Pages

Saturday, July 30, 2022

Friday, July 29, 2022

Irony, stupidity, or both? Do Democrats believe new taxes and new spending will "curb inflation"?

Actually Democrats just count on the fact that voters are pretty damned stupid and will literally be fooled by the name! 

Literally anyone and everyone who thinks tax and spend reduces inflation

I try to imagine how exactly these people plot these sorts of deals. So they know that they want to "raise taxes" and "spend money". This is what they do so that they can pretend that they are "governing" and "delivering" for their voters. They believe that a new bill will give them something to "run on" at a time when they literally have nothing to run on.

However, they also know (or should know) that Econ 101 tells us raisting taxes on corporations or those who run them raises the cost of goods and services (which is the definition of inflation).  They should also understand that Government spending further dilutes the value of the dollar, leading to more inflation. Tax and spend has never once in the history of our economy (or any economy) been a means to bring inflation under control.

So what do they decide to call this particular bill? The inflation reduction act? There is no real explanation as to how or why this will reduce inflation (that can only be done at the Federal Level). Nothing about this bill will come into play before the midterms. They will be able to show no tangible results.  

Might as well call it the tax reduction and less spending bill. Or perhaps the unanimous passage through both houses bill. Or any number of things that are the complete opposite of what the bill actually is. What it is, is more taxes and more spending. It will prompt more inflation. There is no way around that. While it is less than the 1.9 Trillion Democrats wanted, it is still 300-400 750 billion that will not help anything but inflation. 
  

An adult opinion on the Jan 6th hearing vs investigation

Why the DOJ Is Taking Its Time on January 6 Probe
THE New York Times bewails the comparative snail’s pace of the Justice Department’s reported investigation of former president Trump and his advisers in schemes to overturn the result of the 2020 election. Seems prosecutors are so “apparently plodding and methodical” that they frustrate . . . well, it’s not exactly clear who is frustrated except for the Times and its fellow partisans. For all its rebuking of the former president’s tactics, the paper has adopted his “people are saying” schtick for broaching topics that are of more interest to the Times than to most people. In truth, besides Democrats, the January 6 committee controlled by Democrats, and the media allies of Democrats, no one is wondering whether or why the Justice Department’s investigation is lagging behind the committee’s.
As I pointed out over the weekend: The committee, by adopting a slick, television-production approach that suppresses such inconveniences as cross-examination and opposing perspectives, has managed, in the eyes of some, to create the illusion of a detective story constantly turning up new revelations. Despite its TV-drama presentation, the committee’s summer episodes have not altered our basic understanding of January 6.
Yes, some of the committee’s new details are titillating. And because we already know what this puzzle looks like when fully assembled, the committee’s fitting the pieces together week-by-week may project the appearance of progress. But overall, the story never changes.
By contrast, the Justice Department is expected to come up with something that is genuinely new: criminal liability.
In so doing, prosecutors have to account for facts that don’t fit the committee’s political narrative — e.g., Trump’s statement in his Ellipse speech that the crowd would be “peacefully” marching to the Capitol, which the committee continues to ignore as if it didn’t happen; and the fact that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died of strokes that occurred after the riot, under circumstances where no causal connection between the riot and the strokes has ever been established, contrary to the committee’s disingenuous suggestion, repeated most recently last week, that he died of injuries sustained during the riot.
Unlike the committee, the Justice Department has to deal with such nuisances as judges, defense counsel, and cross-examination. In a criminal trial, if a federal prosecutor dared to point out, as the committee does with cavalier regularity, that witnesses have refused to testify based on their Fifth Amendment rights or lawful privileges, the judge would respond by declaring a mistrial due to government misconduct and referring the prosecutor for professional sanctions — because litigators well know that such assertions violate basic due process as construed by the Supreme Court for decades. Nor are prosecutors at liberty to allege without evidence that a suspect’s actions resulted in someone’s death; they know they have to prove it — unlike a partisan congressional committee, the Justice Department doesn’t get to float a grave accusation and impose on the suspect the burden to prove his innocence. Prosecutors can’t make unhelpful facts disappear by studiously omitting mention of them, and they can’t make up helpful facts for which they lack evidence.


Ahem... all too obvious to most of us. But not to those suffering from cognitive dissonance and who actually believe they are witnessing a real hearing or even a real trial. 

McCarthy goes on to talk about the fact that Democrats are trying to suggest that Jeffrey Clark pressured Georgia officials to not certify the state results (which also plays into the Georgia investigation by a partisan county prosecutor with a grand jury that cannot indict anyone).  As McCarthy points out the facts don't correlate with the allegations and last (but not least) the letter was never sent. 

But that is another common theme. Besides ignoring facts that undermine their narrative or bring up allegations that they cannot prove - the committee loves to literally bring up stuff that didn't actually happen!

