The Obama debt: It's worse than you think

Much worse:

Edmund Conway:

".... Exhibit A is the fact that under the Obama administration's current fiscal plans, the national debt in the US (on a gross basis) will climb to above 100pc of GDP by 2015 - a far steeper increase than almost any other country."

John Hinderaker:

"The Democrats in Washington are both too stupid and too ideologically committed to read the writing on the wall. They are leading the United States over a financial cliff, and they have no intention of turning back. On the contrary: if they can, they will hobble our economy further by enacting a carbon tax.

There is only one way to stop them, and to save our children--from whom greedy, selfish Washington liberals are borrowing trillions of dollars--from a lifetime of debt. The Democrats must be voted out in 2010, and Barack Obama must be denied a second opportunity to deconstruct the country that he doesn't much like."

The long and deep global cooling trend continues

From C3:

Here's how Climate Alarmists deal with dissent

As PowerLine says "When you're out of arguments, call in the heat".

And yet there are many lunatics who STILL insist that the "science is settled" about the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming". Fortunately, the great majority of the non indoctrinated public knows better than to believe this outrageous abuse of science.

The pertinent question concerns whether and when our political class, the ruling elites, and the media will start to understand the realities about the nonsense.

#

The new political sign of the times

Let's give the sign a little perspective:




Add to that the excuses, rationales, and outright cognitive dissonance among Dems/Lefties/"Progressives over last Tuesday's election events.

Yet these Rocket Scientists expect the public to stand still for the rape and pillage inflicted by their health care "reform", and Cap 'n Trade monstrosities.

Exactly how stupid ARE these people?

Hat tip: PowerLine

#

Who will benefit from Cap 'n Trade?

Here's a hint: It's not you, and it's not me.


Hat tip: Israpundit.

#

Tom Friedman and Green Scaremongering, pt 2

Today's "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" global warming climate change moment.

Globalization maven, New York Times arrogant ass hypocritical columnist Tom Terrific Friedman, on Cap 'n Trade:

"Yes, this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we need to mitigate climate change. But it also contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming energy hogs, to make our appliances the most energy efficient in the world and to help preserve forests in places like the Amazon."

Guess who lives here?

Just a day in the life of yet another elite media jerk.

Hat tip: American Digest.

#

Mars attacks!

Imagine this conversation between two invading Martians intent on destroying Earth:

Martian # 1: We must destroy the Earthlings. But how?

Martian # 2: Why not let man-made global warming do it for us?

Martian # 1: Are you kidding? We do not have 100,000 years.

Martian # 2: Why not just wait for Earthlings to pass their Cap and Trade Climate Bills?

Martian # 1: Great idea! That way the energies of the planet remain preserved while the Earthlings quickly tax themselves to death.

Martian # 2: I think it would be a win-win for us.

Martian # 1: I agree. Hey, you want to watch a movie? I have my favorite sci-fi DVD with me, An Inconvenient Truth, starring Al Gore.

Martian # 2: I cannot right now. I have plans to beam down to the United States because I am in need of surgery. You know it is common knowledge that America provides the best medical care in the galaxy.

Martian # 1: But we Martians have good universal healthcare.

Martian # 2: Yeah, but good luck. I am presently on an eighty-year waiting list.

Martian # 1: But you do not have any Earthling American dollars to pay for surgery!

Martian # 2: That's not a problem. I don't need any. I'm an alien.

#

The 'Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming' scam takes yet another broadside hit

A new peer reviwed study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research has established that nature, not man, is responsible for "climate change".

Noteworthy, from the study itself:

"Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958−2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record.

Because El Niño−Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling.

That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation."

#

Getting the facts straight about the bogus NOAA temperature data

Joseph D'Aleo has the honors of putting the most recent "global warming" alarmist temperature canard to rest.

And yet we are faced with an imminent act of "cap 'n trade" thievery by the Obamanation.

Read the whole thing for the facts that once again establish the utter chicanery that is the "anthropogenic global warming" scam.

#

The hidden (and usually unspoken about) costs of Obama policies

Susan Dudley and Jeff Rosen, on the essential truth:

"Unlike spending and associated taxes, which are subject to approval by both the legislative and executive branches and are visible to the public, regulatory decisions don't face the same checks and balances and their effects are far less transparent. They represent a hidden tax, not easy to measure and track, but borne by American taxpayers, consumers, and workers nevertheless.

And often, regulations benefit vocal, well-organized interest groups at the expense of the broader public....

....Some of these new regulations may have merit, but one would be hard-pressed to argue that any are urgent. The new administration's number one priority should be getting our economy back on track, and the costs and consequences of competing objectives should be as visible to the American people as the stimulus spending programs that have received so much attention.

