Democrat voters in Detroit–almost all African-Americans–went wild while waiting in line for free welfare cash in Detroit the other day. A reported 35,000 people showed up for free money for rent and utility payment assistance.

Fights broke out.  Shoving occurred.  People were nearly trampled. 

Detroit Free Press Article

The economic tsunami washing over metro Detroit swept its casualties to the doors of Cobo Center on Wednesday in the form of 35,000 people so desperate for help with mortgage and utility bills that threats were made, fights broke out and people were nearly trampled.

City officials said a total of about 65,000 people over the past few days have gotten applications — due next Wednesday — for a share of $15.2 million in federal stimulus money to help people avoid foreclosure or quickly rebound from homelessness.

Have you ever heard of Republicans behaving like this?  Nope.  Republicans are hard-working, self-sufficient, civilized, and expend effort to better their lives and their communities.

If these lazy Democrat welfare slobs spent as much time trying to earn a living as they do begging for handouts, they might accomplish something in life.

Youtube Video 1
Youtube Video 2

President Barack Hussein Obama is doing a terrific job keeping his campaign promise to create millions of jobs.  Obama has created -3.558 million jobs since taking office (Feb – Sept).

For those of you Democrats out there, that means Obama has lost 3,558,000 jobs from February through September of this year.

What I find most interesting is how job cuts spiked the month Obama was elected.  In September 2008, 321,000 jobs were cut. In October, 380,000 jobs were cut. But in November when Obama was elected, 597,000 jobs were lost.

BLS Job Cut Numbers By Month

November is when stores, restaurants, factories, and other businesses hire seasonal workers to help with the Christmas rush.  But last year, job cuts jumped 57% over the prior month when Obama was elected.

Why would businesses cut jobs after Obama was elected?  Maybe because he promised massive increases in income, investment, and other taxes.

The only thing tax increases do is push jobs overseas.  Despite a stabilized economy and job growth in other countries around the world, hundreds of thousands of jobs are still being lost in America each month because of Obama’s and the Democrats’ promised tax increases.

This is just the beginning.  Carbon taxes will increase the cost of every product and service manufactured and sold in the country.  That will have a devastating effect on aggregate demand and jobs.

People aren’t stupid.  They know that in the end this massive spending has to come from somewhere.  With a budget deficit expected to reach $9 trillion over the next 10 years, business owners know the Democrats are going to be coming after them for more and more every year.  The smart ones are setting up shop overseas and are getting out now.

National average gas prices are up a whopping 25% since Barack Hussein Obama took office in January, according to figures released by the Department of Energy.

The average national price for regular unleaded gasonline on report date January 26th, 2009, was $1.862.  As of May 18th, the average national price was $2.331.  That’s an increase of 47 cents per gallon in less than four months of Obama’s presidency.

On December 29th, the last report date for 2008, the national average price of unleaded gasoline was $1.642.

Democrats used to blame Republicans for the high cost of gasoline, even though DFLers did everything they could to prevent new sources of domestic petroleum from being developed all decade long.  One of the first things Obama did after taking office was to block drilling in Utah.  Now that the Democrats control Congress and the Presidency, who are they going to blame now?

Millions of idiots voted for Barack Obama based on his promise that he would create millions of jobs despite the fact that he had never created one himself.  It turns out that he and his Democrat cronies are doing just the opposite.

The hospitality industry is asking Democrats to tone down the anti-business rhetoric because it is bad for their business and destroys jobs.

Star Tribune Hospitality Article

Jay Witzel, CEO of Carlson Hotels Worldwide, was quoted as saying the following about the  business travel industry during testimony to the Senate:

This part of our industry has been the source of undeserved and crippling attacks in recent months.  An environment has been created in America where legitimate business travel is being questioned and cancelled. This translates into additional loss of jobs, taxes, and travel-related revenues for an industry that is already hard-hit from the general economic recession.

Yes, that makes sense.  And that is precisely why Democrats will not be able to comprehend it.

Another article discusses the 789 pending Chrysler dealership closings forced by the Obama administration and the tens-of-thousands of jobs that could be destroyed.

Star Tribune Chrysler Article

Chrysler submitted a 40-page list of pending closures to a bankruptcy court judge Thursday in response to government demands it dramatically shrink.

Economists estimate 42,000 dealership jobs could be lost in the closings, not counting thousands of related jobs at suppliers and ancillary businesses that depend on spending by dealership employees.

That’s an average of 53 jobs lost per dealership, which is a reasonable estimate.  All because of Barack Obama.

I’ve written in the past about how jobs in energy-intensive industries are bearing the brunt of job losses because of impending Democrat carbon taxes.  With Chrysler, we have irrefutable evidence that Obama is directly destroying jobs.

What is most humorous is that auto dealerships, particularly good-paying mechanic jobs, are heavily unionized.  Unions supported Obama, and now he’s destroying their jobs.

Is this what they call poetic justice?  It certainly is sweet irony.

Over two-thirds of the jobs lost since the beginning of the recession in December of 2007 have come since Obama was elected last November.  When Obama was elected, unemployment stood at 6.8%.  As of April 2009, unemployment was 8.9%–and rising.  To contrast, in February 2008 the unemployment rate was 4.8%–almost half of what it is now.

Historical Unemployment Data

I would love to meet an Obama voter who recently lost his or her job and laugh in their face.  We on the Right told you this was going to happen.  Sure enough, it is.  It is, afterall, nothing more than simple logic, which is something beyond the grasp of the Democrat mind.

As Obama is proving, sometimes change can be bad.

Much has been made of the role of the American “financial crisis” in the economic recession across the globe.  Democrats, and even our President, Barack Obama, have pointed their fingers at the United States as the source of world problems.  But they are conveniently ignoring the one crucial aspect that links all nations.

The first problem with the “America is to blame” argument is that the American “financial crisis” is largely myth.  There is no real crisis nor any shortage of loanable funds for individuals and businesses with good credit.  The United States Treasury releases a monthly report on bank lending.  All the major banks in the United States have been lending at strong levels, according to the report.  Banks have reported weakened demand for loans, which is what you would expect during a recession.  But the largest banks in the country are still lending to worthy borrowers.

