The Jim of the United States

Archive for January, 2008


Posted by TheJOTUS on January 31, 2008

Luxury shoppers’ cuts could harm economy

January 28, 2008 3:21 PM ET

NEW YORK (AP) – It’s hard to feel sorry for well-heeled shoppers whose idea of tough economic times is passing on $1,000 Burberry raincoats or that $300 limo ride while the working poor skimp on vegetables and take the bus.

But economists say that recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower-income workers, who are dependent on their business and fat tips.

Nathan Warren, a limo driver, knows this first hand: He has seen his monthly wages drop by 40 percent to about $1,800 since late last year. His work week at Newport Beach, Calif.-based Classy Ride Limousine Service was reduced to three days from five amid slow business…….Click here to finish

So when the affluent and wealthy stop buying, it hurts people lower down the scale?  You have the wealthy and you have the affluent, and they spend, and when they spend, that spending sort of “trickles down” to others below them.  So when you give tax relief, tax cuts to upper income workers, they spend more, and there’s a trickle-down effect?  So the AP has just done a story under the guise of feeling sorry for the poor and the middle class that they’re having to eat cereal and go without new clothes — and just validated Reaganomics.  So, the rich people can’t win.  If they make too much money, it’s not fair.  If they don’t spend what they make, everybody suffers.  My favorite quote is “Recent signs of cutting back by the affluent could hurt the economy and deliver even more pain to lower income workers who are dependent on their business. The limo driver is just but one example.”  Awesome…….


Posted in Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri, Politically Speaking | Leave a Comment »

400 pound gorilla dead—Film at 11

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 31, 2008

A well deserved monkey killing………


Posted in Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri | 1 Comment »

State of the Union

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 30, 2008

bush.jpgAfter watching the State of the Union (SOTU), Bush still is in denial when it comes to democrats.  He is like George Segal in the movie “Not My Kid” in where he doesn’t believe his kid is a raging drug addict.  Bush is like the father of a son (democrats) who still believes he has potential and will turn himself around.  But in reality, the son is just a hopeless lost soul.  And probably retarded. 

For example, Bush has earmarked more money toward education and AIDS than any other President in history.  But yet on these two issues alone the democrats conveniently forget Bush’s generosity.  He continually reaches to offer help to his son and the boy keeps slapping away his hand.  Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. 

So this leads me to the democrat’s response to the SOTU given by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.  You would think they would get someone whose name doesn’t sound like something you need medication for.  “Hey dude, wanna go out for some beers and watch the game?”  “No man, I can’t.  I got Kathleen Sebelius and I am on this antibiotic and I am not supposed to come in contact with the public.”  “Dude, that sounds awful.” 

Sebelius was given a golden opportunity here and how did she handle the pressure?  Well, she handed out some valium. Rather than shocking the nation with sharp rhetoric and a smooth delivery, Kathy managed to put the entire country to sleep.  It really was an epic failure for a politician whose star is allegedly rising in the democratic party.  Sebelius attempts to take a more positive tone than in past Democratic responses, but still invokes partisan democrat talking points.  She says: 

”Our struggling economy requires urgent and immediate action, and then sustained attention. Families can’t pay their bills, they’re losing their jobs, and now are threatened with losing their homes.” 

For one, the credit crunch and mortgage crisis are problems that started long ago and are directly related to irresponsibility of the individual. Bush didn’t make people buy crap on credit cards, financed over 20 years at 19% interest. Bush didn’t make people sign up for adjustable rate mortgages or interest only loans and didn’t make lenders sell sub prime loans.  With that said, I found this a tad hypocritical in light of Kathy’s current record in Kansas.  Her state has fallen to 49th of 50 in overall economic efficiency during her tenure, reflecting employment, income and Gross State Product.  If Kathy wrote this speech, she is delusional.  If it was written for her, well, they’re incompetent.  She goes on to say: 

“We heard last week and again tonight that Congress and the president are acting quickly on a temporary, targeted stimulus package. That’s encouraging, but you and I know that a temporary fix is only the first step toward meeting our challenges and solving our problems.” 

