There would be no Green Energy Industry if there were no Green Energy Subsidies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 15th, 2014

Week in Review

Green energy investments are a horrible investment.  The only reason why anyone is building green energy projects is because of taxpayer subsidies.  If you take away the subsidies the green energy industry is just going to stop building these bad energy projects.  Which is what’s happening now (see Here Are The 10 Best States For Clean Energy Jobs In 2013 by Aaron Tilley posted 3/12/2014 on Forbes).

Clean energy investments had it rough in 2013, and US job growth in that sector is having a bit of trouble too.

That’s at least according to evidence in a new report out today from Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2),an environmental advocacy organization for businesses. While the clean energy industry made plans to add an additional 78,000 new jobs at 260 projects in 2013, that’s a 30% dip from the 110,000 job announcements in the previous year. (E2 has only been tracking clean energy job growth for the past two years…)

The biggest reason for the 30% drop in job growth over last year is due to ongoing regulatory uncertainty around federal tax credits and state renewable energy mandates, says E2 communications director Bob Keefe. Congress let the generous tax credits the wind energy industry had enjoyed for more than two decades expire in December–and it looks unlikely they’ll be reinstated in 2014. And four major energy efficiency tax credits and initiatives expired at the end of last year too. On top of that, several states, including North Carolina and Kansas, have attempted to roll back mandates on renewable energy requirements for their utility grids.

If anyone bemoans a cut in government spending in some government program don’t blame the Republicans.  Blame the Democrats.  And their green energy cronies.  The Democrats are taking money away from other programs to pay for these white elephants just so they and their crony friends can get rich.

These projects cost a fortune to build.  And the return on investment just isn’t there.  Which is why it takes hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies to build them.  That’s a lot of money to spend when these projects accomplish nothing. They don’t allow us to shut down one coal-fired power plant.  Because we’ll need those coal-fired power plants to provide electric power when the sun doesn’t shine and when the wind doesn’t blow.  And they take up so much real estate that they’re displacing wildlife from their natural habitat.  While wind farms are hacking American Bald Eagles and other birds to death.  So they’re not helping the environment.

And they’re not improving the reliability of our electric power.  Or lowering the cost.  Every time they shut down a coal-fired power plant they increase our electric bills.  And increase the brownouts and blackouts we have to endure when we have to rely on less reliable power that costs more (we have to pay more for our electric power to pay for those subsidies) than the more reliable power.  This is our government when Democrats are in power.  And just imagine how they will run our health care.  Who do you think they’ll make rich?  And how much will they increase our health care costs?  While giving us an inferior health care system?  It’s going to happen.  Because that’s what happens when Democrats are in power.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Russia’s Annexation of Crimea is similar to the Democrat’s annexation of the American Health Care System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2014

Week in Review

In the movie Yellowbeard there was a scene at the docks where a guy was asking who wanted to join them on a well-paid, well-fed, adventure holiday on a modern rat-free, leak-proof ship.  Any volunteers were to just lie down on the ground with their eyes shut.  Then a guy hit them over the head.  Knocking them unconscious.  At which point they volunteered for that adventure holiday.  That’s one type of ‘democracy’.  Here’s another (see Ukraine Secession Referendum Does Not Have a ‘No’ Option by Noah Rayman posted 3/7/2014 on Time).

Crimea, which voted to put the question of secession from Ukraine to a referendum, has released a ballot with severely limited choices, and all of the options come with strings attached

“No” is not an option in the upcoming referendum in Crimea on whether to split from Ukraine…

The two questions, written in Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean Tatar, ask:

•“Do you support joining Crimea with the Russian Federation as a citizen of the Russian Federation?”’

•“Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine?”

The current constitution states that the Crimean Constitution must be approved by the Ukrainian Parliament.  Meaning that any secession of the Crimean peninsula must be approved by the Ukrainian Parliament.  Which is why the second question, though it appears as a vote to stay a part of Ukraine, is basically the same as the first question.  For the 1992 Crimean Constitution removes the clause about any Crimean constitution having to be approved by the Ukrainian Parliament.

So what does this mean?  It basically means anyone who opposes the annexation of Crimea by Russia should just lie down on the ground with their eyes closed.  Forever.  Because however you vote (option 1, option 2 or no vote) Russia will annex the Crimea.  Even though current Ukrainian and Crimean law forbid this.  But that’s the advantage of being a former KGB dictator.  If you don’t like a law you just re-write it so you do.  Sort of like President Obama rewriting the Affordable Care Act some 29 times so it doesn’t harm the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.  So they can complete their annexation of the American health care system before the people can do something about it in the next election.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats want Immigration Reform as they need more Maids and Landscapers

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 1st, 2014

Week in Review

Democrats are good at lying.  Just look at how blacks and Hispanics believe Democrats care about them.  When in fact they only tolerate them.  They’re good to help win an election.  But they don’t want anything to do with them.  They don’t want to live next to them.  Or vacation with them.  About the closest they want to get to them is walking by them as they clean their hotel rooms.  Or while working in the hot sun maintaining the landscaping of their favorite resorts (see Florida Democrat: Without Immigration Reform, Where Will We Get Our Landscapers and Maids? by Washington Free Beacon Staff posted 2/25/2014 on Washington Free Beacon).

Florida Democratic congressional candidate Alex Sink said immigration reform was important at a Tuesday debate because, without it, it would be difficult for employers to find people to clean hotel rooms and do landscaping.

“Immigration reform is important in our country,” she said. “We have a lot of employers over on the beaches that rely upon workers and especially in this high-growth environment, where are you going to get people to work to clean our hotel rooms or do our landscaping? We don’t need to put those employers in a position of hiring undocumented and illegal workers.”