Treasury Report

The U.S. Department of the Treasury today released results from its January monthly bank lending survey, showing that the nation’s largest banks continued to originate, refinance and renew loans in  January 2009 in the face of a worsening economic downturn.  Despite the worst financial crisis in decades, the survey of the top 21 recipients of government investment through the Capital Purchase Program (CPP) found that most institutions had higher originations across consumer lending categories than in December 2008.

Secondly, this argument is nothing more than an attempt to blame President George Bush for something that he had no part in creating.  Other nations around the world were experiencing economic contractions before the United States did.  Further, to insinuate that other nations’ economic problems were the result of investing in American mortgage-backed securities makes little sense.  That would have to ignore all the other investments around the globe, including mortgage-backed securities in other countries where subprime lending was active, such as England.

The biggest problem with this argument is that of timing.  If the United States was to blame for the global recession, shouldn’t the economy of the USA have been the first to experience a downturn?  Absolutely.  But this isn’t the case.  Economies in Europe such as Germany and Spain have been struggling for years, with much of the blame for that on high social services taxes.  In the mid-2000s when the United States economy was roaring with unemployment levels below 5%, some European countries such as Spain and Germany had unemployment levels of 8% to 9%.

What is the common factor between all nations of the world which could explain the global recession?  The answer:  oil.

As the price of oil rose around the world, money was diverted from consumption to pay for fuel.  This had a retarding effect on all economies.  If you factor in the high taxes in some countries, the cost of a gallon of gasoline at its peak was the equivalent of $10 per gallon.  Every dollar spent on fuel is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere in the economy to create jobs.  Naturally, this is going to harm an economy.

Only someone with a dysfunctional mind, such as a Democrat, can argue that more money spent on gasoline and less on everything else isn’t going to have a harmful impact on the economy.  But Democrats would never admit this, even if they believed it, because it would be an admission of the failures of their policies and way of thinking.  Democrats can’t accept blame any more than they can come up with good ideas.  Their answer to everything is to blame Bush.

Here’s an article from Alan Reynolds at the Cato Institute.  In the article, he points out that all but one of the recessions since World War II have come after rises in the cost of petroleum.

Article

Logically, it makes sense that a sharp increase in the cost of one factor of production lacking suitable substitutes is going to take money out of an economy and reduce economic activity.  But don’t try explaining that to a Democrat.

Barack Obama is urging patience on the economy.  During the campaign, he promised that he–and he alone–was going to turn the economy around and do so quickly.  Now, he is desperately trying to reduce expectations.

Here’s the truth:  economic expansions and contractions are normal and they are unpreventable.  No President can turn the economy around as Obama promised to his millions of brain-dead supporters.  If left entirely alone, the economy will turn around on its own.  It is natural.

Politicians can only make economic cycles more severe or less severe–they cannot prevent them from occurring.  High gas prices last year exacted a devastating toll on our economy.  Tens-of-thousands of jobs in the airline and automobile industries were lost as a direct result of high fuel prices.  Obama promises to further block domestic oil drilling, limiting supplies.  He also promises high carbon taxes on energy, costs that will make manufacturing and daily life more expensive for all.  We can see where Obama will eventually take our economy:  to the outhouse.

No wonder Obama is trying to reduce expectations.  His plans will destroy millions of jobs.

CNN Obama Patience Article

Each week brings us a new estimate of jobs that will be created by President-elect Barack Obama under his magical stimulus plan.

First, Obama said his plan would create 1 million jobs.  Then, he upped his estimate to 2 million new jobs.  Then it was 2.5 million jobs.  A short while later it was 3 million jobs.  Now, Obama is promising that his plan will create 4.1 million jobs.

Keep in mind that this is the same plan that was going to create 3 million jobs last week.  Interesting how that number keeps rising with every passing week, isn’t it?  Also, notice how Obama is getting more precise with his lies–er, I mean plan.  He’s moved beyond using nice round figures.  Next week, I’m sure that he will tell us his plan will create 5,368,274 jobs.

Hell, if you’re going to lie, you might as well make it a big lie.  Yes, I am calling Barack Obama a liar.  What he’s doing is trying to give the hopeless hope by promising ever more new jobs, despite the fact that Presidents do not create jobs.  Obama hasn’t created one job in his entire life.  All he has to do is state a figure and the media is going to trumpet it as proof that he is the savior we have all been waiting for.

Even the Democrats in Congress and their allies in the media openly admit that Obama has provided absolutely no details of his plan or how it will create jobs.

AP Article About Obama’s 4.1 Million Jobs

President-elect Barack Obama countered critics with an analysis Saturday by his economic team showing that a program of tax cuts and spending like he’s proposed would create up to 4.1 million jobs, far more than the 3 million he has insisted are needed to lift the country from recession.

The 14-page analysis, which was posted online, says estimates are “subject to significant margins of error”…

For a second time since his election, Obama increased the number of jobs his jobs program would create, taking the number to as many as 4.1 million jobs saved or created — a benchmark his critics charge cannot be measured. During the campaign, he promised only 1 million new jobs.

More bullshit and lies from Democrats.  Barack Obama is a f*cking idiot.  And so are the millions of brain-dead fools who voted for that empty suit.

I read the news this morning and was taken aback by Obama’s stimulus plan that includes $100 billion in tax cuts for businesses.  It sounds Republican.

Whenever George Bush wanted tax cuts for businesses–the entities that actually create jobs in our economy–mindless Democrats shouted “tax cuts for the rich!”

Now we have Barack Obama who wants to create $100 billion in tax incentives for businesses.  All of a sudden, Democrats think that is a good idea.  What an amazing about-face.

When Republicans wanted to cut taxes, Democrats said it was a bad thing to do.  When a Democrat steals Republican ideas and wants to cut taxes, all of a sudden Democrats jump on board.

These Democrats are such massive frauds sometimes it is sickening to think about them.  They are willing to sabotage the economy, the war, and anything else when a Republican proposes an idea.  But when a Democrat steals a Republican plan, they throw their support behind it.

Obama’s Stimulus Plan

Obama’s proposal includes tax cuts of up to $300 billion — $500 for most workers at an overall price of $150 billion — and more than $100 billion in tax incentives for business. Businesses could apply current losses to taxes paid back as far as five years ago, reaping an immediate cash windfall. And they would receive a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create or preserve.

How does that not sound like a Republican plan?  Why didn’t Democrats support business tax cuts when he wanted them last year?

