Ron Paul Competitive vs Obama

Ron Paul is seen as a long-shot to win the Republican nomination, but could he beat Obama in 2012? A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that he could.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_41_ron_paul_37

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Paul picking up 37% of the vote, while the president earns 41%. The Texas congressman joins Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry as candidates within hailing distance of the president at this time.

Against Dr. Paul, Obama earns a lower percentage of the vote than he does against any other candidate. And Paul earns roughly the same percentage of the vote as do Perry, Christie, Bachmann, and Palin.

So, Dr. Paul may be a long shot for the Republican nomination, but he is competitive in the general election.


Read the rest...

The US WILL Default On Debt

If you're looking for a voice of reality and sanity, then you must listen to Ron Paul. He stood up in the House the other day and said the following:

I do not understand, though, that if the debt is the problem, and I agree that the debt IS the problem, that for us to come here and raise the debt by $2.4 trillion is the solution. That just baffles me.

He has an excellent point. If debt is the problem, then accumulating more debt will just make things worse.

And both parties want to keep going into debt. Even the so-called "massive" spending cuts of $4 trillion over the next decade are ridiculous when compared to the $13 trillion (or more!) in new debt that we're projected to acquire over that time period. Neither side wants to reduce spending from today's level... the Democrats want to go into debt even faster, and the GOP just wants to slow it down a little.

And then Dr. Paul said something that neither party is acknowledging.

When a country gets endebted to the degree we're indebted, the country always defaults. This is historic, especially if the country is a significant country. We will default because the debt is unsustainable.

Both sides continue to address the "solution" as "reducing the deficit." If we reduce the deficit, that means we're still running a deficit, i.e. we're still going deeper into debt! And it's the DEBT that will cause massive problems later on. Neither party is addressing this problem and saying what must be said: To solve our problems, we have to ELIMINATE the deficit, turn it into a surplus, and begin paying down the debt! The longer we wait, the worse our problems will be.

But neither party wants to acknowledge that in any real way, so the reality is that we WILL default. Extending the debt limit won't let us avoid defaulting, it will just make the danger a little less immediate. But make no mistake, if we continue on our current course of permanent deficit spending, WE... WILL... DEFAULT. Eventually. And the results will be bad.

There's an awful lot of wisdom residing in Dr. Paul. Now remind me... why don't we want him as our next President?


Read the rest...

US Deserves Credit Downgrade

I honestly don't understand what the huge deal is about a downgrade in the US credit rating. Yes, I know it would raise the interest rates (and hence the payments) on our national debt, but that doesn't change the fact that our government has earned a downgrade in our credit rating.

Look at it this way. Almost half of what we're spending this year is borrowed money. Our national debt is $14.3 trillion. That's equivalent to $46,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. If you're just counting taxpayers, it's equivalent to $130,000 per taxpayer. Households? How about $175,000 per household?

We're deeply in debt, borrowing almost half of what we spend each year, and are in the process of establishing new entitlement programs, taxes, and regulations on businesses that will further depress our economy and accelerate our slide into debt. Each and every day brings us closer and closer to a Greek-style debt crisis that can't be avoided as long as we keep racking up more and more debt.

So, why should Moody's and S&P keep our credit rating at AAA? Does anybody think our nation DESERVES that credit rating? Personally, I think the President and Congress have been working hard to put this nation in a position where exactly this would happen, and they have little room to complain when what they have worked so hard to achieve actually happens.

I believe our credit rating will be downgraded within the next few years whether or not we raise the debt ceiling today. Why? Because the underlying problem isn't the debt ceiling itself, it's the massive amount of borrowing we are doing that has to be addressed. And that means spending cuts.


We hear Republicans and Democrats talk about "massive" spending cuts in the amount of $4 trillion... over the next decade. Excuse me, but that's garbage. When they talk about "cutting" debt by $4 trillion over the next decade, they don't mean it the way you or I would. They mean they would cut $4 trillion of PLANNED spending from the next decade, leaving the budget to increase a good $5 trillion over that time period.

In other words, even if those $4 trillion in cuts materialized exactly as planned (not a foregone conclusion), our national debt would continue to climb each and every year.

You want massive cuts? Okay, here are the numbers of what we MUST achieve in order to start reducing our national debt.

We have a deficit this year of $1.4 trillion out of a roughly $3.4 trillion budget... meaning that tax revenues will handle about $2 trillion of that, and the rest is borrowed. In order to start reducing our national debt, we have to balance the budget. That means we have to cut spending by $1.4 trillion. Today. Or, if you insist on looking at it the way that politicians do, we must reduce spending by $14 trillion over the next decade.

