Monthly Archives: April 2016



A new Gallup survey showed a sharp rise in the percentage of Americans convinced that humans are the main driver of global warming.

The catastrophic, "deindustrialize or die,"  fascistic, warmunist left was jubilant recently when it learned from a new Gallup poll that its extremist belief that human activity is the main driver in global warming (AGW) is at a 15 year high. The poll shows that in 2001 61% of the public believed in AGW; that in 2010 it fell to its lowest point of 51%; and that now it's at all time high at 61% and expected to grow. And while belief in AGW is the highest it's been in some time the contrary view of skeptics (called "denialists" by warmunists), that global warming has little or nothing to do with human activity, has fallen from its 2001 low of 33% to 31%. 
The warminists seem to be winning over the public while anti-AGW skeptics are losing. And the warmunist left is jubilant. They believe that Barack Obama's leadership on climate change has been effective and is paying off. That his "the science is settled" sci-fi fanaticism and lies have been good for the movement; and that this is all the more reason to keep skeptic Donald Trump from the White House and elect either pro-AGW Hillary or Bernie to continue Obama's radical green, clean, anti-fossil fuel legacy.
But appearances are deceiving. The real important question is the level of concern. How many of the 61% think that AGW is a crisis that is personally impacting their lives for the worse? And that the world is headed for "thermageddon": a hellish hot-house planet of man caused rising temperatures that will be so intense as to be uninhabitable in the future wiping out mankind and every living thing.
 For example how many of the 61% are driving gas guzzling, fossil fuel burning cars verses plug-ins like the Chevy Volt to save the environment and Earth? Not many according to stats. There are 255 million vehicles in this country and only 400,000 are plugins (600,000 short of the 1 million in sales Obama predicted by the end of his presidency). In fact, due to the drop in oil and gas prices sale of plug-ins has been plummeting as more Americans are buying traditional carbon spewing cars, and filling up at the pump while putting more "earth heating" greenhouse gases into the CO2 polluted air (see).
And how many of the 61% own homes installed with clean, green solar energy panels? Solar energy has been around for decades, is plagued by scandal (see), and to date only 0.6% of the nation's total energy comes from the Sun (see). While the solar industry is growing (prices are dropping) it's not exactly galloping ahead leading America into a green energy future as you'd think given the Gallup poll and Obama's crony capitalist subsidizing of solar companies; and besides, how many homeowners with solar panels have plugin cars in their garages? Not many as we saw above. This shows that most solar panel owners are interested in saving money on electric bills not saving planet Earth.
No. Things are not as rosy as they seem for the go green or die fascist left who now want to criminalize skeptics because their movement in reality is in serious decline-due to 18 years of virtually flat global temperatures despite accelerated human CO2 emissions; and the catastrophic failure of apocalyptic predictions about famines, coastal flooding, snowless winters, iceless arctics, extreme weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes in ever greater frequency, acidification of seas killing fish and coral reefs, etc. As none of these things have materialized most of that 61% don't feel alarmed that there's a growing climate crisis threatening their lives or that of their children and posterity; most don't see or feel an urgent need to radically rearrange our economy and replace the burning of fossil fuels (still the cheapest, most efficient and wealth creating form of energy) with more costly and less efficient renewables.
pew report climate change
Indeed, while 61% say that climate change is mainly man made or anthropogenic, which it certainly is not, the issue of global warming has a very low priority with the public and is not a problem which they will bring to the voting booth this November. For according to Pew Research of the 23 most vitally important national issues global warming is almost at the bottom in 22nd place just ahead of global trade. In other words, very few Americans are worried to death like the Obama administration, Al Gore and De Caprio that global warming is a top national security priority and poses an existential threat to the country and mankind. That is outright crackpot over the top left-wing alarmism that worries only mad men and fools who see themselves as great world citizens, servers and saviors in a global messianic  cause to save mankind, which isn't in peril of destroying itself.
In the long history of man industrial, fossil fuel burning capitalism has been his greatest economic blessing lifting billions out of poverty in 200 years, and lifting millions more in third world countries as I write. The crackpot, bankrupt, warmunist left (it has run out of doomsday scare tactics) offers nothing better and is in decline unable to end man's wealth creating love affair with  "dirty" combustible energy.