Nowhere in her 20 minute, mind numbing, coma inducing speech, does she give suggestion on how she or her democratic cohorts can fix the long term problem.  She challenged the president to get to work to do something good for the people before he leaves office.  But Bush did.  He told you specifically what to do Kathy.  He told you to extend his tax cuts from 2001 that are due to expire in 2010.  That is an American response. 

Overall Sebelius lacked substance, which was predictable.  But she is going to work hard……….and work to find solutions………and maybe come in on Saturday………..make some schedules and lists on the work that needs to be done…….ahem.  She ended her speech “Thank you for listening. God bless and sleep well. And in the morning, let’s get to work.”   I will be at work Kathy as will most Americans, will you?

Posted in Articles, Politically Speaking | 1 Comment »

Taxes and Government

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 25, 2008

declaration_independence.jpgWe need government and its coercive powers to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property.  Protecting these rights is the legitimate and moral role of government in a free society.  So in that respect, we need government, which means we need taxes.  But as Thomas Jefferson once said “The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”   

Jefferson was absolutely right.  Today the average worker pays close to 40% of his yearly earnings to the criminals at the federal, state and local levels.  Even more, there is little a person can do that is not regulated by some government command, be it flushing our toilets, building a house, driving a car or even getting married.  Sure we can blame our pompous politicians for an increasingly oppressive government.  But the real blame is with the American people. 

But what is our government’s job?  Our government’s job is laid out in (I looked it up.  You can too!!) Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution.  It gives Congress authority to lay and collect taxes to provide for roughly, among other things, roads, defense, printing money and the establishment of courts.  If members of Congress honored their oath and did only what the Constitution allowed, federal spending would be closer to the 4 percent mark instead of the 40 percent level it is at now.   

I am positive there is some liberal who will respond by saying something about the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution (then again, a liberal would have to read the Constitution first).  It basically authorizes Congress to tax and spend for Medicare, food stamps, crop subsidies and other gimmie handouts.  This is pure crap.  If the framers had that vision, they wouldn’t have put the effort they did in writing it.  They would have just said: Congress has the power to collect taxes to provide for all those things Americans would like to have but are unable or unwilling to pay for.  They didn’t because they had better vision and foresight.  They looked to limit the threat to your liberty by limiting what Congress could do.  Perhaps Congress needs a history lesson.

Posted in Articles | 3 Comments »

Tax Cuts for Everybody

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 20, 2008

Tax cuts–NOT rebates–stimulate the economy, stupid. 

January 18, 2008

Why Tax Rate Reductions Are More Stimulative Than Rebates: Lessons from 2001 and 2003

by Brian M. Riedl

WebMemo #1776

With slower economic growth raising fears of a recession, Washington is abuzz with economic stimulus proposals centered on tax rebates. Tax rebates, however, don’t stimulate the economy. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.

Tax Rebates Don’t Stimulate

By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before. In 2007, Americans produced $13 trillion worth of goods and services, up 3 percent over 2006.

Economic growth requires four main factors: (1) an educated, trained, and motivated workforce; (2) sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology; (3) a solid infrastructure; and (4) a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts and contain a functioning price system.

High tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it less profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital–and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more and better plants, equipment, and technology.

By contrast, tax rebates fail, because they do not encourage productivity or wealth creation. To receive a rebate, nobody has to work, save, invest, or create any new wealth.

Supporters of rebates argue that they “inject” new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But every dollar that government rebates “inject” into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. (Even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports.)

Supporters of rebates respond that redistributing money from “savers” to “spenders” will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). Therefore, the money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved. Given that reality it is more responsible to let the savers keep that money for a new home or their children’s education, rather than to have Washington redistribute it to someone else to spend at Best Buy.

Simply put, low tax rates encourage working, saving, and investing, which in turn encourages job creation and wage growth. Tax rebates merely redistribute existing wealth…….Click here to read more

Posted in Conservatives in the Know | 1 Comment »

Big Oil

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 16, 2008

ks80429.jpgI find myself defending the oil companies, or Big Oil as some claim, quite often.  It was especially bad after the whipping hurricane Katrina put on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region.  And now, as tensions rise again in the Middle East and the price of oil is slowly creeping to triple digit prices, I once again find myself defending the oil companies.  

