Category: failures of socialism

Illinois as Deadbeat

Another day goes by, another failure of progressive economics is made painfully obvious. In this case, we’re talking about the state of Illinois and its inability to make payments for Medicare and its Lottery. From the Fox Business news story:

Illinois will not meet a court-set deadline Tuesday to increase spending on backlogs of Medicaid payments, pushing the problem off until the end of the month as the state’s unprecedented budget impasse is on the verge of entering its third straight fiscal year.

I thought that proud progs thought that we should give “free” Medicare to everybody? Why don’t they just steal raise taxes some more?

Illinois owes Medicaid providers $2 billion for care provided to more than 3 million people — a small sum compared to the state’s total unpaid bill of $15 billion, or 40 percent of Illinois’ operating budget. After failing to pass a spending bill for two straight fiscal years, the state has been functioning on appropriations since 2015.

Illinois can’t pay 40% its budget? Perhaps they should spend less? Don’t tell that to a Democrat.

Failure to strike a budget agreement by the end of the state legislature’s annual session on May 31 resulted in a critical credit downgrade for the country’s fifth largest state to Baa3, the lowest of any state and only one level above non-investment grade — also known as junk.

I wonder what Illinois is offering as an interest rate on its junk bonds? I sure as hell won’t accept a measly 4.4% from a 10-year Illinois bond.

Additionally, the state currently has more than $250 billion in unfunded pension obligations, annual payments of which could be cut if a deal isn’t struck — a scenario that Moody’s warned would be a negative credit event for bondholders.

I’m sure that the Democrats in the Legislature have $250 billion hiding somewhere. The capitalist neo-kulak pigs just need to pay up.

The state legislature’s special session begins Wednesday and will take place over 10 days. The impasse between the Democratic-controlled legislature and the Republican governor has paralyzed the state so severely that Gov. Rauner even compared Illinois to a “banana republic” earlier this month because it cannot manage its finances.

Yeah, I’d say banana republic is a good description. Venezuela isn’t doing so hot these days.

Discussions with Bernie Sanders supporters…

Today’s post is dedicated to my complex, intelligent, factually-based, and well-thought out debates with the Sandroid Bernout Army. I’m just kidding folks, there wasn’t a whole lot of critical thinking going on in the mind of the Sandroids. Only one of the people I asked questions of was somewhat reasonable. You’ve heard me talk of the folks over at Economic Illiterates for Bernie Sanders 2016 before and this is where most of the discussions took place at.

To start this off here’s a CNN that some Sandroids decided to spam the aforementioned page with.

CNN-Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

In the CNN article a single economist by the name of Gerald Freidman claims that under Bernie’s plan the U.S. economy would:

Friedman, who believes in democratic socialism like the candidate, found that if Sanders became president — and was able to push his plan through Congress — median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO’s forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation’s $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders’ second term.

I’m fairly certain that most of the Bernie supporters didn’t get past this part (or the title for that matter) since right after that portion of the article was the following:

Other economists, however, feel that Friedman’s analysis is overly optimistic, saying it would be difficult to achieve that level of economic prosperity. Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Sanders’ plan to pay for health care would fall short by at least $3 trillion.”

I wonder where the $14.5 trillion is going to come from?

Sanders’ plan to pour $14.5 trillion into the economy — including spending on infrastructure and youth employment, increasing Social Security benefits, making college free and expanding health care and family leave — would juice GDP and productivity. (Friedman reduces the cost of Medicare-for-all to $10.7 trillion because he estimates the government would save $3.1 trillion by eliminating tax breaks for health insurance premiums.)

That’s right, tax increases on the wretched and vile “1%”, a 2.2% income tax on anyone making over $28,000 a year, a 6.2% payroll tax levied on the employer side, a tax on numerous financial transactions (purchase/sale of bonds, stocks, among many other things), and big increases on capital gains among numerous other fees. Brilliant, whatever could go wrong with this great plan?   (Hat-tip to We Are Capitalists)

12631405_493412637496950_2728163176610652916_n

Continuing on though:

‘Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders’ program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity,’ Friedman writes. It will ‘promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality.’

FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau Jr. admitted that New Deal policies were a complete and utter failure that didn’t restore employment, restore prosperity, or even end the Great Depression.

Many presidential hopefuls say their economic programs would boost growth. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush justify their big tax cuts by saying GDP would grow at a 4% rate. But their plans have been panned by experts as overly optimistic.

