Economics of Contempt

This is not going to be one of those posts that bashes S&P’s decision to downgrade the US, but then says that S&P was probably right about America's political system. The left-wing radicals, the "inside" men and other anti-Christian haters will bash S&P for me, but what they going to offer you is a biased look and definitely no insight.

I'll leave the S&P bashing to those bilking the government, from New York finance lawyers on George Soros's payroll to university lecturers who real world experience in poverty, debt and finance is offering "assist" college girls pay off a "bit of debt" that ends up them becoming lap / pole dancers. Fact is people debt and drugs go hand in hand with moral decline, not all drugs are illegal and drugs come in many forms. Spending large and praise are addictive drugs. Obama "feeds" on praise, applause and seems to have available rooms full of cheering brainwashed youth on hand when he needs background noise for one of his many press conferences.

S&P have yet to be proven wrong on assessment and forecast, but have been shown they have made a very embarrassingly blunder on the basic budget numbers, as everyone knows now, they were forced to remove that section from their report, and change their rationale for the downgrade. Yet somehow left would have you believe when S&P make one mistake, all their actions are flaws. Same group of know-it-alls refuse to acknowledge the tens of thousands of mistakes they made. Nor can they offer any clear alternative. All these left wing fanatics offer is constant criticism. Yes, I know I criticise Obama, but the man is so flawed (what Democrats call a colourful character), besides Obama doesn't listen to criticism, he hears only praise and applause. Besides his idea of modest is having a couple of homes with over 1m each. How can you not critise him for been so far out of touch when people can't even afford one home and work 50-80 hours a week.
S&P’s rationale for the downgrade now changed to one based entirely on their political judgement. But this is what most rating agencies do to forecast. If you want know what government is going to do, it is fair assessment to say a Democrat don't change, just like a snake in the grass. The left-wing and Democrats will always feel any ratings agency that doesn't subscribe to their politics is wrong. Like all dictatorial groups, not just Democrats, don't been told they are not effective, they lack direction and lost focus. Worse is when you demonstrate Democrats act in best interest of themselves.

I'll give you some examples of how Democrats don't change their ways. Bill Clinton sexually harassed women as governor and as president. Al Gore sexually harassed women, rarely reported, but his public harassment of some masseuse in a hotel (his mistake is she was a masseuse and not the kind of girl who says she is a massage worker). Soros who dated for five years a Brazilian actress (like she loved him for his charm right?) promised her a New York apartment, while still in bed he slapped and tried to chock her (sound familiar yet?), he told her (they supposed to be making up) he gave the place to some other woman. It not just left in America, how many French socialists lately and in past sexually harassed young women? Or been in relationships that only involve women been given money for sex? Not just woman's issues do Democrats are dismal at. Education, Ted Kennedy was to say, a loud mouth. His favourite was talking loud, often and for as long as he could. His favourite was to bash anyone's ear about education and spending more. He would go on and on about high cost of education. He never lowered it. He never tried stop universities raising fees. He never challenged one institution. His "game" was to protect Democrats putting money into "education" as tax deduction and political tool.

It’s true that the debt limit debate was ridiculous, but not for reasons Obama would have you believe. Obama going on TV to tell the public to harass congress to submit to Obama's will is Stalinist. Obama giving press conferences to select pro-Obama media and having cheering youth on hand is Stalinist. Obama is acting the same as Kim Jong-il or Hugo Charvez or Joseph Stalin.

Obama and the Democrats have always acted like children, that is they let their emotions run when told no. But this is typical of left-wing universities elitists. Obama's on nicotine patches, so really he is worse than a child having a temper tantrum because they been denied sugar candy. Most of the sitting Democrats are rich and richer than Republicans. Obama's wealth comes from phoney book. It is a phoney. A thick dull set of books that really tell you nothing that hasn't been written, perhaps in far less words, in the press or you can eventually find in government archives. If you looking for career advice on been president, that isn't really covered. Obama's relationship with extremely wealthy Democrats who trawl universities looking for "colourful" characters (not skin colour you bigots, but people with certain personality types).

S&P’s assessment is serious, you should take serious interest in how Democrats, not just in Congress, but the senate with its contingent of long term sitting crazy billionaire socialists. True they are going to serve in perpetuity on Earth, but in terms of how long these corrupt Democrats sit, it feels like eternity when you see how much wealth sitting Democrats have accumulated while supposedly on humble government payroll.

Fact is the make up of any government is set to change. The problem isn't with who is coming in, it is what those who have been sitting now for long time been doing. The damage done to USA's economy is constantly and still is been blamed on the Republicans. When Obama come into office, he had what most would consider a green light. Uncontested majority, he could pass bills with ease. He said he had an agenda of hope and change. Just two words, but hope is something the poor live with, change is something all the radicals demand and the poor hope for. Meanwhile Democrats are the richest and gotten richer. Soros made over 1 billion on the economic downgrade in the UK that saw thousands lose thier jobs. Soros claims he feels bad he pass tax at a less rate than his employees, same time he puts the the cent, the most he can into tax deductions and political donations. Don't listen to a Democrat and believe them, look at what they do.

The simple fact is that Obama has done the damage. Unlike Clinton who did all his damage second term. Even some Democrats admit Clinton's first term was due to riding the wave of economic activity from his "predecessor" (don't you love it when Democrats can't say the name of a Republican unless they insulting them). Democrats were almost certainly at the height of their power when Obama come to office. Democrats controlled senate as president G.W. Bush come to end of second term. President doesn't have all the power. No magic wand, no stroke of the pen. It is a Democracy, don't let Democrats sing you a lullaby about land of milk and honey if they had all the power. Fact is they have had 70% control for nearly 30 years and haven't delivered milk that isn't high in sugar or honey tainted with some poison. Welfare is good to those who need it, but what most people need is jobs. Democrats like Al Gore talked of Solar Power and Electric cars. Yet Al Gore got 400 million and put it into Apple. Not solar panels, but iPods and iPhones. Not American jobs, but thousands of jobs in China. At a factory with the highest rate of worker suicide. Al Gore contribution to global issues.