What is most striking about Obama’s plan is that it would allow businesses that are losing money to seek refunds of taxes paid up to five years prior.

Obama’s Business Tax Refund Proposal

President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed stimulus package would provide businesses with billions of dollars in refunds on taxes they paid several years ago.

The refund provision would enable some companies posting losses last year to get refunds for taxes paid as far back as five years earlier. The businesses could refile their old tax returns, using the losses suffered last year to offset profits made when times were good.

So not only is Obama going to borrow from our children to fund his massive, socialist stimulus plan, but he is going to erase prior years’ tax receipts to give big businesses cash.

How can the Democrats not be criticizing this when it embodies everything they have railed against for years?  I forgot:  in order to be a Democrat you have to be a humongous hypocrite.

Barack Obama is sounding a lot like George Bush.  First, Obama demanded immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  Then he shifted his position to that of keeping soldiers in Iraq to assist with security and training of Iraqi forces which, as you may know, was Bush’s plan all along.  Now, in order to stimulate the economy, Obama is pushing for tax incentives for businesses, which is what Bush wanted to do.

Personally, I think all of this is unnecessary.  I think the worst is over regarding the economy.  The Democrats are just looking for an excuse for more welfare spending.  There is plenty of that in Obama’s stimulus plan, too.

Since I do not have cable TV, I have never understood why Democrats, and liberals in particular, express such hatred toward Fox News.  I think I am beginning to understand why:  Fox News reports the truth that the rest of the media refuses to.

For years, I have heard and read Fox News being called “Faux News” by lefties in order to soil the reputation of the highest-rated cable news network.  On various message boards, I have pointed out that Rupert Murdock, Chairman and Managing Director of News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, is a Hillary Clinton supporter and held a fundraiser for her back in 2006.  Left-wingers like to ignore such facts.

President Bush had been warning for years that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were growing out of control, taking on too much risk, and posed a huge systemic risk to the economy of the United States.  None of the major news organizations has reported this.  Instead, as you will see below, they are trying to pin the blame on him for the mortgage crisis.

White House Press Release Setting The Facts Straight

In April 2001, Bush said Fannie Mae was “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity.”

It turns out Bush was right.  He was also right about the need for expanded oil drilling back in 2001.  He was right about the Surge.  He was right about a lot of things and not given an ounce of credit for it.  Not only was he not given any credit, but he has been bashed repeatedly and blamed for things that he had nothing to do with such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which was the fault of the Democrat mayor of New Orleans and the Democrat governor of Louisiana who failed to order mandatory evacuations in a timely manner despite pleas from Bush.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were regulated by Congress.  Because of this, there is little to nothing that Bush could have done without action from Congress to prevent the massive failures that occurred in 2008.  Democrats don’t seem to realize that the power of the President is limited; it is Congress that writes laws and spends money, the President can only approve or veto legislation.

Back in 1999, people were sounding warning bells about Fannie and Freddie.  The Clinton administration was pressuring Fannie Mae to expand their operations to purchase more loans from originators that were made to people with poor credit ratings and low incomes.

NY Times Article Sept. 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets–including the New York metropolitan region–will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people…

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

There you have it.  You have the smoking gun proving that Democrats were the ones responsible for Fannie and Freddie getting mixed up in the junk mortgage market and you have the warning of the implosion that was to come.

But the Democrats fought against Fannie and Freddie reforms tooth and nail.  I found a video on Youtube that shows Barney Frank saying that there is no problem with Fannie Mae and quotes from other Democrats pretty much echoing that sentiment.  (I found this thanks to a poster over at livinglakecountry.com by the name of Jim who posted a link to this site.  Thanks, Jim.)

Youtube Video

Sept. 10, 2003, Treasury Secretary testified before Congress that:

We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSEs, and the safety and the soundness of their financial activities.

There is a clip of Democrat Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) responding:

…Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis.  The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see.  I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound, financially, and, uh, withstand some of the disaster scenarios.  And even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out.  But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.

Talk about legendary stupidity!  Barney Frank was wrong on so many levels.  First off, there was a looming crisis with Fannie and Freddie–he was too dumb to see it.  They failed, Barney.  Secondly, there was no exaggeration of the threats of the “safety and soundness” of these two government-sponsored enterprises.  The threats were real, as history has shown.  There indeed were “serious financial losses to the Treasury”, an amount still unknown, but well into the tens-of-billions of dollars, perhaps hundreds-of-billions.  The government did bail them out, contrary to Barney Frank’s idiotic opinion.  And perhaps worst of all, it was the policies of giving loans to people who were not creditworthy that pushed the cost of housing up far beyond the rate of economic growth which in the end made housing less affordable for everyone.

As always, the Democrats’ policies end up hurting most the very people they claim to fight for.

In the end, legislation proposed by the Bush administration was blocked by Democrats in 2001.  And Democrats blocked it again every year from 2002 to 2007.

On February 17, 2005, before a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said about Fannie and Freddie (PDF hearing transcript):

So I think that going forward, enabling these institutions to increase in size, and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes.

We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.

At a later committee hearing, Greenspan re-iterated the need for more regulations:

If we fail to strengthen GSE regulations, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis.

Bloomberg Article With Greenspan’s Warnings

Yet Democrats still thwarted every attempt at GSE reform despite repeated warnings from experts.

The blame for this mess in the housing market rests solely with the Democratic Party.  Unfortunately, liberal journalists are trying to rewrite history.  Even more unfortunate, those with lesser intelligence (Democrat voters) believe it.

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times ran an article by some left-wing journalists which amounted to nothing more than a final kick in the teeth as a going away present for President Bush.  The thesis of the article is that Bush is to blame for the mortgage crisis because he supported expanded home ownership.

Sensible people know that home ownership is a good thing.  People who own their homes take more pride in their communities, are more vigilant about crime, and build a nest egg that they can draw off of in their old age.  The goal of home ownership by itself is not to blame for the mortgage crisis, as the authors are claiming.  Making mortgages to people who did not have the ability to pay the money back is the reason for the meltdown in the housing sector, not the goal of home ownership.  Bush never once advocated making loans to those with poor credit and inadequate incomes–but the Democrats did.

NY Times Blames Bush For Mortgage Crisis Article

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

The writers do include one nugget of truth in the article.

Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal.

