An interesting analysis and something to think about.
Perhaps The Problem Is Identified...
This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way.
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party.
Barack Obama is a lawyer.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer.
Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:
Harry Reid is a lawyer.
Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different.
President Bush is a businessman.
Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator.
Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer?
Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers.
Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail?
Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the leg al system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.
When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.
When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great.
When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America
Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789.
Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders.
Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy..
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business.
Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.
Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
The United States has 5% of the world's population and 66% of the world's lawyers!
Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as "spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you" and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits.
This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party.
When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something to HONESTLY think about....
I know Olias....I have NOT FACT CHECKED it...........it is just an email making the circuits....IF it passes YOUR scrutiny .... THEN it has some merit to it....
I anxiously await.... :razz:
He Was Supposed to Be Competent The spill is a disaster for the president and his political philosophy. I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.
There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this.
The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.
The American people have spent at least two years worrying that high government spending would, in the end, undo the republic. They saw the dollars gushing night and day, and worried that while everything looked the same on the surface, our position was eroding. They have worried about a border that is in some places functionally and of course illegally open, that it too is gushing night and day with problems that states, cities and towns there cannot solve.
And now we have a videotape metaphor for all the public's fears: that clip we see every day, on every news show, of the well gushing black oil into the Gulf of Mexico and toward our shore. You actually don't get deadlier as a metaphor for the moment than that, the monster that lives deep beneath the sea.
In his news conference Thursday, President Obama made his position no better. He attempted to act out passionate engagement through the use of heightened language—"catastrophe," etc.—but repeatedly took refuge in factual minutiae. His staff probably thought this demonstrated his command of even the most obscure facts. Instead it made him seem like someone who won't see the big picture. The unspoken mantra in his head must have been, "I will not be defensive, I will not give them a resentful soundbite." But his strategic problem was that he'd already lost the battle. If the well was plugged tomorrow, the damage will already have been done.
The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.
I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"
This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn't like about the Bush administration, everything it didn't like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush's incompetence and conservatives' failure to "believe in government." But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.
Remarkable too is the way both BP and the government, 40 days in, continue to act shocked, shocked that an accident like this could have happened. If you're drilling for oil in the deep sea, of course something terrible can happen, so you have a plan on what to do when it does.
How could there not have been a plan? How could it all be so ad hoc, so inadequate, so embarrassing? We're plugging it now with tires, mud and golf balls?
What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama's standing with Democrats. They don't love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president's Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.
The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration, and that is no cause for joy. It's not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort. It is not good for the stability of the world, or its safety, that the leader of "the indispensble nation" be so weakened. I never until the past 10 years understood the almost moral imperative that an American president maintain a high standing in the eyes of his countrymen.
Mr. Obama himself, when running for president, made much of Bush administration distraction and detachment during Katrina. Now the Republican Party will, understandably, go to town on Mr. Obama's having gone only once to the gulf, and the fund-raiser in San Francisco that seemed to take precedence, and the EPA chief who went to a New York fund-raiser in the middle of the disaster.
But Republicans should beware, and even mute their mischief. We're in the middle of an actual disaster. When they win back the presidency, they'll probably get the big California earthquake. And they'll probably blow it. Because, ironically enough, of a hard core of truth within their own philosophy: when you ask a government far away in Washington to handle everything, it will handle nothing well.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 28, 2010, 09:09:11 AM
This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. ...
There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity.
Wait a minute. You have the health-care battle as one, since the bill which finally emerged from the dust storm pleases no one. And maybe you can have the oil-spill -- although I think "dodging and dithering" is simply forced alliteration, rather than a statement of the actual problem. The failure of Minerals Management Service and other oversight agencies to actually oversee the off-shore production procedures and enforce compliance with regulation is the big culprit here, and they've been playing grab-ass with Big Oil for years, not just since the Obama administration took office. After all, what does she think the POTUS can do that he hasn't been doing? Stick his finger in the leak?
But how does the "day to day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration" fit the definition of a political disaster? For that matter, what
are "the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration?"
First there was that big stink over Arizona's new law. Now the POTUS says he is sending 1200 troops. Those are pretty recent though. Nonetheless, those who holler against profiling, and those who holler against parasites seem to me to be pretty evenly matched. Doesn't everybody have run around buying bread, milk and toilet paper before you can call an event a disaster?