It seems most people understand how Middle East political uncertainty and hurricanes can affect gasoline prices.  However, it is always followed by this question “Isn’t it price-gouging for the oil companies to raise the price of all the gasoline already bought and stored before the crises?”  While I am no economist, this statement is a clear example of the misunderstanding of how prices are determined.  So gather round in a circle, and I’ll see if I can hammer this out for you.  I’ll try to use an example even people in Rio Linda can understand. 

Suppose you owned a small 100 gallon inventory of beer you purchased for $3.00 a gallon.  Each week, after putting in many long hours of work, you sell me a gallon for $4.00.  All of a sudden a drought in Germany destroyed half of its barley crop, causing the world price of beer to immediately rise to $6.00 per gallon.  Now, you still have beer you purchased before the jump in prices.  When I stop by to buy another gallon of beer, how much will you charge me?  I’m guessing you will charge me at least $6.00 per gallon.  Why you ask?  Because that is today’s cost to replace your inventory of beer. 

Historical costs do not determine prices; what economists call “opportunity” cost do (got my trusty college Econ book out for that).  Now, of course, you would have every opportunity to not be an evil “price gouger” and continue to charge me $4.00 a gallon.  I would then buy your entire inventory and turn around and sell it for today’s price of $6.00 per gallon and make a handsome profit.   

If there is any reason in today’s rising gas prices it is the cowardice and stupidity of the US Congress.  Opening a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas production would increase our domestic oil reserves by 50%.  This doesn’t even take in account the Pacific, Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico offshore areas, which are rich in oil and natural gas. 

A while back a good friend of mine, zulubuff, brought up some interesting points.  Now is the time that a true leader, a true conservative, with the threat of rising oil and gas prices, to say enough is enough and take control of this energy crisis.  If I were President, I would hold a press conference and outline my 5 point plan:

  1. For immediate relief of rising gas prices, a suspension—and eventual elimination—of the Federal Gas tax.  I would expect, nay, demand, the States and Counties to follow suit
  2. Drop EPA standards that are causing regionalization of gasoline formulation, which are the true cause of tight supplies
  3. Open up former military bases for the construction of refineries
  4. Relax Federal standards and push for the construction of refineries
  5. Open up our country to more domestic drilling

Now to Bush’s credit, he did relax some EPA standards back in 2005 after Katrina and in late 2005 he signed an Energy Bill, which helped push for more Nuclear plants.  But because of costly regulations and political restrictions, US nuclear energy production is a fraction of what it could be.  Nuclear power creates 75% of France’s electricity, nearly 50% of Sweden’s but only 20% of ours.  To be the worlds leading Super Power, that doesn’t sound very super……or powerful……..or even a leader.  Bottom line is nuclear energy is VERY safe.   

Overall these are good points that could get passed with strong leadership.  Unfortunately, Bush will never do it.  For one, he has run out of time.  In addition, the liberals and RINO’s (Republican in name only) will continue what they are doing—impeding progress.               

Posted in Articles, Energy | 2 Comments »

Property Rights

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 15, 2008

Let me start by saying my personal value is that I cherish private property rights.  For those in Rio Linda, private property rights refer to an owner’s right to acquire, keep, use and dispose of property in ways that do not violate property rights of others.  If that is a shared value, which it is obviously not, there would be little debate on an entire body of public policy issues.  Shall we look into this further?  Ok, let’s. 

I am the property of myself.  This means I am the property of TheJOTUS.  Among a host of other kick ass things, this means I have the right to take chances with my own life but not that of others.  Making me wear a seat belt violates my rights; however for example, drunk driving laws do not.  Choosing not to wear my seat belt may raise my risk of death, but this is my right as an individual.  Whereas, drunk driving can raise the risk of injuring others, which is clearly not my right.   

I have several friends who say “If you don’t wear a seat belt, get in an accident and wind up a vegetable, then you become a burden to me.”  They are implying that they will have to take care of me via the taxes they pay.  This is not a problem of private property rights; it is a problem of socialism (weakened private property rights).  People’s money belongs to them.  They should not be forced to take care of me. 

I remember back in the 1990’s when Dr. Kevorkian brought his “right to die” case all the way to the Supreme Court.  I bring this up because I believe this is the perfect stage where private property rights can really shine.  Let us imagine for a moment it is the United States vs. TheJOTUS.  First, the Court would have to determine just who owns TheJOTUS.  I think we can safely say once he turned eighteen, at that point he owned himself.   