We won’t get 4% growth per year in the economy, but Bernie and his Bernouts will find a way to make the U.S. economy consistently grow at 5.3% every year.

Friedman, however, argues that Sanders’ plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes. Several of Sanders’ proposals — such as spending $1 trillion on infrastructure — will happen in the first few years of his administration.

The thinking goes: This enhanced government spending would increase demand on businesses, who would then hire more workers to meet their needs. The increase in employment will prompt people to buy more, leading other businesses to hire.

‘If there is more spending, people will have more to do,’ Friedman said, noting that the share of the population with jobs could be restored to its 1999 level of more than 64%, up from its current 59.6% rate.

So if we take more money from citizens just to give it back to them later the economy will grow? Brilliant…

10610743_10207814491744006_389463997724232360_n       11261496_744850538953680_400639547207836214_n

At the end of the article we see the following:

Still, some experts question whether the effects would be that large.

Stimulating demand can boost a weak economy during a recession, but ‘it’s harder to accept as a long-run growth strategy,’ said William Gale, the former director of Brookings’ Economic Studies Program.

Also, it would be very difficult to achieve and maintain an economic growth rate of 5.3% per year after inflation. That target hasn’t been hit consistently since the 1960s, when technology was providing big advancements, the workforce was younger and there was increased demand for American products worldwide as other countries fully recovered from World War II.

‘The 5.3% number is a fantasy,’ said Jim Kessler, senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.

I feel like I’ve said something similar to this before about economic conditions in the 1950s and progressive ideas about the tax code.

Joe

Now that I’ve established what the Bernie trolls are citing as evidence of their ideas being correct, let’s look at how they respond to my arguments.

Here was the standard response I gave (i.e. copied and pasted) since the Sandroids kept citing the same article without reading it.

Sandroid Response

Some people never really responded…

JessicaPeck      MikeJoseph      JessicaPeck

Like I said at the beginning, there was one individual who was reasonable and not full of hate.

KaylaBubridge

Then there were the people who would disagree with what I had to say but offered no evidence of their own whilst calling me a liar. The logic that the Sandroids are using is simply amazing…

ChrisSloanes1    ChrisSloanes2    ChrisSloanes3

Concerning a discussion not related to the CNN article Mr. Joe Giansante provided some good entertainment. This postal worker appears to be going postal on me.

 

JoeGiasante    JoeGiasante1   JoeGiansante3

joetard

Mr. Tanous had some interesting logic as well; the “1%” are keeping Africa to perform sweatshop labor yet also stopping all economic development. I’m not certain how that works, especially when countries like South Africa are ruled by the socialists in the African National Congress and communist dictators rule Zimbabwe. What’s up with progressives and thinking that their opponents base everything off of Fox News?

TaylorJamesTanous    TaylorJamesTanous1    TaylorJamesTanous2

Then there was a woman by the name of Sally Sallernio who makes some wondrous claims yet is also unable to back them up.

jordan_lubbers jordan_lubbers_1 jordan_lubbers_2

She actually argued that facts don’t matter…

Sally_salltard_3 Sally_salltard_4

I know what Comrade Sally needs in her life, a lifetime subscription to Poor Me! magazine.

Poor_Me_Magazine_Issue_1

That’s all for now about my conversations with the Sandroid Bernout Army. As always, don’t be scared to share this information with your fiends, I mean friends.

 

 

 

Economic conditions of the 1950’s

A constant refrain that I hear from progressives is that the United States had 90% taxes during the 1950s and the country was still prosperous. Progressives seem to believe that it is a golden era that we need to emulate in all economic facets…

Joe Parks


I wonder how many of these proud Party members have actually taken the time to think about what caused the United States to be the world’s pre-eminent economic power during the 1950s. Is it possible that 90% income tax rates on the wretched and vile “1%” led to economic prosperity (or at least didn’t hinder it) or is there something more to the story? Let’s start by taking a look at what taxes were paid to the Federal Government in the post WWII years (I bet WWII took a while to pay off also). A publication produced by UC Berkeley in 2007 entitled “How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax System? A Historical and International Perspective”provides much insight into what the “1%” actually paid in taxes in the 1950s. Let’s take a look:

The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percent. This finding illustrates the theme that it is important to decompose the top of the income distribution into very small groups to capture the progressivity of a tax system. Although very top groups contain few taxpayers, they account for a substantial share of income earned, and an even larger share of taxes paid.

