Saturday, January 31, 2009

Majority See Reagan As Republicans’ Way Back To Power


In this age of Obama, it may be popular to glorify democratic idols like FDR and JFK, but a recent Rasmussen Report suggests that most Americans would like to see the Republican Party return to the views and values of Ronald Reagan. The suggestion, of course, is that there is an overt yearning for Republicans to return to the traditional, conservative values of smaller government advocacy.
Majority See Reagan As Republicans’ Way Back To Power
Friday, January 30, 2009
RASMUSSEN REPORTS

Ronald Reagan isn’t just a Republican thing anymore.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters say the Republican Party should return to the views and values of the iconic 40th president of the United States to be successful, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say the GOP should move away from the Reagan legacy, and 15% aren’t sure which is the best course to follow.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republican voters believe a return to the two-term president’s views and values are the road to success. Just eight percent (8%) disagree.

Among unaffiliated voters, 61% say the Republican Party should return to Reagan, while 23% think the party should move away from those values.

Even 29% of Democrats think Reagan is a good role model for the modern Republican Party, although 50% disagree and 21% are undecided.

In his first inaugural address, Reagan declared that “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Fifty-nine percent (59%) 59% of voters still agree with him.

Reagan also strongly believed that tax cuts are good for the economy, and 57% of voters continue to share that view. Only 17% disagree.

Support for Reagan’s values surprise anyone in 2009 since Barack Obama won the White House by following a campaign approach that worked for Ronald Reagan. In fact, Obama’s victory confirmed that voters still embrace the guiding beliefs of the Reagan era.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of male voters favor a return to the views and values of Reagan along with to 51% of female voters.

Voters ages 18-29, some of whom weren’t even alive when Reagan was President, are closely divided on the wisdom of the future GOP returning to Reaganism. By margins of two-to-one or more, voters in all other age groups think going back to the future is a good move.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Evangelical Christian voters, along with 49% of other Protestants and Catholics, see the Reagan agenda has a move in the right direction.

In a survey in November, 43% of voters said the most positive way to describe a political candidate was saying that he or she was like Reagan. Twenty-six percent (26%) viewed such a comparison as a negative, and 29% said it was somewhere in between.

The Democrats still have their champion though: In a showdown between the two most influential presidents of the 20th Century. Reagan and Franklin D. Roosevelt, 45% of voters said FDR, the Democratic father of the big government New Deal who led the country to victory in World War II, was the better chief executive. Nearly as many (40%) said Reagan was a better president.

While there is broad support for the values that Ronald Reagan brought to the nation, Republicans and Democrats definitely don’t agree on the future direction the GOP should follow.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

25 Most Influential Liberals In U.S. Media


In an era where liberals have nearly filibuster-proof congressional majorities and the White House, it's particularly important for the American people to keep a scrupulous eye on the media. As I have documented on this blog before, the mainstream media leans left and there was quantifiable media favoritism which lead to Barack Obama getting elected. It's clear that Obama's lead in the polls directly corresponded with the favorable coverage given to him by the media.

The media clearly have a strong influence on public thought, and so it is imperative that we identify the ring leaders of liberal propaganda so as not to be lead around by the nose by the Democratic Party and liberal agenda. Traditionally, the role of the media is to keep politicians in check by relaying the facts of current events and historical context to the people. In a free market economy where news media are combating competition by pandering to the preferences of their viewer demographics in some ill-conceived model of uses and gratifications theory, it's crucial to identify the more influential cogs in the liberal propaganda machine so as to protect ourselves from a self-perpetuating, one party rule. Suffice it to say, the following 25 most influential liberals have the most riding on the perceived success of the Obama administration and, consequently, cannot be trusted to adhere to basic journalistic ethics. Their word is about as believable and unbiased as a White House press release.

Below are Forbes' "25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media."

25. Michael Pollan
Writer and journalism professor,
University of California, Berkeley










24. Kurt Andersen
Writer and host,
Studio 360











23. Kevin Drum
Blogger,
Mother Jones










22. Ezra Klein
Blogger and associate editor,
The American Prospect










21. James Fallows

National correspondent, The Atlantic











20. Gerald Seib
Executive Washington editor,
The Wall Street Journal











19. Andrew Sullivan

Senior editor,
The Atlantic
- The Daily Dish










18. Glenn Greenwald
Blogger,
Salon.com










17.Hendrick Hertzberg

Columnist,
The New Yorker











16. Matthew Yglesias
Blogger,
ThinkProgress










15. Maureen Dowd

Op-ed columnist,
The New York Times











14. Christopher Hitchens
Writer











13. Bill Moyers

Host and commentator,
Bill Moyers' Journal











12. Chris Matthews
Anchor,
Hardball











11. Fareed Zakaria

Editor,
Newsweek International











10. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga ("Kos")
Founder and publisher,
Daily Kos










9. David Shipley

Op-ed editor,
The New York Times











8. Joshua Micah Marshall
Founder and editor,
Talking Points Memo










7. Rachael Maddow
Host,
The Rachel Maddow Show











6. Oprah Winfrey
Presenter,
The Oprah Winfrey Show











5. Jon Stewart
Host,
The Daily Show











4. Thomas Friedman
Op-ed columnist,
The New York Times











3. Fred Hiatt
Editorial page editor,
The Washington Post











2. Arianna Huffington
Founder and columnist,
The Huffington Post










1. Paul Krugman

Op-ed columnist,
The New York Times










And the Seth's Opinion Matters selection for the nation's most influential liberal is (drum roll please...):

Seth's Opinion Matters Pick for Most Influential Media Liberal:
Keith Olbermann
Host,
Countdown With Kieth Olbermann





Congratulations Kieth, you have the highest rated show on the blatantly liberal, shamelessly partisan, and widely discredited MSNBC Network. I've no doubt Forbes omitted your name from their list to help you save face and credibility. I've corrected their error here. You're most welcome.