And they sure don’t want any of their kind doing this work.  For it’s beneath them.  You see, Democrats belong to the American aristocracy.  A group of people better than other Americans.  Who should be in their proper place.  In government.  Living off the proceeds of those working in their economy.  Much like the feudal lords in the Old World.  When life was simpler.  And people knew their places.  With people like them not having to waste their time campaigning to win elections.  Because power was just given to them based on their last name.  Or political connection.  The way it was in the Old World.  And the way they believe it should be in the New World.  But, alas, it’s not.  So they have to win elections.  And court people they’d rather have working on their manors.  Or plantations.  Doing what they’re good for.  Serving them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FT211: “Criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t mean you’re a sexist or are afraid of strong women.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 28th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

You can call a Man Fatso but not a Woman because of the Double Standard when it comes to being Fat

Back when David Letterman was on NBC and the show was called Late Night with David Lettermen they had an old football player on one night.  I think he was a defensive linesman or a linebacker.  Who played football before there was money in playing football.  Back then it was just guys playing a game hard and then getting drunk afterwards.

On this episode of Late Night this football player was telling a story about one game.  It was late in the fourth quarter.  The score was already decided.  Nothing could happen to change who was going to win the game.  But the other team was still playing hard.  Trying to win.  So after one play he wandered over and entered the other team’s huddle and said something like, “Come on, guys.  Let’s just wrap this up and go get some beers already.”  At which point one of his teammates yelled over to him from the other huddle, “Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”

“Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”  It’s funny.  For that’s the way guys are.  They hurl insults at each other.  And if you were a heavy guy there was nothing wrong with calling you ‘fatso’.  It’s the way men joke around.  It doesn’t work with women, though.  If you have an overweight female coworker and you address her as fatso you’ll find yourself in sensitivity awareness training.  Or fired.  Because there is a double standard when it comes to being fat.  You can call a man fatso.  But not a woman.

Anyone espousing Keynesian Policies should be Criticized for they are doing Harm to the Economy

The political opposition and the main stream media treat President Obama with kid gloves.  They will not attack him.  Or even criticize his policies.  Because President Obama is the first black president.  And the political opposition and the mainstream media are terrified that someone will call them racist if they do.  They fear that so much they’d rather see the economy collapse from his Keynesian economic policies than risk being called a racist.

President Obama is a Keynesian.  Like most people in Washington making policy are.  Which is a shame.  As the historical record clearly shows these policies fail.  But our politicians still manipulate interest rates.  And spend money.  Believing in the fallacy of demand-side economics.  Which didn’t work to end the Great Depression.  It only made the stagflation of the Seventies worse.  It created a dot-com bubble and a dot-com recession.  And it created a housing bubble and a subprime mortgage crisis.  Giving us the Great Recession.  And further Keynesian policies on top of these past failed policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

So anyone espousing Keynesian policies should be attacked and criticized.  For they are doing harm to the economy.  And the country.  Which is why the Democrats love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  Because they can have him do all the things they want to do.  Manipulate interest rates.  Keep them near zero.  By printing money.  And then borrow even more money at those near-zero interest rates.  Allowing the government to go on an orgy of spending.  That’s why they love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  For if anyone criticizes this reckless and irresponsible policy they can just label them a racist.  And they immediately shut up.  Just knowing this keeps people from speaking up in the first place.

It’s easier to Lie when you can Scare away Criticism with Charges of Racism or Sexism

But the political opposition and the mainstream media have no problem calling Governor Christie a fat man.  Christie is not black.  A woman.  Or a Democrat.  So he’s fair game.  They can make the most vile fat slurs with him and it’s okay.  Fatso.  Fat-ass.  Whatever.  They don’t call it hateful.  They just laugh.  And pile on.  They’ll even go so far as to call him a fat elephant on the cover of Time Magazine.  Putting a very large profile of him that takes up most of the cover and call him the elephant in the room (a GOP reference).  Because it’s okay to call him fat-ass and every other possible fat slur you can think of.  But do you know who you can’t call fat?  Hillary Clinton.

Should Hillary Clinton run for president again the political opposition and the mainstream media will treat her with kid gloves.  They won’t call her fatso.  Or fat-ass.  Because that wouldn’t be nice.  It’s okay to use those invectives against Governor Christie.  (Just take the Christie fat slurs and replace his name with hers and see the kind of reactions you get).  But if you dare use that tone with Hillary Clinton they will label you a sexist.  Accuse you of being afraid of strong women (but not so strong as to be able to put up with fat jokes like Governor Christie).  Proof that there is a Republican war on women.  And should she win the presidency there will be little criticism of her policies.  Because no one wants to be labeled a sexist.  Or be accused of being afraid of strong women.  Especially with the first female president.  So she will get a pass on most everything she does.  Like President Obama.  Despite being as deserving of attacks and criticism.  For she is a Keynesian, too.