Charles Koch said the political network he helps lead is "seeking to right injustices that are holding our country back." (Bo Rader/The Wichita Eagle via AP, File)
Has free market conservative billionaire Charles Koch lost his mind? Has he forgotten or does he even know that it was Bill Clinton's ill fated affordable housing program that set in motion the train of events that caused the recession of late 2007 (because of a growing housing crisis), and which progressively worsened until the market crash of September 2008 when the economy nearly collapsed into a depression? Does Koch know that Hillary fully supported her husband's reckless housing policies and defends them to this day? Does he really think that if Donald Trump, Cruz or Kasich were president in the 1990s that they would have embarked on such a destructive course? NO WAY! Let's take a walk down memory lane and see just what Clinton did:
 Bubba the great bubble blower who wanted to be known by history as the Homeownership President.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1992 the home ownership market had been stagnant for years stuck at a rate of 62.5%. Clinton found it intolerable that so many Americans would give up on the dream of owning a home, and he decided to do something about it. In 1995 after working on a plan with cabinet members, advisors and wall Street financial firms Clinton went public with his audacious plan: the National Homeownership Strategy (NHS). The gist of his plan was this: the administration would move heaven and earth to revive the US housing market with the goal of boosting homeownership to a national record of "67.5%" by 2000 (see and see) .
Outlining NHS at a White House speech Clinton said that central to his plan was making home buying easier for low and moderate income families who lacked the income, savings and credit to qualify for traditional mortgages (whose likelihood of default was high). Clinton's plan was to break with traditional mortgage lending and lower credit barriers and standards to accommodate the millions of uncreditworthy (risky) borrowers who couldn't afford homes. Thus was born Clinton's totally reckless and insane subprime loan revolution where the US government, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (see and see) and the financial community (aka "Wall Street") would collude in putting millions of uncreditworthy families into expensive homes they couldn't normally afford by drastically deregulating the mortgage business: lowering credit, down payment and interest requirements (i.e. making loans "affordable").
The program was a smashing success that boosted an already prospering economy (from the hi-tech revolution) and won Clinton reelection despite his scandals. In fact, so successful was the program that when Clinton left office the homeownership rate was at an astonishing 68% (exceeding his goal of 67.5%) with approximately 8 million new homeowners added to the economy. In short, Clinton was the first president to use subprime lending as a tool ("creative financing" he called it) to gigantically and artificially increase homeownership in this country; and by doing so he created the greatest housing and credit bubble in US history.
Indeed, at the time of the crash Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, Chase, Goldman, Lehmans, etc. owned a staggering 27 million subprime mortgages valued at $6.2 trillion-with Fannie and Freddie backing/owning $5 trillion and "Wall Street" owning the rest    (see and see). This proves as many have said that it was mostly the US gov't (Fannie, Freddie etc.) that crashed the Main Street economy (nearly plunging it into a depression) with "Wall Street banksters" playing a junior or subordinate role. But the fountainhead of the crisis was indisputably Bill Clinton and his crash, affordable (crony capitalist) housing program-which eliminated sound government regulatory and financing barriers to homeownership, and initiated the "Mortgages For Everyone Era" that we've yet to recover from.
When Bernie Sanders accuses the corrupt crooked Clintons of being too cozily in bed with Wall Street banksters and blames Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall for the housing crash he's only scratching the surface. 
Truth is if Trump, Cruz or Kasich were president in the 90s instead of Bill Clinton the housing/credit crash would not have happened, Barack Obama would not be president and this nation and the world would be far better off. But don't take my word for it. Read Gretchen Morgenson's book on the subject and see for yourself what a disaster his presidency was and why Koch is dead wrong.


Today on this very sad 46th anniversary of Earth Day as the doomsday clock on climate change ticks away irrevocably Science Guy and climate prophet Bill Nye speaks about what could have been if America and the world had heeded men like him.  This is what he said:
'If only you had listened to science guys like me and deindustrialized the world when I warned, you wouldn't be headed toward catastropheThere would be no snowless northern winters and iceless Arctic summers; glaciers, icebergs and polar bears wouldn't now be extinct; gondolas instead of taxis wouldn't be picking up fares on flooded New York streets; mass migration from coastal areas caused by rising seas, typhoons and storms wouldn't be plaguing the world; billions of dead fish wouldn't horrifically be floating on the seas from acidification poisoning; deserts wouldn't be growing in the heart of Western Europe with Moslem migrants living there in Bedouin tents; they'd be no droughts and famine  causing cannibalization in China and India because of mass starvation; and Taiwan, New Zealand, the Fiji Islands and Japan wouldn't have vanished from the map swimming with the fishes and Luca Brasi .
 If only you had listened to science guys like me soaring temperatures wouldn't be baking the earth like a vast Nazi oven dooming mankind to irreversible, apocalyptic, green house extinction. If only you had listened and achieved zero carbon emissions instead of doubling down on using fossil fuels this planet wouldn't be turning into a lifeless, burning, deadly hell like, desolate, uninhabitable, volcanic Venus. If only you had listened.'
When young 14-year-old Bill (science fiction guy) Nye rode his white "green friendly" bike to the first Earth Day event at Washington's National Mall he heard many hysterical left-wing speakers making doomsday predictions such as these, and learned absolutely nothing from their folly:

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” 
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” 
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

and this classic:

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

 The above is but a fraction of the catastrophic nonsense young mush brained, impressionable nerdie Nye heard that history making day (Vladimir Lenin's 100th birthday). And despite the absolute failure of all these predictions Nye wants to criminalize skepticism and throw all deniers in jail as menaces to humanity (something Lenin would do). Like all leftist loons what Nye desperately needs is a padded cell and never be allowed near the minds of children again.



 DISGRACEFUL: Pope Francis could have chosen Syrian Christian refugees to take into the Vatican, but he only chose Muslim-Bare Naked Islam  


All very touching, all very moving and all very useless for saving Christians and defeating Jihad. If I were a Jihadist I'd be delighted by the Pope's gesture as it could mean more jihadists infiltrating Europe.
suddenly undergo a moral transformation and be any less inclined to hate, persecute and kill Christians because the Pope showed Moslem refugees fleeing Syria kindness over Christians giving them refuge in the Vatican and then washing their feet? Jihadists expect extraordinary kindness and kowtowing from Christians believing that Moslems deserve it-not because of their humanity but due to the superiority of their faith, understanding of God and triumphant destiny. Christian charity toward Moslems is a waste. As long as a Christians remains Christian they're hateful sinners deserving of cruelty, subjugation and death (Koran 9:29); for in defiance of God Christians practice a corrupt and obsolete form of monotheism condemned by the Koran as "cursed" (9:30), and by providence to eventual extinction. Jihadists see themselves as agents of God's wrath carrying out His divine will in His universal holy war against Christians and unbelievers.
"Believe in me or die! Believe in me or die! And if it pleases me to let you live I'll crush you with oppression!" was Mohammed's message to Christians and Jews as he raised his blood stained sword to heaven. This is the gospel Jihadists live by.
If Bill Clinton siding with Moslem militants against Christians in the Kosovo War (and his bombing of Yugoslavia and killing hundreds of Christian Serbs) miserably failed to placate bin Laden and prevent 9/11 what does the Pope think he'll achieve by this feeble, butt kissing gesture at the Vatican? The Pope is Christian and leader of Christians practicing a corrupt faith and that is an unforgivable sin in Islam. If al Qaida or ISIS had an infallible terrorist plan for destroying the Vatican only the Pope's conversion to Islam would stop them. Jihadists are cruel, implacable, inhuman fanatics hell-bent on conquest and death (who only respect power and strength) and have to be killed. Victory in this war means crushing the will of Jihadists to defeat us. There is no other way to stop them.