With this finding of self-ownership, this would make the high court’s finding easy.  Their 9-0 decision would read something like this (keep in mind my lack of legal writing experience):  Though the thought of TheJOTUS ending his precious life is distasteful and while the loss of his creative and witty blogs will be a huge loss to the world, never the less, we find he owns himself and has the right to dispose of his life in any manner consistent with the safety of others. 

This would be entirely different if I didn’t own myself.  For the sake of argument, let’s say the government owns him.  With that, I wouldn’t have the right to take chances with my life.  The government would have every right to make me wear a seat belt.  Even more, they would have the right to force me to exercise, restrict my diet and monitor my alcohol intake.  In the United States vs. TheJOTUS, the court would justly rule I had no right to dispose of TheJOTUS.  I mean, that would be destroying government property, right?  

I disagree with how some people unwisely use their property.  Engine parts in the yard, ugly tattoos, bad wardrobe—basically, think Wal-Mart clientele.  But the true test of one’s commitment to liberty and private property rights doesn’t come when we permit people to be free to do those voluntary things with which we agree.  The true test comes when we permit people to be free to do those voluntary things with which we disagree.

Posted in Articles | 1 Comment »

Was KU’s Season Really that Impressive?

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 13, 2008

eatit.jpgKU fan has been thumping their chest quite a bit this year.  Almost to the point of bruising.  Some KU fans predicted a good season this year, even going as far as 10-2.  Most notably was Jack Harry of Channel 41. Although we only have his word.  There is ZERO evidence in print or otherwise to prove he made this prediction.  At any rate, I found this laughable.  Why would anyone think KU would be any good this year?  They were 6-6 last season with no bowl bid, and the season before they were 7-6.  Can we say “went backwards?”  So, where was the growth to predict a 10-2 season on 2007?  There wasn’t.  KU fan is just ignorant.  Let’s look at it further, shall we? 

image0011.jpgComing into this year, KU didn’t even know who their starting quarterback would be.  By the way, for those in Rio Linda, the quarterback position is a huge factor when predicting a team’s success for the upcoming season.  On top of this their coach, Mark Margerine-gino, was going to be fired.  Yes fired.  Plus, he single handedly put KU back on NCAA violations for cheating.  All the more reason to predict a 10-2 season! 

The real reason KU had success this year is simple:  Their schedule.  And it was a joke.  Almost cowardly, really.  But this isn’t new to Baby Huey.  Since 2002 (His first season), he has scheduled 2—yes 2—BCS schools in his non-conference schedule.  That is down right embarrassing.  What is funny about this is even with his weak scheduling he still could never finish above fourth—in the North.  He waited until his weakest season to pad his stats.  Nice job fatty. 

However, even with his 12 win season, what did Tons of Fun really accomplish?  A 12 win season, ok.  Four of those wins were against ridiculous opponents, plus they didn’t play Texas OR Oklahoma.  In the biggest game in their schools history, national television, number one on the line, Big 12 title game, they got absolutely whose your daddy’d by Missouri.  A beat down so bad, the NCAA is debating on whether Gary Pinkel should have to wear a “wife beater” all next season.  And KU fan, don’t bother telling me that “if we had another two minutes” crap.  You didn’t.  Bottom line is Missouri slept walked through the 4th quarter and still beat you. 

So with that, they failed to win their own division.  No Conference Title game.  Got creamed by their cross state rival.  Again I ask, where is the accomplishment?  A birth in the Orange bowl?  Ok.  We all know, locally AND nationally, that the Orange bowl committee is retarded.  To pick KU over MU—a team who throttled KU, won its division AND played for its Conference Title—you would have to be retarded.  It is the only logical explanation.  Regardless, even with their first Orange bowl in almost 40 years, KU fans embarrassed themselves by not even showing up for the game.  Hell, a 3 loss K-State team brought 50,000 to the Fiesta bowl.     

In the days after the bowl games were over, KU fan is touting how they would much rather have their season over Missouri’s.  This is absurd.  KU played two teams that finished in the final polls.  They took a beat down from one and squeaked by the other.  KU accomplished nothing.