Now, my dear readers, please keep this list of liberals in mind when consuming the news.
If you're going to believe anything any of these people say, you might as well call up the White House and ask for Robert Gibbs. That's where these people get their information, you might as well cut out the middle man.

Most Say Tax Cuts Always Better Than Increased Spending

Irrespective of the mainstream media efforts to help force the Messiah's "porkulous" package down our throats, most Americans think that tax cuts, not government spending, are the best option for rebounding our economy. In a recent Rasmussen Report, 53% agreed with the following statement:

"It’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money."

Only 24% disagreed with the above statement, while just 22% were undecided.

Most Say Tax Cuts Always Better Than Increased Spending
RASMUSSEN REPORTS
Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Paul Krugman, last year's winner of the Nobel Prize for economics and a regular columnist for the New York Times, recently wrote that you should “write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.”

If you follow that advice, you’ll be writing off a majority of Americans. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 53% say that it’s always better to cut taxes. Only 24% share Krugman’s views.

Republicans overwhelmingly say it’s always better to cut taxes, and so do 50% of those not affiliated with either major party. Twenty-three percent (23%) of unaffiliateds take the opposite view and agree with Krugman.

Democrats are evenly divided—38% say tax cuts are always better while 34% disagree.

Krugman was recently named the most influential liberal in the media. In making that selection, Forbes.com noted that Krugman’s “prose is as pungent as his academic credentials are impeccable. Last year's Nobel in economics was widely seen as a vindication of his politics.”

Clearly, his New York Times column was based on his convictions rather than his sense of public opinion, and his purpose in writing is to persuade, not report. The survey data simply highlights how much persuading he has ahead of him.

It also should be noted that Krugman’s assertions are no more out of synch with public opinion than the Republican presidential candidate John McCain's assertion last fall that the economy was “fundamentally sound.”

Krugman’s views are a bit more aligned with public opinion when he asserts that “public spending rather than tax cuts should be the core of any stimulus plan.” On this point, the public is evenly divided--34% agree, 34% disagree, and 32% are not sure.

By a 47% to 21% margin, Democrats agree with Krugman on that point. However, Republicans and unaffiliated voters take the opposite view.

While overall public opinion is divided on that question, there is less public support for another Krugman claim. The columnist wrote that “it’s clear that when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed that view on ABC’s This Week on Sunday when she said, “There is more bang for the buck by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.”

Thirty-one percent (31%) agree with Krugman and Pelosi that “public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts.” Forty-two percent (42%) disagree.

On this point, Democrats once again strongly agree with the columnist—44% share his view and 17% do not. However, unaffiliateds disagree with Krugman by a 45% to 24% margin, and Republicans are even more likely to disagree.

On all the questions surveyed, voters under 30 are more likely than their elders to agree with Krugman.

A separate survey released recently found that 57% of voters nationwide believe tax cuts are good for the economy Only 17% disagree.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

Porkulous Package

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

How does that old saying go Mr. President?

A 40-Year Wish List

You know, a reasonable person tries to listen to different sources of news throughout the day to make sure he gets the whole story. But when I come across a liberal outlet trying to manipulate people into believing this Democrat "porkulous" package will be America's saving grace, I legitimately get upset. Russia and China are vehemently pointing the finger of blame at the US, saying that we are using economic practices which inevitably lead to inflation. And our government's response is to print and spend another trillion dollars? Ask yourselves this, my friends, what did the last bailout do for us? Where did all the money from the last bailout go? If you don't have a definitive answer for either of these questions, why in the world would you support an additional $819 billion spending package?

Here's an idea: why don't we cut the capital gains tax, like we did in 2003? The economy took off like a rocket then, creating countless new jobs and launching our GDP. I know the idea of reducing spending when you're already in massive debt is a difficult concept for the democrats to grasp, but perhaps now we can stop grasping to ambiguous tag lines like "Hope" and "Change," and take actual steps to be intelligent with out government initiatives. Just a thought.

Unfortunately, liberals are using this economic crises as an opportunity to pass a pork-laden "stimulus" package. It's almost as if they're trying to cram several decades worth of liberal agenda into this one bill.
A 40-Year Wish List
You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
JANUARY 28, 2009

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

From the Winner Come the Spoils


Political Cartoon by Eric Allie

10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan

In reference to the WSJ story I posted earlier this morning, here's another article relay on the trillion dollar Obama "porkulous" plan:
10 Reasons to Whack Obama's Stimulus Plan
January 27, 2009 02:10 PM ET
Written by James Pethokoukis
U.S. News & World Report

Some people are going to oppose President Obama's ginormous stimulus package just because they're on a different political team. But when you look at the economic evidence, it sure seems like an economic recovery package that's heavy on government spending and light on tax cuts is just the opposite of what we should be doing right now. Try this closing argument on for size:

1) A 2005 study by Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig "analyzed three types of policy shocks: a deficit-financed spending increase, a balanced budget spending increase (financed with higher taxes) and a deficit-financed tax cut, in which revenues increase but government spending stays unchanged. We found that a deficit-spending shock stimulates the economy for the first 4 quarters but only weakly compared to that for a deficit-financed tax cut." In other words, FDR vs. Clinton vs. Reagan, Reagan wins.

2) Harvard economist Robert Barro looked at the multiplier effect of World War II military spending -- supposedly the Mother of All Stimulus Plans and found that "wartime production siphoned off resources from other economic uses — there was a dampener, rather than a multiplier." Barro prefers eliminating the corporate income tax to massive government spending.

3) Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago want to adress the fear and confidence issue by creating "the incentive for people to take more risk and move their savings from government bonds to risky assets. There is no better way to encourage this than a temporary elimination of the capital-gains tax for all the investments begun during 2009 and held for at least two years."

