How’s that stimulus working out for you Barry?

Apparently not too well it seems.

The Washington Post (!) Reports:

Five months after Congress approved a massive package of spending and tax cuts aimed at reviving an ailing economy, the jobless rate is still climbing and the White House is scrambling to reassure an anxious public that President Obama’s prescription for economic recovery is on the right track.

Yesterday, Obama took time out of his first presidential trip to Moscow to defend the $787 billion stimulus package, arguing that the measure was the right medicine at the right time. “There’s nothing that we would have done differently,” he told ABC News

So, beings the Democratic Party’s proverbial teeth chattering session, where they realize, “Uh-Oh, we messed up! Now how do we fix it?”

Back in Washington, senior Democrats on Capitol Hill were nervously contemplating whether additional government stimulus spending may be needed to pull the nation out of the worst recession since the 1930s. Senior administration officials acknowledged that the effects of the stimulus package have been overshadowed by an unexpectedly sharp drop-off in employment since the measure passed in February. But they reported that only about $100 billion has so far been spent and that as increasingly large sums flow out of Washington, the program is on pace to save or create 600,000 jobs over the next 100 days.

“It is clear from the data that there needs to be more fiscal stimulus in the second half of the year than there was in the first half of the year,” White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers said. “Fortunately, the stimulus program designed by the president and passed by Congress provides exactly that.”

Leading economists agree that the most powerful effects of the stimulus package have yet to be felt. But even if the measure lives up to Obama’s expectations, it would barely offset the 433,000 jobs the nation lost last month alone, and the resulting employment would represent a drop in the bucket compared with the 6.5 million jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007.

“Just 130 days out on the adoption of a very, very major effort to get the economy moving, certainly I don’t think we can make a determination as to whether or not that’s been successful,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday. But, he said, “I think we need to be open to whether or not we need additional action.”

Oh Yes! We just poured a couple generation’s worth of money into a Economic system that is basically; on it’s face, is broken and does not work. This did not work, so, we’re going to basically pour money into that same broken system and see if we can make the economy recover. Rolling Eyes

If anything this ought be a lesson for the Democratic Party that Keynesian Pump Priming, just does not work. But you think that the Democrats would learn that lesson? No. Because they’re dumb! Silly

Of course, the Republicans are a bit more smarter about this:

Republicans, meanwhile, pounced on news that the unemployment rate increased to 9.5 percent in June and accused the Democrats of sinking the nation deeper into debt to finance an economic recovery package that has failed to save American jobs. Noting that the Obama administration predicted earlier this year that stimulus spending would keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the No. 2 Republican in the House, said, “I think any objective measure would indicate there’s a failure when you have a commitment of nearly $800 billion in taxpayer funds and you have the type of job loss we’re experiencing.”

With many economists forecasting that the jobless rate will continue to climb — and is likely to stay above 10 percent through much of next year — Republicans vowed to make the 2010 midterm election a referendum on Obama’s stewardship of the economy. “I think they’re going to have some significant problems,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who leads the GOP campaign operation in the Senate, “and I view those as opportunities for us.”

Hopefully, the Republicans will frame these opportunities properly. Of course, their track record here as of late, has not been too good.

Meanwhile, in the reality sector:

Despite the deepening pain of the recession, many Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill yesterday counseled patience. They said it would be extraordinarily difficult to win approval for more spending on the economy when Obama is pursuing a host of other expensive initiatives, including a $1 trillion expansion of the nation’s health-care system. And they argued that the current stimulus package should be given a chance to work.

The stimulus was designed to deliver a gradually stronger push to the economy through the end of next year. It contains about $499 billion in new spending and about $288 billion in tax cuts for working families, businesses, college students and first-time home buyers.

When the measure passed, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that about a quarter of the money would be spent by year’s end, and that about 75 percent would flow by the end of 2010. So far, economists said, spending appears to be on track.

According to administration estimates, about $158 billion in new spending had been committed to specific projects by the end of June, but just a fraction of that money — about $56 billion — had been delivered to struggling state governments, unemployed workers and other recipients. An additional $43 billion had been left in the pockets of individuals and businesses through uncollected taxes, much of it the result of Obama’s signature Making Work Pay tax credit for working families.

Those figures track closely with estimates by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, who calculates that the government made $242 billion in stimulus funds available for various purposes through the end of June and paid out about $110 billion. In a recent analysis, Zandi predicted that “the maximum contribution from the stimulus should occur in the second and third quarters of this year,” when it will add more than three percentage points to overall economic growth.