Interestingly, the larger progressivity in 1960 is not mainly due to the individual income tax. The average individual income tax rate in 1960 reached an average rate of 31 percent at the very top, only slightly above the 25 percent average rate at the very top in 2004. Within the 1960 version of the individual income tax, lower rates on realized capital gains, as well as deductions for interest payments and charitable contributions, reduced dramatically what otherwise looked like an extremely progressive tax schedule, with a top marginal tax rate on individual income of 91 percent.

So the actualized income tax rate for the rich was 31%, not really much different from where it stands today. That is a most interesting point to come to terms with. Such results also show that Sandroids don’t actually know what they’re talking about when they claim that the United States had a 91% income tax rate.

The greater progressivity of federal taxes in 1960, in contrast to 2004, stems from the corporate income tax and the estate tax. The corporate tax collected about 6.5 percent of total personal income in 1960 and only around 2.5 percent of total income today. Because capital income is very concentrated, it generated a substantial burden on top income groups. The estate tax has also decreased from 0.8 percent of total personal income in 1960 to about 0.35 percent of total income today. As a result, the burden of the estate tax relative to income has declined very sharply since 1960 in the top income groups.

The true source of where the “1%” paid out comes to light. If you look at the current U.S. corporate tax rate, you will see that it is extremely high at 39.1%. Many progressives will also claim that many major corporations don’t pay any taxes. I really would like someone to tell me which of those evil corporations pays zero taxes. As for estate taxes, is there really a need to tax a citizen after he is dead?

Second, the composition of top incomes has changed substantially. Figure 2 shows the breakdown into wage income, business income, capital income (including imputed corporate taxes), and realized capital gains. In the 1960s, top incomes were primarily composed of capital income: mostly dividends and capital gains. The surge in top incomes since the 1970s has been driven in large part by a steep increase in the labor income component, due in large part to the explosion of executive compensation. As a result, labor income now represents a substantial fraction of income at the top. This change in composition is important to keep in mind, because the corporate and estate taxes that had such a strong effect on creating progressivity in the 1960s would have relatively little effect on labor income.

The income of wealthy Americans has gone up which raises inequality. Progressives certainly can’t have inequality or a tax code that doesn’t redistribute the wealth. . Progressives will commonly harp on the shrinking middle class; they simply can’t shut up about it. The New York Times will even write a story on this very subject  when the data that they use as a source shows that most of the reason the middle class has shrunk is due rising incomes overall. The New York Times’ blatant misrepresentation of the data is simply astounding. I suppose that progressives would seek to bring the wealth of the average American down though as we must all be equal. Just one more reason that “inequality” is a stupid issue. Just because someone else’s income is rising does not mean you are worse off. Anyone who is curious where such numbers originate from can look to the U.S. Census Bureau website.

shrinking. shrinking_1

distribution

11952768_1079414705419531_5335396545754349811_o
A true Progressive goal!

 

One of the other things that Progressives seem to forget about when discussing post WWII economic conditions is WWII. The United Kingdom had here cities heavily bombed and ended the war nearly bankrupt, France was occupied for four years and also suffered heavily; Germany lost millions, lost Prussia, and was rent in two; the Soviet Union lost 27 million people and had many of its cities decimated, the Chinese lost over 20 million fighting the Japanese and shortly thereafter underwent a Communist revolution; Japan lost millions, had its cities destroyed, and two nukes dropped on it. The only major power left without any massive loss of live or widespread destruction wrought in its homeland was the United States. The destruction of industrialized countries allowed the United States to produce the majority of the world’s economic output for a time without contest. When progressives say that the 1950s were a good time for the U.S. economy they have no understanding as to why.
Borrowed from Wikipedia
Borrowed from Wikipedia

 

Keynesians think that war stimulates the economy right? Nothing said economic growth like the Nanking massacre!
Keynesians think that war stimulates the economy right? Nothing said economic growth like the Nanking massacre!

