econarchy

Obama just cannot stop campaigning. First it was ESPN so he could share his March Madness picks, then he announced he would appear on Leno, and now he is demanding that all the major news networks shift around their primetime programming to make room for (another) address on Tuesday.

This guy sure is obsessed with his fame.

Networks are pulling their shows over to the side of the road to make room for the lights and sirens of president Barack Obama’s latest primetime address.

Obama will take to the air next Tuesday evening on four broadcast networks and bump the most popular series on television, Fox’s “American Idol.”

Fulfilling their scheduling civic duty is starting to seem increasingly cumbersome to broadcasters, however. Between a struggling economy and ratings sagging in midseason, every interruption costs networks advertising dollars and momentum. 

“At a time when we’re struggling not only financially but to build audiences, this doesn’t help on either front,” one network executive said. “These repeated interruptions — and the rumor of even more to come — really make it difficult to build audience flow and loyalty. We will all lose one or two million dollars for this.”

Read More

…. He would be a junior Senator from Illinois, that’s what. This is an Op-Ed piece from the Washington Times that is a must-read. Here is an excerpt:

Imagine that last fall before being elected, Barack Obama had outlined the positions he has embraced since being inaugurated as president. An honest campaign speech could have gone something like this —

”As we approach Election Day, the American people should not waste the crisis we find ourselves in.

“Consequently, if elected, I promise to get us over the Bush financial meltdown with a stimulus program that will borrow $787 billion - which, of course, will add to the already sizable budget deficit (nearly $500 billion) projected in the Bush administration’s last budget.

“By March of next year, my new $3.6 trillion budget will include a spending bill with more than 8,500 budget earmarks to target in-need constituents.

“In addition to the stimulus/borrowing plan, I intend to devote $634 billion to fund a new supplementary national health-care system. But that is not all. Unfortunately, the initial Bush bank bailout of some $700 billion also may well have to be augmented by an additional $750 billion.

“Although my new spending proposals may raise the federal deficit in my first year to $1.75 trillion, I promise the American people that by the end of my first term, I will halve the federal deficit - albeit adding another $3 trillion to $5 trillion to the national debt.

This article is a must read. Check it out.

Obama continues on with his “anything I can do to @#%$ over the military” strategy. Fortunately the head of the American Legion is calling Obama out for what he is - a traitor to the military that he commands. An inexperienced, elitist, pacifist-socialist, Harvard lawyer running our military…… I never thought I would see the day.

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

Read More

Michael Goodwin writes in the NY Daily News that Obama has a serious problem - a competence problem. And its not just him, but the entire Administration.

Not long ago, after a string of especially bad days for the Obama administration, a veteran Democratic pol approached me with a pained look on his face and asked, “Do you think they know what they’re doing?”

The question caught me off guard because the man is a well-known Obama supporter. As we talked, I quickly realized his asking suggested his own considerable doubts.

Yes, it’s early, but an eerily familiar feeling is spreading across party lines and seeping into the national conversation. It’s a nagging doubt about the competency of the White House.

I am sorry, but this is simple common sense to me. How can someone with no work experience be expected to be competent at the hardest job in the world? Why anyone is surprised about Obama’s incompetence to run this country is simply beyond understanding. I highly doubt that any Board of Directors of any Fortune 500 company would hire Obama to be their CEO, yet we elected him to run the nation?

Obama is incompetent; both in the objective meaning of the word as measured by his experience (or lack thereof) and the subjective meaning of the word as demonstrated by his absolute and abject failure to lead in a time of crisis.

The hypocrisy and downright stupidity coming out of Washington is deafening. After the story broke about AIG paying $165 Million in bonuses to various Managers, all hell broke lose among the general public. And when the general public gets upset, frothing Washington bureaucrats cannot be far behind. Now the Obama Administration is seething with rage over the audacity of a business paying bonuses which a) they are legally obligated to pay, and which b) may incent top talent to actually stay at the dying company.