But they don’t absolve Bush of responsibility.  They blame him further for not wanting to cut a deal to get the regulations enacted.  And what would that deal have been?  Massive tax increases and more wealth redistribution?

(Also notice how they refer to him as “Mr. Bush” repeatedly instead of his proper title of President Bush.  Looks disrespectful to me.)

Nowhere in that article is the Democrats’ crucial role in this debacle mentioned.  Not one word is written about Democrats blocking new regulations time and again.  That doesn’t fit the Bush-bashing narrative.  But without the Democrats, there would have been no over-inflated housing values, no mortgage crisis, and there would not have been millions of foreclosures wreaking havoc on communities all over the country.

The entire article is a seething tirade against Bush and the Republicans with nothing negative to say about Democrats who caused this fiasco.

One more thing I would like to mention is that this notion that the mortgage crisis is to blame for the global recession is misleading at best and, I argue, an outright lie.  If you look at unemployment rates in the United States, you will find that they moved in near lock-step with gas prices.  In fact, unemployment in most industrialized nations rose as gas prices rose.  The vast majority of people in America and around the world were completely unaffected by the happenings in the mortgage market.  But no one was immune to high gas prices, for which the Democrats are also to blame.  We will look at that next time.

Also, we will look at who was running these big Wall Street firms that gorged themselves on subprime mortgage-backed securities leading to their failures.  Richard Fuld, the former CEO of failed investment bank Lehman Brothers, was a huge Democratic Party contributor.  Franklin Raines, former CEO of Fannie Mae, is also a Democrat.  Are you starting to notice a pattern here?

Wherever you find lies, fraud, and destruction, you will find a Democrat rat scurrying around.

OPEC, the cartel of oil producing nations which produces roughly 40% of our world’s oil, is planning cuts in supply to help increase the price.

Oil prices are low now due to slumping world demand.  OPEC is hoping to reduce excess supply in hopes of getting oil back up to $70 to $80 per barrel versus the $47 where it stands as of this writing.

If OPEC is cutting production of petroleum to raise prices, then wouldn’t the converse be true?  Wouldn’t you want to increase the supply to put downward pressure on prices?  Absolutely you would.  But simple logic such as this is beyond the grasp of the Democrat brain.

NY Times Article

The OPEC cartel agreed on Wednesday to reduce production by 2.2 million barrels a day, the group’s largest ever cut, in an effort to put a floor on falling oil prices.

Mr. Khelil said the group wanted to “eliminate” an overhang of commercial oil inventories, which now stand at 57 days of supplies, down to 52 days, and aimed to push up prices to $70 to $80 a barrel.

When oil prices were at their record highs of $147 per barrel back in July 2008, not only did Democrats resist all Republican attempts to expand domestic oil drilling, but they wanted to block more of it.  Don’t forget that the Democratic Party has been blocking new supplies of domestic oil for years.  Back in 2001, President Bush and most Republicans wanted to expand drilling in Alaska and offshore.  Democrats in the Senate blocked it by threatening a filibuster.  In the House of Representatives this year, Nancy Pelosi single-handedly blocked a floor vote on the issue.

Thank goodness we have the Democratic Party and people like Nancy Pelosi blocking oil drilling for years.  Heaven forbid that they actually do anything in the best interest of the American people.

All over the United States, local governments are facing budget deficits in light of the economic downturn.  These revenue shortfalls are forcing governmental bodies to make cuts in their budgets.  What are they cutting?  In Democrat strongholds, they are cutting budgets for essential services like police, fire, schools, and making cuts in other less important areas such as libraries and parks.

I have read articles about budget cuts from cities all over the country.  I have not seen one article yet that puts a priority on cutting welfare programs.  These Democrats can’t stop paying people money to do nothing, for that is how the DFL buys their votes.  You would think that in difficult budgetary conditions that governments would cut non-essential services.  But not Democrats.  They cut the most critical services first, such as police, putting the citizenry at a higher risk of being victims of crime committed by–you guessed it: Democrat voters.

The Democrat strategy of cutting police first before anything else does have one advantage for the DFL.  It makes citizens fearful.  And by making citizens fearful, Democrats can more easily convince them of the need for more tax increases.

See how it works?

• New York City Plans To Cut Police Budget
• Los Angeles Considering Cuts To Police Budget

The stock market has fallen once again after the election of Barack Obama.  He portrayed himself as the savior who was going to rescue the economy that he said was wrecked by Bush.

The fact of the matter is that stock values are based on future expectations.  If the market had viewed the election of Barack Obama as a positive, the market would have went up.  But the market did not go up;  the two days after the election the market went down, losing almost 10% of its value.

Let’s look at the Obama Effect on the stock market.  Below are daily closing values for the two most well-known stock market indexes, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and the S&P 500.

11/04/2008 (Election Day)

• DJIA: 9625.28
• S&P 500: 1005.75

11/05/2008

• DJIA: 9139.27
• S&P 500: 952.77

11/06/2008

• DJIA: 8695.79
• S&P 500: 904.88

Closing values as of 11/12/2008:

• DJIA: 8282.66
• S&P 500: 852.3

Since the day Barack Hussein Obama was elected president by millions of idiots, the economy has lost trillions of dollars of wealth. Almost $2.5 trillion in wealth evaporated after the election of Obama.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 14% and the S&P 500 is down 15.26% in the week following the presidential election.  This is despite oil dropping from $70.53 on election day to about $55 on 11/12/2008.  The per barrel price of crude oil dropped 22% and still the American stock market went down.

Maybe Barack Hussein Obama put some African voodoo curse on the market or something.  Obama stinks.  Literally.  It’s been said that 100 million Americans own stock directly or indirectly via retirement investments.  All those people have seen 15% of their wealth disappear in the week since Obama defeated John McCain.

I hope those people who voted for Obama and lost wealth are happy they are now poorer.

Feel free to verify the data for yourself:

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/historical/

Last night Democrat Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States and this morning the stock market drops.  Gee, who could have ever predicted that would happen?  How about anyone with a brain…

When Bush was re-elected back in 2004, the stock market rallied.  Not just in the USA, but stock markets all over the globe rallied.  As a matter of fact, and you can verify this yourself, back in 2004 the stock market dropped as John Kerry climbed in the polls.  As Kerry got closer and closer to Bush in the polls, the market dropped more and more until it finally rallied after Bush was elected for a second term.