As you can see, the "massive spending cuts" being considered are less than a third of what are needed.

So, in my humble opinion, Moody's and S&P should have downgraded our credit rating a while back. That they're considering doing so now isn't so much unexpected or unfair as it is harsh reality coming home to roost.

Read the rest...

Ron Paul's Ad In Iowa, NH

As you know, Presidential candidate Ron Paul announced earlier this week that he would not be running for re-election to his House seat, so that he can focus on his Presidential bid.

Today, Dr. Paul enveils his first TV ad, which he is running in Iowa and New Hampshire in a bid to increase his support in those early states. Would you like to see the ad?




If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://bcove.me/9ydk23dh

This is a good ad, visually compelling. It grabs your interest by spoofing a movie ad, and the production values are high. The content is good, too, highlighting Paul's strong points: standing by his convictions to do what is right rather then compromise with what's wrong.

This is a good ad, and if he runs it enough and focuses on those early states, I predict he'll see good returns from it.

UPDATE: This is a good strong position that resonates with most Americans... the most recent Rasmussen poll shows that 55% of Americans agree. But he's doing more than saying we shouldn't go further into debt, he's standing on his past record of ALWAYS having said that. It's a good, strong position.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/july_2011/55_oppose_tax_hike_in_debt_ceiling_deal


Read the rest...

Off Topic: Auditions This Weekend

I know this isn't political, but I'm directing a show out at Prattville's Way Off Broadway Theater, and we're holding auditions this weekend. We need three talented male actors to make this production of "The Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr (Abridged)" a success! So come on out and audition, and spread the word to all of your actor friends in the area.

Here's the audition information:

Auditions will be held on Sunday, July 17 from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM and Monday, July 18 from 7:00 PM until 10:00PM.

Location:
Prattville Performing Arts Center
203 W. 4th Street
Prattville, AL

Three talented men needed to perform this rollicking comedy directed by Matthew Givens.

“The Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr (abridged) is a hilarious romp through all 37 of Shakespeare’s plays (plus the sonnets!) that will leave the audience’s sides aching from laughter. It’s Shakespeare’s plays like you’ve never seen them before… from the histories performed as a football game to Othello as a rap song, this play will challenge actors and delight audiences. Always an audience favorite, this comedy proved so popular in London that it ran for more than nine years!”

Performances will run September 15 through October 2.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Ron Paul Won't Run For Reelection To House Seat

US Rep Ron Paul (R) announced today that he will not be running for re-election to his House seat, instead focusing his attention on his Presidential bid.
http://thefacts.com/article_1c9785ea-ac9d-11e0-b2df-001cc4c03286.html

After serving almost 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Ron Paul told The Facts this morning he will not be seeking another term for the District 14 seat.

Paul, 75, will instead focus on his quest for the presidency in 2012.

“I felt it was better that I concentrate on one election,” Paul said. “It’s about that time when I should change tactics.”

His announcement will give enough time for anyone with aspirations for his seat to think about running, he said. Paul didn’t want to wait for filing in the 2012 primary to let people know he wasn’t seeking reelection.

So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Paul will not be returning to the US House of Representatives for another term.


Generically speaking, this is good news for Democrats and bad news for Republicans. Had Paul run, he almost certainly would have won, making his seat a safe one for the GOP. Now it's an open election, and they'll have to fight to keep it.

And I think this will allow Dr. Paul to run a better Presidential race. In my own, humble opinion, Dr. Paul SHOULD BE our next President. He's the man we need. He's the man I will vote for.

Read the rest...

Obama's Understanding Of Taxes

Read the rest...

Unemployment Rate Rises To 9.2%, Economy Worsens

The jobs report for June is out, and it's far worse than anything "the experts" expected. The unemployment rate rose to 9.2%, only 18,000 jobs were created in June, and the April/May figures were REDUCED by a total of 44,000 jobs. May was downgraded to 25,00 jobs created (down from the originally reported 54,000), and April was downgraded to 217,000 jobs created (down from the originally reported 232,000).

And there is worse information contained in this report. The percentage of adults with jobs has fallen from last month, as have the labor force participation rate and the average number of hours worked.

And we're hearing that word again... unexpected. This was all unexpected, and the experts are shocked. Do you know why this is? Basically, it's because they begin by assuming their conclusion, which is that the economy is recovering. If it's recovering, that means we're adding jobs. Ergo, the job numbers for the latest month are always assumed to be better.

