killing health care disaster, defund job-devouring agencies like the EPA, pass some pro-growth tax cuts, and see how employment looks. That’s the one thing we never actually do: cut government spending. We’ve never tried it.
We know Obama’s policies are disastrous, but we’ve never tried the alternative of turning off the money and regulatory spigots in Washington, and giving economic liberty a chance to bloom. Everyone who suggests that simple approach is dismissed as unserious by default. Where’s Eric Cantor’s trillion dollar tax hike, $450 billion spending plan, and $200 billion infrastructure bank? He doesn’t have one? Why, he doesn’t have a “plan” at all!
As is his tiresome custom, Obama demanded more money for “infrastructure,” and appeared to catch himself during a clumsy attempt to refer back to his expensive photo-op at the Brent Spence Bridge in Ohio, which even the local papers were quick to point out would not be affected in any way by the President’s new “stimulus” bill:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And, you know, for example, you talk to Republican governors, Republican mayors, and they'll tell you that the need for them to rebuild roads and bridges, including some-- you know, that-- I visited in-- in-- in Virginia, but also-- some that I've visited-- between Kentucky and Ohio, where-- both-- Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell hail from-- those are projects that need to happen anyway. Why not do them now at a time when we've got construction workers out of work, contractors-- are able to come in under budget, on time. This is the time to do it.
Thanks for reminding us that you blew a couple million dollars of taxpayer money, and snarled local traffic for hours, to pull a stupid political stunt at a bridge chosen entirely because two specific politicians hail from the states on either end of it, Mr. President. How do we get you to stop burning through our money again? Oh, that’s right, we vote you out of office next year.
Comedy gold was struck during this exchange, which would become an immortal moment in political history, casually referenced in popular entertainment years from now, if a Republican had said it:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We actually got a great question on Twitter about 2008. It's from Gale Glover, and he asks, "If hope and change define the 2008 campaign, what two words are going to make-- are going to define 2012?"
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I-- you know, I haven't quite boiled it down to a bumper sticker yet. But I think what'll-- define 2012 is-- you know, our vision for the future. That's three words. Four.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It's five, actually.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: ...Vision for the future. Four. There is-- going to be a contest of values and-- and vision in 2012.
After stammering his way through an uncomfortable question about the undeniable divisiveness of his new class warfare re-election campaign, Barack the Mad resurfaced, with the kind of delusion that makes you wonder how far off the deep end a President can go before questions must be asked about his mental fitness for office:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: --the-- well, the-- you know, the way it's going to change is because the American people are gonna have the say about where we want to go, you know? They're going to have a decision to make. And they're going to say to themselves, "You know what? President Obama wanted to reduce the deficit by not only cutting spending, as he's already done, but also by making sure that-- the most fortunate in our society are paying their fair share. That we're closing corporate loopholes that small businesses don't get. The Republicans have said no to that." Well, that's a contrast in approaches. And-- you know, when you tick down which approach the American people generally prefer, they'll say mine.
Federal spending 2008: $2.9 trillion. Federal spending 2011: $3.8 trillion. How do you like those wonderful Obama “spending cuts?” And the public agrees with the Obama approach so much that they’ve given him rock-bottom approval ratings.
Surprisingly, Stephanopoulos asked Obama about the “Durbin tax,” the regressive tax Democrats slapped on the poor by using raw government power to distort the financial system on behalf of retail industry lobbyists. Obama disintegrated into the kind of incoherent stammering that characterizes most of his off-teleprompter speeches these days:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- what we did was we put a stop through-- The Financial Reform Act of them charging fees-- for credit cards.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And the banks are saying--
PRESIDENT OBAMA: And so-- Well-- what-- what the banks are saying is-- that "Rather than take a little bit less of a profit. Rather than paying multimillion dollar bonuses. Let's treat our customers right." And this is exactly why we need this consumer finance-- protection bureau that we set up that is ready to go.
When Stephanopoulos asked if these bank surcharges could be “stopped,” Obama displayed the stunning appreciation for American economic liberty that has made him such a remarkable leader:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you can stop it because it-- if you-- if you say to the banks, "You don't have some inherent right just to-- you know, get a certain amount of profit. If your customers-- are being mistreated. That you have to treat them fairly and transparently." And-- and my hope is is that you're going to see a bunch of-- the banks, who say to themselves, "You know what? This is actually not good business practice."