Now, we have further empirical proof that Democrats are bad for the economy.  As of this writing the market is down 350 points, or 3.6%, (Dow Jones Industrial Average) and the S&P 500 is down the same percentage.  From the article:

A case of postelection nerves sent stocks plunging Wednesday as investors again anxious about recession began questioning what impact a Barack Obama presidency will have on business and the overall economy. The Dow Jones industrials dropped more than 350 points and the major indexes all fell more than 3 percent.

But the selling picked up momentum as the market worried anew about the weakness of the economy and pondered what an Obama administration might do.

Obama’s victory means that industries such as oil and gas producers, utilities and pharmaceuticals may face greater regulation and even taxes, while labor unions and automakers are expected to benefit.

Obama and the Democrats promised to raise taxes on the “rich”.  It is the rich who do the investing and job creation in this country.  So, when you raise taxes on them, they have less money to invest in projects.  Obviously, that is going to drag the market down.

Obama and the Democrats also promised to raise taxes on investments.  An investment such as a stock is worth the discounted present value of its future returns.  Higher taxes means lower returns on investment.  So, it only makes sense, mathematically, that the value of investments such as stocks would drop.

Obama and the Democrats plan to take money from those who earn it and risk their own money investing so they can redistribute it to those who don’t build factories, don’t buy stocks, and don’t do much of anything except sit around and collect a welfare check.

Less money to spend for anyone–even the rich–means less economic activity.  Less economic activity means lower tax revenue.  Why?  Because income derived from economic activity is what is taxed in this country.

See how simple that logic is?  Too bad Democrats aren’t smart enough to figure it out.  We are now living in a nation run by morons.  Democrat morons.

Try looking at the academic achievement in Democrat-voting strongholds sometime.  The average high school graduate reads at an 8th grade level, and half the students drop out before graduation!  These are the dolts who elected Obama.

UPDATE:

After the above was posted the market tanked.  With 20 minutes left of trading the DJIA is down 450 points, or 4.65%.  That’s attrocious!  Billions of dollars of value have evaporated thanks to the dimwits who elected Barack Obama.

UPDATE II:

We heard that Obama is going to do all these great things.  Why, he’s going to stop global warming!  Obama is going to restore our standing in the world!  Obama’s going to create millions of jobs?  Hell, the day after he gets elected the stock market tanks.  The DJIA finished down 486 points, or 5.05%.  The S&P 500 was down 5.27%.  That’s a significant one-day loss.

Barack Obama has flip-flopped once again.  Previously, Obama was adamant on increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  Now, he is suggesting that he would delay increasing taxes because of the weakening economy.

Story

Whether you want to admit it or not, it is the wealthiest Americans who create jobs.  Whether it is done with their investment or with their spending on luxuries, rich people create jobs and poor people do not.

Have you ever worked for a poor person?  No.  Nobody has.  Poor people don’t create jobs.  Poor people don’t build factories and hire workers.  But that won’t stop the Democrats from their goal of buying votes by redistributing wealth from the people who earn it to those who didn’t.

Seriously, what else can you call it but vote buying when the Democrats take money from one group and give it to another?  “Vote for us Democrats and we’ll take money from that guy and give it to you!”

Taking money away from people who create jobs–the rich–during an economic downturn is just stupid.  Stupidity is the hallmark of the Democratic Party.  In many inner-city, Democrat-voting neighborhoods, half the students drop out of high school and the half that do graduate read at an eighth grade level.  No wonder they support the Democratic Party.  Stupid is as stupid does.

Federal regulators are pinning the blame on Democrat Senator Charles Schumer (NY) for creating a panic among depositors of IndyMac bank.  IndyMac bank recently was taken over by the federal government.

As you may know, no bank keeps 100% of its deposits on hand.  They take money that is deposited and lend most of it out, keeping only a small fraction as a reserve.  What Chuck Schumer did is unnecessarily spread rumors of the bank’s demise, causing fear among depositors that resulted in a run on the bank.

During a bank run, depositors line up demanding their money, even if they risk no loss because of FDIC deposit insurance.  No bank can survive a bank run since they retain only a small portion of deposits.  IndyMac had no liquidity left, thus they were forced into failure.

If that idiot Chuck Schumer had left his mouth shut the bank probably would not have failed.  Or if it did fail, it would have done so in an orderly fashion.  Now taxpayers will be on the hook for $4 billion to $8 billion because of Schumer’s idiocy.

You don’t need to have a reason for a bank to fail.  All you need is a rumor.  Even healthy banks can fail during a bank run.  Schumer created the rumor.  He is to blame for IndyMac’s failure.

John D. Hawke, former Comptroller of the Currency, (national bank regulator) said the following about Schumer:

If Schumer continues to go public with letters raising questions about the condition of individual institutions, he will cause havoc in the banking system.

Leaking his IndyMac letter to the press was reckless and grossly irresponsible. I don’t see how he can be trusted with confidential information in the future. What this incredibly stupid conduct does is put at risk the willingness of regulators to share any information with the [congressional] oversight committees. After this, you’d be crazy to share information with Schumer.

A Democrat engaging in “incredibly stupid” conduct?  Everything Democrats do is incredibly stupid.  No surprises there.

Democrats destroy everything they get their hands on.

I’ve read several articles the past month or two about how the economic troubles faced by the United States are going to be problematic for John McCain.  Why should this be the case?

Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on investment and income on those who make over $250,000 per year.  Those are the people who create the jobs that Americans need.  How is leaving those people with less money to spend and invest going to create jobs?  It isn’t.  Less money means less spending and investment which means less jobs.  It’s as simple as that.

Barack Obama also opposes lifting bans on oil drilling where there are billions of barrels of oil just waiting to be tapped.  Gas prices are at record levels, leaving all Americans whether they ride the bus or drive vehicles with less money to spend elsewhere (bus fares are increasing all over the country because of higher fuel costs).  How is restricting new supplies of oil going to reduce the price of gasoline?  It isn’t.

High oil prices are also fueling food inflation.  People are spending more to feed themselves than before, leaving less money to spend elsewhere which means that jobs are going to be harmed.

If anything, the economic troubles should be good news for McCain because Barack Obama is on the exact opposite side of every issue that he should be on.

Raising taxes during an economic downturn is never a good thing.  Restricting the supply of oil during record high oil prices is not a good thing, either.  McCain and the Republicans need to do a better job of explaining this to the American people.  The last thing they should do is let the Democrats have control of the economic arguments when they are the ones responsible for the current situation.

