Picture of the Year.

Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug

H/T Powerline.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Picture of the Year.

  1. Bob says:

    Even without the Obama sticker the shot would be hilarious.

  2. Bob says:

    With all of the talk about the spending by the Obama administration, even the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has him among the lowest spenders since Eisenhower, a period that includes six Republican presidents. He had been listed as the lowest since Truman, but this conservative-leaning, bipartisan group, whom I admire for their diligence, digs as deep as they can to show that he spent a little more than as originally reported.

    Our current president has lowered taxes and cut the spending rate of previous presidents. We should expect more of the same if he wins the election. As I said when he was campaigning, the guy’s a tightwad.


    Our government should focus its effort on COLLECTING taxes. Given the loopholes in the Tax Code, the outright cheating, and the skeletal crews of investigators at the SEC and the IRS, those of us who pay our taxes have to stand by and watch as nearly 50% of our fellow countrymen get off with a free lunch.

  3. Bob says:

    The economy now produces as many goods and services — more, in fact — as it did before the downturn officially began in December 2007. But it does so with almost five million fewer jobs. As I said in 2009 and each year after, Obama’s or any president’s problem would be figuring out how to build NEW jobs into the economy to replace those that have been lost to production automation and to cheap labor overseas. Those are systemic problems.

    Romney keeps telling us that he has experience in creating jobs and that he has a plan, both of which he keeps quite hidden from the public, kind of like Nixon saying he had a plan to end the American War in Vietnam. Obama, at least, has attempted to create new jobs in the alternative energy industry and he’s requested new stimulus money (a new jobs act) to get construction going and to hire in the educational system, two areas that have been hardest hit by the recession and slowest to recover.
    ALSO, two areas of endeavor that will help build our economy.

    Unless we have government action, we’ll have to settle with a new normal of 8% unemployment. Private industries have no incentive to hire if their markets remain sluggish (from lack of spending-money in the pockets of consumers) and if they can cut their costs by further automating and by using overseas, cheap labor.

    Romney is not unfamiliar with using government funds to aid business projects: he bragged to us in Massachusetts how he got hundreds of millions of dollars (410, I believe) of federal support for the Salt Lake City games. If he’d put some specifics in his purported plan (not platitudes) to put America back to work, he might make greater sense to the independent and moderate Republican voters that he’ll need to win. Currently, Obama is doing very well in the polls when we consider how sluggish this economy remains. Perhaps the electorate has caught on to the the Republican blocking strategy and tactics in Congress. (Congress’s polling numbers are dismal.) In an economy as slow as this, we’d normally expect the landslide that Ligneus predicts, yet Romney’s progress is as sluggish as the economy.

    Romney’s going to need an October surprise or unusually low voting numbers by Democrats to pull off a close win.

  4. Terry says:

    Our current president has lowered taxes and cut the spending rate of previous presidents.
    Federal spending in 2008: 2,982.5 billion
    Federal spending in 2009: 3,517.7 billion
    Federal spending in 2012: 3,795.6 billion

    2012 spending is 127% of 2009 spending.

    • Bob says:

      I agree with this comment on the home page reference to “sources”:
      “This page is called Table of Data SOURCES yet all I find here for sources are spreadsheets compiled by you. A source is the place from where you got the information you used in putting together the spreadsheets.”

      The information above is so out of line, that it’s hard to take seriously, Terry.
      The Committee lists its sources and its methodology.
      Sources: CBO, OMB, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CRFB calculations.
      If you return to my original link, you’ll find the discussion of the methodological options. There are a number of ways to come at this, but none that match the exaggerations on your link.

  5. Ligneus says:

    Like I said before, Baghdad Bog Lives!

    obama Runs on Empty and Towards Defeat.

    • Bob says:

      The same guy, MacKinnon, also wrote this, Lig:

      “On The Right: Rep. Allen West Is Conservative Slam Dunk For Veep”

      And this: ” Romney So Far: No Core Beliefs, Many Flip-Flops”

      Do you trust a columnist who opines for a stock barker? Check out the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s roster. Pretty impressive. Your kind of guys. Educated, thoughtful, and often Republican. Scroll down to “Members”. The names are links to bios.


  6. Terry says:

    Obama’s or any president’s problem would be figuring out how to build NEW jobs into the economy to replace those that have been lost to production automation and to cheap labor overseas. Those are systemic problems.
    This is not the president’s problem. This is accomplished by a mysterious thing called “economic growth”. See okuns law: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/10/real-gdp-growth-and-unemployment-rate.html
    It will take 9 quarters of 5% economic growth to bring unemployment back to the 5.2% average we had under Bush. Obama’s average GDP growth rate has been 2% and there is no sign that it will ever get better under Obama.
    Obama thinks that he is doing well. He sees no reason to change his high debt, high tax policies.