But remember, June is the last month when the government "estimates" new jobs that they can't prove exist. So, as bad as these numbers are, the actual figures are probably worse.

And the U-6 figure? (For those that don't know, here is a definition of the U-6 unemployment number.)

The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over.

In June, the U6 unemployment figure ticked upwards to 16.2%. Yes, you heard that correctly, the REAL unemployment figure, the number that includes those who have given up looking for work, is 16.2%.

For the record, that's the highest it's been all year, and only 1.2 points lower than the high-point of the recession, which was 17.4% in October, 2009.

To see a chart showing the U3 unemployment rates over time, look here:
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp

To see a chart showing the U6 unemployment rates over time, look here:
http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

UPDATE: Here are links to some articles about this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43682716/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58561.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/08/morning-bell-an-economy-in-panic/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/business/economy/job-growth-falters-badly-clouding-hope-for-recovery.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/us-usa-economy-idUSTRE7662I420110708

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576433541086114816.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

Read the rest...

Forget About Jobs, Darn it!!

Have you noticed that one four-letter word seems to be dominating the economic debate, lately? And it's a bad one, because by focusing on it we enable a dysfunctional view of economic reality. The word? Jobs.

We see it everywhere. The President wants to create more "jobs," both parties want to focus on "jobs," and conventional wisdom tells us that PresBo's re-election chances revolve around "jobs." The high point of this irrational fascination came when PresBo began urging businesses to hire more people. He blamed our economic troubles on, of all things, ATM machines.

“There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.”

This is the view of a Keynesian, who believes that any job, even one created by government, is just as good as any other. In his mind, ditching all ATMs and hiring clerks to take their places would create jobs, and so that's a good thing.

But the problem with this "jobs" fascination is quite simple: businesses do not exist to create jobs. They exist to make money. The jobs they create are a side-effect of that quest for money.


Asking a business to focus on creating jobs is like asking a hungry man to bake a pizza... it might help him achieve his real goal, but it's probably not necessary to it. Just like the man can eat by letting Dominoes cook his Pizza, the business might be able to achieve ITS goal through automation. Creating new jobs is not always essential to business success, so focusing on jobs alone misses the point.

The key to building strong growth in jobs isn't as straight-forward as borrowing another trillion dollars and giving it to any politician with a wish-list. The key to creating jobs is simple... demand.

Right now, with unemployment so high, and faced with the reality of rising taxes and massive amounts of new regulations, people are skittish and unwilling to spend all their money on the newest Nook... and I don't care if it DOES have a nifty text-to-speech feature that sounds like Kathleen Turner. In this environment, with all the uncertainty about just about EVERYTHING, people don't want to spend.

Which means that businesses don't want to take risks or expand their enterprises to meet that non-existant demand. Hence, no new jobs.

In this climate, businesses have to try and find new opportunities without expanding their employee base, because those employees come complete with a lot of extra baggage, responsibilities, and requirements... which means costs.

I am not attempting to chart a path out of our current situation, mainly because I don't have the hubris and ego necessary to believe I'm the smartest man on earth. Barack Obama I'm not. But I DO know this focus on jobs, while convenient from a political viewpoint, is counterproductive, at best.

Our job outlook will not improve simply because we want it to. We have to rebuild a climate where people are regaining their confidence and are willing to engage in economic activity... which is kind of what businesses live for, you know?

Businesses don't create jobs because the President asks them to, nor because they HOPE customer demand will increase. Businesses create jobs to make money... period. Without customer demand, nothing the government can do will "bring jobs back."

Read the rest...

MSM BIas: Ron Paul Fundraising Ignored

Images are visceral things... if we can see it, we feel it better. So, when this picture was shown on TV, we know who the top fundraisers are, and Ron Paul didn't make the cut, right?





However, that would be wrong. According to the official records submitted, Ron Paul raised $4.5 million during the quarter, making him SECOND PLACE, behind only Romney in fundraising ability.

I have to ask, why on earth would supposedly unbiased reporters do something like this? Whether you like/support Dr. Paul or not, whether or not you think he has a chance to win, doesn't the concept of fair reporting require that his fundraising receive equal recognition as that of the other registered candidates?

If anybody in the mainstream media is wondering why their influence is falling and why people don't trust them to be objective and informative, this might serve as a decent lesson.


Read the rest...

PresBo Lied During Twitter Town Hall

The historic Twitter Townhall is over, and PresBo lied at least once during his long answers to short questions.