McCain should pose the following questions to the American people:

• How does taking money out of the economy by raising taxes sustain current jobs and create new ones since less money means less spending?
• How does raising taxes on investment going to encourage investment and the creation of new jobs?
• How does blocking new oil from making it to market help lower the price of gasoline?

Every dollar that is spent in the economy becomes income for someone else.  Every dollar saved or invested helps create jobs.  Democrats want to do everything possible to take money out of the economy and harm American jobs.  McCain and the Republicans need to speak up about this.  It’s basic economics, and the DFL is on the wrong side of the argument.

This morning I read the news and what did I see?  I see that oil prices have set a new record, climbing to $147 per barrel in intraday trading.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington are doing everything they can to continue blocking domestic oil drilling, preventing new supply from coming to market in the next few years.

With 250 million passenger vehicles on American roads we are going to require petroleum for many years to come.  Nothing, not even record oil prices, have made the Democrats see the error of their ways and the need for more supply.

Conservation and technology are the answer, Democrats say.  But there comes a point where people can’t conserve any more than they already are, and there comes a point where that conservation comes as a cost in reduced economic activity.  Technology?  Hydrogen cars are still many years into the future.  A recent news story I saw had an expert in hydrogen cars saying that it will be at least ten years before they are on the roads in any significant numbers.  Ten years!  What will we do in the meantime?  Continue to pay record prices for gasoline because the Democrat fools don’t want to allow more domestic drilling?

The people hardest hit by the high cost of gasoline are the very people the Democratic Party pretends to represent.  The Democrats screw over their constituents every chance they get, and those Democrat voters aren’t smart enough to realize it.

Democrats now want to sue OPEC for price fixing.

Unbelievable! These Democrat morons did everything they could to limit new domestic supply of oil for years, and now they want to sue sovereign nations because they aren’t pumping more oil to help lower global prices?

Just when you think the Democratic Party can’t get more idiotic, it does. First off, how do you sue a sovereign nation when they are not obligated to do anything for you at all? Secondly, how can you even think of suing countries when you have refused for years, and still are refusing, to allow more domestic drilling for oil? You want to sue countries for not doing what you yourself refuse to allow? Thirdly, where is the evidence of price fixing? Is there any?

Also, how the hell could anybody in their right mind suggest doing anything to antagonize suppliers of oil–the lifeblood of our economy–by filing lawsuits against them? What if they get mad and refuse to supply us with oil? Then what? We would have massive shortages!

From ABC News:

With the average price of gas in the United States now above $4, Senate Republicans today rejected a plan by Democrats to give the president the authority to declare an “energy emergency” and sue OPEC nations, prosecute price gouging, assess a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies and cut down on speculation in the energy markets.

OK, I can see limiting speculation per the Democrat plan. But here’s the thing that Democrats are too dumb to realize: oil is a globally traded commodity and it is not possible to limit speculation in other countries. Foreign nations are not subject to American law or, fortunately for them, the idiocy of the Democratic Party. If you tried to limit speculation in America, what you would probably end up doing is driving trading of oil outside of America. Then what do you have?

As usual, the Republicans are the voice of reason; they provide the logic to the backdrop of Democrat foolishness.

NY Times Article:

Republican opponents of the oil-tax measure have argued that higher taxes on Big Oil would backfire, driving up gasoline prices and discouraging new domestic oil production and exploration. If the bill were approved, the American people “will get exactly what they don’t want,” said Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, who predicted higher prices and more reliance on imports.

Yes, that makes logical sense. Higher taxes always retard investment, in this case investment in exploration and development. Regarding the Democrats’ windfall profits tax scheme, which would not do a thing to lower gas prices:

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, summed up the argument of most of his party colleagues by asserting that “those who think we can tax our way out of this problem” are wrong.

Yes, that too, makes sense. You will not solve the problem of high oil prices–which are being felt worldwide–by increasing taxes.

The White House said the United States was “paying a price today for decades of Democratic opposition and regulatory obstacles to increasing domestic oil production,” as President Bush’s spokesman Tony Fratto put it. “Instead of populist votes that would do nothing for gas prices, we need to allow domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways,” Mr. Fratto said.

Yes, that too, makes logical sense. Democrats blocked domestic oil drilling for years. Now, all of America is paying the price. Interestingly, I did not see this mentioned on any of the national newscasts I watched tonight. Why is that?

Why are the news networks not talking about how Democrats blocked oil drilling all these years?

As you can clearly see, it is the Republicans who make sense and the Democrats who do not.

Democrats created this mess. Every American is paying the price.

The national unemployment rate has jumped to 5.5%. The cause of most of these job cuts is the high cost of energy, for which the Democratic Party is to blame.

From a news story:

The nation’s unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent in May — the biggest monthly rise since 1986 — as nervous employers cut 49,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate soared from 5 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May. That was the biggest one-month jump in the rate since February 1986.

The 5.5 percent rate is relatively moderate judged by historical standards.

The government said the number of unemployed people grew by 861,000 in May — rising to 8.5 million. The over-the-month jump in unemployment reflected more workers losing their jobs as well as an increase in those coming into the job market to look for work, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.

With food and energy prices marching upward, paychecks aren’t stretching as far.

See that last sentence? That’s the key. High oil prices have driven up not only the cost of fuel, but of food as well since food is now being used to create fuel due to the high cost of oil.

The Democratic Party is solely to blame for this.

Democrats in Congress have blocked oil drilling every year since 2001. Each and every time Republicans introduced legislation to open up areas for drilling to increase the supply of oil on the market, Democrats have blocked it.

Let’s think about this for a few seconds. What happens as the population increases and the economy grows both nationally and worldwide and the supply of oil doesn’t keep pace? The answer is obvious: oil prices will rise.

Try explaining that to the Democrat fools or their dimwitted voting base.

Even as recently as this year, Democrats have tried to block oil drilling off the coast of California. Here are a few news stories proving how Democrats have been trying to sabotage the economy for years, and still are.

August, 2, 2001 CNN Article

August 2, 2001 Posted: 12:31 PM EDT (1631 GMT)

After hours of spirited debate, House lawmakers early Thursday approved a broad energy bill that would allow some oil drilling in an Alaskan refuge.