The debt ceiling debate doesn't reflect some sort of secular change in US policy making. The next time there’s a Republican president, Democrats will engage in the same kind of political dirty tricks they done since President Eisenhower. You’d have to be stunningly naive not to believe this. For the most part the media is always silent come election time about how corrupt, inept and wasteful the Democrats are. Simply assuming that every political confrontation represents a change in US politics and policy making is ridiculous, but facing down Obama has been a huge shift. Remember Obama's victory was huge. Not because he is the first non-white, but for turnout of voters and level of expectation.

S&P tries demonstrate that by the time the 2012 elections roll around, it will be too late to act on debt. Please, ignore the left wing intellectuals and hard-core Democrat media. Without meaningfully change that will affect government's long-term solvency is patently only visible to the few. Only few historians seem to remember that in Germany the economic collapse was due to debt, but with that come the occupation of Munich by left wing radicals. That wide spread economic mayhem was caused by the same radicals that pushed government spending beyond means. That these radicals were funded by outside sources. So few see the same things happening again. Unions funding student radicals, Obama himself a radical.

Some lawyer, if he is one, says he knows these S&P guys. Then says not those particular guys, John Chambers or David Beers personally. But says "I know" the rating agencies intimately. Then gives some background story you can't check like once been an in-house lawyer for an investment bank and I had extensive interactions with all three rating agencies. Then goes on to say that S&P analysts aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer is a massive understatement. Yet he used them. Yet they are the big rich ratings agency listened to by governments and banks. One "finance" lawyer who for all we know is one of many on George Soros's payroll or even once worked for Burnie Madoff and now blogs on fiance while living off his savings because we know banker's lawyers get more in one year than average worker gets in 10 years and banker's lawyers can be trusted right?

Some Obama supporting lawyers say S&P are not smart enough to understand Obama arguments. I kid you not, this is a hard-constraint in their game-plan, constant insult, no substance. Have you heard all of Obama's plans. Have you ever heard how he going to cut debt? You should be aware the collapse of GM and others was due to debt right? GM was paying unions payroll benefits that far exceeded revenue from the sale of cars. Unions will have you believe it was executive bonus. Left-wing university elitists will have you think it was GM was selling "gas guzzlers". GM admits problem was the cars people wanted for the price people wanted to pay was not sustainable. That is right, people didn't want pay what it cost to make the car, let alone the pay for all the extras GM's unions where making in pension fund management, worker's health care insurance and employee bonus payments. This is how the left try to manipulate you into changing your ideas of good and bad. Attack anything a boss does, even when the employees are getting more than 35% of the revenue. Payroll is expected to be around 20% of a companies cost. Remember company has to pay tax, pay for raw materials and pay shareholders. Most big companies also have debt. Left will always try find some spin and leave out the contextual statements as "messy".

Insiders will tell you they personally seen S&P make far more basic mistakes than the one they made in miscalculating the US’s debt-to-GDP ratio. Yet S&P are the big brand agency and they are not. Same insiders who can tell you all these mistakes by S&P in the past are rather odd, because how come they keep using S&P? How comes they claim as bankers they constantly check for financial soundness, when these insiders are the ones who suppose to protecting YOUR deposits somehow these "insiders" didn't warn the big banks were insolvent? How comes not of these insiders who now claim S&P is so unstable didn't warn anyone about the banks been so unstable? I think it would been more important if these New York finance lawyers who "worked" in the industry for so long warned the people about Bernie Madoff, Enron, General Motors, Goldman Sachs and others.

Treasury has no right to be outraged, the people do. Treasury of the nation acting in the interests of a political party.  S&P only mistake was not proofing final draft, a mistake rarely made, but any mistake, even a comma out of place is pounced on by Democrats. Highlighting faults in others while refusing to even acknowledge anything less than resounding praise is common with the left. The left love to judge and hate to be judged by others (unless it is resounding praise).

So to S&P, I say: you have sounded the alarm that few dared in the past to ring.

The answer is go forward, not backwards. The left wants drag world back to the 1800s. Marx stole some quotes, he didn't even found the union movement. He just got good at been a bully and taking credit for others.

Progress should be made in better goods, not cheapest. Local grown food. Balanced budgets, not debt ridden government. Would you loan anyone who can't pay back? Then ask yourself why do BANKS want government to borrow more. Banks don't employ you, they employ those rich New York finances who tell you how bad the Republicans are and how you need vote Democrat. Democrats who borrow money from the banks.

Be a proud Christian, be a proud Patriot. Don't be beguiled into a one-party state under Obama. You think it will not happen. You think if Obama gets in second term he will not seek same as Hugo Chavez an alteration of the constitution to get more power and longer terms and another term. Obama already stated he need lot longer than one term, just for the few promises he actually made in his run up. Don't be fooled by Obama and the Democrats  Obama has actually told you he wants power and needs more time, he just minced words about it. He never talks plain and doesn't give details before he acts.

Amazing how many women suddenly didn't like Sarah Palin because of a few media comments about her cloths. Really a fundamental problem with people when looks more important than brains. You want a leader, not a model running the country. Not that I endorce anyone to run against Obama, but I rather a soccer mum than a university pot head.