"Broadcast And Cable News Fail To Inform Viewers About Major Obamacare Success Story. That in the first quarter of 2016 that uninsured rate among adults 18 years and older is at a historic low of 11%."
 Wow! Why all the media silence when history is being made? Compared to where we were six years ago this is one truly amazing statistic. Just look at the numbers and give Barack Obama the credit he deserves. When on March 23, 2010 Obama-defying the stupid, misinformed will of the American people (CNN had six out of ten voters opposing the Affordable Care Act, see)-signed Obamacare into law approximately 37 million low-income adult Americans (16%) lacked health insurance; but last week, as Media Matters euphorically reported, that has since dwindled down to 11% or 24 million. That's an impressive gain of 13 million Americans that were previously uninsured.
So where's the predicted disaster and train wreck? With statistics like these how can right-wing critics of Obamacare (Trump, Cruz, Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and the Republican Party) say that's it's a failure, and continue calling for its repeal? Indeed, these 13 million represent an astounding 35% increase in the number of low-income Americans now receiving insurance. How is that a disaster?
For God's sake, instead of wanting to kill Obamacare all Americans should be celebrating it as a great success and moral victory for human rights in this country. For our social justice driven progressive president has won for millions the "basic, fundamental human right to health insurance" as more Americans than ever in US history now have access to affordable quality healthcare.
In other words, Obamacare is on its way to achieving its ultimate goal of national, universal, coast to coast health insurance for all. Indeed, leaving no citizen behind (down to the smelliest bum) Obamacare is on its way to insuring everyone. Just think of it: in just six short years with 13 million Americans joining the ranks of the insured it will take another nine years (growing at a rate of 2.6 million per year) to cover the remaining 24 million. In other words, if Obamacare stays the course and isn't repealed (like Republicans want to do) then by 2025 America will have achieved Barack Obama's progressive dream of a "More Perfect Healthcare Union" with all 320 million Americans living in healthcare security and heaven.
But unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are moaning not rejoicing at Obama's achievement. Six years later and 13 million more insured and the public opposes Obamacare by a huge, whopping 12.6% landslide (see). And this opposition can only grow exponentially in the years ahead. Why? Because nothing is free. Because the rest of America (middle and upper income folks) are footing the bill for these millions to get insured. Indeed, a majority of them are in revolt because, as Chelsea Clinton recently said, it's proving to be an economic and financially "crushing" burden for them (see). Millions of hard working middle class folks are paying through the nose in rising premiums, deductibles, hidden taxes and fees where huge savings and affordability were promised; and the crushing burden on them is going to grow as Obamacare, in its quest for universal coverage, strives to insure the remaining 24 million. That means a worsening of the crisis of the disappearing middle class as insurance costs drive more working families at the edge or into poverty.
As I wrote here and here, Obamacare is progressive, impoverishing, unjustified class warfare by health insurance means; it's a transfer of wealth from haves to have-nots led by a radical left-wing community organizer who's central domestic purpose as president (as it was in Chicago) is to benefit the poor at everyone else's expense no matter the cost (especially to the struggling middle class).
After six disastrous years the slow motion train wreck of Obamacare rolls on hurting the many to help the few (doing way more harm to America than good)-making it more politically unsustainable with each passing day as the burden to the middle class crushingly grows-with more falling into poverty and distress. Where's the social justice in this? You can't find it with a microscope.


Donald Trump

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Florida  asks his supporters to pledge that they vote for him in what appeared to be a Nazi like salute.

Is politically tumultuous America of 2016 like democratic Weimar Germany of the early 1930s with a new racist authoritarian Adolf Hitler in the person of billionaire Donald Trump attempting to use the democratic process to seize power, kill freedom and set up an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship? There are many very frightened people from across the political spectrum who seem to think so. From Glen Beck on the right to leftist comedian Louis CK Trump is the new power mad ultra nationalist Adolf Hitler aspiring to become the American Furher-in-Chief to restore our nation's greatness and glory like Hitler vowed to restore Germany's.  
Even Serena Kutchinsky, the stepsister of Nazi Jewish victim Ann Frank (herself an Auschwitz survivor) jumped into the anti-Trump campaign. In an essay written to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Kutchinsky accused Trump of "acting like another Hitler" because he wants a temporary ban on Moslem immigrants, and wants to build a wall to keep out illegals.
And of course Trump didn't help his cause when at one campaign rally he had members of the audience pledge their support by holding up their right hands in a loyalty oath. Trump haters seized on this as proof that Trump had an authoritarian personality like Hitler that demanded a blind, unquestioning, religious obedience to him as if he were a god.
But this is absurd. Trump is a populist reflecting the rage against the Washington establishment and political elites who are destroying America's wealth, jobs and greatness and rigging the system in their favor. How anyone can see in Trump the American reincarnation of the mass murdering, tyrannical, militant Adolf Hitler is beyond me.
 On the contrary, if this were Nazi Germany Trump would have run afoul of the regime and been a victim of persecution. Indeed, by now the Gestapo would have arrested Trump, stripped him of his vast wealth and sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka or some other death camp in a crowded boxcar with family members. Why? For committing racial crimes against he Nazi state and German Master Race. What crimes? Of being a "Jew lover:" of allowing his daughter Ivanka to marry Orthodox Jewish businessman Jared Kushner, convert to Judaism and raise their kids in the Jewish faith. For that unforgivable "crime" Trump would have earned a death sentence from Hitler, or life in a slave labor camp. Indeed, from the Nazi viewpoint the Star of David not the Swastika best suits Donald Trump. So much for him being the new Adolf Hitler.
 Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner


In his interview with Fox New's Chris Wallace Barack Obama was asked what was the happiest day of his presidency, and what was his greatest achievement. To the first question Obama answered that it was Congress passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But unfortunately for Obama however it was not the happiest day for the vast majority Americans. On the day he signed ACA into law six out of ten Americans (according to a CNN poll see) opposed it preferring the status quo to the nonsensical reforms he proposed. And now six years latter (according to the RCP average) it's hugely unpopular by double digits (see) because the skyrocketing costs of premiums and deductibles (see) are putting financial strains on an eroding ("disappearing") middle class that's struggling with a low growth, bad jobs, flat to failing stagnant economy of declining wages and work hours-among other things.
Now to the question (the more interesting of the two) of what was his greatest achievement Obama proudly answered, "Saving the US economy from a second Great Depression." But this wasn't the first time Obama made this lofty claim; that was six years ago on February 16, 2010 when Obama celebrating the first anniversary of his massive $825 billion fiscal stimulus (that he promised would trigger a robust, high growth Reagan-like recovery) said that it "prevented another Great Depression and kept millions of people working (see)." And later that year Obama addressing the UN alluded to his policies preventing the global economy from crashing into a depression. For as the US economy goes so goes the world. As the global depression of the 1930s began with the US, Obama believing that his stimulus prevented a second Great Depression domestically also saved the world economy from that fate (see).
But is this true? Did the stimulus prevent the US economy from collapsing into a severe depression (with the world economy to follow) to rival the economic crisis of the 1930s when unemployment hit a historic high of 25%, and there were bread lines across America feeding starving people?
The facts are these: over the last eight years the US economy was possibly on the brink of a real depression only once:  September 2008 when in the midst of a nine month long recession the housing and credit markets crashed. This was due to the US government (going back to the Clinton era) recklessly creating the largest and most dangerous housing and credit bubble in US history using sub prime mortgages (27 million issued) to massively and artificially boost the rate of home ownership. When the market tanked in 2008 the US government either guaranteed or purchased 76% of these risky loans from banks and mortgage firms (see). It wasn't Wall Street that sank Main Street (as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton want us to believe); the US government was the principal villain which is why no one has been prosecuted and jailed for the crash (see and see) .

To save the US financial system from collapse and the economy from depression George Bush signed into law the bipartisan Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP; this was a $700 billion loan package to rescue our banks and lending institutions from financial collapse. And it worked, at least in the short term.

And this is where Obama's grandiose claim to have saved the US and world economy is unmasked for the self-serving lie that it is. When Obama took office in January 2009 he inherited a financial system that was stabilized by TARP averting a likely depression. But he inherited more than that: by December 2008 (see the Bureau of Economic Analysis graph below) the US economy began a V-SHAPED GDP RECOVERY. This marked the beginning of the end of the Great Recession when the economy stopped contracting, bottomed out and started to grow and become productive again.
Moreover, at precisely the same time (December 2008) the US manufacturing sector also made a V-shaped recovery and started to become profitable again after a period of steep decline.
Now though the GDP and manufacturing recoveries began before Obama took office the economy, nevertheless, as a lagging indicator, was still losing massive numbers of jobs. But this started to change in March-April 2009 (see BLS graph below) when the V-shaped jobs recovery began, just before the end of the Great Recession in June. This is when job loss bottomed out and the growing economy started creating more jobs than it was losing. 
Now with the financial system stabilized by Bush's TARP and the V-shaped GDP, manufacturing and jobs recovery underway, and the 18 month long Great Recession over in June 2009, Obama's claim that his stimulus (which became law in February 2009) prevented the loss of millions of jobs and saved the economy from a "second great depression" is total, self-serving, made up poppycock. It's Obama desperately clinging to the lie that his presidency, in the vast scheme of things, served some great, grand, positive, world saving  purpose - playing into his laughable campaign image of being a messianic figure.  Indeed, by the time Obama entered the White House the worst of the recession was clearly over, the likelihood of a depression (domestic and global) was past, and the economy was on the rebound (weak though it was and remains) having nothing to do with the change in leadership - or Obama's hocus pocus unnecessary Keynesian stimulus. Indeed, if McCain had been president or Bush had a third term these three V-shaped recoveries (GDP, manufactoring, jobs) would have happened all the same with the Great Recession ending by June 2009 - before the end of Bush's Fiscal Year in October.
Decline in personal consumption reversed in June 2009 - still Bush's economy.
Now while Obama wrongly takes credit for all of these pre-inaugural developments contradicting this his administration has said repeatedly that the 14 million new jobs (mostly low paying and part-time) that his "stimulus created" begins not from February 2009 (when the stimulus was signed into law) but from a year later in February 2010*. For it was then says the administration that the stimulus started to impact the economy and grow jobs (see). This delay, of course, is normal for a new economic program. Reagan's Economic Recovery (Supply-Side) Tax Act of August 1981, for example, didn't start showing results until 1983 (see).
*The CBO said that Obama's stimulus didn't start impacting employment and GDP growth until the 4th Quarter 2009 (see).
However, because throughout 2010 the stimulus worked poorly and the recovery remained weak Obama taking the advice of Christine Romer and Larry Summers extended all (100%) of the (hated) Bush tax rates for another two years (see). For Romer and Summers must have frightened Obama into believing (and rightly so) that raising taxes on his poor, pathetic, trickle growth recovery (typical for a Keynesian fiscal stimulus) would likely make it worse possibly causing a double dip recession and jeopardizing his reelection.
When FDR took office in 1933 he inherited a worsening economy from GOP liberal progressive Herbert Hoover who tried and failed to tax, spend and regulate his way out of the Depression; FDR then amplified and added to Hoover's failed programs and failed all the same. For the economy in 1939 was not much better than in 1933 having suffered a "recession within the depression" in between; indeed, in 1937 the bottom fell out of the New Deal wiping out most of the growth and jobs that had been gained in the preceding years. And Obama (hailed by MSM as the "new FDR" with a "new New Deal") having learned nothing from Hoover's and FDR's mistakes and failures (or more recently from the Japanese and 23 years of failed stimulus spending) went boldly and blindly ahead thinking he'd get a different result from the size of his stimulus - the largest ever). And after seven years in office the result is the worst recovery since the Great Depression - losing productivity and growing weaker by the day.
As for Obama's claims to have saved the US and world economy from a severe 1930s type depression, and that it was his greatest accomplishment, that distinction belongs to George W. Bush who left Obama with a stabilized banking system and an economy that was unmistakably on the mend. In short, the end of the Great Recession in June 2009 was Bush's recovery not Obama's. And I defy anyone to show me differently!
BL4L writes in the comment section:
"Apollo, you’re forgetting about Obama’s auto bailouts of GM and Chrysler and the one million jobs that it saved from the hundreds of suppliers in the auto industry: stereo manufacturers to steel and rubber producers, etc. If Obama had let those two companies fold the recession might not have been over in June of 2009, but continued for a long time afterwards"
In December 2008 while the V-shaped GDP and manufacturing  recoveries were starting George W. Bush began the bailout of GM and Chrysler with a $17 billion loan taken from TARP funds. This was Bush's last economic decision as President. Obama simply continued what Bush began, and then took all the credit for saving both companies when he was running for reelection in 2012.
So much of economics is irrational emotion, and crashes and recoveries can be spurred by what people are betting on, or "EXPECT" to happen next. So such turnarounds are often not based on events, but on anticipation.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the V-shaped recovery happened at a time that optimism was high that a terrible GOP president would soon be replaced by a good Democratic President.
Don't bother to connect those events, just tell us the DATE you credit with being the centerpoint of the recession, the time when things started to improve. We'll be able to compare that to what was happening politically, and then try to find out what your point is in all this ...
After Ronald Reagan crushed Jimmy Carter in a 44 state electoral sweep and at his inaugural there was a surge of national optimism and jubilation (which was greatly amplified when the hostages were freed) it did nothing to arrest and reverse the deterioration of the economy and massive loss of jobs. This was because Jimmy Carter, unlike George Bush, put nothing in place that could stop the economic carnage. So in 1982 the stagflationary economy went into a recession - the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression up till that time.


God only knows who the 45th President of the United States will be. Following conventional wisdom if the election were held today between front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Clinton who leads Trump in every major poll (by as much as 18 points) would probably win (see). But much can happen between now and November as it did in 1980 when Jimmy Carter in early April was crushing Ronald Reagan by 25% and was ahead 8 points a week before his catastrophic defeat. For between March and November Carter's political fortunes went from bad to worse: the US economy steadily deteriorated (as our anemic, low growth, high debt, multiple bubble economy is doing now), the unresolved Iran Hostage Crisis deepened America's sense of frustration and humiliation (after signing the nuke deal radical Islamic Iran has been constantly humiliating us), and the Soviet Union continued to rise in power and prestige on the world stage as America's geo-strategic position weakened (under neo-imperialist Vladimir Putin Russia's power is again on the rise globally at our expense). And by Election Day the American people who saw the greatness of their country in perilous decline and wanted it reversed swept Ronald Reagan into office in a 44 state landslide. Only a fool would deny that such a thing could happen again.
And that brings me to the deaths of Ronald Reagan and his faithful wife Nancy (who recently passed away) as possible signs of things to come in November. For Reagan died on June 5, 2004 in the midst of a presidential race where incumbent George W. Bush was running against then US Senator and future Secretary of State John Kerry. Likewise Nancy Reagan's recent death was in the midst of a presidential race where the clear front-runners are Donald Trump (vowing like Reagan to reverse our declining greatness) and Hillary Clinton who (like Carter in 1980) denies our decline fearing it would reflect on her tenure at State which lacked any real accomplishments. Now here is where it gets fascinating. Like George W. Bush who won reelection in 2004 when Reagan died Donald Trump was born in 1946. And like John Kerry who was defeated in a close election Hillary Clinton was Kerry's predecessor at State. I've written about this more extensively HERE.
Even more fascinating, and perhaps an auspicious sign for Donald Trump and the GOP, is the extraordinary place held by the year 1946 in US presidential history. For not only was George Bush born in that year but so was his predecessor Bill Clinton. And not only were two of our 44 presidents born in 1946 but two others started their political careers then.  For on Election Day 1946 two future presidents were elected to the 80th US Congress: John Kennedy and Richard Nixon (see and see). 
In other words, the year of Donald Trump's birth and the death of Nancy Reagan a month ago look terrifically propitious for Trump. For like Bush and Bill Clinton Trump was born in 1946; like Kennedy and Nixon he is first starting out in politics; and Nancy Reagan died as did her husband in an election year where a Republican candidate (Bush) born in 1946 was in the race and won; and where he (Bush)   was reelected in a contest with Hillary Clinton's successor at State-which seems ominous for her*.
*It was Ohio that cost Kerry the 2004 election, a state currently governed by the popular GOP governor John Kasich 
As for Hillary, she was born in the year 1947 which to date has proved unlucky for presidential candidates. For so far two candidates born in that year have failed three times to reach the White House:  Mitt "Mr. 47%*" Romney (born March 12, 1947) failed twice (2008 and 2012); and, of course, Hillary lost to Barack Obama in 2008.  Will Hillary's 2016 run be Mitt Romney's 2012 run all over again? It is fascinating to note that Romney's infamous 47% video damaged his campaign and was a factor in his defeat; and that Hillary is currently under criminal investigation by 147 FBI agents for possible national security crimes on her email account (see).
But there's more. FBI chief James Comey (who assigned the 147 agents to Clinton's case) was born on  a day when Hillary was exactly 4799 days old (12-14-1960 see). A remarkable and possibly meaningful set of coincidences that may signify email-gate greatly hurting or ruining altogether Hillary's presidential run.
UPDATE (11-16-16)
Trump completed the trifecta of presidents born in 1946. And Hillary, who was the wife of one of those three (and hurt by him), was defeated by Trump with 46% of the popular vote, two points less than her (see).
In 2008 when Barack Obama defeated Hillary for his party's nomination he won 47% of the popular vote to her 48%-Obama   won more delegates than Hillary (see). Moreover, Obama who was 46 and 10 months old at the time was two months shy of his 47th birthday. But just as Hillary was defeated in 2016 election by a man who was born in 1946 and got 46% of the vote, so was she defeated in the 2008 primaries by a man who was 46 years old.
JULY 24, 2015
When on July 24th of last year two inspectors general asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation on Hillary (see) it strangely and perhaps ominously fell on the 24,744th day of her life (see)-a five digit number encoded with the number 47.
 22, 44, 66
Also fascinating is the following mathematical pattern and progression between Trump, Bush and Clinton (which I wrote about      HERE). For Trump was born 22 days before George Bush (b. 7-6-46 see), and Bush was born 44 days before Bill Clinton (b. 8-19-46 see); which means that Trump was born 66 days before Clinton (see). Oddly, all three men were born during the presidency of Harry Truman-our 33rd president. And of course the 44th president (the first doublet number president since Truman) is now in office. A strange and remarkable numerical pattern; and perhaps, as I believe, a sign of coming success for Trump. 
It is also interesting to note that Truman became President upon the death of Franklin Roosevelt in 1945*; and that if Trump, born during the Truman era, wins the presidency not only will he be the 7th president after FDR to come from New York State, but he'll be the 19th Republican to win that office and the 45th President of the United States; this gives us the numbers 19 and 45.
*Hillary launched her presidential campaign on April 12, 2015; this was the 70th anniversary of FDR's death.
Like Ronald Reagan Donald Trump is a patriotic nationalist alarmed at the declining power and fortunes of our country and wants to reverse it and make this country greater than ever by succeeding the 44th president and becoming number 45. Now either by chance or providence on the day Donald Trump was born Ronald Reagan (b. 2-6-1911) was 35 years, 4 months and 9 days old. Translated into days that's 12, 913. And when divided by 7 to give us the number of weeks that's a total of 1844 weeks and 5 days-which rounds out to 1845 weeks (see). Strangely this gives us the relavent presidential numbers 44 and 45. 
But I'm not done. Just as strange is that on the day Trump launched his presidential campaign (June 16, 2015) Ronald Reagan would have been 105 years, 4 months and 11 days old. When translated into weeks it totals 5445 weeks and two days (see). Encoded remarkably in this four digit number are the numbers 44 and 45.
Just days before I learned about these polls I was saying that if the November election were held today Hillary Clinton would likely win. Quinnipiac released this survey on May 10th, the 47th week of the Trump campaign (see). Moreover, it was the 3647th week of Donald Trump's life (see).
Just learned that the Democratic National Convention that will nominate Hillary Clinton next month with be the 47th in that party's history. Could this mean that it will either hurt or just not help Hillary?
47th Democratic National Convention
 , Pennsylvania
Wells Fargo Center and The Pennsylvania Convention Center 
July 25-28 2016