4) An initial CBO analysis found that a mere $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending, just 7 percent, would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64 percent of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011.

5) University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker doubts whether all this stimulus spending will do much to lower unemployment: "For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative."

6) Christina Romer, the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers, coauthored a paper in which the following was written about taxes: "Tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects." And former Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey tack on this addendum: "The macroeconomic benefits of tax cuts can be two to three times larger than common estimates of the benefits related to spending increases. The relative advantage of tax cuts over spending is even clearer when the recession is centered on the household balance sheet."

7) Economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall find that the multiplier effect from infrastructure spending maybe just 1-for-1, less than that 3-to-1 ratio for tax cuts that Romer found: "We believe that the one-for-one rule derived from wartime increases in military spending would also apply to increases in infrastructure spending in a stimulus package. We should not count on any inducement of higher consumption from the infrastructure stimulus."

8) Economist John Taylor thinks it better to let the Federal Reserve deal with the short-term problems in the economy, while fiscal policy should attend to long-term issues: "In the current context of the U.S. economy, it seems best to let fiscal policy have its main countercyclical impact through the automatic stabilizer ... It seems hard to improve on this performance with a more active discretionary fiscal policy, and an activist discretionary fiscal policy might even make the job of monetary authorities more difficult. It would be appropriate in the present American context, for discretionary fiscal policy to be saved explicitly for longer-term issues, requiring less frequent changes. Examples of such a longer-term focus include fiscal policy proposals to balance the non-Social Security budget over the next ten years, to reduce marginal tax rates for long run economic efficiency, or even to reform the tax system and Social Security."

9) Massive stimulus didn't work in the Great Depression. As this Heritage Foundation study notes: "After the stock market collapse in 1929, the Hoover Administration increased federal spending by 47 percent over the following three years. As a result, federal spending increased from 3.4 percent of GDP in 1930 to 6.9 percent in 1932 and reached 9.8 percent by 1940. That same year-- 10 years into the Great Depression--America's unemployment rate stood at 14.6 percent." Same goes for Japan and its Great Stagnation of the 1990s.

10) Olivier Blanchard, the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, coauthored a paper which found "that both increases in taxes and increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Bottom line: There is another model out there. One that worked in 2003, 1997 and 1981. But will America use it?

Sources:

1) http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2005-039.pdf

2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html

3) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249646698200289.html

4) http://cboblog.cbo.gov/

5)http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/01/on_the_obama_st.htm

6)http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf

7)http://woodwardhall.wordpress.com/2008/12/11/measuring-the-effect-of-infrastructure-spending-on-gdp/

8)http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Papers/Reassessing+Revised.pdf

9) http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2222.cf

10) http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003355302320935043?cookieSet=1&journalCode=qjec

11) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/951hvyxc.asp?pg=

Stimulus Bill Near $900 Billion

Here's a little update for those of you who haven't been keeping yourselves abreast of the most recent Democrat-driven trillion dollar government expenditure, because sometimes, $11 trillion dollars of national debt simply isn't enough...

Stimulus Bill Near $900 Billion
Obama Agrees to Trim Alternative Minimum Tax; Lobbies Rush for Cut of the Pie

By GREG HITT and ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON
The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. economic stimulus package neared $900 billion in the Senate, as President Barack Obama wooed Republicans ahead of an expected House vote Wednesday.

The rare trip by a president to Capitol Hill revealed the urgency in Congress and the White House over a cure for the souring economy. More than 70,000 layoffs were announced this week and fresh data showed unemployment last month rose in all states.

The day was marked by Democratic deal-making. The Obama administration indicated it would agree to a $69 billion Senate proposal to shield tens of millions of middle-income Americans from the so-called alternative minimum tax, a priority of Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The panel later folded the change into the Senate bill.

Who Gets What?
White House officials also spread the word that Mr. Obama was willing to drop a proposed expansion of contraceptive coverage under Medicaid that has become a symbol for Republican critics. Late Tuesday, Democratic leaders agreed to drop that provision, as well as another measure providing support for refurbishing the capital's National Mall, ahead of the final vote on the House floor Wednesday. Both measures had been lampooned by Republicans.

The magnitude of the spending bill, and its urgency, drew a swarm of lobbyists seeking money and tax breaks. The concrete and asphalt industries battled over how the government should spend billions proposed for road and bridge repairs, while dairy and beef cattle producers butted heads over talk that the government might buy up dairy cattle for slaughter to drive up depressed milk prices. Unions backed infrastructure spending. States sought budget bailouts.

"When you've got 800-plus billion dollars to spend, you'll have an equal number of opinions on how it should be spent," said Chris Galen, spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation, the dairy industry's main lobbying group.

The economic stimulus package proposed by Democratic House leaders totals $825 billion and includes three broad pieces: a $365.6 billion spending measure for such brick-and-mortar projects as highways and bridges; a $180 billion measure to boost jobless benefits and Medicaid, among other things; and a $275 billion tax-relief package, which includes a plan to give a $500 payroll tax holiday to all workers, a proposal from Mr. Obama's presidential campaign.

The Democrats controlling the House have the votes to pass a stimulus bill. In the Senate, Democrats need only the support of a few Republicans to collect the 60 votes needed for passage. But Mr. Obama wants broad support, and to win over some of the Republicans seeking less spending and more tax cuts.

"I would love to not have to spend this money," Mr. Obama said, according to individuals familiar with the president's meetings with Republicans. Mr. Obama defended the plan, they said, but suggested he'd be open to new ideas to help small businesses, and that changes could come after the House vote.

"We're not going to get 100% agreement, and we might not even get 50% agreement," Mr. Obama told reporters after he left the Senate Republican lunch. "But I do think that people appreciate me walking them through my thought processes on this."