In fact, the committee is rather stacked with this sort of "evidence". Things that "almost happened" or things that Trump was "going to do before he was stopped" by some hero or heroin looking out for the country's best interest. They refer to draft letters never sent, proposals never implemented, etc, etc... These are things that might make your average everyday TDS enhanced liberal get aroused when the committee brings them up, but they are also things that did not actually happen would never be part of a court case. 

In other words, much of the committee's hearings and findings are completely useless to an actual prosecutor. A prosecutor cannot call people to testify who "claim" to have been motivated by Trump to do something. A prosecutor cannot call people to testify about things that didn't happen. The prosecutor cannot bring in people to testify about what they believe Trump thought. The committee's bombshell witness (Hutchinson) has a snowball's chance in hell of ever seeing an actual witness stand in a real trial. 

At the end of the day, McCarthy is correct. Democrats are providing theater for the faithful 5% or so of the population who are very interested in this. But this sort of fake hearing is probably working against the DOJ as they try to continue their own investigation. 


Thursday, July 28, 2022

Opps! Someone let the cat out of the bag!

 At least some honest people are willing to say the "R" word! 



Officially, the National Bureau of Economic Research declares recessions and expansions, and likely won’t make a judgment on the period in question for months if not longer. But a second straight negative GDP reading meets a long-held basic view of recession, despite the unusual circumstances of the decline and regardless of what the NBER decides. GDP is the broadest measure of the economy and encompasses the total level of goods and services produced during the period.

Another Democrat shows their hypocrisy!

It would be a huge mistake to try to discount the economic woes of the country by arguing technical definitions Well you can have it one of two ways. An objective measure of a recession (long thought to be two quarters of consecutive negative growth) or it can be subjective. But if you really want to make is subjective, then the only "opinion" that matters is the general public. Doesn't matter if Paul "clown" Krugman says it is not a recession, or if Slow Joe Biden argues that it is not a recession, or if the entire Administrative economic teams denies it, or if every liberal journalist or media whore falls in line with the no recession argument... 

if the American public believes we are in a recession then we are in a recession.

Sorry to state the obvious, but if Democrats want to tell Americans that everything is peachy and that their economic concerns are not well founded, well then that will be seen as out of touch. It is also insulting to those who are feeling the very real economic hardships right now. Unless they figure out how to accept the reality of the bad economy and take some responsibility for it, they will be hammered in November.

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

WaPo implies something about Trump and Garland that simply isn't true...

WaPo reports that the DOJ has been investigating Donald Trump as part of their 2020 election probe but also dishonestly implies that he has been "targeted" or is a "target". 


To be perfectly clear there is no ambiguity regarding whether someone is or isn't a "target" in a criminal investigation. Unlike the term "recession" (which liberals now want to redefine) - this is something with a pretty concrete meaning. You cannot really "change" that meaning without really changing the implication. 

When an individual is targeted by the Federal Government they receive a literal "target letter". This letter will inform them that they are under criminal investigation, will supply the crime(s) that they are being investigated for, and will offer that there is a sitting grand jury and that they are at least considering an indictment. These letters generally come with an invitation to meet with prosecutors regarding the case at hand.

More to the point, it is pretty much unheard of that an indictment would come from the Federal Government without a target letter being sent prior to the indictment. So if someone has received  no target letter then they are generally not in danger of any indictments. While the WaPo article indicates that the DOJ is targeting Trump, there is no actual indication that such a letter from the DOJ has been sent or even being considered. To be clear, not every target letter ends up with a prosecution, but pretty much all federal prosecutions start with that target letter. 

So would they be "investigating" Trump? 

Hard to argue that they could be investigating the so-called 2020 election issues (alternate electors, etc) and not include Trump in that investigation to some degree. So there is no news (much less a bombshell) to consider that whatever Garland and gang are stumbling around doing right now probably includes to at least some peripheral concept the President "under investigation". 

But then again, Trump has been under investigation now by authorities for a variety of things since the summer of 2016. I don't believe that a day has gone by when there wasn't some form of investigation taking place.  From the Russian collusion hoax, to the Stormy Daniels campaign finance hoax, to the SDNY tax fraud hoax, to the Ukraine phone call investigation, to the current NY civil investigation, to the Georgia dog and pony show, to whatever.... this has been non-stop since Trump announced he was running for President. 

In fact, it would be news (bombshell news in my humble opinion) if we could report one day that there was no ongoing investigation into the former President. Seriously, that would be news!
 

Samantha Bee "full frontal" gets canceled

Thank god - I don't watch the show but there was an annoying amount of advertisement for the failure of a show on TBS... 

An annoying snarky liberal who thought just attacking Conservatives her whole show was funny.
Funny that she got cancelled after coming in last place pretty much forever in the late night wars. 


Tuesday, July 26, 2022

Of course an official declaration of a recession is a moot point. Americans will decide for themselves!