Look at all that President Obama has accomplished

Good evening comrades, today’s post will go over all the wonderful deeds and accomplishments that President Obama has achieved for the United Socialist States of America. Our current piece of pictorial propaganda comes from the fine folks at Occupy Communists Democrats:

12193389_10156234818655327_1440978989817912249_n

When looking at the Unemployment rate, please don’t take into account that the Labor Force Participation Rate has also dropped. Like all good Party members, the folks at Occupy Communists don’t properly represent the data (or cite their sources). Taking a quick look at some Bureau of Labor Statistics data puts some insight into how the Unemployment Rate has dropped.

participation_trend
Take note of the constant downward trend during all of President Obama’s tenure.

I selelected the years of 2000-2015 from the BLS to generate the graph; you can adjust the years as you see fit. SeriesReport-20151122232319_878ef9

I thought that proud progressive like the ones at Time Magazine claimed that President Obama had nothing to do with gasoline prices and oil imports? But of course, those evil oil companies drilling for oil in the U.S. must be because President Obama demanded it. Didn’t Obama Administration officials want gas prices to go up to $10 per gallon like it is in Europe to force proles citizens to give up their cars? I also thought that President Obama recently rejected the Keystone XL pipeline citing “national interest” as his reasoning? I guess that we’ll keep using trains and oil tankers to import oil that we are using from Canada. Makes total sense and is much safer than using a pipeline…

s-1 c-1

Never forget comrades, Dear Leader has nothing to do with gas prices unless they are cheap...
Never forget comrades, Dear Leader has nothing to do with gas prices unless they are cheap…

The teen pregnancy statistic is really interesting and insightful. President Obama is most certainly responsible for ensuring that teenagers have less sex and/or use birth control more often. Don’t look at the Health and Human Services Department’s description of the data though:

In 2013, there were 26.5 births for every 1,000 adolescent females ages 15-19, or 273,105 babies born to females in this age group.[1] Nearly eighty-nine percent of these births occurred outside of marriage.[1] The 2013 teen birth rate indicates a  decline of ten percent from 2012 when the birth rate was 29.4 per 1,000.[1] The teen birth rate has declined almost continuously over the past 20 years. In 1991, the U.S. teen birth rate was 61.8 births for every 1,000 adolescent females, compared with 26.5 births for every 1,000 adolescent females in 2013. Still, the U.S. teen birth rate is higher than that of many other developed countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom.[2]” (emphasis added)

teenbirthsgraph2011
I guess that President Obama is responsible for a twenty year trend?!

If you look down the article a little further you see that it’s Southern states that have the highest teen pregnancy rates. But before comrades use this as evidence that the dumb, gun and religion clinging, xenophobic, KKKonservatives and Rethuglicans are hypocrites let’s take a look at some state data. In this case, I’ll use Texas.

Let's accuse the racist white folks of hypocrisy without looking at the data...
Let’s accuse the racist white folks of hypocrisy without looking at the data more closely…

Of all teen pregnancies in Texas, only 21% are from Non-Hispanic, White mothers. I know that I don’t have to look this statistic up, but more than 21% of Texas is made up of those evil white people.

Texas1
We can still blame whitey for this…

Texas2

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action surely is a great diplomatic achievement courtesy of John Kerry. Just as Iran honored the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they will also another piece of paper in which provisions expire after ten to fifteen years anyway. Do not look at how Iran’s Uranium stockpile continues to grow. You should also ignore how Iran is testing ICBM’s in violation of a U.N. treaty that they are already party to. To quote Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan, Iran’s Defense Minister:

To follow our defense programs, we don’t ask permission from anyone,

I think that such language is pretty clear, but when you’re a proud progressive words mean whatever you want them to. I suppose that all of those “Death to America” chants are also just meant for domestic consumption and have no real meaning.

The GDP growth only goes over a single quarter of the Obama Administration and ignore all the others. It’s amazing what you can do with numbers when you ignore all the ones that are inconvenient. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis U.S. GDP growth has been low or negative for many quarters during President Obama’s tenure, but reading that data is thoughtcrimeAny reports that Obama Administration GDP growth estimates have been way too high are also completely and totally false. Flag your own lying eyes. It’s amazing what you can do with some Common Core math.

goodgrowth GDP

Concerning the Dow Jones Industrial Average, since when did followers of the Church of Socialism want the wretched “1%” and big corporations to make a bunch of money? I mean the Dow Jones represents just 30 of those evil and large corporations and not the “working class” right? I suppose that the Federal Reserve using trillions in quantitative easing to inflate the economy counts as real growth right? What the Federal Reserve is doing is totally different from what Zimbabwe did to itself. It’s really interesting to look at Federal Reserve Monetary Policy Reports to get an idea of whether there has been real economic growth or not.

selectrate balancesheet compensation

As always, don’t be shy and share this post with your friends.