Banks can make money. They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning it. By lending to small businesses. By lending to consumers. By making sure that-- you know, we are building the economy together. But-- you know, without the kinds of protections that we're starting to see the Republicans try to roll back-- we're going to continue to have these kinds of problems. And this is exactly-- the sort of stuff that folks are frustrated by. This, by the way, is an example of the-- the contrasting visions that we have. If-- if-- if-- the Republican Party believes that we should do nothing to curb abuses on Wall Street and roll back regulations put in place to prevent the next big financial crisis, well, I've got a big difference with them. And I think the American people are going to be on my side on that. No, the Financial Reform Act had nothing to do with preventing banks from charging fees for credit cards or debit cards. It capped the fees banks can charge retailers, which is why many Americans suddenly found themselves paying surcharges for debit card usage and checking over the past few weeks.
Obama’s solution, of course, is bigger government. “You don’t have some inherent right to, you know, get a certain amount of profit?” He’s always been an absurd joke as a “constitutional scholar,” but now I’m starting to wonder if we’ve just been misinformed about which national Constitution he supposedly studied.
You’ll get the same answer out of his successors if we don’t repeal ObamaCare, and it destroys the private insurance industry. The only solution to that government-mandated disaster will be a huge increase in the size of government, as the health industry is nationalized. Obama’s right that Americans face a stark choice in 2012. Choosing Obama means choosing a death spiral of Big Government failure, followed by urgent demands to accept Titanic Government as our savior.
Anyone foolish enough to have believed Obama when he said he was opposed to gay marriage will be shocked to know his position is “evolving” into whatever will get him the most votes in 2012:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you've said your position is evolving. You said you're struggling with it. What more do you need to know?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well-- you know-- I probably won't-- make news right now, George. But I-- I think that there's no doubt that-- as I see-- friends, families-- children of gay couples-- who are thriving-- you know, that-- that has an impact on how I think about these issues. It's also one of the reasons that I made the decision for us not to defend-- The Defense of Marriage Act, which-- I believe violated the Constitution. And, you know, is going to be-- decided in the courts probably-- in the next-- next few terms.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You think you'll change your mind before the election?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know-- I-- I'm-- I'm-- still working on it.
The President made the horse-laugh claim that he’s the “underdog” in the upcoming election, as if the incumbent President of the United States somehow has fewer electoral advantages than his as-yet-undetermined opponent. On the other hand, I wouldn’t envy anyone who has to run on the Obama record. The history he keeps insisting Americans should forget casts a long shadow.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Obama: We’re the Country that Built the Intercontinental Railroad!
Original Post: Lonely Conservative
President Obama must have gone off the old ‘prompter while speaking at the bridge that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being one of his shovel ready stimulus jobs. His gaffe occurred while talking about all of the great things we used to do here in the United States, and all of the great things they do in China and Europe. But first, here’s Andrew Malcolm’s lead-in.
So here’s how the ex-state senator from the Chicago machine reacts: At an operating cost of $181,000 per hour, he flies Air Force One nearly four hours roundtrip for 17 minutes of remarks touting infrastructure repairs by a bridge that doesn’t need them.
The real reason he’s at the Brent Spence Bridge is because it links the home states of both congressional Republican leaders, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. So Obama can cutely blame Republicans for holding up his jobs bill, even though it’s Nevada Democrat Harry Reid.
Obama turns the empty rhetoric into a pep rally for himself, leading the obedient audience to chant, “Pass this bill! Pass this bill!”
This guy, who will ride around in Secret Service SUVs for the rest of his life, has this thing for railroads that other people should ride in. So, according to the White House transcript (scroll down for full version and related stories), here’s what passes for Obama leadership:
And now, the gaffe! Drum roll, please!
Now, we used to have the best infrastructure in the world here in America. We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad, the Interstate Highway System. We built the Hoover Dam. We built the Grand Central Station.
So how can we now sit back and let China build the best railroads? And let Europe build the best highways? And have Singapore build a nicer airport?
Intercontinental railroad? To where? And what’s this business about China having the best railroads? Really?
So here’s how the ex-state senator from the Chicago machine reacts: At an operating cost of $181,000 per hour, he flies Air Force One nearly four hours roundtrip for 17 minutes of remarks touting infrastructure repairs by a bridge that doesn’t need them.
The real reason he’s at the Brent Spence Bridge is because it links the home states of both congressional Republican leaders, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. So Obama can cutely blame Republicans for holding up his jobs bill, even though it’s Nevada Democrat Harry Reid.
Obama turns the empty rhetoric into a pep rally for himself, leading the obedient audience to chant, “Pass this bill! Pass this bill!”
This guy, who will ride around in Secret Service SUVs for the rest of his life, has this thing for railroads that other people should ride in. So, according to the White House transcript (scroll down for full version and related stories), here’s what passes for Obama leadership:
And now, the gaffe! Drum roll, please!
Now, we used to have the best infrastructure in the world here in America. We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad, the Interstate Highway System. We built the Hoover Dam. We built the Grand Central Station.
So how can we now sit back and let China build the best railroads? And let Europe build the best highways? And have Singapore build a nicer airport?
Intercontinental railroad? To where? And what’s this business about China having the best railroads? Really?
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Comrades! President Obama Is Just Another Black Man Redlined By Racist Credit Agencies!
Original Post: Big Government
I would like to think Der Kimmissar is being ironic, but based on lefty rhetoric as of late I doubt it.
by Der Kommissar
Racism! That’s what is to blame, comrades, for Standard & Poor’s dastardly downgrade of America’s credit rating. Don’t be fooled by the benign appearance of “AA+”. Those A’s are meant to make us feel better. But we know when we’re being graded on a curve just for the sake of affirmative action. We hear the racist condescension in that “plus.”
What S&P really meant to say was “F”–to which, comrades, we must declare: “F you, too!”
Decades of reckless federal spending and expanding government–and now the rating agencies have a problem with it?
Robert Henderson, Jr. said it best at The Grio–NBC’s segregated, er, special section for black opinion and commentary: “…America’s credit will have been downgraded for the first time, with a black man in the White House, potentially reinforcing the stereotype that black people are poor money managers.”
Could the racism be any more obvious? The moneylenders and their media–yeah, I said it!–have put up with the profligacy of irresponsible white presidents forever.
Every single white president for generations has raised the debt ceiling over and over again. George W. Bush declared war on the world at a cost of trillions of dollars we simply didn’t have. Along comes a black president–and look what happens. Panic! Downgrade!
Comrades! President Obama predicted this, long before his glorious victory, when he warned that our enemies would tell voters he “doesn’t look like all those presidents on the dollar bills.” Now that he has won, they are attacking the dollar bill itself!
Of course the Tea Party terrorists are partly to blame. They are racist to the core, the reincarnation of the Ku Klux Klan in the post-Civil War South, imitating the Nazi party, which leveraged its political minority into absolute power.
But the Teabaggers are being manipulated by larger forces–by the very capitalists who invented racism to divide the poor, by the rating agencies that created the subprime mortgage crisis to begin with!
Our president is a victim of the same tricks that the rating agencies and the big banks used for decades when they redlined entire neighborhoods out of the mortgage market. They said it was for economic reasons, but the real motive was primitive racism.
Our heroic president lent his legal talents to ACORN when they took on the big banks and their economic apartheid back then. They’ve wanted their racist revenge ever since.
And they’re getting it. They’re foreclosing on the very people that Obama and ACORN helped to get housing loans in the first place. Now we’re told those homeowners should never have received mortgages because they couldn’t pay them back–because some of them didn’t even have jobs.
Oh, yeah? Does Mitt Romney have a job? Or how about George W. Bush, who bankrupted every business he ever ran? Did he get a house? RACISM!
And let’s not mention a $2 trillion error that S&P made when they announced their downgrade. (Never mind the fact that $2 trillion is basically a rounding error when you consider the long-term liabilities that decades of white presidents have left us.) That $2 trillion “mistake” is no accident–it’s just proof the rating agencies care about race more than they care about the numbers.
Comrades: there’s only one solution to the racism of the rating agencies. We can no longer trust the U.S. government–we have to go straight to the United Nations, where so-called white nations are a small minority.
We must demand the UN General Assembly pass a Communism Reinvestment Act that will force international lenders to devote a portion of their assets to helping countries that have chosen big government policies. They must spread the wealth around!
Comrades! We must put an end to ratings agency redlining and racism! We must pass a Communism Reinvestment Act! We must never let the racist Republicans repossess our country!
I would like to think Der Kimmissar is being ironic, but based on lefty rhetoric as of late I doubt it.
by Der Kommissar
Racism! That’s what is to blame, comrades, for Standard & Poor’s dastardly downgrade of America’s credit rating. Don’t be fooled by the benign appearance of “AA+”. Those A’s are meant to make us feel better. But we know when we’re being graded on a curve just for the sake of affirmative action. We hear the racist condescension in that “plus.”
What S&P really meant to say was “F”–to which, comrades, we must declare: “F you, too!”
Decades of reckless federal spending and expanding government–and now the rating agencies have a problem with it?
Robert Henderson, Jr. said it best at The Grio–NBC’s segregated, er, special section for black opinion and commentary: “…America’s credit will have been downgraded for the first time, with a black man in the White House, potentially reinforcing the stereotype that black people are poor money managers.”
Could the racism be any more obvious? The moneylenders and their media–yeah, I said it!–have put up with the profligacy of irresponsible white presidents forever.
Every single white president for generations has raised the debt ceiling over and over again. George W. Bush declared war on the world at a cost of trillions of dollars we simply didn’t have. Along comes a black president–and look what happens. Panic! Downgrade!
Comrades! President Obama predicted this, long before his glorious victory, when he warned that our enemies would tell voters he “doesn’t look like all those presidents on the dollar bills.” Now that he has won, they are attacking the dollar bill itself!
Of course the Tea Party terrorists are partly to blame. They are racist to the core, the reincarnation of the Ku Klux Klan in the post-Civil War South, imitating the Nazi party, which leveraged its political minority into absolute power.
But the Teabaggers are being manipulated by larger forces–by the very capitalists who invented racism to divide the poor, by the rating agencies that created the subprime mortgage crisis to begin with!
Our president is a victim of the same tricks that the rating agencies and the big banks used for decades when they redlined entire neighborhoods out of the mortgage market. They said it was for economic reasons, but the real motive was primitive racism.
Our heroic president lent his legal talents to ACORN when they took on the big banks and their economic apartheid back then. They’ve wanted their racist revenge ever since.
And they’re getting it. They’re foreclosing on the very people that Obama and ACORN helped to get housing loans in the first place. Now we’re told those homeowners should never have received mortgages because they couldn’t pay them back–because some of them didn’t even have jobs.
Oh, yeah? Does Mitt Romney have a job? Or how about George W. Bush, who bankrupted every business he ever ran? Did he get a house? RACISM!
And let’s not mention a $2 trillion error that S&P made when they announced their downgrade. (Never mind the fact that $2 trillion is basically a rounding error when you consider the long-term liabilities that decades of white presidents have left us.) That $2 trillion “mistake” is no accident–it’s just proof the rating agencies care about race more than they care about the numbers.
Comrades: there’s only one solution to the racism of the rating agencies. We can no longer trust the U.S. government–we have to go straight to the United Nations, where so-called white nations are a small minority.
We must demand the UN General Assembly pass a Communism Reinvestment Act that will force international lenders to devote a portion of their assets to helping countries that have chosen big government policies. They must spread the wealth around!
Comrades! We must put an end to ratings agency redlining and racism! We must pass a Communism Reinvestment Act! We must never let the racist Republicans repossess our country!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Obama Blames ATMs for Unemployment, Rather than Himself
Original Post: Associated Content
Casting around for someone or something to blame other than himself for long-term unemployment, President Barack Obama told NBC News that one culprit is automated telling machines (ATMs), which are taking jobs from bank tellers, according to Fox Nation.
"There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."
People have been blaming technology for taking away people's jobs ever since the luddites attacked mechanized looms in early 19th century England. The notion is fallacious now as it was then. By promoting efficiency and expanding consumer choice, technology like ATMs spur economic growth and thus job creation.
Jonah Goldberg, writing in National Review, makes this very point about ATMs and bank tellers:
"I'm not sure how you can possibly blame ATMs. Aside from the myriad ways in which ATMs boost efficiency, liquidity, consumer spending (and don't forget all of the jobs created for technicians and manufacturers of ATM machines), I'm not sure you can even blame a drop in bank teller jobs on bank machines. This is just a quick take, but just think about it for two seconds. The number of bank branches has soared in recent years. Those branches need human tellers (and bank machines). That's why the BLS predicted that teller jobs would grow about 6% from 2008 to 2018 (it predicted other banking jobs would grow as well)."
Goldberg also notes that both the number of ATMs and bank tellers has grown between 1985 and 2002, thus invalidating President Obama's point.
Obama was obviously making an attempt to shift blame from himself to the growth of automation. However, the disquieting thought occurs that perhaps the president will take this theme to heart and enact regulations restricting the use of automation in favor of human workers.
One would almost laugh at the idea, but it is no more absurd than the stimulus bill, health care reform, or cash for clunkers. Trying to inhibit automation by government fiat is just the sort of social engineering that the president and his people love to engage in.
One suspects that the president, should he run with this, will pretty up the proposal by calling it something like "American Jobs through Technological Restraint." Democrats in Congress will certainly grasp at this as a way to give jobs to angry constituents and thus quiet their unhappiness, making them want to vote for Democrats.
People who point out, as Goldberg does, that automation actually creates jobs in the long run will be accused of being cold and heartless and no doubt in the pay of robotics manufacturers. The unions, who will surely want to organize these retro workers, will certainly be all for the proposal as well.
All kidding aside, President Obama will almost certainly get a pass for this inanity, unlike what would have happened if it had come out of Sarah Palin's mouth. He is, after all, smart and, as his wife suggested, better prepared than the people who brief him on a daily basis. Thus, to paraphrase Orwell, stupidity is intelligence.
Casting around for someone or something to blame other than himself for long-term unemployment, President Barack Obama told NBC News that one culprit is automated telling machines (ATMs), which are taking jobs from bank tellers, according to Fox Nation.
"There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."
People have been blaming technology for taking away people's jobs ever since the luddites attacked mechanized looms in early 19th century England. The notion is fallacious now as it was then. By promoting efficiency and expanding consumer choice, technology like ATMs spur economic growth and thus job creation.
Jonah Goldberg, writing in National Review, makes this very point about ATMs and bank tellers:
"I'm not sure how you can possibly blame ATMs. Aside from the myriad ways in which ATMs boost efficiency, liquidity, consumer spending (and don't forget all of the jobs created for technicians and manufacturers of ATM machines), I'm not sure you can even blame a drop in bank teller jobs on bank machines. This is just a quick take, but just think about it for two seconds. The number of bank branches has soared in recent years. Those branches need human tellers (and bank machines). That's why the BLS predicted that teller jobs would grow about 6% from 2008 to 2018 (it predicted other banking jobs would grow as well)."
Goldberg also notes that both the number of ATMs and bank tellers has grown between 1985 and 2002, thus invalidating President Obama's point.
Obama was obviously making an attempt to shift blame from himself to the growth of automation. However, the disquieting thought occurs that perhaps the president will take this theme to heart and enact regulations restricting the use of automation in favor of human workers.
One would almost laugh at the idea, but it is no more absurd than the stimulus bill, health care reform, or cash for clunkers. Trying to inhibit automation by government fiat is just the sort of social engineering that the president and his people love to engage in.
One suspects that the president, should he run with this, will pretty up the proposal by calling it something like "American Jobs through Technological Restraint." Democrats in Congress will certainly grasp at this as a way to give jobs to angry constituents and thus quiet their unhappiness, making them want to vote for Democrats.
People who point out, as Goldberg does, that automation actually creates jobs in the long run will be accused of being cold and heartless and no doubt in the pay of robotics manufacturers. The unions, who will surely want to organize these retro workers, will certainly be all for the proposal as well.
All kidding aside, President Obama will almost certainly get a pass for this inanity, unlike what would have happened if it had come out of Sarah Palin's mouth. He is, after all, smart and, as his wife suggested, better prepared than the people who brief him on a daily basis. Thus, to paraphrase Orwell, stupidity is intelligence.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Senator Chuck Schumer doesn't know the 3 branches of government
The House, the Senate and the Presidency. Sigh. And this man is allowed to make decisions that create laws that rule my life. But why should I be surprised. Our President doesn't know how many states are in the U.S. or how long he's allowed to serve and our Vice President doesn't know how many letters is in the word "Jobs".
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Washington post reporter Ezra Klein can't read
"You can say two things about it [the Constitution], one that it has no binding power. And two. The issue with the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think their following. The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago and what people believes it says differs from person to person."
You can say that it has no binding power, but you'd be wrong.
Wow, just wow. No wonder he finds it so confusing. He doesn't know what it says. The Constitution is indeed binding. In fact, all other laws are subservient to the Constitution. He is one of the liberal intelligentsia elite, the wise the smart. Yet he can't figure out the language of the Constitution? Yes, it's a touch old. It's not really that hard. Just get yourself a dictionary for some of the more archaic terms and there you go. If you have an ounce of critical thinking skills you can infer the definitions from the context (that means what's going on in and around the sentence.
So I suppose if a document is to hard to read you can just make up what it says. But he has a job. Someone paid him to say that and other people (including myself) watched him say it. Oh, and I'm also given to understand that he's a Political Science Major. I'd get my money back if I were him.
Well, this is for the Ezra Kleins of the world who have a hard time reading.
And.
Apparently there is also a two year old child with greater comprehension of the Constitution than Ezra Klein
We all knew that there were two year olds with greater comprehension than Washington Post reporters, now we have proof. astoundingly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)