US Consumer Confidence Drops to Lowest Since February 2021 as Inflation Bites
The Conference Board’s index decreased for a third month to 95.7 from a downwardly revised 98.4 reading in June, data Tuesday showed. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for a decline to 97.
The steady weakening in sentiment risks causing consumers to cut back on discretionary purchases at a time when the economy is struggling for momentum. Inflation has dented confidence and forced the Federal Reserve to pursue aggressive interest-rate hikes geared at curbing demand.
The American public will ultimately decide what sort of state they feel the economy is in. That will not be up to the Biden administration, the bureau of economic nonsense, or anyone else to decide. Republican will pounce on the two consecutive quarter benchmark and let the Democrats decide if they want to defend this economy to the American electorate and put themselves in a position to be seen as even more out of touch.

Think about it. Consumer sentiment is in the crapper. Most of the country believes we are already in a recession. But the Biden Administration would prefer to have us believe that things are going just swell. That the economy is blasting away and that nobody should be upset with it. You cannot change the mind of someone having issues paying for necessities, knowing that we are looking at another Fed increase that will likely slow down the economy even more. 

How can Democrats step up with a straight face and tell the public that the economy is good. But how can they admit it is bad when they own it 100% completely without question. There are no fingers to point at anyone but themselves. 
 

Yes Virginia, two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is a recession!

Even as the Biden Administration attepts to redefine the term!

I don't recall a single previous debate about whether we were in a recession?

Ask yourself an honest question here. If the definition of a recession is "not" two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, then why is there a need within the Biden Administration (and liberal friendly media economists) to tell us all that this definition is wrong? Why must they address this obscure definition that apparently never existed?

If there was a longstanding consensus that a recession was actually some sort of subjective look at the overall economy then why is this definition "not" previously sitting out there in economics textbooks somewhere. Why did the consecutive quarters of GDP growth show up wherever the term recession was discussed?  Seems to me that if the definition of a recession was a matter of opinion then isn't that something I would have learned in college (rather than learning about the negative GDP explanation)?

I mean if we really want to be logical here. If the definition of a recession was actually subjective then economists would have been arguing for "years" over what was and what wasn't a recession. We would have seen serious debates and likely they would be partisan. No sitting President would have allowed their economic team to use the term and would have used all sort of exhaustive measures to suggest that the "R" word did not apply.

But we have never (as far as I can remember) ever had a serious debate about whether or not we were in a recession? Nope, this will be the very first time in the history of our country where we will be seeing some sort of open debate on whether or not we are in a "recession". Because, like so many other things that has been set in stone for generations, today's liberals demand that it be redefined to fit their personal opinions. 

Monday, July 25, 2022

Favorability ratings!

FavorableUnfavorableSpread
Joe Biden41.553.9-12.4
Kamala Harris37.052.2-15.2
Donald Trump41.952.8-10.9
Nancy Pelosi32.057.7-25.7
Kevin McCarthy23.342.0-18.7
Chuck Schumer29.345.3-16.0
Mitch McConnell24.356.8-32.5

The last three generic ballot polls don't look too good for Democrats

Of course... isn't this all a matter of timing? Which polls come out at what time?

Polling Data

PollDateSampleRepublicans (R)Democrats (D)Spread
Average7/5 - 7/22--44.942.4Republicans +6.3 
Trafalgar Group (R)7/20 - 7/221085 LV4840Republicans +8
Emerson7/19 - 7/201078 RV4544Republicans +1
Rasmussen Reports7/17 - 7/212500 LV4939Republicans +10
A week or so there will be a couple of polls (YouGov and Politico) that have consistently shown a small Democratic lead and everyone on the left will jump up and claim that the momentum has shifted. The reality is that there has not been much of a shift in all of this for some time. 

Every poll Politico has come out with over the past several months has shown Democrats ahead (or in one case tied). YouGov has been similarly more favorable to Democrats. Meanwhile, Trafalgar and Rasmussen have been consistently showing huge GOP advantages. When those two come out at the same time and you toss in another poll (like Emerson) that shows a GOP lead, well it can start to look like a whole scale wipe out. 

But who is accurate and who isn't? 

What I can tell you is that in 2020 YouGov overstated Democratic support by about seven points (yes you read that correct - they were off by seven point). Politico overstated Democratic support by four points. Rasmussen has both overstated and understated GOP support over the years, but has been closer than most.  Emerson (showing a small GOP lead) has been pretty dang close the past couple of election. This is the first time I have seen Trafalgar do generic ballot polling.

The one thing to keep in mind here folks is the big liberal state problem with these polls. These are national polls which include huge (but irrelevant) amounts of overwhelming support from places like California & New York. It never matters if someone wins by two points or twenty. Because of these overwhelming liberal states, traditionally the "battleground" districts will trend 2-3 points further towards the GOP than national polls do. This has allowed the GOP in the past to pick up seats even as they lose the overall popular congressional vote. Moreover, the year that they picked up 63 seats (2010) they got just over 51% of the overall vote. 