12278865_422832827921550_4644439739053117008_n

 

 

 

Keynesians don’t always spend your money…

Though when Keynesians do spend your money, kiss it all goodbye. Today’s post is dedicated to the glory of John Manyard Keynes’ economic beliefs. Once this capitalism thing is destroyed we will all be able to live in Utopia.

I know that I’ve already covered how People’s Economist Paul Krugman things that massive debt spending and war are good for the economy, but let’s cover that point from something other than his space alien invasion idea, shall we?

Here are some of Krugman’s thoughts about the effects 9/11 would have on the economy:

krugman911.1 krugman911

Nothing says economic prosperity like war, right? It’s as good as massive debt spending!

tumblr_mbsdmeSTbU1qcznab krugtard1.1  B2vYycKIEAAmpdI

Then there’s this interesting tidbit from John Manyard Keynes himself as written in The Economic Consequences of Peace. This quote starts on page 235:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become “profiteers,” who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds [236] and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

It’s amazing that the same man believed in massive state spending and other command economy methods of raising the aggregate demand.

keynesian-economics-600x435  11998985_10153415083954279_8537637148524341890_n

800px-U.S._Federal_Reserve_-_Treasury_and_Mortgage-Backed_Securities_Held tumblr_m5ack4lBXx1r8o2two1_500

keynesian-economics-spending-your-money

European socialism and automotive expertise

Progressives just love to talk about how socialism in the Nordic countries is successful and seem to like the policies enforced in Continental Europe. But when the government gives out something for free, is it really free? Did countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark create a classless utopia and Worker’s Paradise? Let’s look at some data compiled by an individual who came from Denmark and has firsthand experience from Democratic-Socialism which is supposedly different than Socialism. It’s amazing that progressives will claim that Socialism is different from Democratic-Socialism.

democracy

Here’s a sampling of the work from Manipulism by Mikkel Clair Nissen.

10431493_584181431727781_7347174151346905819_n 10704327_571400949672496_697046755318219909_o 11218234_736740473138542_1122201651430835465_o 10669007_735831993229390_2320416606927235447_o

Socialism is working out so well for many countries of the E.U! The European Union is/has been just full of communists.

11755641_1063670126993989_6935703190490921909_n 11731595_1061510947209907_7141279984784540202_o

Remember when progressives worldwide were hailing the election of communists in Greece? I’ll write more soon on the continuing Greek tragedy in coming posts.

11796195_1063206373707031_2407890948679846375_n

And to close out this post, some fine automotive advice from a budding young technician.

11224628_1480541288910204_1983986268462319270_n

More socialist failures, Greece and Venezuela edition!

syriza_3169974b

By now many of you have heard about the Communist government that was elected in Greece and the “promise” to do away with bailout problems. An agreement for a four month extension of debt payments was granted to Greece by the Euro zone and IMF creditors. It’s really amazing that the Greeks were desperate enough to believe that Syriza would be able to fulfil all guarantees made during the election and still keep the welfare state. I don’t believe in the Euro zone but a government that has no money and is asking for massive debts to be forgiven doesn’t really have many options available. Those that voted and believe that Greece can keep its welfare state, keep the Euro, and not pay back any loans could use a reality check.

What do those of you reading this think the odds are of Syriza keeping its promises, avoid a default, or keep the Euro? I personally believe that it’s time for Greeks to give up on the Euro experiment and regain some sovereignty. I suppose that almost thirty years of socialism with the Panhellenic Socialist Party just wasn’t enough for the Greeks.

Reuters-Greece runs out of funds despite euro zone reprieve

20150228_AMP001_0

   The other socialist failure that I’ll mention with this post concerns Venezuela, a country that exports essentially nothing except for oil. Now that those prices have collapsed all of the welfare programs provided by the state, massive expansion of the public sector, price controls, and other factors have caused the Venezuelan economy to enter a tail-spin. The country can’t supply basic goods to its citizens, constitutionally mandated healthcare isn’t provided, the country is near default, and inflation is over 60%. As should be expected, Nicolas Maduro is blaming capitalists, the CIA, and the United States. I suppose that progressives are also OK with the rising oppression of the Venezuelan people, it is being performed by a socialist government after all. If nothing else they will probably not say much about what is happening, unless it’s to blame the Koch brothers or something of that nature. I’ll close this post out with one last picture.