With only 23% of the nation identifying as liberal the left has trouble passing their liberal policies.  So they lie, of course.  A lot.  And it’s easier to lie when you can scare away criticism with charges of racism.  Or sexism.  Which is why they like President Obama so much.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  He was the first black president.  Which made it harder for some to criticize him.  Which helped make the lying easier.  So they will most likely try to follow this strategy.  Perhaps with Hillary Clinton.  Who may be the first female president.  Following that with other ‘firsts’.  Until the opposition and the mainstream media learn that criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t make you a sexist.  Or afraid of strong women.  It just means you’re criticizing a person with bad policies who happens to be a woman.  Just as they will be able to criticize a black president one day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abortion and White Supremacy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 27th, 2014

Politics 101

Slavery made the South more like an Old World Aristocracy than a New World Meritocracy

Democrats don’t like people of color.  Never have.  The Democrat Party’s lineage goes back to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party.  Thomas Jefferson was one of our Founding Fathers who, as the Democrats love to remind us, owned slaves.  In fact, the Democratic-Republican Party was the party of the planter elite.  And of slavery.  While the opposition party, the Federalists, whose members included George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, preferred manufacturing and commerce for the future of the United States.  Not just plantations and slavery.

It was these southern planters who made the Three-Fifths Compromise necessary.  Slaves couldn’t vote.  So the North didn’t want to count them in determining the number of representatives a state had in the House of Representatives.  The planter elite did not like this.  As the anti-slave North had more free people and would end up controlling the government.  Possibly passing anti-slave legislation.  Well, without the southern states there would be no United States.  So they compromised and counted some of their slaves.  Giving the planter elite greater power in the new federal government than their population would otherwise have allowed.  And to seal the deal they agreed not to discuss the issue of slavery again for 20 years.

The minority power in the South, the planter elite, who were Democratic-Republicans, brought a lot of slaves to the United States during that 20 year moratorium on the slavery issue.  Swelling the slave population in the South.  But once the 20 years were up Congress banned the slave trade.  So from that point forward all slaves would have to be born on U.S. soil.  But the minority power in the South had built their little fiefdoms by then.  Owning large estates.  With their lands worked by their large slaveholdings.  Making the South more like an Old World aristocracy than a New World meritocracy.  And the planter elite liked having so much power vested in so few of their hands.  From having their few numbers control the federal government.  To their absolute control of so many human lives on their plantations.  They were an elite few.  A superior people.  And they liked it.

The South used the Power of the Federal Government to Suppress States’ Rights in the North with the Fugitive Slave Act

Over time as the north pursued the dreams of Washington, Adams and Hamilton immigration began to swell the population in the industrial North.  Leading to the South losing their control over the House of Representatives.  And threatening their elitism.  By then the Democratic-Republican Party had become the Democrat Party.  Which pushed to protect the institution of slavery.  To protect their southern aristocracy.  And their elevated status as a superior people.  They used the power of the federal government where they could.  Such as passing the Fugitive Slave Act to force free states against their will to return free blacks in their states to slavery.  Then they argued that their states’ rights were at risk with all of the North’s abolition talk.  Where the North might one day do what the South did to them.  Use the federal government to force a state to do something against their will.  Such as they did with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Their fight for the Senate led to further compromises to keep the union together while accommodating the planter elite.  The Missouri Compromise (1820) had prohibited slavery in the new territory in the Louisiana Territory above approximately the southern border of Missouri (but permitted it within the borders of Missouri).  Each state gets two senators.  So with the House lost the Democrats needed more of the new states from the Louisiana Territory entered into the Union as slave states.  Even those above the southern border of Missouri. Which they did with the Kansas–Nebraska Act.  Which repealed the Missouri Compromise and replaced it with popular sovereignty.  Where the people would chose whether they wanted to be a slave state or a free state.  Setting off a mad rush by both sides to get to these territories so they could vote the slave status of these new states their way.  Leading to a bloody civil war in Kansas.

Then another blow fell to the southern aristocracy.  Abraham Lincoln.  With the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln the southern aristocracy lost not only the House of Representatives but the presidency as well.  Worse, the Republicans were an anti-slavery party.  So even if they were somehow able to hold onto the Senate the Republicans in power would challenge the planter elite’s supremacy.  Break up their fiefdoms.  And challenge their power.  Something this elite few were willing to fight to prevent.  Well, they were willing to have others fight for them.  To maintain the social order in the South.  Leading to cries about states’ rights.  And an over-powerful federal government.  Despite their having used the power of the federal government to suppress states’ rights in the North with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Democrats see Benefits for Blacks as a Necessary Evil to keep them in Power

Most southerners were poor farmers.  Who owned no slaves.  Yet they rose to fight for states’ rights.  And to protect the South from northern aggression.  At least, that was what the planter elite had them believe.  Who sent many of these poor farmers to their deaths in the American Civil War.  When it was over approximately 8.6% of the South’s population was dead.  By comparison World War II killed approximately 405,399 Americans.  However, if we had suffered the same death rate as the South did in the American Civil War our World War II dead would have totaled over 12 million.  This is what the southern aristocracy was willing to—and did—sacrifice to maintain their power and privilege.  Their supremacy over other people.  Especially over their black slaves.

Such a feeling of superiority allows you to do some pretty horrible things.  Just review the history of Nazi Germany to see some of the atrocities a ‘master race’ can do.  In the post-war South the Democrats did not lose with grace.  They resented the martial law in the South after the war.  And they hated Republican rule.  Protecting their former slaves.  Even allowing them to run for government office.  It was all too much for the fallen southern aristocracy.  To remind people of the proper order of southern society they formed the KKK.  And unleashed a terror across the South.  Killing their former slaves.  And Republicans.  To codify their white supremacy the Democrats turned to the legislature.  And passed laws to segregate the ‘inferior blacks’ from their superior selves.  Jim Crowe Laws.  Separate but equal.  With the emphasis on ‘separate’.  In time pressure grew against the southern Democrats.  But they held strong in Congress.  Fighting against any civil rights legislation.  Including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Where Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK) filibustered against the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours and 13 minutes.  To keep the blacks segregated from their superior selves.