It also hasn't been 18 months. Jan. 21, 2009 to May 28, 2010 is sixteen months and one week. Small point maybe, but exaggeration is exaggeration (and is often a lie.)
Peggy Noonan was the speech writer who wrote Bush the First's "Read My Lips; No New Taxes" speech. It seems over-statement of points is kind of a habit with her.
One thing that sticks in my crawl a little on this is one question she posses is;
How could there not have been a plan? How could it all be so ad hoc, so inadequate, so embarrassing? We're plugging it now with tires, mud and golf balls?
and this question is not just BP's or the Oil industry, but to the Administration? and to be fair, not just THIS administration but all of the previous AND Congress!!!...
but as the saying goes the buck stops here.............and so far ALL I have heard from the POTUS is his wonderful comment the other day was...."Stop the DAMN leak!"......now, maybe it is JUST me, but that is not very presidential, nor is it showing any leadership....
I agree that BP took the risk to drill in deep waters, and THEY allowed this mess to happen.....and THEY without a doubt should be 'paying' for ALL expenses to stop, clean and fix this disaster....but, Washington NEEDS to be doing EVERYTHING THEY can to expedite this problem......it is bigger than BP can handle......and bitchin at them will NOT fix it.
Boycotting them will NOT fix it......we need leadership.
Here is a quote by Dick Morris that to me, says alot about THIS President;
"Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush). Others because of their character flaws (Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (George H.W. Bush). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again."
Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/06/morris-the-incompetent-president.php#ixzz0phYlEPwY (http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/06/morris-the-incompetent-president.php#ixzz0phYlEPwY)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 02, 2010, 08:55:30 AM
One thing that sticks in my crawl a little on this is one question she posses is;
How could there not have been a plan? How could it all be so ad hoc, so inadequate, so embarrassing? We're plugging it now with tires, mud and golf balls?
and this question is not just BP's or the Oil industry, but to the Administration? and to be fair, not just THIS administration but all of the previous AND Congress!!!...
but as the saying goes the buck stops here.............and so far ALL I have heard from the POTUS is his wonderful comment the other day was...."Stop the DAMN leak!"......now, maybe it is JUST me, but that is not very presidential, nor is it showing any leadership....
I agree that BP took the risk to drill in deep waters, and THEY allowed this mess to happen.....and THEY without a doubt should be 'paying' for ALL expenses to stop, clean and fix this disaster....but, Washington NEEDS to be doing EVERYTHING THEY can to expedite this problem......it is bigger than BP can handle......and bitchin at them will NOT fix it.
Boycotting them will NOT fix it......we need leadership.
And your suggestion(s) is/are?
Quote from: followsthewolf on June 02, 2010, 09:54:26 AM
And your suggestion(s) is/are?
Well, IF, I was the leader of the most powerful naiton on earth, I would be calling in ALL the experts, for their ideas.....I would be having every contraption that sucks, cleans, pumps out there...doing everything it takes to keep this from harming Americans and their way of life....we have spent BILLION, no TRILLIONS on wars and pork, but all this guy seems to worry about is being SURE that BP is going to pay for this and blah, blah , blah.....we need to see some action....BP is struggling with this, they need help!!...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 02, 2010, 10:04:12 AM
Well, IF, I was the leader of the most powerful naiton on earth, I would be calling in ALL the experts, for their ideas.....I would be having every contraption that sucks, cleans, pumps out there...doing everything it takes to keep this from harming Americans and their way of life....we have spent BILLION, no TRILLIONS on wars and pork, but all this guy seems to worry about is being SURE that BP is going to pay for this and blah, blah , blah.....we need to see some action....BP is struggling with this, they need help!!...
And you think US government has not called in every resource in the world to try to stop this? Why do you think that?
The POTUS harps on the fact that BP is going to pay for all of this because that is the foremost club his detractors pick up to try to beat him with, and they still do. . . If he did not highlight that fact the opposition would be clubbing him a lot more too, saying that he doesn't care. . . What a load of emotional flotsam. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 02, 2010, 10:53:34 AM
And you think US government has not called in every resource in the world to try to stop this? Why do you think that?
The POTUS harps on the fact that BP is going to pay for all of this because that is the foremost club his detractors pick up to try to beat him with, and they still do. . . If he did not highlight that fact the opposition would be clubbing him a lot more too, saying that he doesn't care. . . What a load of emotional flotsam. . . :rolleyes:
I trust our Government as much as you do BP...."Fix the damn leak" .... is NOT what Americans want to hear.....bitchin about WHO is going to pay for it is NOT what matter right now...........coming up with a solution to stop this IS!!!
