Who're you going to Trust: The Stock Market or the Media Innumerates?

Years ago, when I used to play poker with some guys, I played a hand in which across the table from me was someone who looked as though he had a straight flush. He kept pumping up the bidding and everyone folded but me. When we finally showed our hands he had nothing.

"You don't know what you're doing," he yelled. "Any good player would have folded! Why did you stay in?" he shouted angrily.

"Because you curled your lip and reacted furiously when I stayed in. Someone with a winning hand would never do that." I responded, raking in the pile of chips.

I was reminded of that this week, when Obama overplayed his sequester hand.

While the press keeps carrying his water, claiming we'll all suffer because the Republicans held him to his word when his team proposed the sequester deal, the market and the rest of us see it otherwise.

After the witching hour -- midnight the 28th -- sarcastic reports starting appearing online:

‎@iowahawkblog: #OnTheSceneSequesterReport Mass hysteria at Kroger as eggs no longer USDA size-graded

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/01/leno-s-white-house-sequester-ad-girl-scouts-will-be-forced-sell-meth#ixzz2MJfjhM1p

Last week, I noted how much money the administration had squandered on failed projects headed by their friends and contributors. As the week wound down the administration kept warning of dire consequences.

You can be sure that the minute a meat processing plant is shut down for lack of an inspector from the Department of Agriculture which just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an offensive and stupid racist indoctrination program, the alternate media will start reminding taxpayers where the money they already paid in went. John Hinderaker at Powerline leads the way:

One of the fundamental precepts of our immigration law is that we expect legal immigrants to be contributing members of society. Immigrants are therefore not allowed to be admitted if they are likely to become a public charge, i.e., to be recipients of welfare benefits. But the Obama administration has ignored this longstanding provision of the law, just as it has ignored so many other laws it finds inconvenient. The State Department has now confirmed, as the tireless Jeff Sessions points out, that in 2011 a mere .0033% of visa applications were denied on "public charge" grounds.

This wouldn't be so bad if it meant that we are admitting a high caliber of immigrants who aren't going on welfare. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Currently, 36% of immigrant-headed households receive benefits from at least one major welfare program. And many illegal immigrants, too, receive federal welfare benefits. In fact, as we have noted repeatedly, the Obama administration recruits illegals to sign up for the food stamp program.

The federal government wastes vast amounts of money, often spending it in ways that are not only useless, but that actively damage the United States. The idea that the government spends its borrowed money so wisely that spending simply can't be cut -- the position of the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats -- is ludicrous.

In short form, the argument is made by Senator Jeff Sessions, top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee:

"Does any lawmaker, reporter, or citizen believe that the only way to save taxpayer dollars is to hurt children, that every government program is effective and helpful and not one penny is wasted?"

Sessions, who says his committee will solicit government workers' aid in cutting out the fat, added:
 
"While the White House operatives may think this attack is clever, it betrays an astonishing elitism: the federal government is perfect and requires no reform. That is why they have no plan to make our government leaner and more efficient. The President had 18 months to develop reforms to improve the government, but instead he announced furloughs of federal workers as a political cudgel. Yet, his golf weekend at the yacht club with Tiger Woods cost taxpayers over a million dollars -- enough money to save 341 federal workers from furlough."

As if to prove Session's point, the Washington Post reports this local comedy club routine

"We had our sequester talk earlier in the week," Shahryar Rizvi said 90 seconds into his stand-up set, a few hours after getting off work at the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration.

It was Thursday night -- Sequester Eve -- and Rizvi, a 32-year-old IT project planner who moonlights as a comedian, was at a Dupont Circle open-mike night, mining the increasing disquiet of his day job for laughs.
"Our head of our division sat us down and told us how many furlough days we're going to have, what the plan is if it all goes down," Rizvi said of the looming $85 billion in across-the-board federal budget cuts. "And I was so [ticked] that he did this. 'Cause he did this during the meeting when we as a division were going to make our 'Harlem Shake' video."

The small crowd in the Topaz Hotel's basement bar, a few blocks from the White House, erupted in laughter. Rizvi paused a beat, then continued: "Nobody's going to dance with a keyboard shirtless now."

At the same paper, blogger Jennifer Rubin pored through the transcript of Obama's curled lip presser made when it was clear that holding his breath or, more accurately, pinching taxpayers' nostrils wasn't going to work and she, too, saw what investors did-the bluff was called and the game's just about over:

And then toward the end of the press conference he let the cat out of the bag -- ok, the Republicans win and get to keep the Budget Control Act sequester cuts:

QUESTION: Just to make it 100 percent clear, you'd sign a budget that continues to fund the government even at the lower levels of the sequester, even if you don't (inaudible)?