The sight of this much federal cash and tax favors has prompted a rough-and-tumble competition. Billions of dollars in proposed road and bridge repairs, for example, have pitted the concrete and asphalt industries against one another.

Concrete lobbyists want more money for such long-term projects as interstate highways, bridges and waterworks -- projects that, not coincidentally, use more concrete. The asphalt industry prefers repaving and road repair that use more asphalt.

"When you have a road or highway that needs to be fixed quickly, asphalt is the way to go," says Margaret Cervarich, a vice president at the National Asphalt Pavement Association.

Craig Silvertooth, the president of the Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing, said he's concerned that lawmakers have failed to include tax incentives for energy-efficient roofs using solar panels. But the geothermal heat pump industry -- represented by lobbyists for one company, Oklahoma-based ClimateMaster Inc. -- said it won equal footing with solar and wind companies through a 30% homeowner tax credit in the House bill for installation of a geothermal heat pump.

Lobbyists for U.S. footwear makers and retailers want lawmakers to wall off their drive to scrap import taxes on cheap shoes from a competing push to lower tariffs on all imported clothing and textiles.

The shoe lobby sent a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking for a stimulus provision abolishing the import tax on synthetic, fabric and canvas shoes. The American Apparel & Footwear Association, the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America and retail footwear companies say the tax can reach 67.5%.

Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada wants to add similar legislation to the stimulus. But the effort could fail if combined with a separate push by apparel importers to lower tariffs on all foreign textile and apparel products. The apparel measure faces stiff opposition from lawmakers and U.S.-based textile plants.

Business interests also are working to promote tax proposals included in the Senate version of the stimulus plan but not, so far, in the House version.

Both the House and Senate packages include tax incentives to encourage capital investments by businesses, expand support for development of renewable energy sources, and help businesses use current losses to claim tax refunds against profitable years in which they paid taxes.

The Senate tax package, which was approved by the Finance Committee late Tuesday on a 14-9 vote, also created a limited tax benefit to encourage corporations to restructure debt.

High-tech companies struck out with the House when they sought tax credits for spending on bringing broadband infrastructure to rural and so-called underserved areas. But the firms struck pay dirt Tuesday in the Senate Finance Committee, winning a 10% tax credit for investments in current-generation broadband technology, and a 20% tax credit for investments in "next-generation" broadband, not only in rural and underserved areas but any residential area.

Once the House and Senate pass their versions of the stimulus package, negotiators from each branch will hammer out a final version of the bill. The compromise bill would require a second vote in the House and Senate before reaching the president's desk.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said government borrowing prompted by enactment of the plan would add another $347 billion, pushing the estimated cost of the stimulus plan to more than $1 trillion, including interest.

Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag sent a letter Tuesday to House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) saying Mr. Obama was "committed to paying for any of the temporary tax cuts included in the recovery plan that he would like to make permanent," and supported a return to "pay-as-you-go" budget rules for nonemergency spending.

—Jonathan Weisman and Brody Mullins contributed to this article.

Write to Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com and Elizabeth Williamson at elizabeth.williamson@wsj.com

One Last Government Regulation Straw


Political Cartoon by Robert Arial

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Reality Check, Obama’s Not That Loved



I’ve heard Obama supporters say some pretty foolish things. Intrinsic in their foolishness is the incapacity to look at empirical fact. His fanatical advocates are not only willing to hide his errors and flaws behind gushing editorials, but they’re also willing to overtly lie.

I’ve heard liberals cite Obama’s margin of victory as a mandate for his agenda. While Obama’s Electoral College victory was decisive, it’s notable to mention that there were more dissenting voters to his election than any US President in history (59,934,786) – and that’s just counting the major ticket dissenters, not the write in votes for third party candidates. That means that there were more votes for McCain than there are people living in countries like Spain, Canada, and South Korea. In fact, except for the most populated 23 or so countries in the world, McCain’s voting population is greater than the population of every other country on the planet.

It’s also worth noting that the percentage of people who voted for Obama is 52.9% (not 55% or 60% as I’ve heard some liberals say). Obama’s margin of victory (9,522,111) is only the 6th largest of all time, despite having the largest US population in history. Nixon’s 1972 margin (17,995,488), Johnson’s 1964 margin (17,951,287), Reagan’s 1984 margin (16,678,120), Roosevelt’s 1936 margin (11,070,786), and Eisenhower’s 1956 margin of victory (9,551,152) were all greater (with smaller populations mind you) than Obama’s (FiveThirtyEight).

His voter percentage margin of victory (7.2%), is only the 13th best in history. Harding in 1920 (26.2%), Roosevelt in 1932 (17.7%), Hoover in 1928 (17.4%), Wilson in 1912 (14.4%), Van Buren in 1836 (14.2%), Jackson in 1828 (12.4%), Buchanan in 1856 (12.2%), Eisenhower in 1952 (10.9%), Lincoln in 1860 (10.3%), Reagan in 1980 (9.7%), Taft in 1908 (8.6%), and H.W. Bush in 1988 (7.8%) all had greater percentage margins of victory than Obama (FiveThirtyEight).

In terms of voter turnout, the 2008 election was the largest (132,580,096) in history, as it should be with the largest voting age population (VAP) in history (230,917,360) (George Mason University). However, the 2008 VAP turnout rate (the total number of voting age Americans divided by the total number of presidential votes) is only the 4th largest since 1960 (InfoPlease). The 1960, 64 and 68 elections all had higher VAP rates (InfoPlease). The 2008 voting-eligible rate (VEP), which excludes those who did not register to vote and those who are ineligible to vote (because of their criminal status), also falls short of the VEP rates of the 1960s (University of Oklahoma).