“It’s pretty much according to plan in terms of the payout and in terms of its economic impact. This is in the script,” Zandi said. The problem, he said, is that “the economy has been measurably worse than anyone expected,” with a surprisingly sharp “collapse in employment and surge in unemployment” that caught most economists off guard.

“That’s why the administration’s forecasts have been so wrong,” he said.

None of this surprises me in the least. I warned on this blog long ago that this would happen. But, of course, you have the Democrats spinning this, and very hard too:

The White House continues to predict that the stimulus package will save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year. Zandi predicts it will fall short of that, producing about 2.5 million jobs — still a significant impact.

Whatever the number, Democrats are hoping it will be enough to convince voters that Obama is leading them out of the economic wilderness.

“I think the president was very clear that things were going to take a long time to turn around,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who leads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in charge of electing Democrats to the House. Republicans “are making the argument to the American people that doing nothing would have been the best policy. And I don’t think people will buy that. . . .

“The measures we have taken have certainly prevented things from getting much worse.”

According to what figures? Because the charts I have seen, say otherwise:

stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-proj-dots

What this chart shows is that unemployment was far higher with the stimulus plan, than it would have been, if Team Teleprompter would have just left well enough alone.

What this means to me personally is this; I will most likely be unemployed until like 2010 or longer. Thereby making myself impossible to he hired anywhere, because I haven’t worked in so long. Which is just wonderful. Rolling Eyes

Thank you President Bambi Teleprompter for ruining America, you feckless idiot! Angry

Others:  Hot Air,  

The Reading Room: Liberalism or Christianity?

(Source)

Liberalism or Christianity?

by J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

Originally published in THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, Vol. 20, 1922, Page 112

An address delivered, in substance, in the Wayne Presbyterian Church, Wayne, Pennsylvania, November 3, 1921, before the Twenty- Eighth Annual Convention of the Ruling Elders’ Association of Chester Presbytery, on the subject, “The Present Attack against the Fundamentals of our Christian Faith, from the Point of View of Colleges and Seminaries.” Originally published in The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 20, 1922, Machen later turned this short essay into a manuscript which was published in 1923 under the title: Christianity & Liberalism (Macmillan, 1923). This article, however, is now in the public domain (original pagination has been kept intact for purposes of reference). This electronic edition was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink.

The attack upon the fundamentals of the Christian faith is not a matter merely of theological seminaries and universities. It is being carried on vigorously by Sunday School “lesson-helps,” by the pulpit, and by the religious press. The remedy, therefore, is not to be found in the abolition of theological seminaries, or the abandonment of scientific theology, but rather in a more earnest search after truth and a more loyal devotion to it when once it is found.

At the seminaries and universities, the roots of the great issue are more clearly seen than in the world at large; among students the reassuring employment of traditional phrases is often abandoned, and the advocates of a new religion are not at pains, as they are in the Church at large, to maintain a pretence of conformity with the past. In discussing the attack against the fundamentals of Christianity “from the point of view of colleges and seminaries,” therefore, we are simply discussing the root of the matter instead of its mere superficial manifestations. What, at bottom, when the traditional phrases have all been stripped away, is the real meaning of the present revolt against historic Christianity?

Continue reading “The Reading Room: Liberalism or Christianity?”

Next time someone tells you that Islam is a Religion of peace; Show them this video

The Synopsis of this video:

This is a video of David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi asking questions at Arabfest, Dearborn. The date is June 21st, 2009. There was a booth at the festival which had a banner titled “Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers.” From their table, we picked up a pamphlet claiming that Islam promotes peace. We noticed that it was full of poor logic and errors, so we decided to make a video refuting it. We went to the booth that gave us the pamphlet to give them the opportunity to defend their claims. Security, however, stepped in and forced us to turn off our camera.

We left the booth, received advice from police, and found out that the actions of the security guards were illegal. We went back to the booth to record a potential answer again. Realizing that the Muslims present had no answer, we left.

When we came outside, we were asked some questions by two young men, who had been sent by security to entrap us. While we responded to them, festival security started assaulting us, as you will see in this video. The conclusion of this video is a mob of festival security attacking our cameras, pushing us back, kicking our legs, and lying to the police.

We ask you, is it a coincidence that the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States is the city where Christianity is not allowed to be represented (let alone preached) on a public sidewalk? Is it coincidence that in this city, people will say “No way!” when we say “This is the United States of America”?

Is this what will happen when Islam takes over the United States?

You see Ladies and Gents, THIS is what celebrating diversity does to you. It gets you attacked by Islamic terrorist THUGS! Rick Warren and his purpose driven life, “Let’s love everyone and not judge”, kind of Christianity is just that; it celebrates diversity. Islam, a religion of peace….. What a lie! 😡 This is why, if I ever was going to film, I would go armed. Any security person who approached me and tried to hurt me, would be killed.

Enjoy this video! (Via Gateway Pundit)

WAKE UP AMERICA to the LIE OF ISLAM!

Acts 17 Apologists website.

Palin Attorney threatens Lawsuits to those who accuse and criticize her.

I do believe that Sarah Palin has just crossed a bridge too far.

First up a video, from a Conservative; Yes, that’s right, a Conservative Journalist:

Her point of, “What would Buckley think of her?” is quite valid. I tend to believe that Buckley would loathe this woman.

The Story via the Politico:

Ratcheting up her offensive against the news media, Gov. Sarah Palin’s attorney threatened Saturday to sue mainstream news organizations if they publish “defamatory” stories relating to whether Palin is under federal investigation.

In an extraordinary four-page letter, Alaska-based attorney Thomas Van Flein warns of severe consequences should speculation that until now has largely been confined to blogs about whether Palin embezzled funds in the construction of a Wasilla, Alaska, sports arena find its way into print.
“This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law,” Van Flein warned, citing Alaska liberal blogger Shannyn Moore.

I hate to say this, But Palin, as far as I am concerned; is history. She put herself into the spotlight, by being involved in public politics and now, wants to be treated special because she is a woman. This is nothing more than some threat of a frivolous lawsuit. Further more, it is an attempt to suppress freedom of speech.  I do not know any judge, that is worth two dimes; that would even give a lawsuit of this nature a second look. My issue with this lawsuit threat, and her in general is not because she is a woman. It is because she embraces the whole notion of Female entitlement. The woman wants to be treated differently, because she is a woman. That is the antithesis of Conservatism.

Andrew Sullivan does not buy it either, and as much as I hate to admit it, he is correct here:

I don’t quite buy that this is a brilliant scheme to win everything back by running from the base as a martyr of librul-media meanies. Why? First off, she lies about almost everything, so one’s immediate response should be: if she said it, it’s probably not true. Besides, if she really thinks she could do more for Alaska by leaving it (a rare display of insight on her point), she could at least do the minimum and finish up her term of office. I mean: I know the endless photo-shoots and Greta interviews can take time, but it’s not like she seems to do very much. Her ratings my be sinking like a stone, but they have not incapacitated her. And as every Republican hack has pointed out, quitting a governorship before your first term is over is not exactly a good advertisement for being president of the United States. If she can’t handle a few Alaskan bloggers and Steve Schmidt emails, how is she going to handle Khamenei and al Qaeda? Maybe her base is so ga-ga they don’t care. But again the whole diva quitting-fit is totally at odds with the core image that turns them on – of a tough-girl, Thatcher-style, play-with-the-big-boys Alaskan Evita. You can’t do that and then throw a sixteen-year-old fit and slam your bedroom door when the press gets too tough.

[….]

Okay: she’s joining the Beck-Limbaugh-Hannity circus. It sure is more lucrative and far more fun than governing a state. Her main goals in life so far have been money and fame (and photo-shoots); and she doesn’t handle power, understand policy or manage people well. So why not earn money from being a celebrity rather than from that excruciatingly arduous thing called governing?But here’s why I can’t quite buy this either.

This was obviously an incredibly hasty decision, with no prepared speech, delivered almost to minimize its publicity impact on the Friday of a federal holiday before the Fourth of July. If she were really re-launching her career in a new media-driven, Fox-News, Huckabee-Limbaugh vehicle, she would surely have set up the launch a little better. She can do speeches. She could have done a great one – a rallying cry, a “You won’t have Palin to kick around any more” piece of bravado – and launched a big fundraising drive to get her on her way. But no: we get this desperate, unrehearsed, “I’m-not-a-quitter-because-I’m-quitting” stream-of-consciousness. Again, anything is possible, since she’s ga-ga, but this really felt to me like a very swift withdrawal to avoid what might be an almighty shoe about to fall to earth.