OBAMA: I'm not going to - I never want to make myself 100 percent clear with you guys. But I think it's fair to say that I made a deal for a certain budget, certain numbers. There's no reason why that deal needs to be reopened. It was a deal that Speaker Boehner made as well and all the leadership made. And if the -- the bill that arrives on my bill is reflective of the commitments that we previously made, then obviously I would sign it because I want to make sure that we keep on doing what we need to do for the American people.

Now that this game has been played and anyone but low information voters knows that the president proposed the sequester, agreed to it, failed to advise his agencies to make cuts in January so the damage would be less, refused to agree to a Republican offer giving him greater flexibility in making cuts, any inconvenience citizens suffer should be rightly blamed on him.

Now, it's time to deal with other Administrative overreaching and malfeasance.

There is, for example, Obamacare, which polls say remains deeply unpopular.

Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic politicos have been suggesting that the relatively teensy cuts of the sequester will so impede medical research that many will die unless all the government agencies can go on unrestrained spending splurges.

Bgates brings a little good sense to this-Obamacare will do more to harm medical research than will these cuts:

Stupid people love the idea of a magic pill that will make them immortal even more than they hate the evil drug companies that try to profit off of human suffering (to be more precise, off of reducing human suffering, but stupid people can't be bothered with such hairsplitting). What's more, the only reason they hate the evil drug companies is because those greedy bastards charge people merely because the companies have sunk fortunes into the effort of understanding human biology and convincing the government they can safely improve some aspect of it. The stupid people would be quite happy with enormous amounts of money being spent on developing new medicines to improve their lives, so long as it was made clear that they wouldn't have to pay for any of it.

Of course, single payer doesn't have to mean single seller. After all, we are not Communists. The federal government will simply be integrated into the medical free market system, and deal with the suddenly no-longer-evil pharma sector -- GlaxoSmithKlineJarret, MedtRahmic, Obamgen, etc. -- and the news will be filled with stories about how the government's commitment to medical science and economic recovery is demonstrated by the record profits earned by those firms.

The way I see it, all the Democrats need to do here is convince people that government spending demonstrates compassion, that no tax rate on somebody else can be too high if the money is used for curing the cute little sick girl who gives the Democrats' weekly radio address, and that there's no reason to oppose their plans besides an irrational hatred of health and science. Think they're up to it?
[snip]

The pipeline, all the way from "I bet this stuff kills the hell out of the HeLa cells in that Petri dish" to "Ask your doctor if Provasic is right for you", runs around 20 years -- and most of that time is spent in FDA-mandated trials. That means that under single payer, the people who want to show they can create medicines quicker and cheaper than the anarcho-Gilded Age free market they're going to pretend we have right now are the same people responsible for making the current system as slow and expensive as it is. Taking the federal boot off the neck of the industry could produce real results. What's more, I'm sure they'll be able to find libertarian-leaning white papers to say so, thus letting them sell whatever they do as a bipartisan -- hell, a Republican idea, basically, as Red State as the Heritage plan that's indistinguishable from the 2000 pages of Obamacare.

Will the FDA regs be relaxed selectively, to benefit politically connected firms? Who can say? Not the press, that's for sure. Maybe Michelle Obama leverages her hospital administration experience to become the historical first-ever First Lady in history to be named to the Cabinet, for the new department of Compassionate Care and Cure Providers, and she agrees to let Barney Frank's new biotech company roll the dice with a drug that only made it through Phase I trials, and it kills a bunch of people.

He brings the same high intelligence to bear on the President's failure as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
To help see you through the difficult times of the sequester, he offers up a profitable bar bet:

If you count up the number of American and allied military fatalities in Afghanistan, for each month between October 2001 and December 2012, and you listed the 20 deadliest months -- how many of the 20 deadliest months in the Afghan war happened during the militarist cowboy Bush administration, and how many (if any!) under the reign of the wise, benevolent, and Nobel Peace Prize winning President Barack Obama?

(ans: one and nineteen, respectively.)[snip]

Absurd. If provoked, I could get you a list of dozens of prominent figures from the newspaper owning, TV news reading, and music lip syncing industries who would put the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust during a third Bush term at no less than 90%. Since the world's population in 2009 was over six billion, scientifically we can say that Obama saved at least 5.4 billion lives. And that's not even counting the number of babies ages 0-4 who hadn't yet been born.

Which of course we wouldn't count, because unborn babies aren't people.

Time to start really betting against the Administration and the lip curler in chief.

 

Years ago, when I used to play poker with some guys, I played a hand in which across the table from me was someone who looked as though he had a straight flush. He kept pumping up the bidding and everyone folded but me. When we finally showed our hands he had nothing.

"You don't know what you're doing," he yelled. "Any good player would have folded! Why did you stay in?" he shouted angrily.

"Because you curled your lip and reacted furiously when I stayed in. Someone with a winning hand would never do that." I responded, raking in the pile of chips.

I was reminded of that this week, when Obama overplayed his sequester hand.

While the press keeps carrying his water, claiming we'll all suffer because the Republicans held him to his word when his team proposed the sequester deal, the market and the rest of us see it otherwise.

After the witching hour -- midnight the 28th -- sarcastic reports starting appearing online:

‎@iowahawkblog: #OnTheSceneSequesterReport Mass hysteria at Kroger as eggs no longer USDA size-graded

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/01/leno-s-white-house-sequester-ad-girl-scouts-will-be-forced-sell-meth#ixzz2MJfjhM1p

Last week, I noted how much money the administration had squandered on failed projects headed by their friends and contributors. As the week wound down the administration kept warning of dire consequences.

You can be sure that the minute a meat processing plant is shut down for lack of an inspector from the Department of Agriculture which just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an offensive and stupid racist indoctrination program, the alternate media will start reminding taxpayers where the money they already paid in went. John Hinderaker at Powerline leads the way:

One of the fundamental precepts of our immigration law is that we expect legal immigrants to be contributing members of society. Immigrants are therefore not allowed to be admitted if they are likely to become a public charge, i.e., to be recipients of welfare benefits. But the Obama administration has ignored this longstanding provision of the law, just as it has ignored so many other laws it finds inconvenient. The State Department has now confirmed, as the tireless Jeff Sessions points out, that in 2011 a mere .0033% of visa applications were denied on "public charge" grounds.

This wouldn't be so bad if it meant that we are admitting a high caliber of immigrants who aren't going on welfare. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Currently, 36% of immigrant-headed households receive benefits from at least one major welfare program. And many illegal immigrants, too, receive federal welfare benefits. In fact, as we have noted repeatedly, the Obama administration recruits illegals to sign up for the food stamp program.

The federal government wastes vast amounts of money, often spending it in ways that are not only useless, but that actively damage the United States. The idea that the government spends its borrowed money so wisely that spending simply can't be cut -- the position of the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats -- is ludicrous.

In short form, the argument is made by Senator Jeff Sessions, top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee:

"Does any lawmaker, reporter, or citizen believe that the only way to save taxpayer dollars is to hurt children, that every government program is effective and helpful and not one penny is wasted?"

Sessions, who says his committee will solicit government workers' aid in cutting out the fat, added:
 
"While the White House operatives may think this attack is clever, it betrays an astonishing elitism: the federal government is perfect and requires no reform. That is why they have no plan to make our government leaner and more efficient. The President had 18 months to develop reforms to improve the government, but instead he announced furloughs of federal workers as a political cudgel. Yet, his golf weekend at the yacht club with Tiger Woods cost taxpayers over a million dollars -- enough money to save 341 federal workers from furlough."

As if to prove Session's point, the Washington Post reports this local comedy club routine

"We had our sequester talk earlier in the week," Shahryar Rizvi said 90 seconds into his stand-up set, a few hours after getting off work at the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration.

It was Thursday night -- Sequester Eve -- and Rizvi, a 32-year-old IT project planner who moonlights as a comedian, was at a Dupont Circle open-mike night, mining the increasing disquiet of his day job for laughs.
"Our head of our division sat us down and told us how many furlough days we're going to have, what the plan is if it all goes down," Rizvi said of the looming $85 billion in across-the-board federal budget cuts. "And I was so [ticked] that he did this. 'Cause he did this during the meeting when we as a division were going to make our 'Harlem Shake' video."

The small crowd in the Topaz Hotel's basement bar, a few blocks from the White House, erupted in laughter. Rizvi paused a beat, then continued: "Nobody's going to dance with a keyboard shirtless now."

At the same paper, blogger Jennifer Rubin pored through the transcript of Obama's curled lip presser made when it was clear that holding his breath or, more accurately, pinching taxpayers' nostrils wasn't going to work and she, too, saw what investors did-the bluff was called and the game's just about over:

And then toward the end of the press conference he let the cat out of the bag -- ok, the Republicans win and get to keep the Budget Control Act sequester cuts:

QUESTION: Just to make it 100 percent clear, you'd sign a budget that continues to fund the government even at the lower levels of the sequester, even if you don't (inaudible)?