When comparing the increase in total voters, the 2008 election only brought in an additional 10,285,118 voters from 2004 (InfoPlease). By comparison, the 2004 election brought in 16,708,704 additional voters from 2000, and 2000 enjoyed 9,129,929 additional voters from 1996 (InfoPlease). The voting age population increased by 9,972,649 from 2004 to 2008, 15,441,931 from 2000 to 2004, and 9,304,000 from 1996 to 2000 (InfoPlease). This means that, relative to the total increase of voter age population between elections, only the 2008 election failed to garner more voters than it did eligible voters over the past three elections. In fact, the last election which failed to net more voters than it did voting-age people, was the 1992 election of Bill Clinton (InfoPlease).

Contrary to what most media would have you believe, most American counties voted republican, despite Obama’s election.

Moreover, the dirty little fact that the media seems to ignore is that more Americans identify themselves as conservative (34%) than do ones whom identify themselves as liberals (21%). These figures are identical to 2004 (2004 Statistics, 2008 Statistics).

So, by no means did “everyone vote for Obama,” and by no means was he elected by any historical margin of victory. I know, I know, it’s hard to believe after all the gushing commentary he’s received from the main stream media, but these are the facts. This media adulation for the “Messiah” isn’t just the product of a “hard-fought” 2008 election campaign. Oh no, outlets like the New York Times have been shoving Barack Obama down the throats of Americans since 2004.

But, despite the media’s attempts to paint an image where all the world (let alone the United States) has united behind Obama, his approval rating only rests at 68%. Every American president in recorded history has started his administration with an approval rating over 50%, and there have been two other presidents, (Eisenhower and JFK) who had higher initial approval ratings than Obama (Wall Street Journal, Politico, and Gallop). Only Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton failed to reach Obama’s current approval rating within a few months of being elected (Wall Street Journal).


Which means that, not only was Obama's election statistically underwhelming, his initial approval rating is average as well – even with the MSM adulation. He's just another politician. A 68% in any class amounts to a D+ grade, at best. He is no more sublime than any other president we’ve ever had.

Regarding said "media adulation," it's important to keep in mind the markable left lean of the media and the quantifiable media factors which lead to Obama's election. Don’t buy into the hyperbolic platitudes of the main stream media. They’re so desperate to claim a stake in a liberal administration and the historic election of a black president, they’re willing to completely subvert reality.

So when you hear someone overstating Obama’s victory margin as a means for arguing in support of a liberal mandate, see it as the manipulative tactic it is. They merely want you to think that everyone agrees with them and that there must be something wrong with you if you’re not in the Obama fan club. The nearly 60 million people who voted for John McCain constitute the largest dissenting voter population in American history. Do not mistake Obama’s statistically run of the mill victory and approval rating as a mandate for his liberal agenda.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Obama Approves Funding for Infanticide Abroad: Happy Roe v. Wade Day!

Political Cartoon by Glenn McCoy

There are books upon books of reasoning against Barack Obama's political and personal record, associations, and campaign promises. I started this blog because I was overwhelmingly frustrated with both the main stream media's unwillingness to properly vet him and, as a consequence, the American people having no idea for whom or what they were voting.

There is perhaps no better evidence of this media malpractice and malfeasance than the media’s atrocious coverage of Obama’s radically leftist stance on abortions. Here’s a little context regarding Obama’s radical abortion stances:



I said this when I first reported to you about his abortion stance, and I’ll say it now:

I cannot respect a man who would vote for any legislation, despite his ex post facto platitudes, allowing partial birth abortions and the execution of born alive abortions. There is simply no excusing the execution of innocent life. It's murder and infanticide, plain and simple. A woman no longer has a "right to choose" when the living baby is outside of her body. She may have a right over her own body, but her birthing a child (or rather failing to abort a child) does not give her ownership over the child's life. Once the child is out of the mother there can be no debate of rights; the child has a right to life, pure and simple.

Well... hundreds of thousands of pro-life protesters poured into the National Mall for the 36th annual March for Life to implore the new president to break his campaign promise to adopt pro-abortion policies.

Obama was not swayed.

One day after the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Barack Obama decided to strike down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that promote and perform abortions, including late-term abortions like those discussed above.

With a single stroke of his pen, Obama may have just single-handedly "OKed" funding for the execution of more defenseless, innocent human life than all the casualties experienced in 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

Obama’s radical pro-abortion stances were not properly vetted by the main stream media before the election. The Pro Life march received little to no coverage from the main stream media. And even now, the AP plays down Obama’s reversal of Bush’s ban as “a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations.” Can you see the dangerous trend of media manipulation forming here?

As of 2005, there were nearly 50 MILLION abortions since it was legalized in 1973. There are an estimated 1.3 million abortions each year, in the US alone.


The countless millions of unborn babies around the world who are about to be executed as a result of this Obama policy deserve a better analogy than that of a punted "football." But hey, whatever it takes to make Obama look good, right?

Judge Obama on Performance Alone

Those of you who frequent this blog know that I provide a variety of news and commentary. Some of my posts are personal research pieces, sometimes I feature the work of a political cartoonist, and other times I simply relay the articles of other journalists. So, when I come across an article so profound and so well-stated as the one below written by Juan Williams, it is my honor to offer this blog as a platform for his work. I would be remiss if I didn't provide my readers with the best commentary possible, and Mr. Williams' article below is perhaps the best commentary I've seen from a main stream news outlet regarding the media's dangerous love affair with President Barack Obama...

Judge Obama on Performance Alone
Let's not celebrate more ordinary speeches.

By JUAN WILLIAMS
The Wall Street Journal
JANUARY 20, 2009, 11:31 P.M. ET

With the noon sun high over the U.S. Capitol, Barack Obama yesterday took the oath of office to become president of the United States. On one level, it was a simple matter of political process -- the symbolic transfer of power. Yet words alone cannot convey its meaning.