Either way... Democrats are in trouble if the GOP comes out with any sort of popular vote win. 

So if you accept the premise that the RCP average of two and a half point is probably pretty solid, that would suggest that the battleground districts are probably more like a five point lead for the GOP. This would also be consistent with some specific battleground polling that has been done. A four or five point advantage in the battleground districts  would not bode well for Democrats and probably would suggest a much larger GOP gain than some are expecting. 

Time will tell...

Ha! How true!

Don't worry - liberal prosecutors are making up for it by charging non-violent conservative protesters with "parading" and sending them to jail!

Backlash against progressive, Soros-backed DAs continues as violent crime soars
In the wake of last month's recall vote ousting San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin from office, left-wing prosecutors in Democrat-run cities from Los Angeles to Philadelphia are facing growing backlash for soft-on-crime policies as violent crime spikes devastate local communities.
Many of these progressive prosecutors are funded by left-wing megadonor George Soros, who has spent the last several years injecting tens of millions of dollars into local DA races nationwide, backing candidates who support policies such as abolishing bail, defunding the police, and decriminalizing or deprioritizing certain offenses.

Well we can all rest soundly knowing that at least peaceful conservative Americans are learning their lessons about carrying signs too close to government buildings. Even as we seem to be waving the rest of the criminals in the front door by never charging them regardless what they do.

Carry an American flag at a Trump rally. Expect to be held in jail without bond. Get charged with murder in one of these cities, you are likely free to go the same day as long as you pinky swear to come back for your hearings.  Hey, a couple of these criminals released with no need of bail for arrests have even used that free time to murder other people and commit more crimes! Not too surprisingly some have gone after the same victims as a means to intimidate and punish them for calling the police!

But hey... as long as these criminals vote Democrat, they are needed on the street. Lest their ballots cannot be filled out party line for Democrats, harvested, and dropped into boxes. 


Sunday, July 24, 2022

Watch the sidebar countdown....

A while back Roger "lock down facility" Amick told us all that Trump would be in jail within two months. When questioned, he doubled down on his assertion. That prediction came nearly three weeks ago! That day I put the counter on the sidebar. Roger now has 43 days for his dream prediction to come through. 


If he was wrong, Roger suggested he would not comment on this blog anymore! 
He would voluntarily go away! 

Given there would need to be an indictment, charges, as assignment of a judges, jury selection, a trial, deliberation, a verdict, sentencing hearing, and eventually a date for a potential prison term to begin... it seems like time is running out for this to come true. More to the point, it is unlikely Trump is ever charged for anything. If he was charged there is little chance of a "unanimous" jury. 

But even if he was convicted, he would appeal. Literally most everything that is being suggested would be overturned on appeal as almost every "incitement' verdict has been in the past. The precedents are there to support an overturn of a jury verdict and something like this would end up at the USSC.  You know, the Trump USSC! 

Poor Roger.... what will he do once he keeps his promise and stops participating in the all of the CHT fun? Any chance that he will hold true to his word or do we believe he will ignore it and just continue to be an annoyance here.

Impeach Merrick Garland - these are the consequences of his politicization of law enforcement

Dozens if not hundreds of non-violent protesters have been, are being, and will continued to be sentenced to jail time... even as the majority of Americans have come to believe nonviolent participants should be pardoned. 








In an honest country a special counsel would be a year or so into things by now...

But the Democrats in power are dishonest pieces of crap and everyone knows it I have serious doubts that a son of a prominent Democrat will face any charges here. While the crimes are obvious (same crimes as Paul Manafort who was sentenced to nearly four years) the difference is the political party association.  Manafort was associated with Republicans (and worse yet an associate of Trump). That alone makes him a criminal. 

But if you are a Democrat in DC you skate every time. If you want an example, look no further than the recent jury nullification verdict of Sussman. In that case the jury foreman suggested that the Feds had "better things to do than charge someone with lying to the FBI" as his main reason for the quick acquittal. Did he break the law? You bet. Was he ever going to be convicted? Not when the Judge and one of the member so the jury were friends of his. 

More to the point... we all understand that this is a can of worms. Go after Hunter Biden with an actual real investigation and you will end up having to investigate the President as well. He is knee deep in all of if. Cannot have that. Not when the President is a Democrat. Won't happen.

Nope our feckless pile of cow dung Attorney General Private Second Class is too busy tracking down grandmothers who got too close to the Capitol building so they can "pad their stats" on that issue and pretend it was worse than it was. Sentence grandma to jail time for carrying a sign opposing Joe Biden, while letting serious financial crimes go unpunished by Joe's own son. That is Joe Biden's America folks! 

Sunday Funnies