 Tavis Smiley attacks Trump as a “racial arsonist” right to Bill O’Reilly’s face -

Bill O'Reilly Has "Never Seen" Trump "Cast Aspersions At Any Group At All" | Video | Media Matters for America

Watch Tavis Smiley attack "racial arsonist" Donald Trump right to Bill O'Reilly's face

O'Reilly: "I've Known The Man For A Long Time. I've Never Seen The Man Do Anything Racial"

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): When you use a word racial arsonist, okay, that conjures up to me David Duke and these kinds of people who their sole reason for being is to run down blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or whatever.


TAVIS SMILEY: And it took Mr. Trump too long -- it took Mr. Trump too long to come around to denouncing one David Duke and others when they came out to support him.

O'REILLY: You make mistakes and so do I. That doesn't mean --

SMILEY: Bill, that's not a mistake. That's not a mistake. Listen, you live your life --

O'REILLY: I've known the man for a long time. I've never seen the man do anything racial.

SMILEY: You live your life by a certain set of immutable principles. I live by life by a certain set of immutable principles. And when you live your life by a certain set of principles there are some mistakes that you just don't make. It's fundamentally who you are --

O'REILLY: I don't know about that.

SMILEY: And this election is fundamentally immutable what kind of nation who the nation we are going to be.

O'REILLY: All I can tell you is I have known the man a long time and I have never seen him cast aspersions at any group at all.

SMILEY: You might not have seen it but the rest of the country has all during this campaign.

O'REILLY: But I've been around him much more than the rest of the country.



A racist is a person who shows a pattern of prejudice or hatred against people of other races over a period of time; or who believes that a particular race is superior to other races.