The calloused hands of slaves, the voices of abolitionists, the hearts of generations who trusted in the naïve promise that any child can become president, will find some reward in a moment that was hard to imagine last year, much less 50 years ago. Our history, so marred by the sin of slavery, has come to the day when a man that an old segregationist would have described as "tea-colored" -- the child of a white woman and an African immigrant, who identifies as a member of the long oppressed and despised black minority -- was chosen by a mostly white nation as the personification of America's best sense of self as a nation of power and virtue.

At the end of the 1965 march calling for passage of the Voting Rights Act, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said politics held the potential to reflect the brilliance of the American creed of justice for all, and a "society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience." Years of hard work lay ahead to shift racist attitudes born of political power being limited to white Americans, he said, then added that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. How long? Not long. Because mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!"

It is neither overweening emotion nor partisanship to see King's moral universe bending toward justice in the act of the first non-white man taking the oath of the presidency. But now that this moment has arrived, there is a question: How shall we judge our new leader?

If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else -- fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism -- then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.

Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.

This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise.

During the Democrats' primaries and caucuses, candidate Obama often got affectionate if not fawning treatment from the American media. Editors, news anchors, columnists and commentators, both white and black but especially those on the political left, too often acted as if they were in a hurry to claim their role in history as supporters of the first black president.

For example, Mr. Obama was forced to give a speech on race as a result of revelations that he'd long attended a church led by a demagogue. It was an ordinary speech. At best it was successful at minimizing a political problem. Yet some in the media equated it to the Gettysburg Address.

The importance of a proud, adversarial press speaking truth about a powerful politician and offering impartial accounts of his actions was frequently and embarrassingly lost. When Mr. Obama's opponents, such as the Clintons, challenged his lack of experience, or pointed out that he was not in the U.S. Senate when he expressed early opposition to the war in Iraq, they were depicted as petty.

Bill Clinton got hit hard when he called Mr. Obama's claims to be a long-standing opponent of the Iraq war "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." The former president accurately said that there was no difference in actual Senate votes on the war between his wife and Mr. Obama. But his comments were not treated by the press as legitimate, hard-ball political fighting. They were cast as possibly racist.

This led to Saturday Night Live's mocking skit -- where the debate moderator was busy hammering the other Democratic nominees with tough questions while inquiring if Mr. Obama was comfortable and needed more water.

When fellow Democrats contending for the nomination rightly pointed to Mr. Obama's thin proposals for dealing with terrorism and extricating the U.S. from Iraq, they were drowned out by loud if often vacuous shouts for change. Yet in the general election campaign and during the transition period, Mr. Obama steadily moved to his former opponents' positions. In fact, he approached Bush-Cheney stands on immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperate in warrantless surveillance.

There is a dangerous trap being set here. The same media people invested in boosting a black man to the White House as a matter of history have set very high expectations for him. When he disappoints, as presidents and other human beings inevitably do, the backlash may be extreme.

Several seasons ago, when Philadelphia Eagle's black quarterback Donovan McNabb was struggling, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said the media wanted a black quarterback to do well and gave Mr. McNabb "a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve." Mr. Limbaugh's sin was saying out loud what others had said privately.

There is a lot more at stake now, and to allow criticism of Mr. Obama only behind closed doors does no honor to the dreams and prayers of generations past: that race be put aside, and all people be judged honestly, openly, and on the basis of their performance.

President Obama deserves no less.

Mr. Williams, a political analyst for National Public Radio and Fox News, is the author of several books, including "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965" (Penguin, 1988), and "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America -- and What We Can Do About It" (Crown, 2006).

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Media Falsely Hyped Obama Inauguration Crowd Size




What a surprise! The main stream media appear to have mislead the American people regarding the number of people in attendance at Barack Obama's Inauguration.

Before the election, liberals outlets like The Huffington Post suggested there would be as many as 5 million people in attendance.

Then the AP, having successfully made the transition from credible news source to liberal propaganda machine during the 2008 election, hyped a Mayor's unscientific estimate in their headline: D.C. Mayor Expects 3M For Inauguration.

Newsbusters reports:

Baltimore Sun: "Inaugural crowd is estimated at close to 2 million"

Boston Globe: " The National Park Service says it will rely on a media report that says 1.8 million people attended President Obama's inauguration."

MSNBC: "Oh, and some guy named Barack Obama. Along with millions of regular folk, celebrities swarmed to DC to celebrate the Inauguration." (from the same page: "Could Inauguration Crowd Reach 4 Million?")

LA Times: "Crowds surged in previously unseen numbers today for the presidential inauguration of Barack Obama, making it seem increasingly likely that the gathering would reach the record-setting mark of 2 million."

Here's where it gets good.

Washington Post: "the official estimate released by the District yesterday is 1.8 million, a figure that would make the gathering the largest ever on the Mall."

Backstory on that "official estimate released by the District" that the Washington Post is writing about.

AP: "Park service spokesman David Barna said the agency did not conduct its own count. Instead, it will use a Washington Post account that said 1.8 million people gathered on the U.S. Capitol grounds, National Mall and parade route, he said."

And that is especially interesting because if you follow the jump on the Washington Post story you'll find this nugget of info: "The Washington Post's analysis of the image concluded that about 1 million people were on the Mall." And the first page of the article mentions the parade route "was supposed to accommodate 300,000 people at its height". Fuzzy math, a journalist staple.

Well, for those interested in some sort of actual journalism, ASU journalism professor, Stephen Doig, used satellite imaging to get an accurate (or at least a more accurate) count of the Obama inauguration crowd. His count, even after accounting for those still in route 40 minutes prior to the event, was around 800,000; which falls short of the 1.2 million record set in 1965 at Lyndon B. Johnson's inauguration.