Posted in Articles, In and Outside the Sport, Nuggets of Potpourri | 7 Comments »

Impeach Bush II

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 10, 2008

People on the left keep calling for Congress to bring Articles of Impeachment against the President.  The following is Part Two of a satirical take on the hypocrisy of what is–the left:

Man, oh man. The internet is such a wonderful tool for research. People just cannot hide from what they have done. This is the one that may finally put an end to George W. Bush once and for all.

Although his party will never talk about it, Bush has a racist past that includes the KKK. It seems that he was not only a member but a “Kleagle.”  That’s a recruiter for those wanna be racists out there.

Bush was opposed to both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas — the only two BLACK justices ever in the Supreme Court.  He must have just differed from their opinions.  Yeah, that’s it.

Of course, Bush will claim that being in the Klan was just youthful indiscretion. Was he 16? Nope. 17?  Nope.  He was in his mid-twenties.  He was also opposed to and helped lead a filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Three years after Bush claims he left the Klan, he wrote a letter to the Klan’s Imperial Wizard:

“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth in Texas…It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the Union.  Will you please inform me as to the possibility of rebuilding the Klan realm of Texas?”  

During that time, Bush was actually advising the Grand Imperial Wizard regarding whom to appoint to important posts in the Klan hierarchy.

Four years after he claims to have left the Klan, Bush opposed President Truman’s integration of the military.  His statement, for which he has never apologized, was startling:

“[I will] never submit to fight beneath that banner [the American flag] with a Negro by my side. Rather would I die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

Okay, Republican Party. What are you going to do about this?  Bush has never paid the price for his racism.  He is in a leadership position and is an embarrassment.  When Maxine Waters learns about it, I expect that she will be screaming about it on all the talk shows, demanding that Bush resign, and launching an investigation as to whether he had a hand in any lynching.  When the NAACP gets involved, it will be curtains for Sheets Bush.  Good riddance.

What?  Wait a minute…………someone is interrupting me.  Are you kidding me?  It wasn’t George W. Bush who was in the Klan, made those horrible statements and recruited members? It was who?  Senator Robert Byrd?  Huh, I guess that is ok then.  Oh well, never mind.

Posted in W | Leave a Comment »

Impeach Bush

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 9, 2008

People on the left keep calling for Congress to bring Articles of Impeachment against the President.  The following is Part One of a satirical take on the hypocrisy of what is–the left.

I am wondering when the Republican Party—or the American people are going to finally have its fill with President George W. Bush.  When will Congress finally get a back bone and bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush.  The fact he is even walking free is beyond belief.  What short memories people have, after all, they forget that George W. Bush killed a woman.  Oh yes, he did.

It was many years ago. Bush and some other Republican men were partying with some young single women. Their wives were at home baking cookies while the men were consuming mass quantities of alcohol and going after other young women’s cookies.

After scoping out the goods at this little shindig, Bush took off late from the party to give a ride home to a woman named Mary Jo.  Of course, he was in no condition to drive.  But that didn’t stop Bush and his rock hard Viagra pill.  Well, you knew it would happen.  He drove off a bridge and landed upside down in about six feet of water.  But it’s ok boys and girls, Bush made it out of there.  Unfortunately, Mary Jo didn’t.

But what did Bush do?  Why what any upstanding boy would do, he fled the scene!  And then spent the next nine hours trying to cover up his crime.  Had he gotten help right away, Mary Jo just might have made it.  The really interesting part is that Mary Jo’s body had very little water in her lungs.  She didn’t drown, but actually suffocated when the air pocket, in which she was breathing, was depleted of oxygen.

Although his state required a certain minimum jail sentence for leaving the scene of a crime where there was an injury or in this case death, Bush’s sentence was suspended.

This saga was so typical of Bush.  He was a drunk.  He was kicked out of Harvard for cheating. At the time he drove off the bridge, he was driving with a suspended license.  He ended up paying off Mary Jo’s family so they would go away.  Yes, Bush got away with killing this poor young woman, and yet he still holds office.

What?  Wait a minute…………someone is interrupting me.  Are you kidding me??? It wasn’t George W. Bush who killed this girl, fled the scene, tried to cover it up, and paid off the family???  It was who?  Senator Ted Kennedy?  Huh, interesting.  Oh well, never mind.

Posted in W | Leave a Comment »