I agree with Dick Morris 1000% ....he is in over his head....THIS is what happens when people elect an inexperienced man.... he reads well and speaks well, but when it comes to leading.....he CAN'T!!!.. :no: ..(and that is my story and I am sticking to it!... ;) )
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 02, 2010, 10:04:12 AM
Well, IF, I was the leader of the most powerful naiton on earth, I would be calling in ALL the experts, for their ideas.....I would be having every contraption that sucks, cleans, pumps out there...doing everything it takes to keep this from harming Americans and their way of life....we have spent BILLION, no TRILLIONS on wars and pork, but all this guy seems to worry about is being SURE that BP is going to pay for this and blah, blah , blah.....we need to see some action....BP is struggling with this, they need help!!...
Henry, I think he has and is doing that. I believe there is more than one group of experts who are brainstorming this tragedy and are trying to come up with a solution. Every administration abjectly fears just this sort of ecological catastrophe, and to believe that those in Washington are not aware of the consequences on ALL fronts is ludicrous.
OBAMANOMICS RECESSION
By DICK MORRIS
June 8, 2010
The drop in the stock market (now about 1,000 points on the Dow) is a graphic indication of the stark fact that we are entering the infamous double dip of the recession, long feared and predicted. The economy is not in a V after all (down and then up), but in a W (down, up, down again, and then, finally, up). And the cause of the second dip is not the recession itself, but the cure administered to it by President Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Consider the indications (data provided by the New America Foundation, analysis by Sherle R. Schwanninger and Samuel Sherraden):
· GDP growth has been 2.2 percent, 5.6 percent and 3.2 percent for each of the last three quarters, well below the rebounds typical in past recessions.
· Total civilian employment has rebounded by only 1 percent since the depth of the unemployment five months ago. In 1973, at a comparable point, it had rebounded by 7 percent. In 1981, by 8 percent. In 1990, by 4 percent. And in 2001 by 3 percent. U-6, the broadest measure of unemployment, stands at 17.1 percent, and we need 12.8 million new jobs.
· Housing prices have dropped by 30 percent since 2006 and "many economists expect housing prices to decline at least another 10 percent," according to Schwanninger and Sherraden.
· While corporate profits are 30.6 percent higher than a year ago, wages are up by 1.6 percent, less than half their rate of increase two years ago.
· Financial-sector profits make up 35.7 percent of all domestic corporate profits. These gains are driven by trading revenue, which does not reflect real economic growth. Schwanninger and Sherraden report, "In the first quarter of 2010, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America earned 72 percent, 45 percent and 16 percent of their net revenue [respectively] from trading profits."
· Personal savings dropped from a high of almost 6 percent to 2.7 percent in March 2010, so households have cut their debt by just $300 billion since it peaked in 2008. Household debt, which rose from 60 percent of GDP in 1990 to almost 100 percent in 2008, has dropped to 97 percent. It has a long way to go before it's down enough to free consumers to spend more.
· Meanwhile, retail sales have averaged only a 1.7 percent increase over the past three quarters, half of which was to restock inventories. Schwanninger and Sherraden note "in a typical recovery, the rebound is closer to 3.5 percent." And most of that increase is due to expanding government cash transfer payments, which now make up 18.3 percent of personal income. "Excluding transfer payments, personal income increased just 0.3 percent since the third quarter of 2009."
· Stimulus spending, which has failed to generate private-sector growth, is winding down. Only 43 percent of the tax benefits and entitlement spending remain to be doled out, as does 63 percent of the contracts, grants and loans in the stimulus package.
· The strengthening of the dollar due to the collapse of the euro will dry up U.S. export trade. Exports to EU nations account for 21 percent of American and 20 percent of Chinese exports. Schwanninger and Sherraden note, "A European slowdown will reduce demand for the two primary engines of world economic growth."
But this second downturn in the economy will be accompanied by inflation, making it worse than the first recession. With interest rates set to rise (because the Fed is no longer massively purchasing securities to keep them down), taxes set to go up (because of Obama's ideology) and global energy use about to increase, sending prices higher (because the rest of the world is recovering), prices have to go up. But with no growth in real personal income and household credit close to all-time highs, there is not enough demand to pay the higher prices, so a deeper slump will ensue.