The question was what mistakes did he make handling the recession, and PresBo made the following claim:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20077259-503544.html

"Even I didn't realize the magnitude -- because most economists didn't realize the magnitude -- of the recession until" we were well into it, Mr. Obama said. He added that "setting people's expectations is part of how you respond well."

This claim is disengenious at best, and an outright lie at worst.

Does anybody except me remember PresBo, when he was trying to convince everybody that his massive stimulus package was a good idea, making the following statement?

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future."

PresBo also said (in February of 2009) that a failure to pass his stimulus bill would turn the recession into a "catastrophe from which we might never recover."

Now think about this. If he didn't realize how bad the recession was, then why did he claim we might never recover from it? Was that just political rhetoric (i.e. a lie) to convince people to support his excessive and useless stimulus package?

There's a lie in here, guys... Today he told us he didn't realize how bad the recession was, but back then he was predicting the end of our nation as we know it.

Doesn't anybody except me hold this guy to the truth? This was an obvious lie, people... do we just label it "politics as usual" and ignore it?

I hope not...

Read the rest...

Obama's Stimulus Shocker

Those of us who opposed the Obama stimulus knew it wouldn't "work," i.e. it wouldn't "create jobs" and it would be incredibly wasteful. According to a report in today's Weekly Standard, we were right.

The Standard analyzed a stimulus status report released by the White House on Friday, July 1st. By crunching the numbers on money spent ($666 billion) and jobs created (2.4 million) to date, they concluded that the government spent an average of $278,000 for each job.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

But as "shocking" as that news might be to stimulus supporters, there is something even more shocking revealed... to whit, the stimulus has been hurting the economy over the past six months or so.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”

And remember, the data being analyzed here was produced by the White House economic advisors!

Now, aren't you glad that the Democrats are in charge of the nation's purse strings?

Yeah, me neither.

Read the rest...

Minnesota Closes... Who To Blame?

The State of Minnesota is CLOSED. Unable to reach a "budget compromise" deal, the state government has shut down.

The Democrat Governor, Mark Dayton, is blaming the GOP-controlled Legislature for the budget impasse. You see, the GOP took control of the Minnesota legislature in 2010, and they have refused to accept tax increases to close the state's $5 billion budget shortfall.

The Governor is outraged, and places the blame squarely on their shoulders.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58184.html

At a late-night capitol press conference attended by the very GOP legislators with which Dayton was sparring, the governor blamed Republicans for refusing to budge from a no-tax increase position.

“They would prefer to protect the richest handful of Minnesotans at the expense of everyone else,” Dayton said. “Instead of taxing their friends, they would prefer very damaging cuts to healthcare, public safety, mass transit” and other state services.

So that's it. The Governor is blaming the GOP because they are too stubborn to abandon their no-tax-increase position. That's strange, since he is, at the same time, announcing his refusal to budge from HIS raise-taxes-at-all-costs position. You see, it takes two stubborn sides to create an impasse... so where does the blame really lie?


The budget shortfall didn't come about because of falling revenue, it came about because the Minnesota government is spending too much. The best solution, then, is to reduce spending. Raising taxes would do little more than encourage lawmakers to spend even more, since they can do so without consequences.

And do they REALLY want to raise taxes and punish people in our current economic climate?

This debate carries over to the national stage, where the Democrats in control of the Senate and the White House are making $3 billion (over 10 years) in tax increases (on private jets, no less) a make-or-break issue over the debt limit increase. The GOP is demanding spending cuts (whether they'll be real or accomplished via accounting gimmicks is a different story) in large amounts, which PresBo appears willing to grudgingly accede to... maybe. But, by golly, if they don't agree to fiscally inconsequential tax increases that are so small they make no real difference to the budget figures being discussed, then there will BE NO AGREEMENT!

Now tell me, who is to blame, again?

If you answered both sides, I give you five points for straddling the fence. Ten points if you can do so and avoid picking up any splinters.

The problem here, is that the GOP (both in Minnesota and in DC) can at least make the prima facia case that their position not only addresses the budget problems BUT ALSO corrects the underlying problem (too much spending) without raising taxes in the middle of a recession. The Democrats' position is simply to demand tax increases because they want them, and economic repercussions can go hang.

So maybe we should rephrase the question. Instead of asking who is to blame, maybe we should ask who is being unreasonably petulant in their strident demands.

Phrased that way, there's only one answer. Right?

Read the rest...