20150110_gdc047_1

The leftist solution for the economy: war, massive debt spending, and aliens

whore tumblr_lwwh6kok9u1r8lk4ao1_500  krugman_sucks

So the videos that I’m posting of Paul Krugman are nothing new, they’ve been around for some years now. But because of the economic message many leftists/socialists continue to spread this warrants some repeating. The first video of Paul Krugman was aired back in August of 2011 on CNN. In the video Krugman argues that since stimulus debt spending isn’t up to his liking that an alien invasion should be staged to make for for a rapid rise in military spending by the Federal government to fix the ailing economy. Because if there’s one thing that the Federal Government’s not doing enough of, it’s deficit spendingRemember folks, Paul Krugman received the Nobel Peace Prize for Economics in 2008. National debt, never heard of that stupid thing! Raise taxes for the wealthiest to 70% like during the Carter years, or 90% during FDR’s time, awesome solution! That would do nothing whatsoever to hurt business competitiveness or convince the rich, especially leftists to move their wealth away right? Because if there’s anything that helps businesses out, it’s higher operating costs and taxes right? And when the dust has settled, the alien ruse is revealed, and the economy is most certainly in great shape we’ll all be able to say: “Thank you Mr. Krugman, your genius surely knows no bounds. Let me kiss your feet and be generous by giving away even more of what I own”.

Isn’t ironic that people that are supposedly “anti-war”, especially ones that received a Nobel Peace Prize, call for a massive military buildup and war? In any case, enjoy yourself and get a good laugh at the Krugman explanation for fixing the economy. While you’re at it, why not let the whole world know how you feel about Paul Krugman in the poll at the end of this post?

Krugman_ass Krugman_idiot Krugman_alien

Christine Lagard non ha la minima idea di quello che dice- 70 sciocchezze keynesiane in una sola frase

The failure of socialism in Venezuela, continued…

11954742_copia.520.360 frontera.520.360

Venezuela seems to be getting worse and worse, Nicolas Maduro and his socialist government just keep failing. Among many of the recent problems to surface are a lack of doctors to provide state-mandated healthcare. To be fair though, even if the doctors and nurses stayed they wouldn’t have any medical supplies or basic items to treat patients anyway. Constitutionally and government enforced healthcare is a good thing and always means that you’ll be cared for right? The Venezuelan government isn’t even allowing people to pass through the border at night, something about smuggling and a shortage of basic staples. No leaving the country between 10 PM to 5AM for citizens, just stick it out and the 60% inflation rates will go down eventually.

Maybe one day Venezuela will dump socialism and expand their economy and exports past selling oil. Perhaps soon they’ll stop selling gasoline domestically at six cents per gallon. Speaking of prices, what’s a barrel of oil go for now, something under $58 by now. I wonder how much longer Maduro and his group of socialists will blame the U.S. for his problems? Venezuela’s problems started long before the U.S. considered sanctions against Venezuela. I wonder how much lower oil prices will go and how much longer Maduro’s government can take this?

El Universal-Flights of doctors leaves Venezuelan hospitals without medical specialists

El Universal-Venezuela restrains on all its borders at night

Yahoo! News-“Stupid” U.S. sanctions won’t undo my government:Maduro

fiscal.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge fiscal_2.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge

Chuck Schumer sees the light on Obamacare

Schumer caring_2

A short time ago Senator Chuck Schumer lamented Obamacare and stated that Democrats focused on the wrong problem. It seems that Schumer now sees the light on Obamacare or much more likely, he’s worried about the next election and is doing everything he can to distance himself from the President. Unlike Mary Landrieu, it seems that Schumer has little interest in taking one for the team and is more worried about his own skin. Why not, it’s not like he’ll get anything out of simply spewing  the party line in his 2016 re-election. Nancy Pelosi had an interesting response: “We come here to do a job not keep a job“. Based upon the last election it really is an accurate assessment about keeping their jobs.

But of course, fellow liberals are assailing the new-found viewpoints Schumer holds, obviously he’s hurting history and it’s just a steaming pile. I wonder how many more democrats will take the same line prior to the next election? Remember, “a lack of transparency is a huge advantage“.

caring  grubering_1

Remember, those Ivy League douche bags are all alike.