Here is a funny thought - maybe if the politicians that were so anxious to give our taxpayer dollars to these suffering companies would have actually, oh I don’t know, put some stipulations on the money before giving it out, they would have room to talk. But when you just give out free money with no strings attached to a company obligated to pay bonuses, you have no room for complaint.

Here is a brief overview of what is going on.

• AIG received $173 Billion in Federal bailout money.
• AIG is struggling to keep their good people from leaving the company.
• AIG has a legal commitment to pay $160 Million in bonuses promised to certain Managers long before ever receiving any bailout money.
• Washington wants them to ignore this commitment to their people, and not pay the bonuses. Apparently the politicians think that people work for free. Gee, I wonder why….

Here is my analysis on this issue. If Washington doesn’t want these private companies acting like private companies, they should stop giving them money and let them fail. But now that all taxpayers are invested (heavily) in the bailed out companies like AIG, we should want them to succeed. Washington should want them to succeed. If they don’t succeed, we lose the $173 Billion that we gave. Now here is what liberals never, ever, ever understand - no company will succeed without good people, and good people are expensive.

So when the liberals froth at the mouth and go into convulsions over these companies paying bonuses, then insist that bonuses be cut back or cut out altogether, they are essentially signing the company’s death certificate. If AIG cannot pay to keep their top talent, the top talent will leave. The top people can ALWAYS find jobs, even in this economy. This goes not just for AIG, but for Bank of America, Citi, and all the others. Every week there is a news story about Washington’s anger over a bailed-out company giving bonuses, or going on a business trip, or advertising, or all of the other basic needs of any company hoping to succeed in a competitive and challenging market. No advertising? No bonuses? No corporate meetings? This is beginning to sound like a government office rather than a private business! Oh, wait….. maybe thats the point? To turn the US into Venezuela?

Kill the bonuses, lose the good people. Lose the good people, kill the company. Perhaps if Obama had any actual work experience in the business world he would understand this. Or maybe he understands and doesn’t care. When you appeal to the bottom rung of society, you are going to do what appeals to the bottom rung of society - and class warfare/hating the rich is the hot ticket right now.

Uhhhhhhhhh…… I seem to remember Bush saying that last year. Isn’t that what Obama mocked Bush and McCain for repeatedly during his campaign? I tell you what, Obama is a disgrace. He cannot think for himself. He is a mouthpiece for his advisers, which seem to be changing every day. Now I know why he needs his teleprompter with him 24×7. This guy doesn’t know what color the sky is unless someone tells him.

Obama starts off with “Hope”, then spreads fear and panic, and now is telling us to calm down. This is all within 4 months. What a douche.

Maybe Buffet and some of his other rich, elitist buddies told him he needs to start changing his tone so the stock market improves.

 WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy is fundamentally sound despite the temporary “mess” it’s in, the White House said Sunday in the kind of upbeat assessment that Barack Obama had mocked as a presidential candidate.

Obama’s Democratic allies pleaded for patience with an administration hitting the two-month mark this week, while Republicans said the White House’s plans ignore small business and the immediate need to fix what ails the economy. After weeks projecting a dismal outlook on the economy, administration officials — led by the president himself in recent days — swung their rhetoric toward optimism in what became Wall Street’s best stretch since November.

During the fall campaign, Obama relentlessly criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, for declaring, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong.” Obama’s team painted the veteran senator as out of touch and failing to grasp the challenges facing the country.

But on Sunday, that optimistic message came from economic adviser Christina Romer. When asked during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if the fundamentals of the economy were sound, she replied: “Of course they are sound.”

Read More

Maybe Obama should have, you know, actually hired someone with some real Economics knowledge rather than Geithner. Those who actually know what they are doing have rated Obama and Geithner as pathetic, miserable failures on the economy. Ironically, being intellectual/academic types, most of these goons probably voted for Obama. Yea, not so smart now, are ya?!

In striking contrast to President Obama’s popularity with the public, a new Wall Street Journal survey of economists gives the president and his treasury secretary failing grades. WSJ’s Phil Izzo and Kelly Evans discuss.