Under the circumstances, actions that impose sizable hidden taxes on American citizens should be put on hold, or at least exposed to much more careful evaluation to be sure their merits outweigh their costs and burdens on our struggling economy."

As well we know, the campaign rhetoric of "no tax increase on the middle class" was a carefully crafted lie.

Where should we start the list of policy initiatives whose costs and burdens clearly outweigh their merits?

-- Obamacare?
-- Cap 'n Trade?
-- Porkulus?

It's difficult to choose which of theses incredibly short-sighted and worldview agenda-fulfilling disasters is worse.

Cap 'n Trade implementation alone is likely to raise a middle class family of four's effective tax rate by more than 50%:

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reducing the level of CO2 to 15 percent less than the total level of U.S. emissions in 2005 would require permit prices that would increase the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. To put that $1,600 carbon tax in perspective, a typical family of four with earnings of $50,000 now pays an income tax of about $3,000.

The tax imposed by the cap and trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent. (Some advocates of a cap and trade program argue that the cost to households could be much less than $1,600 if the government uses the tax revenue to finance transfers to low income households and tax cuts to others, but since there is no way to know how the future revenue would actually be used, the only number we have to consider is the $1,600 direct increase in the burden on households.)"

Feldstein's $1600 figure is likely WAY too optimistic on the low side, perhaps on a factor of two-three times less than the eventual reality.

#

So science doesn't support your 'progressive' worldview agenda? Just ignore it!

In my previous post, we touched on how "progressives" use their smoke and mirrors technique in the dismal science of economics. Now we shall examine the smoke and mirrors they use in the other sciences.

Ben Shapiro talks about how our "progressive" pals are so fond of telling us they are "advocates" of science, unless the science inconveniently contradicts some cherished worldview agenda items, like sex education for kids, abortion, and gay marriage.

Key point:

"For years, liberals have complained that conservatives ignore science. The truth is that mainstream conservatives often refuse to accept dubious science (e.g. global warming and population bombs). Far more often, it is liberals who ignore hard science in order to promote their agenda of irresponsibility, consequence: free living, and destruction of traditional family values. "

How bad is the 'global warming' nonsense?

It's "Worse Than Fiction", particularly in the case of the laughable report from Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum, as properly demolished by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Excerpt:

"But the Annan report deserves even closer scrutiny as an example of the sleight of hand that so often goes with the politics of global warming. Unlike starvation, climate change does not usually kill anyone directly. Instead, the study's authors assume a four-step chain of causation, beginning with increased emissions, moving to climate-change effects, thence to physical changes like melting glaciers and desertification, and finally arriving at human effects like malnutrition and 'risk of instability and armed conflicts.'

This is a heroic set of assumptions, even if you agree that emissions are causing adverse changes in climate. Take the supposedly heightened risk of conflict: The authors suggest that 'inter-clan fighting in Somalia' is a product of climate change. A likelier explanation is the collapse of a functioning Somali government and the rise of jihadists in the region.

Enter Mr. Pielke, who, we hasten to add, does not speak for us (nor we for him). But given the headlines the Annan report has garnered, his views deserve amplification. Writing in the Prometheus science policy blog, Mr. Pielke calls the report a 'methodological embarrassment' and a 'poster child for how to lie with statistics' that 'does a disservice' to those who take climate change issues seriously."

On the other hand, True Believers are famous for wrongly manipulating statistics to favor their religion, while ignoring and/or misrepresenting statistics that prove they're full of the hot air they claim CO2 produces.

#

Wheel of Fortune: 'Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming' version

They think they're going to solve the puzzle, but the rest of us know that the next spin will bankrupt ALL of us.

#

Here's perhaps THE most important reason that Sotomayor is dangerous to our well being.

From the nominee:

"I have absolutely no idea about the science of global warming .....But if the science is right, we have relegated ourselves to killing the world in the foreseeable future. Not in centuries to come but in the very near future."

This is a quote of a comment she made from the bench on a case heard in the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals

People who think that way are VERY scary indeed. And VERY shallow to boot.

#

The Cap 'n Trade Bill: Waxman doesn't have a CLUE of what it contains

Yet he barfs up the nonsense about the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming" without missing a hurl.



Is there NOTHING that will save us from the sheer lunacy and outright lies of the True Believers?

I guess that's just one more item we'll need to add to the list of things they expect us to "smile and grin at the changes all around....."

#

Obama's Government Motors: 'All Cost, No Benefit'

Let's see:

1. Higher costs.....more like $6000 per car (unsubsidized), not $600.

2. Lower profit for auto companies. No Big Deal for subsidized Government Motors (GM), UAW Benefit Manufacturing (Chrysler), but bad news for Little Orphan Motors (Ford).

3. No reduction of foreign oil.

4. Consumers not better off financially.

5. Reduction of real world safety on the roads.

6. And last, no reduction in "greenhouse gas", to solve the non-existent climate crisis the True Believers think we're headed for.

So where's the benefit?

#

The coming discontent of the voting and motoring public about vehicles and driving under the Obamanation

"Car Crazy" describes the coming disaster completely.

Let's sum up what is now readily apparent about this situation:

1.Obama and his cronies are running two American car companies now.

2. By default, he's proposed draconian design parameters with his "pick a number out of the air" fuel mileage mandate.

3. His energy and tax policies are going to raise the cost of transportation by an unbearable amount while NOT solving any "( non-existent) climate change" or "energy shortage" problem.

4. There is every likelihood that, given his proclivity for thugishness and strong-armed tactics, he will force you out of your older, non-Obama conforming vehicle, and.....

5. His economic "stimulus" plan isn't, and in fact will extend and probably deepen the economic distress in more ways than meets the eye, one of which is the eventual complete failure of GM and Chrysler.

And those are just the cluster f**ks I anticipate off the top of my head.

Excerpts from the WSJ article:

"Mr. Obama's fleet-mileage partners yesterday included the two auto companies that have fallen into his arms, Chrysler and GM, still-independent Ford, the major foreign manufacturers, United Auto Workers chief Ron Gettelfinger, and beaming representatives from the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

All that's left to arrive at the President's new destination for the American way of driving are huge, unanswered questions about technology, financing and the marketability of cars that will be small and expensive."

....and:

"These public goals notwithstanding, it still looks as if Ford, Chrysler and GM will be making cars they can't sell, or can't sell profitably. That might not be a problem if you're now Gettelfinger Motors. But still-independent Ford has private shareholders and creditors to answer. While GM and Chrysler attempt to meet the new standards with taxpayer money, Ford will have to do so on its own........One thing seems certain by 2016: Taxpayers will be paying Detroit to make the cars Americans don't want, and then they will pay again either through (trust us) a gas tax or with a purchase subsidy. Even the French must think we're nuts."

Indeed.

#

So where will YOU cut your budget (or increase your income) to cover YOUR household's share of 'cap 'n trade' costs?

It's up to $3900.00 per year, and counting.

I suppose one way to cover it would help support yet another of the "Progressive" agenda items: Stop making tithes to your evangelical Christian church, so as to further marginalize the faith.

After all, why should you support God's work, when the New Messiah's Hope 'n Change theology has better plans for you than the out-of-favor Christian one's does?

#

Cap 'n Trade: 'Monstrously stupid'....almost demented'

But we knew that already, didn't we?

On the other hand, ANY type of "carbon regulation" fits into this category. As well we know, there is NO valid evidence that establishes that greenhouse gases, let alone CO2, let alone man's insignificant contribution to CO2, have ANYTHING to do with 'climate change'.

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Yet that doesn't stop the incessant babble, dribble, drool and spew in support of the academic and intellectual fraud that is known as the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming climate change".



By the way, the $2000.00 per household cost mentioned in the video by Gregg is an incredibly low estimate.

I cannot overstate the importance of making sure that any sort of tax under the guise of "carbon regulation" should suffer a complete and utter defeat, and that good, common sense be applied in any application of energy policy change.

Let the resulting infantile foot-stomping temper tantrums and the pious pontificated posturing from the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change" cabal be given the exact amount of attention it deserves: Absolutely none.

#

Some Dems want to exchange one bad legislative idea for another idea that's just as bad

They want to shelve the abominable "climate change" legislation in favor of the equally bad idea of Obamacare.

Of course, the Obamanation wants it all:

"But the idea of putting healthcare before climate change contravenes the wishes of President Obama, who met Tuesday with Energy and Commerce Democrats and reinforced that he wants the House to tackle cap-and-trade before healthcare.

Obama called the meeting after cap-and-trade appeared to bog down in committee, without the votes to pass. That is likely to be tested next week, when Waxman is expected to leapfrog the subcommittee to hold a full-committee vote. That plan got more complicated Wednesday when Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), vice chairman of the subcommittee, objected to the plan.

Pelosi was adamant Wednesday that climate change will stay on track. While acknowledging that Democrats have undertaken 'a bigger agenda than we’ve had in the past", she said, 'I believe [climate change legislation] will be done this year.'

Those close to Pelosi say she figures healthcare has just as much chance to bog down."

God help me, I hope Pelosi's right about Obamacare bogging down.

And as far as her statement about the climate change legislation being "done" this year, I will take "done" as meaning "over", "not further considered", "kaput", or "filed in the circular file", as it well and truly deserves to be.

#