Things are a lot better these days.  But Democrat feelings of superiority die hard.  Even though they would have us believe they like blacks today.  Despite their past hatred of blacks.  And their seething anger of having lost them from their plantations.  But they found a way to ‘get them back on the plantation’.  By making them dependent on government.  In exchange for their vote.  Which keeps them in power.  Back where they believe they belong.  And are entitled to be.  Because they are a superior people.  So benefits for blacks are a necessary evil to Democrats.  For they still don’t like them.  As evidenced by where they live.  Where some of the richest Democrats (such as Nancy Pelosi) live in the whitest of neighborhoods.  And their apparent racial purification of society.  Through the guise of women’s rights.  The most important thing to women, according to Democrats, is abortion.  And they do their best to make abortion readily available.  Especially to women of color.  Like in New York City.  And Mississippi.  Where black women are having far more abortions than white women.  Making America whiter.  More like the neighborhood where Nancy Pelosi lives.  And more like the color Democrats have fought to keep America since the Three-Fifths Compromise.  The Fugitive Slave Act.  Popular Sovereignty.  The KKK.  And Jim Crowe Laws.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT210: “Vanity, thy name is liberalism; Liberty, thy name is capitalism.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 21st, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Christians believe in the Reward of Hard Work and Shun Idleness for it tends to Invite Trouble

Liberals are very confident people.  As well as arrogant.  Narcissistic.  And condescending.  Which is why they are so secular.  Wanting to take the separation of church and state argument to the extreme.  Attacking and mocking Christianity every chance they get.  As they don’t like anyone judging them.  Or setting some moral standard.  For liberals are a sinful people.

The Seven Deadly Sins are wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.  Christians try to avoid these.  They forgive their enemies instead of getting angry at them.  They tithe to their church instead of keeping all of their money greedily for themselves.  They believe in the reward of hard work and shun idleness for it tends to invite trouble.  They are humble and don’t strive for attention.  They have strong self-control and make sacrifices for a better future instead of giving in to current wants and desires.  They tend to be happy with what they have however modest their lives may be.  Instead of being envious of others.  They don’t eat, drink or live to excess, preferring to do everything in moderation.  Things you just don’t associate with liberals.

Now think of some liberals you know of.  Think of the vicious things liberal Democrats say about Republicans (such as a campaign commercial showing a Republican pushing ‘Grandma’ off a cliff).  The vulgar things some liberal commentators say about Republican women.  And the ridicule of conservatives on late-night television.  Rich liberals who want to raise taxes on the rich (which includes the middle class) to pay for a generous welfare state while giving little to charity themselves.  As they are far more generous with other people’s money than with their own.  And never risk their own money in risky investments such as Solyndra.  Preferring to risk the taxpayers’ money.

Liberals attack the Rich because they are Envious of their Hard Work and Success

Liberals always want a bigger federal government with an ever-growing bureaucracy.  So they can be career politicians without ever getting a real job where they have to work hard to earn a living.  Liberals like to brag about how smart they are and how brilliant their legislation is.  Taking credit for things they didn’t even do.  Such as President Obama taking credit for the surge in natural gas production done on private land by private companies.  Or boasting how their economic policies are working even though the real unemployment rate is in excess of 13% (when you count those who have left the labor force and those who can only find a part-time job).  And their refusal to admit they wrote a terrible law.  Such as Obamacare.

Liberals never want to wait for anything.  They don’t believe in hard work.  They believe in early retirement and generous pensions.  For their friends in the union.  Like the UAW.  In the public sector unions.  And those in government jobs.  They attack the rich because they resent their hard work and success.  Are envious of them.  And want to punish them because they were never as good as they are.  With higher tax rates.  And punishing regulations.  Hollywood celebrities and the Washington elite live the most extravagant lives.  In some of the most expensive homes which are filled with the finest food, drink and toys.  And when that’s not enough some further their excess with drugs.

These are things you just don’t associate with Christians.  In fact, these are things Christians frown upon.  Even telling their congregation not to live lives like these in their church services.  For these are not Christian lives.  Some people could have everything they could possibly want or desire but are still not happy.  Or are bored because it came too easily.  Or too soon.  Turning to other outlets to excite them.  Alcohol and drugs.  Drag-racing in expensive sports cars on neighborhood streets.  Partying all night in the hottest clubs.  Or blowing a lot of money gambling.  Anything to escape the boredom of an idle life.

For a Better Life we should Shun Liberalism and Embrace Free Market Capitalism

This is why liberals attack Christianity so much.  As well as one other reason.  Because they don’t like believing in a higher being.  For they are so arrogant and narcissistic that they can’t stand the thought of some being that is greater than themselves.  For they hold liberalism sacred.  And if anyone worships anything they want the people to worship them.  Because they believe they are the smartest and the most insightful people in the universe.  Yes, vanity, thy name is liberalism.  Which is why they believe they should control government.  And our lives.  Because they’re smarter and wiser than business owners.  Bankers.  Entrepreneurs.  And market forces.  For they are the higher being.  Not what those silly Christians worship.

A lot of people have felt like this throughout history.  Adolf Hitler.  Mao Zedong.  Saddam Hussein.  Benito Mussolini.  Muammar Gaddafi.  Kim Il-sung.  Kim Jong-il.  Kim Jong-un.  Fidel Castro.  Supreme leaders and ruthless dictators who preferred their people to worship them like a god.  And imposed socialism, fascism or communism on their people.  Using their supreme intelligence and insight to make the state a better place for the people.  Making the state supreme.  While subordinating the individual.  And elevating the supreme leader above everyone.  Something liberals have been trying to do all their lives.  Only without the torture and genocide.