The vote marks a victory for President George W. Bush, who had campaigned on the philosophy that exploration in the refuge is key to the nation’s energy needs.

Democrats sought to rally support from enough moderate Republicans with environmental leanings for an amendment to block the plan to allow drilling in the reserve, but that was defeated in a 223-206 vote.

Supporters said opening the Arctic refuge for oil exploration was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.

2001 CNN Article About Democrats taking control of the Senate

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle: Daschle has promised to continue working in a bipartisan fashion but he’ll also advance the Democratic agenda.

He already has pronounced President Bush’s push for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as dead.

President Bush and most Republicans understood that oil is the lifeblood of the American economy, and will be for many years to come. But Democrats blocked oil drilling every time it came up in the Senate. They blocked drilling each and every year. Democrats didn’t block oil drilling in just Alaska, but everywhere they could.

June 29, 2001 NY Times Article

Published: June 29, 2001

In another slap at President Bush’s energy and environment policies, the House of Representatives voted today to prohibit drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes.

The president has not taken a specific stand on exploration in the Great Lakes, but his energy policy is based on increasing domestic oil and gas production.

Last week, the House voted to ban drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida and on the grounds of national monuments. And Congress has shown little interest in adopting the president’s plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

”The Democrat leadership is constraining our economy,” Mr. DeLay said, in an ”energy straitjacket.”

He accused Democrats of trying to ”choke off every promising source of domestic energy” and added, ”Their actual objective must be to eradicate America’s energy security.”

…Nearly all the Democrats (voted) to block Great Lakes drilling.

Even just this year, Democrats in a House committee voted to block oil drilling off the coast of California. Even during a period of soaring oil prices, Democrats are working hard to sabotage the American economy.

March 12, 2008 Article

Published: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 1:07 p.m.

Bill banning oil drilling wins endorsement

A bill that would permanently bar oil drilling in the waters off Sonoma County could soon face a U.S. House vote after the measure won committee endorsement Wednesday.

Not surprising, is it? The Democratic Party has articulated their opposition to domestic oil drilling many times.

July 30, 2007 SF Gate Article

Monday, July 30, 2007

Democrats, in taking back the House from Republicans, promised to tilt the nation’s energy policy away from oil drilling…

May 13, 2008 CNN Article

Pelosi argued that more drilling is not the answer…

So, if more oil drilling isn’t the answer, would less oil drilling reduce prices? Honestly, how stupid can you get? The reason oil rose to over $130 per barrel is because people are willing to pay that price, or they have no choice and must pay the price.

The fact is that when the world markets were flooded with oil, prices were low. Now that everything has grown, Democrats still insist that limiting domestic supply of oil is the correct course of action. Obviously, they are oblivious to the law of supply and demand.

Make no mistake: job losses are directly attributable to the high cost of oil.

United Airlines Cutting 1,100 Jobs

United Airlines said Wednesday it will discontinue its low-fare airline, called Ted, retire aircraft and cut up to 1,100 more jobs in an effort to lessen the impact of high prices for jet fuel.

Continental Airlines Cutting 3,000 jobs

DALLAS – Continental Airlines Inc. said Thursday it is cutting 3,000 jobs and reducing capacity in the fourth quarter by 11 percent, citing record fuel costs that have pushed the airline industry into a “crisis.”

But Democrats still cannot make the connection between energy prices and the economy. Each and every time the DFL has hauled oil industry executives before Congress in what amounts to nothing more than a public flogging, the oil company executives have given the same answer: allow more domestic drilling. And every time, the Democrats have ignored them, insisting that the proper course of action is to block oil drilling.

To demonstrate the idiocy of Democrats, here is a video of an oil company executive telling them that if they want to reduce prices, they must allow domestic drilling

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lI4OHVTNzlg

Transcript

Oil company exec: I can guarantee to the American people because of the inaction of the United States Congress ever increasing prices unless the demand comes down, and the $5 will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.

Democrat Maxine Waters: And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing… Uh… Will be about… Basically, taking over and the government running all of your companies.

Look how stupid those Democrats are. They are given the answer to the question they asked and they completely ignore it, just like they’ve been ignoring it for years.

Now all of America is paying the price for the idiocy of the Democratic Party. And we will be paying for years to come.

You must keep one critical thing in mind: Democrat voting strongholds have the lowest academic achievement in the modernized world. It’s a fact that cannot be disputed. What’s more, intelligence, not income, is the primary determinate of academic achievement. It makes sense that smart people will do better in school than dumb people, right?

So, if Democrat communities have the lowest academic achievement and academic achievement is largely dependent on intelligence, what conclusion can we draw?

Now we can understand why these Democrats keep getting elected: Democrat voters aren’t very bright. No matter how badly the DFL screws them over, they will continue to vote Democrat.

Recent CNN Article About Gas Prices Causing Job Losses

Democrats in the House and Senate are working feverishly to harm those they claim to represent: lower income Americans.

In a desire to help alleviate the “foreclosure crisis”, Democrats are proposing ways to prop up the price of housing. The problem is that housing values in America have gotten ridiculously out of line with inflation and wage growth, meaning that housing eats up more household income than it should. In many areas of the country, housing values have appreciated at 8% to 10% per year for the past decade or so prior to the collapse of the housing bubble. In my area, a house that sold for $65,000 in 1995 would have sold for $180,000 to $200,000 in 2006–a near tripling in value. Wages in that time have certainly have not tripled.

Democrats are trying to spin the housing crisis by framing it in terms of average Americans losing their homes because this is what resonates with their voting base and because it helps make the economy look worse than it is. What they don’t tell you is that in many of the hardest hit communities, 70% or more of the homes in foreclosure are not owned by families, but by investors. Certainly, some families will lose their homes. Some because of greed and refinancing their mortgages to convert the equity to cash, others because they weren’t smart enough to research the price history of the house they purchased or because they bought into the myth that housing values never decline.

Anybody who bought their home before 2002 and is still living in it should emerge from the deflating housing market unscathed. The only thing they will lose is paper value, nothing out of pocket. People who bought homes more recently will surely be upside down in their mortgages, owing more than the house is worth. This presents a special problem.