Trump may be vulgar and crude and made offensive remarks about Mexicans, Moslems, women and men. But does he fit the definition of a hate filled racist bigot? Not in the least. As long time friend Bill O'Reilly points out there is no evidence or racism in the man; there's no pattern of prejudice or bigotry in his past toward any racial, ethnic or religious group. And in the so-called new Donald Trump that Hillary Clinton says she doesn't recognize, no real racism or bigotry is found there either. What there is is outrage over the flood of illegal aliens coming across our porous borders (all of whom are criminals in various degrees), and concern about millions of Moslems abroad who hate this country with a passion, and the infiltration of jihadists with Islamic immigrants and refugees.



Trumps hatred here is for those who break our laws and intend us harm whether they be Latino rapists, murderers or drug dealers, or Islamic radicals (violent terrorists or not). And yes Trump has made unflattering remarks about certain women (as he has about particular men) but not about women as a whole. Showing disrespect for certain women (whether deserved or not) does not equate to misogyny or sexism: a hatred of women or belief in their moral and intellectual inferiority to men.


The Klan + Farrakhan = Donald Trump? Is that who he is?


But  race obsessed leftists like Tavis Smiley who insist that Trump is racist because his candidacy is favored by David Duke and the Klan (who he was slow to denounce) probably don't know (because it's been underreported) that he's also favored by Jew hating, black supremacist  Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam-whose support Trump has never disavowed (see). Does that mean that Trump must hate his daughter Ivanka for marrying a Jew and converting to Judaism and having Jewish kids? If the Klan supports Trump because they rightly see in him a fellow white supremacist then the Nation of Islam must support him because he's a Jew hater and believes in the racial superiority of blacks. Do you see how absurd this is?


What Bill O'Reilly says about his old billionaire friend is completely believable; and charges of racism and bigotry are political smears and totally false.






< p style="box-sizing: border-box; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-transform: none; color: #3f4549; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; widows: 1; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;"> 





Because they believe (but dare not say) that the best way to eliminate the debt is to go deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. Both absurdly believe that we need to put the pedal to the metal and spend baby spend like never before to get the economy moving, growing and producing again. Both believe that Obama's $825 billion stimulus (the largest in history) was undersized; that it was too small to trigger the promised robust, rip-roaring, Reagan-like recovery that would make the nation prosperous again-and significantly lower the deficit and debt making both at least manageable. And if that larger stimulus proves ineffective and fails to spark stratospheric growth then a bigger one will be needed; and that failing a still bigger one after that.

Bernie and Hillary I'm sure admire the Japanese and believe we need to follow their example of 25 years: implementing one stimulus after the next (and running up a massive 230% of GDP debt) trying to get out of economic distress, but without success. Bernie and Hillary seem to share the blind Keynesian faith of the Japanese that if we keep on spending beyond our means sooner or later it will do the trick and things will click and revive our flat and fragile economy. Though Japan hasn't gotten to the promised land of restoring the great prosperity they once had in the past yet they're confident they're on the right track and will eventually get there-as we will by plodding the same bold course.

Atheist Paul Krugman praying to God for an economic miracle to prove Keynes right.

In other words, the cure for cancer is more and worse cancer. To cure the growing disease of public debt we need to make it worse. Before we can restore our fiscal, financial and economic health we must get sicker and sicker with massive deficits and debt regardless of the consequences.  It's like Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman says (an economist that Sanders, Clinton and the Japanese greatly respect):


 How much money can the government actually spend in rescuing the economy? The answer is a lot. It’s not unlimited. A trillion here, a trillion there and soon you’re talking about real money. Vast countries with stable governments, which is us, can borrow up to 100 percent, more than that of GDP, and you work that out — we probably have $10 trillion of running room if we have to use it. I don’t want to get there, but uh, we’ve got a long ways to go."

The problem, according to Krugman  (and Clinton and Sanders agree) is that government isn't big enough, doesn't borrow, tax and spend enough, doesn't regulate and intervene in the economy enough. Enough is never enough! If a $1 trillion stimulus is tried and fails go for $2 trillion or three, or, if need be, go all the ways to a perfect ten. The solution to run away bankrupting debt is more runaway, out of control deficit spending. "Spend now save later." It's that simple.

If this sounds insane it is.

Bernie vs. Hillary = the more insane vs. the less. Bernie following Krugman will spend $10 trillion if he can, Hillary might limit that to half. Both belong in the nut house not the White House wearing inescapable straight jackets. 

Donald Trump proposing to eliminate (not vastly grow) the debt to restore strong growth and prosperity tells us which of these three candidates is the sane one, and would make the wiser and better president-whether eight years is feasible or not.


Ha ha ha ha ha. That's funny. You actually think that just because he says he can reduce the debt with hair brained schemes that makes him a better candidate? You sound like a graduate of Drumpf U. No one person including the President can erase the debt. It takes ALL of Congress to make real change.



Actually I'm graduate from the Swedish School of Supply-Side Austerity Economics.

Saving the nation from national bankruptcy would require (as a starting point) strong, relentless, energetic leadership from the White House. And Trump has the capability to be such a leader.