Professor estimates crowds with satellite image
By: Griselda Nevarez
Published On: Wednesday, January 21, 2009



An ASU journalism professor using satellite images calculated that 800,000 people attended President Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony.

Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication professor Stephen Doig calculated the official inauguration crowd estimate after analyzing a GeoEye-1 satellite image shot at 11:19 a.m. from a height of 423 miles. GeoEye-1 is a military-controlled satellite.

Doig said the image was taken 40 minutes before Obama’s swearing-in, but adjusted his estimation to include people who were still coming in before the swearing-in.

“The space-based image is fascinating because all the low-level shots make you think the crowd is much larger,” Doig said. “You see the very dense clots of people in front of the Jumbotrons but then the wide open spaces elsewhere.”

Doig originally tried to calculate the crowd size through a camera hanging from a balloon 700 feet off the ground.

The balloon was operated from the ground by a company called Digital Design & Imaging Service. The Virginia-based company specializes in taking scenic pictures for planning projects of architects and developers.

Company president Curt Westergard asked Doig to calculate the amount of people at the inauguration from an image the camera took.

The camera initially went up at 4:50 a.m. and took its last photo at 7:30 a.m. MST.

Westergard said the camera was intended to take a picture two hours before the inauguration began, but because of George Bush’s early arrival and temporary flight restrictions, officials had the balloon come down earlier than expected.

Doig said one of the issues with the camera was the clarity of the vantage point. He said that is the reason why he was unable to calculate the crowd size.

“It was a beautiful photo but useless for crowd counting because it was not a clear photo,” Doig said.

Jody Brannon, national director of the Carnegie-Knight News21 Journalism Initiative, said technology has become a tool to help journalists report fairly and responsibly.

“For this historic event, not only is technology now available to help with accuracy, but Steve is a specialist experienced in reporting on crowds,” Brannon said in an e-mail. “So it’s a double-win to help chronicle history with great precision.”

Dan Gillmor, director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship, said Doig’s involvement in measuring the crowd size is significant.

“Steve is one of the real stars in understanding how data and journalism fit together,” Gillmor said in an e-mail. “So it makes perfect sense for him to be involved with this.”

Gillmor said aerial imagery has become a useful tool when making crowd estimates.

“In the past, we’ve had deliberate over- and under estimating of crowds to fit political agendas,” Gillmor said. “If technology can help us be more accurate, all the better.”

Reach the reporter at griselda.nevarez@asu.edu.
This story confirmed by cnet News

I Hear Our President is Black...





Does this scene seem quite right to you? Something about the silhouette of a Gray Goose bottle being waved in the air next to an American flag as a millionaire rap star calls the President who kept us safe for seven years a "Mother F#$%er" seems just... wrong, doesn't it? Keep in mind that these are celebrities who campaigned for Obama, who levied their popularity and celebrity status to help get him elected. To detach them from the man they helped put in office is not only nonsense, it's impossible. It's exactly this type of ideology, the type of hatred and ignorance displayed at this "after party," which got Obama elected. Don't act surprised now. "Change" is here. Are you believing in it yet? If not, perhaps we can get Young Jeezy and Jay-Z to come to your house and scream expletives at you until you agree with them. Apparently, that's what democracy is all about.

Here are the lyrics to this musical masterpiece, in case you're ever flipping through radio stations and you'd like to sing along:

My President is black
My Maybach too
And I’ll be goddamned if my diamonds ain’t blue
My money’s dark green
And my Porsche is light grey
And I’m headed for DC, anybody feel me ?

My president is black - in fact he’s half white
So even in a racist mind, he’s half right
Even if you’ve got a racist mind, it’s all right
My President is black, but his house is all white
Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther could walk
Martin Luther walked so Barack Obama could run
Barack Obama ran so all our children could fly
So I’m a spread my wings, you could meet me in the sky
Already got my own clothes, already got my own shoes
I was hot before Barack, imagine what I’m gonna do
Hello miss America, hey pretty lady
Red white and blue flag, wave for me baby
Never thought id say this shit, baby I’m good
You can keep your puss, I don’t want no more bush
No more war, no more Iraq
No more white lies - My President is black

And that's just the remix. Here's the original song:

[Intro: Young Jeezy]
Yeah, be the realest shit I never wrote
I ain't write this by the way nigga, some real shit right here nigga
This'll be the realest shit you ever quote
Let's go!

[Hook: Young Jeezy}
My president is black, my Lambo's blue
And I'll be goddamned if my rims ain't too
My momma ain't at home, and daddy's still in jail
Tryna make a plate, anybody seen the scale?
My president is black, my Lambo's blue
And I'll be goddamned if my rims ain't too
My money's light green and my Jordans light grey
And they love to see white, now how much you tryna pay?
Let's go!

[Verse 1: Young Jeezy]
Today was a good day, hope I have me a great night
I don't know what you fishin for but catch you a great white
Me, I see great white, heavy as killer whales
I cannot believe this, who knew it came in bails
Who knew what came with jail, who knew what came with prison
Just cause you got opinions, does that make you a politician?
Bush robbed all of us, would that make him a criminal?
And then he cheated in Florida, would that make him a Seminole?
I say and I quote, "We need a miracle"
And I say a miracle cause this shit is hysterical
By my nephews and nieces, I will email Jesus
Tell him forward to Moses and CC Allah
Mr. Soul Survivor, guess that make me a Konvict
Be all you be, now don't that sound like some dumb shit
When you die over crude oil as black as my nigga Boo
It's really a Desert Storm, that's word to my nigga Clue
Catch me in Las Vegas, A.R. Arizona
Rep for them real niggas, I'm winnin in California
Winnin in Tennessee, hands down Atlanta
Landslide Alabama, on my way to Sevana

[Hook]

[Verse 2: Young Jeezy]
I said I woke up this morning, headache this big
Pay all these damn bills, feed all these damn kids
Buy all these school shoes, buy all these school clothes
For some strange reason my son addicted to Polos
Love me some spinach dip, I'm addicted to Houston's
And if the numbers is right I take a trip out to Houston
An earthquake out in China, a hurricane in New Orleans
Street Dreams Tour, I showed my ass in New Orleans
Did it for Soulja Slim, brought out B.G.
It's all love Bun, I'm forgivin you Pimp C
You know how the Pimp be, that nigga gon' speak his mind
If he could speak down from heaven he'd tell me stay on my grind
Tell him I'm doin fine, Obama for mankind
We ready for damn change so y'all let the man shine
Stuntin on Martin Luther, feelin just like a king
Guess this is what he meant when he said that he had a dream

[Hook]

[Verse 3: Nas]
Yeah, our history, black history, no president ever did shit for me
Had to hit the streets, had to flip some keys so a nigga won't go broke
Then they put us in jail, now a nigga can't go vote
So I spend doe, all these hoes is trippin
She a ain't a politician, honey's a polotician
My president is black, rolls golden charms
Twenty-two inch rims like Hulk Hogan's arms
When thousands of peoples is riled up to see you
That can arouse ya ego, we got mouths to feed so
Gotta stay true to who you are and where you came from
Cause at the top will be the same place you hang from
No matter how big you can ever be
For whatever fee or publicity, never lose your integrity
For years there's been surprise horses in this stable
Just two albums in, I'm the realest nigga on this label
Mr. Black President, yo Obama for real
They gotta put your face on the five-thousand dollar bill

[Hook]

[Outro: Young Jeezy]
So I'm sittin right here now man
It's June 3rd haha, 2:08 AM
Nigga I won't say win, lose or draw
Man we congratulate you already homie
See I motivate the thugs right
You motivate us homie, that's what it is
This a hands off policy, y'all touch him we ridin nigga
Yeah, first black president, win, lose or draw nigga
Haha, matter of fact, you know what it is man
Shouts out to Jackie Robinson, Booker T, Washington homie
Oh you ain't think I knew that shit?
Sydney portea what dey do?
Haha, my president is black
I'm important too though, my Lambo's blue
I was, I was the first nigga to ride through my hood in a Lamborghini yeah haha


Boy I tell ya, if this doesn't assure you the country's headed in the right direction, I don't know what will. And here I've wasted all my time and money on a college education and all I had to do was sell drugs on the streets, then make rhymes about my experiences and scream them to a repetitive beat. Then I, too, could become a millionaire and persuade thousands of young voters to support my candidate for president. If only I had known I was going about this the wrong way! Apparently, breaking down facts, statistics, trends and history isn't important. Having a sick beat to scream my illiterate rants to is all I need to capture the minds and hearts of young America. Now I know.

Oh, and by the way. Apparently, our president is black. I spent so much time looking at his poor policies, record and associations that I forgot to check his skin pigment.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Markets Greet Obama With Worst Inauguration Day Selloff In History



In addition to having the worst post-election market drop in history, Obama now lays claim to yet another record.

Markets Greet Obama With Worst Inauguration Day Selloff In History

By Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters
January 20, 2009 - 16:43 ET

Barack Obama not only made history becoming the first black President of the United States Tuesday, but he was also inhospitably greeted by the biggest January Inauguration Day stock selloff ever.

At the closing bell, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down over four percent, with the S&P 500 and NASDAQ indices plummeting more than five percent.

As the Wall Street Journal's MarketBeat blog reported, this makes today's performance the worst since Inauguration Day was moved to January:

Since the date of the inaugural was moved up to January 20 for the swearing-in of Franklin Delano Roosevelt for his second term in 1937, the date (or nearest trading day) of the swearing-in has been lackluster. The best day was Jan. 21, 1985, the day after the swearing-in of Ronald Reagan for a second term, when the Dow rose 2.77%.

Otherwise, out of the last 10 January inaugural days following the end of the previous full presidential term, just two have ended with the Dow higher (1985 and 1997), and the rest lower, with the worst day being the -2.09% selloff endured on the day Mr. Reagan was sworn in for his first term. Other inaugural days have been poor as well — Gerald Ford’s swearing-in on August 9, 1974 saw the Dow fall nearly 1%, and the DJIA lost 2.89% on Nov. 22, 1963, when Lyndon B. Johnson replaced the assassinated John F. Kennedy.


To be fair, Inauguration Days are typically bad ones for stocks. CNBC has been telling viewers all day that the market drops 72 percent of the time when a president is being sworn in.

Maybe more important, stocks normally do very poorly the first year of a new president's first term. There are a number of logical explanations for this including the overall uncertainty of what a new administration will bring and just how their new policies will impact the economy.

However, it has to be distressing for the new President and his team to see stocks plummet more than on the day JFK was assassinated. And, they can't be pleased by how the selloff accelerated after Obama finished his Inaugural address:



CNBC's Steve Leesman commented that Wall Street must have been disappointed when Obama didn't walk on water after his speech.

Unfortunately, this wasn't the first bad day for stocks this month as CNBC.com reported

The Dow and S&P 500 are having their worst open to a New Year ever.

* The Dow is down 6.6% YTD. The Dow has only been down more than 6% through the 14th of January only once before, in 1978 when it was down 6.38%.
* The S&P 500 is down 6.7% YTD. The previous record through Jan 14 was a drop of 5.7% set in 1982
* The NASDAQ is down 5.5% YTD, its second worst open to a new year. It was down 6.6% for the same period in 2008.


With today's selloff, this is becoming the worst January stock performance to ever usher in a new President.

Makes one wonder whether the giddy Obama-loving media will address any of this on television tonight and in the papers tomorrow, or will they refuse to allow anything to dampen the celebration.

Stay tuned.

Conservative Brawler's Archive

Brawler's Search