The economists’ assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama’s popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration’s economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

Read More

The best part of the article is when they say that this survey stands in “stark contrast” to Obama’s popularity with the “public.” Yea! That’s because the public is STUPID!!!! If the American public weren’t a bunch of brooding morons with their hands out and mouths open, they never would have elected that know-nothing fool in the first place.

I keep reading story after story in the Mainstream media that is critical of Obama. I am not referring to right-wing web sites, or even FoxNews, but left-leaning Liberal news outlets like the Washington Post and Newsweek. Salon.com, a very liberal website, has an article criticizing Obama’s “clumsy” and “smirky” staff for “sinking him.” No arguments there. Here is an excerpt:

Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons — his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.

Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama’s first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)

First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration’s weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?

Read more from Salon

Newsweek is also especially critical. The headline of the article is very telling:

Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.

I don’t think there is any doubt that wise Democrats are starting to question their Manchurian Candidate. Obama’s long series of mistakes, blunders, and outright lies and hypocrisy have cast a shadow on who was built up to be the New Messiah. Rather than save the world, he has cost us countless trillions in the stock market and trillions more in wasteful, pork-laden government spending under the guise of “stimulus.” When Newsweek criticizes Obama, something has changed. Here is an excerpt:

Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK’s. But, in ways both large and small, what’s left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.

They have some reasons to be concerned. I trace them to a central trait of the president’s character: he’s not really an in-your-face guy. By recent standards—and that includes Bill Clinton as well as George Bush—Obama for the most part is seeking to govern from the left, looking to solidify and rely on his own party more than woo Republicans. And yet he is by temperament judicious, even judicial. He’d have made a fine judge. But we don’t need a judge. We need a blunt-spoken coach.

Perhaps electing an unproven, inexperienced Socialist during the biggest economic crisis in 8 decades was not a wise decision.

Read More from Newsweek

Wow. Kevin Hassett writes an article for Bloomberg that really hits the nail on the head. Want to know why the markets are imploding? It is because we have a President who has declared a War on Business.

March 9 (Bloomberg) — Back in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson gave us the War on Poverty. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs. Now that we have seen President Barack Obama’s first-year legislative agenda, we know what kind of a war he intends to wage.

It is no wonder that markets are imploding around us. Obama is giving us the War on Business.

Imagine that some hypothetical enemy state spent years preparing a “Manchurian Candidate” to destroy the U.S. economy once elected. What policies might that leader pursue?

He might discourage private capital from entering the financial sector by instructing his Treasury secretary to repeatedly promise a brilliant rescue plan, but never actually have one. Private firms, spooked by the thought of what government might do, would shy away from transactions altogether. If the secretary were smooth and played rope-a-dope long enough, the whole financial sector would be gone before voters could demand action.

Another diabolical idea would be to significantly increase taxes on whatever firms are still standing. That would require subterfuge, since increasing tax rates would be too obvious. Our Manchurian Candidate would have plenty of sophisticated ideas on changing the rules to get more revenue without increasing rates, such as auctioning off “permits.”

These steps would create near-term distress. If our Manchurian Candidate leader really wanted to knock the country down for good, he would have to provide insurance against any long-run recovery.

There are two steps to accomplish that.

Discourage Innovation

First, one way the economy might finally take off is for some entrepreneur to invent an amazing new product that launches something on the scale of the dot-com boom. If you want to destroy an economy, you have to persuade those innovators not even to try.

Second, you need to initiate entitlement programs that are difficult to change once enacted. These programs should transfer assets away from productive areas of the economy as efficiently as possible. Ideally, the government will have no choice but to increase taxes sharply in the future to pay for new entitlements.

A leader who pulled off all that might be able to finish off the country.

Let’s see how Obama’s plan compares with our nightmare scenario.

Read more to see how Obama really is trying to finish off the country, or so it seems.

There is a website devoted to bad paintings of Obama (you can’t make this stuff up!). Here is a taste:

Wait. Isn’t that Chris Brown?

If that first one isn’t Chris Brown, this one definitely is.

Look at that grille!!!

A Mexican flag on the white house and underwear in Obama’s hand. Nice!

God? Is that you?

“Wit da Jellooooo puddin’”