    • Bob says:

      How does this, “Obama’s average GDP growth rate has been 2% and there is no sign that it will ever get better under Obama,” reconcile with this, “”This is not the president’s problem. This is accomplished by a mysterious thing called “economic growth””? I would probably agree with you if it read, “The U.S. average GDP”. If Romney’s U.S. were to, by some miracle, produce nine quarters of 5% economic growth AND reduce unemployment to 5.2%
      http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 I’d definitely vote for Mitt for term #2. But that’s not going to happen, and we know it. We haven’t had a shock like this since 1982 and it didn’t get down to or under 5.2% until 1997.

      We got ourselves into deep doo doo during the Bush years and it’s going to take a long time to dig out no matter what party wins the presidency.

  7. Bob says:

    Here’s the WSJ article that The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget addressed:

    You’re all fans of the WSJ, right? Take a look at the Committee’s home page.
    Scroll down to the roster of luminaries involved. They’re not loony lefties. Republicans once wanted to run Pete Peterson for POTUS.


    This outfit is dedicated to doing something about the debt. You should be embracing it, not scorning as usual.

  8. Terry says:

    Bob wrote:
    We got ourselves into deep doo doo during the Bush years.
    Perhaps we needed more crony capitalism? What, exactly, do you think Bush did that got us into such deep doodoo?
    Can’t be the Iraq war. Kerry and Edwards voted for that. Hillary did, too, and Obama thought so much of Hillary’s foreign policy acumen that he made her secretary of state.
    Can’t be the Bush tax cuts. The libs said in 2001 that they were unconscionable because they cost a trillion bucks over a decade. Now Obama is taking credit for extending them. Drop in the bucket compared to his trillion dollar deficits every year, forever, anyhow.
    What do you think would have happened if McCain/Palin had won in 2008? Eternal 8.2% unemployment? Trillion dollar budget deficits every year? Work force participation at thirty year lows? Weakest recovery since the great depression?
    In 2008 you would have thought that was the nightmare scenario that Obama’s bold, new leadership would prevent.

    • Bob says:

      “We got ourselves…”
      Please don’t ignore this part of my statement, thanks.

      Terry, on whose watch did our economy come apart at the seams?
      That’s when it happened: during the Bush years.

      I’m willing to pass the blame around, but even the American Enterprise Institute is critical of Bush’s deregulation and cavalier attitude towards the impending mortgage disaster (“How did this happen?”). He was always pushing the notion that every American should own a home, a natural born cheerleader for the industry.


    • Bob says:

      “Perhaps we needed more crony capitalism?”

      Democrats don’t own crony capitalism. Have you forgotten the master,
      Dick Cheney? Crony capitalism is endemic in both parties. If you want to be a Libertarian, write like one.

  9. Terry says:

    I am not a libertarian or a republican, Bob. I am a conservative.
    Democrats, being the party that believes in greater market control by elected officials, is always in greater danger of engaging in crony capitalism.
    This should be obvious.

    • Bob says:

      Sorry. Okay, a Conservative. (What’s Rep. Paul Ryan, by the way? )
      Have you ever voted for a Democrat? Do you register as a Republican,
      or just independent? I don’t want to make the same mistake of mis-identifying you
      again. I don’t, myself, enjoy being labeled, having many times voted for Republican, and even Third-Party, candidates.

      I don’t find it obvious. Are earmarks part of crony capitalism?
      Are non-competitive bids par of crony capitalism? Are clauses
      in the tax code that favor political donors part of crony capitalism?
      How about votes on policy that favors campaign contributors?
      If, for instance, Romney wins, will Sheldon Adelson win?


      If Romney wins, will he favor further deregulation of the the financial industry, his previous chosen endeavor and a business group that contributes mightily to his campaign?

  10. Terry says:

    Hi Bob-
    I am a registered independent. I think that you and I would agree on quite a bit, actually. For example it is outrageous that the near economic collapse we endured in 2008, and which is crippling us today, happened at all. The people who sold us on a globalized economy in the 80′s and 90′s did so by saying, in part, that a globalized economy would prevent things like 2008 from happening. Why in the world should a person with no capital other than their labor support globalization?

  11. Bob says:

    Yes, I definitely agree.

    Also, when I got sick about the abandonment of Glass/Steagall, all of my buddies in the financial business said that combining commercial banks and investment banks would mitigate risk. Ha!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>