< p style="text-align: center;"> 


Fox Report: Rising Threats - Shrinking Military


With good reason three secretaries of defense quit the Obama administration in disgust, and only 15% of our active service men and women (an all time record low, see) think that he's fit to be Commander-in-Chief. Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel simply gave up trying to reason with Obama and steer him in the right direction in keeping America strong and the world stable and at peace. After suffering through Obama's ignorance, arrogance and gross incompetence on military, strategic and defense matters, and seeing he was beyond reform (you can't fix stupid)) Gates, Panetta and Hagel refused to continue as agents of "hope and change" and "fundamental transformation;" for change and transformation meant the end of the Pax Americana and a world spinning out of control. In good conscience these three men couldn't be party to Obama's decimation and demoralization of our military: drastically downsizing it as the world gets more chaotic and dangerous (due mostly to Obama's appeasement of foes, and retreat of US power and leadership from the world); and his turning the military into a laboratory for politically correct social experiments-giving this priority over the necessary improvement of its fighting capabilities in a new era of warfare with Islamic jihadists.
Barack Obama Addresses the Troops
As Obama (the great world citizen) has no real love for this country, whenever he addresses our troops he exudes weakness and demoralizes them failing to communicate the confidence, strength, patriotism and passion of a real Commander-in-Chief.
Gates, Panetta and Hagel are patriots who love this country and watched with great concern and anxiety as a radically left, anti-American president (who thinks we're too powerful for our own good) led us deliberately into economic, military and geostrategic decline out doing the disaster of Jimmy Carter-who gave us radical, supremacist, Islamo-Nazi Iran, and Soviet Russia reached the height of its influence and world power. And now Iran is more powerful and dangerous than ever, Putin's neo-imperialist Russia is on the rise and Islamic extremism is murderously spreading across the world like never before. And ironic as it is as Obama is outdoing Jimmy Carter in the Carterization of US foreign and defense policies, he chose to finish up his disastrous presidency by making a man with the surname "Carter" his last Secretary of Defense.  Unbelievable, isn't it?
 Ash Carter


Obama says efforts to grow domestic economy have worked -

An economic illiterate
totally clueless on the economy, and practically everything else.

Obama praises 6 years of job creation, revived economy

"Our businesses have created jobs every single month since I signed that job-killing [Affordable Care Act]," President Obama quipped.

While Obama never tires of congratulating himself on the progress that he's made in fixing the economy (that he falsely claims to have rescued from a near depression) both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are running on campaign platforms that say otherwise-that the economy is far from fixed and getting measurably worse. In debate after debate and speech after speech both bemoan the worsening  tragedy and crisis of the "disappearing middle class" but without tying it to Obama's failed policies and leadership. Indeed, the combination of a poor, pathetic, trickle growth recovery (inhibited by high debt, new taxes, massive spending, regulations and uncertainty), Obamacare's rising insurance costs (premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing), the Fed's quantitative-easing policies (driving money into a rigged bull market benefiting the rich and killing savings rates), an anti-business climate (created by Obama's class warfare agenda) and a flood of illegal aliens (driving down wages and adding to the burden of the welfare state) are throwing an increasing number of middle class Americans into poverty, government dependency and the American Dream slips away from them.


Moreover, because Obama's promise of a rip roaring, robust, Reagan-like recovery hasn't materialized (despite the borrowing, spending and printing of $trillions) and the economy is doing worse  than expected (it's the worst recovery since the Great Depression) the Federal Reserve fearing another recession is refusing to raise its near zero interest rates. Indeed, since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009 we've had a fragile, low growth, underperforming economy verging on another recession that higher interest rates could plunge into distress.

The Fed's Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) is for economic emergencies like recessions.  If the recession is over and the economy is doing fine why then after seven years is  ZIRP still in place? ANSWER: The economy is a lot worse
than Obama and the Fed are telling us (see).

Indeed, despite Obama's happy talk about the longest economic expansion in US history (growing anemically at less than 2% per year), a 4.9% jobless rate (that excludes millions of long term unemployed workers), low inflation (that doesn't count energy, food and clothing costs, see and see), an artificial fake housing boom (caused by Wall Street bulk buying distressed homes, see) and the creation of 14 million new jobs (8 million are low paying part time) disillusionment with the Washington establishment and the rise of economic nationalism (with millions of angry, frightened, frustrated voters revolting against globalism and turning to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump over wage, trade, inequality, jobs and debt issues) is sobering evidence of how truly false and disastrous Obama's recovery has been.

9 ominous charts showing Obama's disastrous economy and where it's headed.

The bottom line (as the graphs above show) is that America is in a state of slow, tragic, precipitous economic decline; and while Hillary and Sanders deny this (so as not to offend Obama fans) the disappearance of the middle class (the backbone of the nation) is sad proof that this decline is real-as is America's geopolitical collapse and loss of greatness and power in world affairs admitted by Jimmy Carter (see) and exploited by Donald Trump.

"Trump and Sanders are out to implode the global trade order (see)."

Millions of Americans in the growing economic nationalist/anti-establishment movement fear that America's best days are past and worse times lie ahead; and they are right to be pessimistic as all the indicators and trends point to coming calamity and woe. For if radical changes aren't made, not in soaking the rich and redistribution of wealth (which Sanders and Clinton want to do) but in cutting taxes, downsizing government, boosting productivity and creating new wealth (as Trump, Cruz and Kasich want to do) we are headed irreversibly toward national bankruptcy and blood in the streets like broken, busted socialist Greece. That is an economic certainty.


The greatest threat to our national security is the debt bomb.



This Theory Explains Why the U.S. Economy Might Never Get Better | TIME 

Is the World Economy Moving Towards Stagnation? 

Obama's underperforming economy is so wretchedly bad that many liberal economists such as Larry Summers have become economic fatalists believing that a stagnant no growth or low growth economy is the new normal, and that there's no way out of it. In other words, because liberals can't reinvigorate the economy with Keynesian stimulus spending, quantitative easing. increasing the minimum wage, amnestying illegal aliens (creating millions of new taxpayers) and redistributionism no one and nothing can. Americans, says the article, have to accept the new no growth or low growth reality and adapt to it. This, of course, is utter nonsense. "The new normal" is a term invented by panicking liberals to explain why Obama's $825 billion stimulus (the largest in history) failed.  Government, which liberals blindly love and worship like God, is the problem. This Time article is a sign that big government liberalism is exhausted and out of ideas and in its end time.