Democrats want to federally insure $300 billion in mortgages so they can be restructured. They are ignoring the fact that many people who are upside down in their mortgages are voluntarily defaulting and stop making payments because it makes no sense to continue to pay on something on which they owe significantly more than it is worth. I’ve read several articles about this phenomenon recently. In fact, there is a website, youwalkaway.com, that helps people to abandon their homes so they can walk away without owing a penny.

The only thing the Democrats’ housing plan will do is push the United States further into debt since many people will continue defaulting on their mortgages because they owe more than their home is worth. They should stop meddling in the economy and let the housing market run its course. In the long run, housing values will decline. People will be able buy houses for less money, leaving them with more discretionary income every month to fuel further economic growth. Housing should not be prohibitively expensive. Let the market fall where it may, please!

Inexpensive housing is best for everyone–especially the people the DFL claims to represent. The Democrats’ plan will make housing more expensive than it otherwise would be if they let the bubble deflate naturally.

Walking Away From Mortgages Article

MSNBC Housing Plan Article

How stupid do these Democrats think the American people are?

Hillary Clinton has been promoting her job creation plan recently, which really isn’t much of a plan at all. In a nutshell, she has proposed a $7 billion plan to persuade companies to not ship jobs overseas. Five billion of that amount would be for tax credits supposedly to help companies compete globally. Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying:

“Today I’m proposing one of the largest expansions of tax benefits for research and job growth in a generation,” she said. “We have to update our tools for rewarding innovation. The research-and-development tax credit, for example, has been a successful, cost-effective tool to increase investment in research jobs here in the United States. When I’m president, we will increase it by 50 percent.”

OK, great. Hillary has just proposed tax credits for big corporations, which she has been criticizing for years. But another question one must ask is this: why has Hillary not proposed such legislation while she has served in the Senate? If she thinks this is such a great idea, why didn’t she propose this years ago, or even more recently? And why didn’t she introduce the legislation to get the ball rolling?

The reason Mrs. Clinton didn’t do anything about this earlier is because she doesn’t believe in this kind of thing. She is interested in getting votes and will pander to anyone who wants to listen. In one speech she will rail against corporations and tax credits much like the ones she has proposed. Then in another speech she will completely contradict herself and propose the very thing she has been critical of in the past.

What’s even worse is that these Democrat troglodytes aren’t bright enough to not only see Hillary Clinton for the fraud she is, but they aren’t capable of realizing the detrimental effect her other proposals will have on business and industry.

Hillary has proposed mandatory employer-provided health insurance for all employees, even part-time flunkies. She has also proposed mandatory paid maternity leave for employees who have babies, starting first with federal government employees.

Then we must consider Hillary’s position that taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals must be raised, both income and investment taxes. How does raising taxes on investment returns encourage the investment necessary to create jobs? How does raising income taxes on those who actually do the investing and purchasing create jobs given that they have less money to spend on either? It doesn’t.

Nobody invests money to have the majority of it taken away from them. Taxes diminish investment returns. When investment returns decline, less investment takes place! Why the hell don’t these Democrats realize this?

All of these policies that Hillary has proposed increase the burden on employers and raise the cost of doing business in America. A few billion in tax credits won’t come close to offsetting the tens-of-billions in additional taxes and mandates that Hillary champions.

I won’t even get into the DFL’s desire to put carbon taxes on energy, which would raise the cost of doing business even more.

It seems like a twisted joke for Hillary to propose a jobs plan when she is also proposing policies that will destroy jobs. I just wish the Democratic Party’s voting base was smart enough to see this nonsense for what it truly is.

The idiocy of the Democratic Party never ends!

At a time when oil has reached a record price, just under $110 per barrel, Democrats in the House Natural Resources Committee passed a bill to permanently ban oil drilling off the coast of Sonoma and Marin Counties in California.

According to this article, oil companies have long wanted to get at the oil offshore. The Democrat plan would double size the of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank national marine sanctuaries, preventing access to the liquid gold beneath the ocean floor.

Now, unless you are a total and complete idiot, in other words, a Democrat, you know that the Democratic Party has been blocking domestic oil drilling for years.

In all the years from 2001 to 2006, Democrats have blocked oil drilling in Alaska, and more recently they have blocked oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Most Democrat voters are either not smart enough to care about this or are unwilling to look beyond their hand which is extended for more welfare freebies. The Democratic Party’s policy of blocking domestic oil drilling is raising the cost of everything they buy, harming productivity, and costing them a fortune at the pump.

But those Democrats just aren’t smart enough to see it, are they?

Democrats want to steal all of your money. Republicans don’t want Democrats to steal any of your money. The Democrat notion of compromise: let Democrats steal half of your money; then next year they will come back and try to steal the other half.

Here is an article about Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’ speech to the Teamster’s Union in Chicago, IL.

(Bloomberg Article About John Edwards)

Democrats promise to:

• Raise income taxes sky high
• Raise capital gains and dividends taxes, making it more costly to do business and raise job-creating capital in America
• Require all employers to provide health insurance for employees, even for part-time workers (if they can’t get socialized medicine rammed down our throats)
• Make it more difficult to do business by giving unions greater power over entrepreneurs and business owners so they can more easily extort above-market wages and benefits
• Tax the hell out of energy products by putting a “carbon tax” on everything from gasoline to electricity, dramatically raising the cost of production

Why don’t Democrats ever discuss the detrimental effects their policies have on American jobs and manufacturing?

Wages are a concern for every employer, absolutely. But another concern–and depending on the industry, possibly the biggest concern–is taxes. Taxes are a direct bite out of your profits. Taxes mean not only less money for business owners, but also less money for reinvestment and further job creation. Employee wages are a cost of production, taxes are not.

Another huge concern is regulation. Do you think the restaurant owner who barely makes $75,000 in annual profits wants to be forced to buy health insurance for his part-time waitstaff?

If you want to push jobs overseas, tax businesses at a very high level and regulate every aspect of their activities. Mandate that businesses must waste time and money on things other than production. Also, make it very difficult to fire under-performing employees. Put in place an agency that vigorously investigates fraudulent and vindictive claims of “racism” which cost thousands of dollars to defend against.

Hmmm, Democrats in America are trying to push us toward the very things France is moving away from. Democrats could learn from France, particularly their economic troubles which were caused by these very same policies that Democrats are fighting for.

By the way, do you think John Edwards’ barber is a union barber?

The only difference between a Democrat and a thief is that a thief is much more efficient at stealing your money.