Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Cruising the Web

Here's a depressing graphic facing graduates of law school.

One chart to demonstrate how Obamacare raids Medicare to pay for other programs in Obamacare.

Business Insider determines the eight swing counties to watch how they go in the elections. These are counties in swing states that went for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008.

Even CBS acknowledges that President Obama is placing priority on his reelection efforts instead of diplomacy as leaders of the world arrive in the United States for the United Nations. He didn't meet with any foreign leaders yesterday but sat down with the ladies on The View. I guess that, after he turned down a request to meet with Netanyahu, he realized that it wold look bad to meet with other foreign leaders. We're in the middle of a dangerous moment around the world and he's talking to Whoopi Goldberg instead of foreign leaders. Perfect.

This is the arrogance of Barack Obama. He told the ladies on The View, "I told folks I'm just supposed to be eye candy here for you guys." Why don't we retire this guy and he can travel the country being eye candy for middle-aged ladies instead of messing up our country?

So Jonah Goldberg asks, just what is the difference between Ron burgundy and Chris Matthews?
What’s the difference between Chris Matthews and Ron Burgundy? Answer: One is a pompous, self-absorbed, often-in-error-but-never-in-doubt blowhard impervious to facts and logic. The other has a really bushy mustache.

The evidence is clear - government spending is not the way to grow the economy.
The reason is straightforward. As many economists have found, most government spending has relatively little effect on the economy, and any effects are generally short-lived. For example, Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and his colleagues show in a new National Bureau for Economic Research study across many countries that government spending has little connection to GDP growth, making spending cuts ideal for balancing budgets without provoking a recession — but this also means that spending does little to stimulate economies. Alesina finds, however, that tax changes have large macroeconomic effects; that is, tax increases reliably depress the economy.

In a nutshell, Cash for Clunkers and all the other social-engineering programs of the past few years won’t succeed as promised to assist economic recovery, because they cannot. And the tax increases at the center of Obamanomics will dig our hole even deeper. What would work to spur our country’s financial growth is more economic freedom — not more government spending.

Again, this is not political dogma, but empirical reality.
You know. It's math. But Democrats deny this reality.

Factchecking Obama on Sixty Minutes.

It used to be that the media respected a politician willing to tackle the toughest political issues such as reforming entitlements as Social Security and Medicare. Well, not when it's Mitt Romney and Barack Obama has spent four years ducking such issues.

Obama is now blaming 90% of the debt increase that occurred on his watch as Bush's fault. Of course, reality is totally in contradiction with his words.


FallsGuy said...

I have a question.
What would it take to get people attuned to sending a compelling message to the major networks? What would happen if all those concerned with the profligate reporting abuses of the network news divisions decided to NOT Watch any of the fall network tv shows. Democracy or representative democracy only works with an informed public. Since the networks refuse to play their part adequately and accurately, perhaps we can send a strong economic message to them regarding their future if they do not clean up their news divisions. It obviously requires some personal sacrifice but the price is very small compared to the potential reward.
Thanks for letting me post.

Southern Man said...

FallsGuy, it's already happening. I don't watch ANY television at all, and I've got a lot of guys to follow that lead and do more worthwhile things with their time. Sadly, the ladies are totally addicted to The Voice and X Factor and such, and believe whatever those celebrity hosts tell them.

FallsGuy said...

Southern Man:
What do you think it would take to organize "an evening off" network tv on a large scale? One big "off" night would send a huge message.
There have to be people somewhere with the organization skills to get this idea to go viral with a specific date.

mark said...

Dems deny the reality of math? Perhaps you don't realize that Romney's implosion, besides due to his incompetence, lies, and otherwise disgraceful behavior, is attributed to the fact that the few specifics he has released don't add up.


FallsGuy said...

I do not understand the point of your comments. While the subject matter is almost always interesting, I offered no comments about the current election. I did not suggest Romney may have imploded.
The issue to me is a workable democracy. A free press needs to behave responsibly or democracy can not be sustained.

mark said...


My comment wasn't directed to your comments, but rather to this line:

You know. It's math. But Democrats deny this reality.

Whether it's Romney and Ryan lying about their proposals or lying about their taxes, their math doesn't add up. Perhaps they'll amend their policies as they've amended their taxes.

I have no problem with your idea of boycotting the networks for a night (or week, month or year) Of course, you might start with Fox. Most partisan news channel and trashiest network. A very good place to start.

equitus said...

TPM again, mark? The "Romney lies!" meme isn't getting much traction beyond the left-wing spin machine. You need to get out of your bubble.

mark said...

Whining (again) about my links? I assume you prefer Betsy's sources such as John Poderhetz, who wrote a book (not ironic, apparently) about how Bush became a great leader. Anyone who believes that must be wondering why he isn't prominent on the campaign trail. Romney is an awful candidate and even he knows enough to shun a failure (and kiss the "ring" of Bill Clinton).
Yes, my links are usually from liberal sources. But at least they've all been critical (as have I) of Obama at times. This site, like many conservative sites, have been silent about the lies and disgraces of W, Romney and Ryan. Although to be fair, people here were critical of Romney, until he became the nominee.

equitus said...

Here's a little thought experiment, mark:

Imagine if a someone posted a comment at TPM and included a link to Free Republic to support his argument. How would that be received at TPM?

Get it yet, mark?

mark said...

Oh I get it, equitus,
You couldn't defend Bush, and you can't defend Romney, so you've turned into a churlish little whiner about. Of course, no blame for yourself and the party that picked a horrible candidate.
Why would I care how conservative posters are treated at TPM?
I guess if you think that qualifies as a thought experiment, it explains much about your simplistic thought process.