OBAMA: I'm not going to - I never want to make myself 100 percent clear with you guys. But I think it's fair to say that I made a deal for a certain budget, certain numbers. There's no reason why that deal needs to be reopened. It was a deal that Speaker Boehner made as well and all the leadership made. And if the -- the bill that arrives on my bill is reflective of the commitments that we previously made, then obviously I would sign it because I want to make sure that we keep on doing what we need to do for the American people.

Now that this game has been played and anyone but low information voters knows that the president proposed the sequester, agreed to it, failed to advise his agencies to make cuts in January so the damage would be less, refused to agree to a Republican offer giving him greater flexibility in making cuts, any inconvenience citizens suffer should be rightly blamed on him.

Now, it's time to deal with other Administrative overreaching and malfeasance.

There is, for example, Obamacare, which polls say remains deeply unpopular.

Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic politicos have been suggesting that the relatively teensy cuts of the sequester will so impede medical research that many will die unless all the government agencies can go on unrestrained spending splurges.

Bgates brings a little good sense to this-Obamacare will do more to harm medical research than will these cuts:

Stupid people love the idea of a magic pill that will make them immortal even more than they hate the evil drug companies that try to profit off of human suffering (to be more precise, off of reducing human suffering, but stupid people can't be bothered with such hairsplitting). What's more, the only reason they hate the evil drug companies is because those greedy bastards charge people merely because the companies have sunk fortunes into the effort of understanding human biology and convincing the government they can safely improve some aspect of it. The stupid people would be quite happy with enormous amounts of money being spent on developing new medicines to improve their lives, so long as it was made clear that they wouldn't have to pay for any of it.

Of course, single payer doesn't have to mean single seller. After all, we are not Communists. The federal government will simply be integrated into the medical free market system, and deal with the suddenly no-longer-evil pharma sector -- GlaxoSmithKlineJarret, MedtRahmic, Obamgen, etc. -- and the news will be filled with stories about how the government's commitment to medical science and economic recovery is demonstrated by the record profits earned by those firms.

The way I see it, all the Democrats need to do here is convince people that government spending demonstrates compassion, that no tax rate on somebody else can be too high if the money is used for curing the cute little sick girl who gives the Democrats' weekly radio address, and that there's no reason to oppose their plans besides an irrational hatred of health and science. Think they're up to it?
[snip]

The pipeline, all the way from "I bet this stuff kills the hell out of the HeLa cells in that Petri dish" to "Ask your doctor if Provasic is right for you", runs around 20 years -- and most of that time is spent in FDA-mandated trials. That means that under single payer, the people who want to show they can create medicines quicker and cheaper than the anarcho-Gilded Age free market they're going to pretend we have right now are the same people responsible for making the current system as slow and expensive as it is. Taking the federal boot off the neck of the industry could produce real results. What's more, I'm sure they'll be able to find libertarian-leaning white papers to say so, thus letting them sell whatever they do as a bipartisan -- hell, a Republican idea, basically, as Red State as the Heritage plan that's indistinguishable from the 2000 pages of Obamacare.

Will the FDA regs be relaxed selectively, to benefit politically connected firms? Who can say? Not the press, that's for sure. Maybe Michelle Obama leverages her hospital administration experience to become the historical first-ever First Lady in history to be named to the Cabinet, for the new department of Compassionate Care and Cure Providers, and she agrees to let Barney Frank's new biotech company roll the dice with a drug that only made it through Phase I trials, and it kills a bunch of people.

He brings the same high intelligence to bear on the President's failure as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
To help see you through the difficult times of the sequester, he offers up a profitable bar bet:

If you count up the number of American and allied military fatalities in Afghanistan, for each month between October 2001 and December 2012, and you listed the 20 deadliest months -- how many of the 20 deadliest months in the Afghan war happened during the militarist cowboy Bush administration, and how many (if any!) under the reign of the wise, benevolent, and Nobel Peace Prize winning President Barack Obama?

(ans: one and nineteen, respectively.)[snip]

Absurd. If provoked, I could get you a list of dozens of prominent figures from the newspaper owning, TV news reading, and music lip syncing industries who would put the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust during a third Bush term at no less than 90%. Since the world's population in 2009 was over six billion, scientifically we can say that Obama saved at least 5.4 billion lives. And that's not even counting the number of babies ages 0-4 who hadn't yet been born.

Which of course we wouldn't count, because unborn babies aren't people.

Time to start really betting against the Administration and the lip curler in chief.

 

RECENT VIDEOS