What could that shoe be? Some unknown ethics inquiry? Some big official scandal about to break? The free house-construction no-one quite resolved? Trooper Wooten’s revenge? Bristol can’t take the bullshit any more and has sold a tell-all? Levi just got a lot of money from the Enquirer? Sherri Johnston has implicated a Palin in her drug-bust? Did Track get in trouble again? Is there another unplanned pregnancy somewhere? Someone took a hike on the Appalachian trail? Has Lyda Green finally gone nuclear? Has Mercedes got a book contract?  Or has she pushed Levi one step too far? Is Trig really Tina Fey’s child?

The number of potential enemies and victims with an ax to grind and a lucrative story to tell is endless. Who can say? But the abruptness of the withdrawal is so weird one has to wonder. I mean: she managed to face down a pregnant unwed daughter, an arrested relative, a delinquent son, a secessionist husband, 32 absurd lies (and counting), a completely loopy pregnancy story and carried on regardless, winking and posing away. I mean: those Runners World photos don’t look like a a politician in clinical depression, ground down by exposure. So what possible scandal could be big enough to force her to quit this suddenly, without a prepared statement, and shocking her entire staff? What could be so big that this extremely ambitious woman would do something that all but ends her potential credibility as a national politician? No one can elect a president who couldn’t even finish one term of office as governor because of press pressure. Right?

All I know is that if a shoe drops, we probably won’t hear about it first from the mainstream media. So stay tuned.

While all of the above might be a wee bit mean spirited, Andrew does have a point. I have to say, that I do agree. She has been caught some rather nasty lies. Something was brought to her attention, perhaps not a federal investigation; but perhaps a state one and they had dirt on her and she got the heck out of dodge before they went public.

The plain fact is, that she is out and the Liberal media won’t have her to bash any longer. But if she thinks that the media will stop talking about her; she is crazy. Because the Liberal media is on this mission and that is to destroy Conservatism and the Republican Party. Some Paleo-Conservatives would love to see this; I am not one of them. I think that there should be a counter to the Big Government idiocy of the Democratic Party.

The problem is, that party has no spokesman; Buckley is dead, Sanford is discredited, Ann Coulter is an idiot, Michelle Malkin is…. well, Michelle Malkin;  there is just no one of great articulation. It is a tragic thing, but these things tend to happen; when the Party elects a President based upon family pedigree and then he proceeds to embark on a Wilsonian, Neo-Conservative guided mission of Global dominance in the middle east.

The burning question, which is in the back of everyone’s mind is this; will the Republican Party be able to pull out of this funk and find someone who can articulate properly the values of the party; Without coming off like sounding like some rich pompous ass? That is the problem with the party. The image is that of a “Rich Man’s Party.” and John McCain with his eight houses did nothing to help that image. Of course, I know that it is not a “Rich Man’s Party.” While I personally might not be in that Party, I know many middle class people who are.

As I said before, and have in many blog postings. It is going to be a long four to eight years in America.

Podcast: Special Independence Day Show!

This is my first attempt at a real podcast. At the beginning of this, I was hearing myself back through the headset; so, If I sound a little off, that is why. I fixed it, about 5 minutes into the recording.

I didn’t have a script; so, if I sound like I am rambling in the beginning, that is why.

Anyhow, here’s my reading the Declaration  of Independence.

[podcast]http://politicalbyline.podomatic.com/enclosure/2009-07-04T18_25_30-07_00.mp3[/podcast]

Just to clear the air….

I have been looking at my logs and I noticed that some have searched my blog and have read this here.

A few things to remember; First that posting was written right after the election. I will be honest, I was not pleased with John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin, I felt it was a disaster, I still do. While Palin might have been a good thing for the Republican Party and possibly for the State of Alaska; however, I felt she just did not have the experience to be involved in Federal Government. Perhaps if she had been Governor for like 2 terms, I could accept that. But not for as long as she was.

Secondly, I felt that Palin was whining about her coverage in the media. The way I see it, you put yourself in the public spotlight, then be prepared to get raked over the coals. Politics is a contact sport, it is no place for people who are soft touch. Palin was, and still is, in my opinion, a very soft touch. It seems to me, that she expects people to treat her special because she is a woman, that is entitlement; if you cannot take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. It’s just that simple.

However, I will say this and hopefully everyone understands; I would never, in million years; would have wanted Sarah Palin out of politics entirely. Perhaps the Liberals would love to see that, but no I. I think she had a place and could have earned a seat in the White House. Hopefully she does something productive, like run for a seat in the Senate or House in Washington D.C.; Then in 2012 runs for President. Further more, I certainly hope she does not give up on politics totally.

That would be a tragedy.