But their efforts share a similar trend with these ruthless dictators.  The quality of life declines under their rule.  Some of the worst places to live when it comes to human rights have been in Nazi Germany, the People’s Republic of China, Iraq, Fascist Italy, Libya, North Korea and Cuba.  While some of the best countries to live in are the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Hong Kong.  All once part of the Christian British Empire.  An empire that embraced free market capitalism.  And when people practice self-control and make sacrifices for the future engage in free market capitalism they make a better place to live.  At least this is what history has shown us.  So if we want a better life we should shun liberalism.  And embrace free market capitalism.  For liberty, thy name is capitalism.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Democrats believe Millenials are such Idiots and Floozies that they could fool them into Paying for Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 16th, 2014

Week in Review

It’s no secret that the Democrats benefit by having an ignorant electorate.  People who don’t know history or understand economics will more easily fall for their lies.  Especially when they victimize their base and demonize the opposition.  Republicans.  It’s a winning formula.  And it has won President Obama reelection.  Despite all the warnings from those who know history and understand economics.  Who warned us about what Obamacare was going to do to us.  And the urgency of repealing it before it became too entrenched.  But the naysayers said nay.  Uh-uh.  And your mother is a whore.  Demonizing the opposition with abandon.  And laughing at the snarky little jabs on late-night television.  Of course it’s different now.  As the young and healthy have learned that the Affordable Care Act was predicated on their paying the health care tab for the old and sick.

So Obamacare care went from the fair and just Affordable Care Act to the unfair and unaffordable care act.  Stunned by push back from their normally useful exploitable base the Obama administration pushed back against the pushback.  Warning the Millenials that they risked not being cool if they didn’t buy health insurance (see Obama’s pathetic pitch to millennials by David Pasch posted 2/14/2014 on the New York Post).

How do you market the Affordable Care Act to Millennials? If you’ve got a good answer, tell the White House right away. It’s tried everything to get us to sign up for health insurance on the federal exchanges — and most of its attempts have been off-tune, off-putting, or just downright dumb.

The latest effort involves former NBA star Magic Johnson. Sorry: While Johnson commands respect for his athletic and personal achievements, he’s the not the best candidate to market anything to Millennials. He retired in 1991. Anyone under 23 never even saw him pick up a basketball.

There’s also the “Brosurance” debacle…

The ads depict Millennials as idiots and floozies. One ad shows college kids doing keg stands; another shows a couple about to hook up, with the tag: “Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control…”

Other campaigns have been weird, sad or both. One print ad urged us to go to healthcare.gov by telling us that “Mom loves her comfy jeans.” So did that kid in college who played World of Warcraft, but he never made me want to buy health insurance. Then there’s the “pajama boy” campaign, which convinced anyone over 30 that Millennials are insufferable. And another ad targets women with a not-so-catchy tune sung by cats and dogs…

To be fair, Millennials aren’t always laughing at the administration’s ads. Sometimes we’re laughing with them — when they feature celebrities and comedians who we’ve actually heard of, like Amy Poehler, Sarah Silverman or Will Ferrell.

But the real joke is on us. ObamaCare just isn’t a good deal for my generation.

The problems start with how much plans cost. Insurance rates have skyrocketed for Millennials since the exchanges opened in October. According to the Manhattan Institute, the average 27-year-old man is facing a 97 percent premium hike and the average 27-year old woman a 55 percent increase.

It is hard to believe that these are the same people who put a campaign together that defeated Mitt Romney during the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  And the incompetence and cover-up of Benghazi (it was a spontaneous uprising by people angered over a YouTube video who pulled pre-sighted mortars from their back pockets).  One wonders how you go from the 2012 campaign to “Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control” and “Mom loves her comfy jeans.”  I just don’t see these influencing the electorate to vote Democrat.

Why is the premium hike for men almost twice what it is for women?  Because the Affordable Care Act now forces men to buy insurance to cover a reproductive system they don’t have.  For in the name of fairness women can no longer be charged more than men for health insurance.  So they charge men more.  It doesn’t lower the cost of women’s health insurance though.  For it is still rising 55%.  So where is all that money going?  To pay for the old and sick.

The Democrats believe Millenials are idiots and floozies.  For they have worked tirelessly to dumb down our public schools and higher education.  So they can more easily lie to those they think of as idiots and floozies.  It’s as if you can hear them say, “Look, we gave you free birth control.  Isn’t that worth an extra car payment a month?”  Based on the enrollment numbers of the Millenials, apparently not.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We are in the Worst Economic Recovery since that following the Great Depression because of Keynesian Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 15th, 2014

Week in Review

We are in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  Why?  Because of Democrats.  Who are all Keynesians.  And that’s a big problem as all of our worst economic times were given to us by those who adhere dogmatically to Keynesian economics.  That school of economics that gave us the Great Depression.  The stagflation of the Seventies.  The dot-com bubble.  The bursting of the dot-com bubble.  And the dot-com recession.  As well as the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession.  In all of these events the Keynesians in power followed Keynesian economic policies to avoid recessions.  And then to pull us out of recessions when their avoidance didn’t work.  Then doubling down on the things that didn’t work previously.  In particular artificially low interest rates.  Which have been around zero for the last 5 years.  And massive federal spending to stimulate the economy when the private sector wasn’t spending.  Two pillars of Keynesian economics.  Neither of which have done anything to help improve the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

This is the problem with all the ‘noted’ economists the government likes to cite.  They embrace poor economic principles.  Proven wrong over and over again.  They can come up with some impressive looking charts and graphs but their analysis is all wrong.  And the fact that we’re in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression proves it better than any chart and graph.  They’re wrong.  And continue to be wrong.  Yet they provide the economic policies for our country.  Some of the greatest nonsense you will ever hear.  Things you wouldn’t do in your business.  Or in your personal life (see Student Loans Are A Drag On The Economy And Society by Josh Freedman posted 2/11/2014 on Forbes).

While loans are intended to expand college access to a broader population, the nature of risk that they entail also produces the opposite result. Low- and middle-income students worried about the consequences of taking out a loan will be more likely to decide that college attendance is not worth the risk…

Studies have found that high debt levels not only deter access at the beginning, but can also drive students away from completing college once they have already started… students who start college but do not graduate are stuck with loan repayments and no college degree. They still have to repay their loans but do not have the economic boost of a college degree to help them have enough income to cover this cost.

First of all, why is it when it comes to a college education no one ever demands that we lower the cost.  Like we do with greedy oil executives who keep the price of gasoline high.  Why is it no one attacks the greedy people in higher education that keep education so costly?

The problem is too many people are going to college for the wrong reason.  There is a reason why there is a list of the best party colleges every year.  Because a lot of these kids want to go to these schools.  Which explains why colleges in Colorado are seeing a spike in out-of-state applications.  Because these kids want to go to a college where they can party with legal marijuana.  And to make that partying easier they’re majoring in easier degree programs that the college assured these kids would provide them a comfortable living after graduation.  So they can get that profitable tuition out of these kids.  Often times paid for by these kids’ student loan borrowings.  So the colleges are misleading a lot of these kids to make a buck.  Leaving them saddled with a lot of student loan debt if they quit.  Or even more student loan debt if they stay in until graduation.  While getting a degree that can’t get them a job.

A second issue with increasing levels of student loan debt is the effect on the economy… Individuals with more student loan debt were less likely than individuals without student loan debt to purchase homes or cars.

Yes, having too much debt is a bad thing.  It reduces your disposable income.  Preventing you from purchasing a house or a car.  Yet these same economic advisors have no problem with raising taxes and devaluing the currency (i.e., printing money) to pay for all of the government’s stimulus spending.  Higher taxes reduce our paychecks.  And devaluing the currency raises real prices.  Reducing what we can buy with our smaller paychecks.  No, a Keynesian has no problem with debt at the federal level that affects everyone.  But student loan debt is just a terrible thing for those kids who dropped out of college or who didn’t get a degree that an employer could use.

In the wake of the financial crash, households have been trying to deleverage, or pay down their debt so they can have a healthier financial outlook, reduce the amount of their income that they use to service their debt, and begin investing and consuming again…

A look at the data suggests that student loans have slowed down households in the process of paying down debt. Since 2008 — the peak level of household debt — households lowered their levels every type of debt except student loan debt. Student loans have continued to grow throughout this process of deleveraging.

Of course the one thing missing from this analysis is the horrible economy President Obama’s Keynesian policies have given us.  Since he became president he has destroyed some 10,948,000 jobs.  Based on the number that were out of the labor force in the January 2014 BLS jobs report (91,455,000) and how many were out of the labor force when he entered office (80,507,000).  This is why people are struggling with debt levels.  There are no jobs.  If there was a robust economy flush with jobs people wouldn’t worry about taking on debt to invest in the future.  As long as they got a useful college degree in a high-tech economy.  And not something useless like women’s studies or poetry.

But aren’t people facing poor job prospects just taking out more loans to avoid working as baristas at coffee shops that drip the coffee super slowly for no apparent reason? This does not appear to be the case from the debt data. Student loan debt has grown at almost exactly the same rate since the crash as it had been the previous five years — i.e. steadily and without fail.

Student loan credit level has been steadily rising because the cost of a college education has been steadily rising.  Again, where is the outrage at our greedy educators getting rich by loading up these kids with student loan debt for a degree they can’t use in a high-tech economy?

…the loan system allows colleges to raise prices, which causes more students to take out loans. States, facing budget pressures, have also pulled back on investment, putting even more risk on students and further increasing the need for loans.

Again, where is the outrage at our greedy educators who keep raising tuition, forcing these kids to take out more and more student loan debt?

The risk and burdens that come from forcing students to take out debt up front and pay it back later is problematic from head to toe (tassel to hem, one might say). To create a better system of higher education, we need to look at alternatives to the current debt-financed model.

So the solution is for the taxpayer to foot the bill for these useless college degrees at these party colleges?  How is that going to solve any problem?  All that will do is allow more people to go to a college in Denver where they can get high for 4 years.  And then go to work as a barista at a coffee shop that requires no 4-year degree.  How does that make anything better?  Other than get more young people to vote Democrat.  Then again, perhaps that is the only objective of Keynesian economics.  Which is why those on the left embrace these failed policies with a religious fervor.  Because it helps them win elections.  Even while they’re destroying the economy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Knowledge + Experience + Reason = Republican Votes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 13th, 2014

Politics 101

The Democrat Party is the Cool Uncle that buys Booze and Cigarettes for his Nieces and Nephews

People characterize the Republicans as being a bunch of old fogies.  Out of touch.  Who don’t have a clue about the world today.  Unlike their children do.  Who are wise beyond their years.  For they know there is nothing really bad with underage drinking and smoking.  Smoking marijuana.  Or doing other drugs.  And there is nothing wrong with casual sex.  Sexting.  Or nude selfies.

