atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#1709: "Are you smarter than an 8th grader?"

Our first contestant is not! You don't even get a copy of our lousy home game! You're a complete loser!

Any wonder Detroit is a shithole par excellence?

* * *

All it takes to defeat Democrats is the facts, calmly presented without apology.

* * *

Feminist Naomi Wolf loves the burqua. It's so ironic that feminists are supporting a misogynist religion.

But the misogynists are anti-America, and the feminists think America is the root of all evil.

Politics trumps everything with these people: if he were an anime character, Bill Clinton would be called an "enemy of women"; he was credibly accused of rape and used his position of authority to secure sexual favors from at least one intern...yet because of the (D) next to his name, feminists gave him a pass. Teddy Kennedy left a woman to drown while he went home and sobered up; and after that he was well-known for womanizing and philandering and in general treating women like things to be used...and feminists gave him a pass because he had that (D) next to his name.

It seems to me that if you are actually for womens' rights, if you are actually feminist, you should be concerned with the oppression of all women, including muslim women who aren't even allowed an education.

* * *

#3 in Ann Coulter's "Liberal lies about health care reform".

Obamacare supporters have been trying to tell us that the bill won't do certain things, and that people who say the bill will do those things are liars--but the only liars here are those self-same liberals.

Just to pick one, let's look at the "health care for illegals" part: the bill has no provisions for preventing the dispensing of health care to illegal aliens. There are no requirements that health care providers determine whether or not a particular patient is a legal resident of the United States; and the bill itself won't repeal the laws which state that anyone who needs medical care must be treated.

Right now, law enforcement is not allowed to determine residency status of detained criminals. There is no reason to expect that that will change; and if law enforcement can't do it, what makes anyone think that doctors will be allowed to do it?

While it's true that the bill makes no provision for giving free health care to illegal aliens, it makes no prevision for preventing it from happening anyway.

* * *

It's true that federal tax revenue is higher in good times than in bad. Do I have to support that assertion? No? Good.

Obama's $9,000 billion deficit assumes an expanding economy, not a recession. While it's reasonable to assume that the economy will recover at some point in the next couple of years, it is not reasonable to assume it will recover this year and subsequently grow at about 3% per year.

In fact, with only a month or so left in FY 2009, the economy is still contracting. We're told that we're seeing "signs of recovery" because the rate of contraction has shrunk, but a smaller rate of contraction is still contraction, which means the economy is not really "recovering".

A 3% annual growth in GDP seems overly optimistic. Looking at the historical data it seems to me that some years are better than others. In the last decade, it looks to me as if the average has been below 3%.

Note that this graph is the rate of change in GDP, not the actual growth (or contraction) of GDP. "Rate of change" is denoted as "delta" by physicists, so I'll be using that convenient shorthand here.

If the economy fails to meet that 3% delta--any year that it falls short--the deficit will in fact be higher than $900 billion per year. If the delta were limited to, say, 1%, it might mean the ten-year total could be (making up a number here) $10,000 billion, or $11,000, or more.

Even if the economy does somehow manage to meet that 3% target--despite allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse, despite the inflationary drag of a vastly overinflated money supply, and assuming no more increases in spending such as cap-and-tax or Obamacare--even assuming that, it still means the United States federal government is planning to spend $900 billion more per year than it takes in.

Okay? Until 2009 the largest federal deficit in United States history was the one from 2008; it was $455 billion. $900 billion is nearly twice that amount.

And they want to spend that much every year for the next decade.

I used to be friends with someone whose dad worked for Ford. One of his father's friends from work said ruefully, "I made a lot of money in the 1980s, but my kids are going to pay for it." This was in the context of the "Reagan deficits". I tried to explain to these hardcore Democrats who is actually responsible for taxation and spending in the US government. Their answer? "Well, Reagan signed it!"

It's a Democrat plan, written and voted on by Democrats, and signed by a Democrat. I wonder what those same men think now? (Probably that it is somehow George Bush's fault.)

In any event, a continued policy of spending $2 for every dollar that comes in is not going to lead to economic growth, certainly not in the long run and probably not in the short run, either. What it will lead to is inflation and economic malaise.

* * *

The "green jobs czar" is a racist. Enough said.

* * *

Michelle Malkin's got a video demonstrating Democrat debate methodology. Heh.

* * *

Well, that's about all the time we have today here at Atomic Fungus. Later!
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments