Gay Patriot Header Image

You’re not spending enough!

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 9:11 pm - September 29, 2014.
Filed under: Debt Crisis,Depression 2.0,Economy,Liberal Lies

In saner times of yore, people who spent their entire income were put down as spendthrifts, and people who didn’t were praised as savers.

It was well understood that savers financed the world’s productive capital and so helped to create the Industrial Revolution. The IR used capital to boost the productivity of labor, so that human beings could enjoy good stuff like higher living standards, longer lives, middle-class education and retirement, an end to infant mortality and child labor, etc.

In today’s crazy times, language is turned on its head (to keep the craziness going as long as possible). Savers are now called hoarders, people who hoard money.

Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis published an analysis of our moribund economy, called What Does Money Velocity Tell Us about Low Inflation in the U.S.? The key sentences:

…the unprecedented monetary base increase driven by the Fed’s large money injections through its large-scale asset purchase programs [ed: Quantitative Easing, or “QE”] has failed to cause at least a one-for-one proportional increase in nominal GDP… [ed: though it has certainly boosted the financial markets for “the one percent”]

During the first and second quarters of 2014, the velocity of the monetary base2 was at 4.4, its slowest pace on record. This means that every dollar in the monetary base was spent only 4.4 times in the economy during the past year, down from 17.2 just prior to the recession…the sharp decline in velocity…has offset the sharp increase in money supply, leading to the almost no change in nominal GDP…

The answer lies in the private sector’s dramatic increase in their willingness to hoard money instead of spend it. Such an unprecedented increase…has slowed down the velocity of money…

(Emphasis added.) Get it? If only people would spend all their money, again and again – rather than hoarding it because they need it for bills, or worry about the future – THEN the economy would grow. THEN the Dear Obama-Yellen’s plans would work.

In reality, the economy is restrained by excessive debt and even more, by lack of freedom. As government gets bigger and consumes (or takes over) more of the economy, the private sector shrinks. As government plans, regulates and intervenes more heavily, the private sector gets sicker, lazier and more fearful. Just as Big Government creates more problems than it ever solves, the opposite – Freedom – ultimately solves more problems than it creates.

But that’s not what Establishment economists, politicians, bureaucrats and media want people to know. They’d rather blame, in this example, people who “hoard”. Look for the scapegoating of so-called hoarders to become a drumbeat, as the economy continues to languish into the 2016 election.

If we hit a new financial crisis, they’ll also be sure to scapegoat mysterious “speculators”, as President Nixon did in the 1971 crisis. But they’ll never put the blame where it belongs: on 8+ decades of money-printing and Big Government.

Wait…Who underestimated ISIS?

Obama says US ‘underestimated’ rise of ISIS, admits ‘contradictory’ Syria policy:

President Obama acknowledged Sunday that U.S. intelligence officials “underestimated” the threat posed by the Islamic State and overestimated the Iraqi army’s capacity to defeat the militant group…

Let’s be clear: Officials who were chosen and supported by Obama. The administration of Barack Hussein Obama underestimated ISIS.

Or else, we can make this entry #39,422 in the files of “Obama pretends that he hasn’t been president all these years”. In the interview, Obama goes on to also blame Iraq’s PM al-Maliki for the problems; never himself.

One more thing. Does Obama still have the U.S. backing the world’s evil dictators? It seems so:

Obama also acknowledged that the U.S. is dealing with a conundrum in Syria, as the U.S.-led military campaign against the Islamic State is helping Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom the U.N. has accused of war crimes.

“I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance,” Obama said…

Bush practically would have been impeached, for saying that. (And Bush wouldn’t have said it because Bush did what he could, to push U.S. policy in the direction of overthrowing the world’s evil dictators.)

One more thing. Has Obama made it a thing of the past, that the U.S. might strike its enemies pre-emptively (or perhaps unilaterally, as the Left calls it)? Not so much:

Obama called the threat from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and other terror groups a more “immediate concern that has to be dealt with…” “…in terms of immediate threats to the United States, ISIL, Khorasan Group — those folks could kill Americans,” he said…

Both groups have been targeted by U.S. airstrikes in recent days…

Barack Obama: Just what the Left always *accused* Bush of being. And of course, the media lets him get away with it.

UPDATE: Some Democrats agree that it was the Obama White House, more than the U.S. intelligence community, which underestimated ISIS.

Former Rear Admiral Joe Sestak, a two-term Democratic member of the House of Representatives…appeared to surprise his MSNBC interlocutor when he noted that the only people who got ISIS wrong work in the Obama administration.

“If you remember back in January and February, the head — the general, the Defense Intelligence Agency, actually testified before the House and Senate that in 2014, ISIS would take over large swaths of territory,” the Navy veteran asserted. “In fact, at the time he testified, they had already seized Ramadi and Fallujah — 35 miles from Baghdad.”

A decade ago, Fallujah was a crucial victory for the Marines (some of whom gave their lives) against an earlier version of ISIS. I guess Obama threw it back.

UPDATE: A report that Obama was warned about ISIS in 2012. As Ed Morrissey puts it:

…the US intelligence community told him of the danger at the same time Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney during the presidential debates…for wanting a residual force in Iraq to prevent exactly what Romney warned would happen.

Five Acts of Islamic Terror the US Government Won’t Call Islamic Terror

Posted by V the K at 8:49 am - September 29, 2014.
Filed under: Religion Of Peace

A Mohammedan beheaded a female co-worker in Oklahoma last week in an act the Obama Regime is labeling “workplace violence.” Another Mohammedan has committed a series of killings of Americans in order to “avenge” the deaths of his fellow Mohammedans, but it is not being investigated as Islamist terror.

The Government of the United States is pathologically averse to labeling acts of violence committed by Mohammedans for the purpose of waging jihad as “Islamic terror.” Here are some examples.

  • Fort Hood Mass Shooting – Islamist Army Major Nadal Hassan shot and killed 13 people while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”  (Note, a Clinton Era policy requires American military personnel to be disarmed while on base; which is why no one was able to stop the shooting.) The Obama Administration has officially labeled this an act of “workplace violence,” not Islamic Terror.
  • Trolley Square Shootings – February 12, 2007, A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine’s Day cards at a gift shop, shouting “Allahu Akhbar!” Five people were killed, four injured. Not an act of terrorism according to the FBI, who claim it is impossible to discern any motive behind the attack.
  • The Beltway Sniper Attacks of 2002 – John Allen Muhammed — a member of the Nation of Islam and jihadist — killed 10 people one-by-one in a terror campaigned accompanied by his catamite, Lee Boyd Malvo. Muhemmed was charged and tried as a terrorist… by the State of Virginia, not by the Federal Government. The Federal Government does not regard the Beltway shootings as Islamic Terror.
  • Egyptair Flight 990 – In October 1999, a radicalized Egyptian pilot seized the controls of a Transatlantic jet and plunged it into the ocean shouting, “I rely on Allah.” 217 people were killed, including 100 Americans. The destruction of Flight 990 is not considered an act of terror by the US Government.
  • Any Act of Savagery Committed by the Islamic State — According to the Obama Administration, the Islamic State is not really Islamic (despite their state goal of establishing an, um, Islamic State). Ipso facto, nothing they do constitutes Islamic Terrorism.

You may draw your own conclusions about why the United States Government is so reluctant to address these incidents as terroristic violence motivated by jihad. [And maybe terrorism isn’t quite the right word for when Mohammedans kill people they hate for not being Mohammedans, but there should be such a word, yes?]

Update: In addition to denying that Islamic Terrorist exists, the Obama Administration is also apparently making up fake Islamic terror groups so they can launch pretend attacks against pretend groups and pretend to look tough before the election.