Tag Archives: Barack Obama

What It Means To Be Poor In America

Mark Perry nudged me the other day.  We hear so much how bad it is in America.  That the middle class is “under attack” and only the Government can save them.  Further, the health care debate has pointed out that America spends more on health care than any other nation in the world.

Data from a report by two Swedish researches illuminates some very interesting facts:

  1. The ratio of people living in poverty is shrinking

1959 1999
Whites 18 10
Blacks 55 24
Hispanics 23(1972) 23
Total 22 12

2.  Being poor does not mean living without

Home Ownership 45.9
Car 72.8
2 or more cars 30.2
Air conditioning 76.6
Refrigerator 96.9
Washing machine 64.7
Drying cabinet/tumbler drier 55.6
Dishwasher 33.9
Garbage disposal 29.7
Microwave 73.3
Colour TV 97.3
2 or more colour TV sets 55.3
Cable or satellite TV 62.6
Wide screen TV 26.3
Video or DV 78
2 or more video and DVD players 25.3
Stereo 58.6
Telephone answering machine 35.3
Mobile phone 26.6
PC 24.6
Internet access 18

Lastly

3.  Being poor in America is better than being average in the EU

People Sq Feet per person
Europe, average 2.5 976.5 395.7
USA, poor  1993 2.8 1228 438.6
USA, all  1993 2.6 1875 721.2

What does this tell us?  It tells us that being poor in America means that you have a bigger house than the average European.  It tells us that whatever we have been doing, we should do more of it.  And that any modeling on Europe would be a mistake.

Release the Hounds of War

They are girding their loins.  They are building the siege engines.  Iron has been forged into swords.  Boys are becoming men.  Men are leaving their families.  WAR is upon us.

Except, when they sound the battle horn, they will find themselves alone on the field of battle.  Why?  Because no one cares:

No one cares

Pew Research center has found that the concept of global warming doesn’t stir the public’s desires.

Wise leaders would do well to follow those they lead.

Hat Tip:  Watts Up With That

Why Massachusetts Voted Against Health Care

I tuned into a number of Liberal outlets last night and this morning.  Of course, the subject of the conversation is the victory in Massachusetts.  Now, this is politics, so to listen to them spin this is expected, they HAVE to do that.  Literally, it’s their job.  And in this, the Republicans would be spinning in the same way had Brown lost.

But, what I heard the most last night and so far this morning is that the reason Massachusetts voted against this National Health Care is that they already have their own.  And because they already have their own, why would they wanna pony up, tax themselves to provide a plan they already have?  So, according to the Left, this isn’t a referendum on Health Care, it’s a case of not wanting to pay for something they already have.

This tactic is clever.  It allows the Left to sidestep the referendum AND claim that Massachusetts really REALLY likes government provided health insurance.

I think the Left is wrong.

I think Massachusetts voted against Health care because they don’t like their version of it.

Massachusetts’ health law has had a smaller impact on insurance coverage levels and a much higher cost than supporters claim. Gains in coverage have been overstated by nearly 50 percent, while costs have been understated by at least one-third, and likely more. The law has done little to improve overall self-reported health, though it does
appear to have crowded out private health insurance and made Massachusetts a less attractive place to relocate, particularly for young people.

People view taxes as damage and route around it.

When They Say They, They Are Really They

Reaction from the news outlets has kept me awake all night.

In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.

The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat signaled big political problems for the president’s party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

This is huge.  No doubt about it, this is huge.

So Bad Even the Thieves Were Guilty

The Lootiest of the Looters, Massachuesettss, has decided that even they, even THEY, can’t abide what we are seeing.

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.

Let the Correction begin!

Yesterday Seems so Far Away……

WOW!

Look at this!  This is intrade’s odds of Brown winning the Senate seat in Mass.


Price for Winner of Massachusetts Special Election (to replace Ted Kennedy) at intrade.com

Just 8 days ago betting had him at 10% chance to win!

Go AMERICA!

I have Two Words For You

Scott ‘effin Brown.

Think Obama is going to be watching the TV tomorrow?

Brand New Day

I still think that we’ll lose this, but my oh my, this would be HUGE!

Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

Does this mean Brown is gonna win?  No way.  This is too big for the Dems to lose for them not to rally.  But serious, this guy was down by 30 3 months ago.  He is surging and surging huge.

Why?  Because no one wants this health care to pass.  Not even those in Kennedy’s home state:

…it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.

Further, this race has massive a massive impact in Washington politics.  It is so big that Obama doesn’t know what to do about this race.  He can not afford to support a Democrat that loses a major race; see Jersey Govna’.  Yet, he desperately needs to support the winner.  And right now, he’s stuck.  Does he fly to Massachusetts and risk losing or does he stay home and risk winning without him?

Gotta tell ya, this is an interesting time.  Who woulda thunk that the Senate seat held by royalty could go Red?

Riiight….

When you make a promise that can’t be tracked, you are then able to claim that you kept your promise:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s emergency spending measures last year saved up to 2 million U.S. jobs, the White House said on Wednesday…

The White House, using two different approaches to figure out the impact of the stimulus package, estimates that U.S. employment had been raised by between 1-1/2 and 2 million jobs by the end of 2009 as a result of the stimulus measures.

Awesome.  When they made a number up at the beginning of this mess, they did it because:

  1. They needed to sell this turd.
  2. They knew it was made up and couldn’t be tracked.

But serious, did they create jobs?  Let’s look here:

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.

But in interviews with recipients, the Globe found that several openly acknowledged creating far fewer jobs than they have been credited for.

One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’ Bridgewater has submitted a correction, but it is not yet reflected in the report.

In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually – subsidies for affordable housing, for example – was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending. Some of these recipients said they did not even know the money they were getting was classified as stimulus funds until September, when federal officials told them they had to file reports.

…several organizations that offer Head Start preschool programs and other services in Georgia reported retaining hundreds of jobs based on raises they gave their employees. In one such case, the Central Savannah River Area Economic Opportunity Authority in Augusta reported saving 317 jobs. But that represents the number of Head Start workers who received 2.3 percent raises from the stimulus funds, said Chris Whitley, the authority’s fiscal officer….

And then, finally, this one, which, by the way, is perhaps the most damaging report I’ve seen out of the MSM.  For one, it’s ABC, for another it’s recent and for another, it’s pretty harsh:

The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.

Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It’s no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it’s a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.

That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.
“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham.

Take a look at some of those numbers.  The first, in Boston, claims that they created 160 full-time jobs with 7 large.  Did ANYONE check into that?  And then the idea of counting jobs as saved simply because those people got a raise is insane.  How does THAT make sense?  And finally, we get the goods from the White House.  In order to make their made up number, they are going to have to change their made up rules.  And why not?  It’s their rules to begin with.

Remarkable.

A Lesson in the Tender Mercies Of Organized Labor

November results for car makers:

Ford’s U.S. sales surge 33% in December

GM handed in a 6.1% sales decline

Chrysler…reported a 4% dip

Toyota Motor Corp. said its U.S. sales increased 32.3%

Gawd, it is SO nice to be right.