This is why the children of old fogies like the Democrat Party.  Because the Democrats get them.  Unlike their parents.  Their parents tell them they shouldn’t stay out late, drink, smoke, do drugs or have sex.  While the Democrats decriminalize marijuana and work to decriminalize other drugs.  Provide free birth control.  And abortion without parental notification.  Making the Democrat Party the cool uncle that buys booze and cigarettes for his nieces and nephews.  So is it any wonder that the youth vote goes Democrat?

The ironic thing, though, is that these old fogies were once young themselves.  And some were pretty wild in their youth, too.  But once they became parents things changed.  For when it’s their daughter they don’t want her being objectified.  Encouraged to explore her sexuality by having so much casual sex that she catches a sexually transmitted disease or gets pregnant.  Especially if they did in their youth.  Which is the last thing they want for their little girl.  Who is and will forever remain their little girl.

Keynesian Economics conditioned People to accept that Government knows Best

This is the rule.  Not the exception.  As kids grow up fighting their parents they reach a point in life where they realize that their parents were right all along.  That if they had only spent more time on their homework and less time partying things would have turned out better.  Life may have been less fun in the short-run but much better in the long-run.  They’d had an earlier start in their career.  A career with better pay and benefits.  They could have bought a house sooner.  Met someone to marry and start a family with sooner.  Instead of finding themselves at 25 buried under student loan debt for a degree that can’t get them a job.  And a decade or so of hooking up having conditioned men to shun any serious commitment.  Leading their daughters to turn to serial dating and online dating.  As they struggle to find someone else who has grown up, too.

This is what the old fogies know.  That their kids don’t.  You get wiser with age.  Thanks to education.  And experience.  Two things the young just don’t have.  And never will.  Because by the time they grow wise from education and experience they are no longer kids.  But well on their way to ‘old fogery’.  Which is, of course, a problem for the Democrat Party.  For a wise voting public will not help them win elections.  As their Keynesian economic policies have nothing but a long record of failure.  Giving us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, the dot-com recession and the Great Recession.  To name a few bad economic times Keynesian economics have given us.  Things older people know from education and experience.  But the kids voting Democrat don’t.

Keynesian economics ushered in the era of Big Government.  And did something the Socialists could not.  Conditioned people to accept that government knows best.  Especially young people.  Uneducated and inexperienced young people.  Despite the Democrats’ horrible record concerning things economic.  Because of this record the Democrats use lies and deceit to attack free market capitalism.  That economic system that worked better than any other.  To get people who knew no better to mistrust free market capitalism.  And ask for the government to fetter unfettered capitalism.  To make the world a fairer place.

The Democrats use Public Education to teach our Kids to Distrust Capitalism and to Trust Government

It sounds good to the inexperienced and uneducated.  Because it feels good to think in terms of fairness.  And if there is one thing the young have are emotions.  They like to use their hearts.  Not their brains.  As they are idealistic and naïve.  Unlike those old fogies who are realists.  They can’t be fooled or swayed by the Democrat lies because they have learned and experienced a lot in their long lives.  And heard the same old Democrat lies all through those long lives.  Which is why the Democrats work so hard on the youth vote.  The War on Women, their lax drug attitudes, birth control, abortion, gay rights…all of these are to get the young to think in terms of fairness.  To tug on their heartstrings.  To get them emotional.  And keep them emotional.  As well as ignorant.

The more ignorant people are the easier it is to lie to them.  Anyone who knows the history of Western Civilization will understand how life became better for people as we moved closer to free market capitalism.  Anyone who knows classical economics will understand how thrift, savings, free trade, sound money, etc., made America the number one economy in the world.  While the Keynesian policies of today are threatening to knock America out of that number one spot.  People who understand these things are not going to vote Democrat.  Which is why the Democrats work hard to keep people from learning these things.  By constantly lying about them.  And not teaching them in the institutions they control.  Our public schools.  And our institutions of higher education.

The Republican equation for winning votes is a difficult equation.  Knowledge + Experience + Reason = Republican Votes.  It’s difficult because the Democrats have long controlled public education.  Thanks to their friends in the teacher unions.  And their friends running our institutions of higher education.  Which spend more time teaching our kids to distrust capitalism.  And to trust government.  To feel more.  And think less.  To live for today.  And not worry about tomorrow.  Making it very difficult for the Republicans to get young voters to vote for them.  As they are unknowledgeable (thanks to our public schools), inexperienced (because they are young) and prefer emotion over reason (because feeling is more fun than thinking).  Which is why old fogies (the knowledgeable, experienced and thinking) vote Republican and the youth vote does not.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Labor Force Participation Rate from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 10th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published May 21st, 2013)

The DJIA and the Labor Force Participation Rate tell us how both Wall Street and Main Street are Doing

Rich people don’t need jobs.  They can make money with money.  Investing in the stock market.  When you see the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) increasing you know rich people are getting richer.  Whereas the middle class, the working people, aren’t getting rich.  But they may be building a retirement nest egg.  Which is good.  So they benefit, too, from a rising DJIA.  But that’s for later.  What they need now is a job.  Unlike rich people.  The middle class typically lives from paycheck to paycheck.  So more important to them is a growing job market.  Not so much a growing stock market.  For the middle class needs a day job to be able to invest in the stock market.  Whereas rich people don’t.  For a rich person’s money works enough for the both of them.

So the Dow Jones Industrial Average shows how well rich people are doing.   And how well the working class’ retirement nest eggs are growing for their retirement.  But it doesn’t really show how well the middle class is living.  For they need a job to pay their bills.  To put food on their tables.  And to raise their families.  So the DJIA doesn’t necessarily show how well the middle class is doing.  But there is an economic indicator that does.  The labor force participation rate.  Which shows the percentage of people who could be working that are working.  So if the labor force participation rate (LFPR) is increasing it means more people looking for a job can find a job.  Allowing more people to be able to pay their bills, put food on their tables and raise their families.

These two economic indicators (the DJIA and the LFPR) can give us an idea of how both Wall Street and Main Street are doing.  Ideally you’d want to see both increasing.  A rising DJIA shows businesses are growing.  Allowing Wall Street to profit from rising stock prices.  While those growing businesses create jobs for Main Street.   If we look at these economic indicators over time we can even see which ‘street’ an administration’s policies favor.   Interestingly, it’s not the one you would think based on the political rhetoric.

Wall Street grew 75% Richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan while Main Street grew 65% Poorer

Those going through our public schools and universities are taught that capitalism is unfair.  Corporations are evil.  And government is good.  The Democrats favor a growing welfare state.  Funded by a highly progressive tax code.  That taxes rich people at higher tax rates.  While Republicans favor a limited government.  A minimum of government spending and regulation.  And lower tax rates.  Therefore the Republicans are for rich people and evil corporations.  While the Democrats are for the working man.  Our schools and universities teach our kids this.  The mainstream media reinforces this view.  As does Hollywood, television and the music industry.  But one thing doesn’t.  The historical record (see Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate and Recessions 1950-Present and Dow Jones Industrial Average Index: Historical Data).

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Reagan

The Democrats hated Ronald Reagan.  Because he believed in classical economics.  Which is what made this country great.  Before Keynesian economics came along in the early 20th Century.  And ushered in the era of Big Government.  Reagan reversed a lot of the damage the Keynesians caused.  He tamed inflation.  Cut taxes.  Reduced regulation.  And made a business-friendly environment.  Where the government intervened little into the private sector economy.  And during his 8 years in office we see that BOTH Wall Street (the Dow Jones Industrial Average) and Main Street (the labor force participation rate) did well.  Contrary to everything the left says.  The DJIA increased about 129%.  And the LFPR increased about 3.4%.  Indicating a huge increase of jobs for the working class.  Showing that it wasn’t only the rich doing well under Reaganomics.  The policies of his successor, though, changed that.  As Wall Street did better under Bill Clinton than Main Street.

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Clinton

Despite the Democrats being for the working man and Bill Clinton’s numerous statements about going back to work to help the middle class (especially during his impeachment) Wall Street clearly did better than Main Street under Bill Clinton.  During his 8 years in office the LFPR increased 1.2%.  While the DJIA increased 226%.  Which means Wall Street grew 75% richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan.  While Main Street grew 65% poorer under Clinton than it did under Reagan.  Which means the gap between the rich and the middle class grew greater under Clinton than it did under Reagan.  Clearly showing that Reagan’s policies favored the Middle Class more than Clinton’s policies did.  And that Clinton’s policies favored Wall Street more than Regan’s did.  Which is the complete opposite of the Democrat narrative.  But it gets worse.

The Historical Record shows the Rich do Better under Democrats and the Middle Class does Better under Republicans

The great economy of the Nineties the Democrats love to talk about was nothing more than a bubble.  A bubble of irrational exuberance.  As investors borrowed boatloads of cheap money thanks to artificially low interest rates.  And poured it into dot-com companies that had nothing to sell.  After these dot-coms spent that start-up capital they had no revenue to replace it.  And went belly-up in droves.  Giving George W. Bush a nasty recession at the beginning of his presidency.  Compounded by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Bush

The LFPR fell throughout Bush’s first term as all those dot-com jobs went away in the dot-com crash.  Made worse by the 9/11 attacks.  As all the malinvestments of the Clinton presidency were wrung out of the economy things started to get better.  The LFPR leveled off and the DJIA began to rise.  But then the specter of Bill Clinton cast another pall over the Bush presidency.  Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending forced lenders to lower their lending standards to qualify more of the unqualified.  Which they did under fear of the full force and fury of the federal government.  Using the subprime mortgage to put the unqualified into homes they couldn’t afford.  This policy also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these toxic subprime mortgages from these lenders.  Freeing them up to make more toxic loans.  This house of cards came crashing down at the end of the Bush presidency.  Which is why the DJIA fell 19.4%.  And the LFPR fell 2.1%.  Even though the economy tanked thanks to those artificially low interest rates that brought on the subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession both Wall Street and Main Street took this rocky ride together.  They fell together in his first term.  Rose then fell together in his second term.  Something that didn’t happen in the Obama presidency.

DJIA vs Labor Force Participation Rate - Obama

During the Obama presidency Wall Street has done better over time.  Just as Main Street has done worse over time.  This despite hearing nothing about how President Obama cares for the middle class.  When it is clear he doesn’t.  As his policies have clearly benefited rich people.  Wall Street.  While Main Street suffers the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  So far during his presidency the LFPR has fallen 3.7%.  While the DJIA has risen by 86%.  Creating one of the largest gaps between the rich and the middle class.  This despite President Obama being the champion of the middle class.  Which he isn’t.  In fact, one should always be suspect about anyone claiming to be the champion of the middle class.  As the middle class always suffers more than the rich when these people come to power.  Just look at Venezuela under Hugo Chaves.  Where the rich got richer.  And the middle class today can’t find any toilet paper to buy.  This is what the historical record tells us.  The rich do better under Democrats.  And the middle class does better under Republicans.  Despite what our schools and universities teach our kids.  Or what they say in movies and television.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »