It should finally have dawned on the American people that the politicians who presume to guide the economy have no bloody idea what they’re doing. We’re long past the time when knowledge of economics was required to see that the government is impotent when it comes to creating economic recovery. If you want evidence of that impotence, just look around.
“The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession, because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.”
No, the above quote wasn’t Ronald Reagan in 1981. It was Barack Obama in 2009, telling America that raising taxes was not the way to reduce the 7.8 percent unemployment rate he inherited from George W. Bush. Now, with unemployment at 8.2 percent, Obama is calling for multiple tax increases on precisely the income groups that are most likely to invest in business expansion and job creation.
Anyone who wants to study the tricks of propaganda rhetoric has a rich source of examples in the statements of President Barack Obama. On Monday, July 9th, for example, he said that Republicans "believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth."
After 35 years of research, I can state without equivocation that the prime mover responsible for the change in primary reading instruction, which has led to the decline in literacy in America, was none other than John Dewey, who is usually worshiped by liberals as the "father of progressive education."
On Friday, July 5, for about 90 minutes, I debated with “the Son of Man” — the leader of the New Nation of Islam — on his Detroit radio and television broadcasts about the Affordable Health Care Act, i.e., ObamaCare.
When President Obama boasts of the number of jobs created during his administration, the numbers he cites may be correct, but he doesn't count the other jobs that were lost during his administration. His critics cite the latter. Both can claim to be right because they are talking about different things.
What has been the net effect? During this administration, the proportion of the working age population that has a job has fallen to the lowest level in decades. The official unemployment rate does not count the millions of people who have simply given up looking for a job.
What happens when we define "fairness" as equality? Do we increase the productivity, output, and overall standard of living in society by treating the most successful as undeserving and overly compensated winners in the “lottery of life”? Would we have better movies, better technology, more freedom, more excellence, more jobs, less poverty, and more global competitiveness if the government had forced Steve Jobs and Meryl Streep to step aside in order to produce more mandated equality or in order to benefit their competitors?
Trying to choose the greatest pitcher of all time is at least as difficult as trying to choose the greatest hitter of all time. In both cases, the best we can do is narrow down the list.
Outside a charmed circle of five batters, no one had both a higher lifetime batting average and a higher lifetime slugging average than any of those five. In alphabetical order, they are Ty Cobb, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. There are other batters whose lifetime records came close, including Barry Bonds, Jimmie Foxx and Hank Greenberg. But close cannot define the greatest.
The purpose of drugging kids with Ritalin, Adderall, and other similar medications is to relieve the disruptive hyperactive behavior these children exhibit in school as their brains are gradually being injured by their educators.
Nothing is likely to get an argument started among sports fans faster than attempts to name the all-time greatest in any sport, or even the all-time greatest in a particular aspect of a sport. However, in baseball, we can at least narrow down the list of possibilities — considerably, in fact — when it comes to hitting.
So Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing of the Supreme Court to decide that ObamaCare, including the hugely unpopular “mandate,” is perfectly OK under the U.S. Constitution. Of course, Roberts had to twist the facts like a pretzel to justify the ruling. Barack Obama had insisted that Obamacare “absolutely” was not a tax. The measure’s supporters in Congress said the same thing, over and over again.
The bill’s defenders were desperately afraid that the Court would rule against ObamaCare. When it didn’t, they were ecstatic. But their glee won’t last for long. Two things are going to happen that will turn their rejoicing into anguish. One will occur later this year, the other further down the road.