The solution? Cut taxes..... ;) And bring down the deficit through massive spending cuts. Reduce our borrowing needs by slashing our spending. Free up capital to feed job growth.
It should be evident to all that Obamanomics is a disaster. It reminds one of nothing so much as the medieval practice of bleeding the patient to make him well by expelling the evil spirits that dwelt within. When the patient did not recover, they just bled him more and, when he died, they just said that the spirits killed him. The practice of spending, borrowing and then taxing to fuel job growth is the modern analogy.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2010, 01:18:02 PM
OBAMANOMICS RECESSION
By DICK MORRIS
June 8, 2010
The drop in the stock market (now about 1,000 points on the Dow) is a graphic indication of the stark fact that we are entering the infamous double dip of the recession, long feared and predicted. The economy is not in a V after all (down and then up), but in a W (down, up, down again, and then, finally, up). And the cause of the second dip is not the recession itself, but the cure administered to it by President Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Consider the indications (data provided by the New America Foundation, analysis by Sherle R. Schwanninger and Samuel Sherraden):
· GDP growth has been 2.2 percent, 5.6 percent and 3.2 percent for each of the last three quarters, well below the rebounds typical in past recessions.
· Total civilian employment has rebounded by only 1 percent since the depth of the unemployment five months ago. In 1973, at a comparable point, it had rebounded by 7 percent. In 1981, by 8 percent. In 1990, by 4 percent. And in 2001 by 3 percent. U-6, the broadest measure of unemployment, stands at 17.1 percent, and we need 12.8 million new jobs.
· Housing prices have dropped by 30 percent since 2006 and "many economists expect housing prices to decline at least another 10 percent," according to Schwanninger and Sherraden.
· While corporate profits are 30.6 percent higher than a year ago, wages are up by 1.6 percent, less than half their rate of increase two years ago.
· Financial-sector profits make up 35.7 percent of all domestic corporate profits. These gains are driven by trading revenue, which does not reflect real economic growth. Schwanninger and Sherraden report, "In the first quarter of 2010, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America earned 72 percent, 45 percent and 16 percent of their net revenue [respectively] from trading profits."
· Personal savings dropped from a high of almost 6 percent to 2.7 percent in March 2010, so households have cut their debt by just $300 billion since it peaked in 2008. Household debt, which rose from 60 percent of GDP in 1990 to almost 100 percent in 2008, has dropped to 97 percent. It has a long way to go before it's down enough to free consumers to spend more.
· Meanwhile, retail sales have averaged only a 1.7 percent increase over the past three quarters, half of which was to restock inventories. Schwanninger and Sherraden note "in a typical recovery, the rebound is closer to 3.5 percent." And most of that increase is due to expanding government cash transfer payments, which now make up 18.3 percent of personal income. "Excluding transfer payments, personal income increased just 0.3 percent since the third quarter of 2009."
· Stimulus spending, which has failed to generate private-sector growth, is winding down. Only 43 percent of the tax benefits and entitlement spending remain to be doled out, as does 63 percent of the contracts, grants and loans in the stimulus package.
· The strengthening of the dollar due to the collapse of the euro will dry up U.S. export trade. Exports to EU nations account for 21 percent of American and 20 percent of Chinese exports. Schwanninger and Sherraden note, "A European slowdown will reduce demand for the two primary engines of world economic growth."
But this second downturn in the economy will be accompanied by inflation, making it worse than the first recession. With interest rates set to rise (because the Fed is no longer massively purchasing securities to keep them down), taxes set to go up (because of Obama's ideology) and global energy use about to increase, sending prices higher (because the rest of the world is recovering), prices have to go up. But with no growth in real personal income and household credit close to all-time highs, there is not enough demand to pay the higher prices, so a deeper slump will ensue.
The solution? Cut taxes..... ;) And bring down the deficit through massive spending cuts. Reduce our borrowing needs by slashing our spending. Free up capital to feed job growth.
It should be evident to all that Obamanomics is a disaster. It reminds one of nothing so much as the medieval practice of bleeding the patient to make him well by expelling the evil spirits that dwelt within. When the patient did not recover, they just bled him more and, when he died, they just said that the spirits killed him. The practice of spending, borrowing and then taxing to fuel job growth is the modern analogy.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 09, 2010, 01:18:02 PM
OBAMANOMICS RECESSION
By DICK MORRIS
June 8, 2010
The drop in the stock market (now about 1,000 points on the Dow) is a graphic indication of the stark fact that we are entering the infamous double dip of the recession, long feared and predicted. The economy is not in a V after all (down and then up), but in a W (down, up, down again, and then, finally, up). And the cause of the second dip is not the recession itself, but the cure administered to it by President Obama and the Democratic Congress.
Consider the indications (data provided by the New America Foundation, analysis by Sherle R. Schwanninger and Samuel Sherraden):
· GDP growth has been 2.2 percent, 5.6 percent and 3.2 percent for each of the last three quarters, well below the rebounds typical in past recessions.
· Total civilian employment has rebounded by only 1 percent since the depth of the unemployment five months ago. In 1973, at a comparable point, it had rebounded by 7 percent. In 1981, by 8 percent. In 1990, by 4 percent. And in 2001 by 3 percent. U-6, the broadest measure of unemployment, stands at 17.1 percent, and we need 12.8 million new jobs.
· Housing prices have dropped by 30 percent since 2006 and "many economists expect housing prices to decline at least another 10 percent," according to Schwanninger and Sherraden.
· While corporate profits are 30.6 percent higher than a year ago, wages are up by 1.6 percent, less than half their rate of increase two years ago.
· Financial-sector profits make up 35.7 percent of all domestic corporate profits. These gains are driven by trading revenue, which does not reflect real economic growth. Schwanninger and Sherraden report, "In the first quarter of 2010, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America earned 72 percent, 45 percent and 16 percent of their net revenue [respectively] from trading profits."
· Personal savings dropped from a high of almost 6 percent to 2.7 percent in March 2010, so households have cut their debt by just $300 billion since it peaked in 2008. Household debt, which rose from 60 percent of GDP in 1990 to almost 100 percent in 2008, has dropped to 97 percent. It has a long way to go before it's down enough to free consumers to spend more.
· Meanwhile, retail sales have averaged only a 1.7 percent increase over the past three quarters, half of which was to restock inventories. Schwanninger and Sherraden note "in a typical recovery, the rebound is closer to 3.5 percent." And most of that increase is due to expanding government cash transfer payments, which now make up 18.3 percent of personal income. "Excluding transfer payments, personal income increased just 0.3 percent since the third quarter of 2009."
· Stimulus spending, which has failed to generate private-sector growth, is winding down. Only 43 percent of the tax benefits and entitlement spending remain to be doled out, as does 63 percent of the contracts, grants and loans in the stimulus package.
· The strengthening of the dollar due to the collapse of the euro will dry up U.S. export trade. Exports to EU nations account for 21 percent of American and 20 percent of Chinese exports. Schwanninger and Sherraden note, "A European slowdown will reduce demand for the two primary engines of world economic growth."
But this second downturn in the economy will be accompanied by inflation, making it worse than the first recession. With interest rates set to rise (because the Fed is no longer massively purchasing securities to keep them down), taxes set to go up (because of Obama's ideology) and global energy use about to increase, sending prices higher (because the rest of the world is recovering), prices have to go up. But with no growth in real personal income and household credit close to all-time highs, there is not enough demand to pay the higher prices, so a deeper slump will ensue.
The solution? Cut taxes..... ;) And bring down the deficit through massive spending cuts. Reduce our borrowing needs by slashing our spending. Free up capital to feed job growth.
It should be evident to all that Obamanomics is a disaster. It reminds one of nothing so much as the medieval practice of bleeding the patient to make him well by expelling the evil spirits that dwelt within. When the patient did not recover, they just bled him more and, when he died, they just said that the spirits killed him. The practice of spending, borrowing and then taxing to fuel job growth is the modern analogy.
:bsflag: :det: :bsflag:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 02, 2010, 09:22:45 AM
Here is a quote by Dick Morris that to me, says alot about THIS President;
"Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush). Others because of their character flaws (Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (George H.W. Bush). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again."
Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/06/morris-the-incompetent-president.php#ixzz0phYlEPwY (http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2010/06/morris-the-incompetent-president.php#ixzz0phYlEPwY)
Quoting Dick Morris, is that all you got. Oboy one of Foxes many liars. I got to say one thing, Henry. You're consistently wrong and proud of it. :kiss: