White House: The Economy Is Lost

White House: The Economy Is Lost Obama Admin. Says “Nothing Is Possible” To Help Struggling Economy As Jobless Claims Hit Nine-Month High, Employers “Scared To Death”; Gop Listening And Offering Better Solutions

With President Obama set to take off for Martha’s Vineyard in a matter of hours, the Obama Administration says “NOTHING IS POSSIBLE” (their caps, not ours) to help an economy showing new signs of job losses and employer uncertainty. (Now, this is a peculiar admission coming from a White House that is also saying, despite his vacation, that the president is “working hard to do everything possible to get this economy back on the right track…,” but mixed messages can be a problem for those folks these days.)

Unsurprisingly, the White House also told POLITICO Playbook it would “love to back additional stimulus,” but outside of that, “RIGHT NOW, NOTHING IS POSSIBLE…” to get our economy moving again. There you have it: the American people are asking ‘where are the jobs?’ and all Washington Democrats have to offer is more of the same failing ‘stimulus’ policies. How’s that been working out? Well, here’s how things are going a little more than two weeks after the Treasury Secretary declared “welcome to the recovery” in The New York Times:

The government reported this morning that jobless claim filings rose to their highest levels in nine months, “yet another setback” and a “sign that employers are cutting jobs again.” Welcome to the reality:

“New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed to a nine-month high last week, yet another setback to the frail economic recovery.” (Reuters, 8/19/10)

“New applications for unemployment insurance reached a half million last week for the first time since November, a sign that employers are cutting jobs again as the recovery slows.” (AP, 8/19/10)

And yesterday, in Ohio – 10.5 percent unemployment -- just “a few blocks” from where the president was hobnobbing at a downtown fundraiser, hundreds were waiting on line at a job fair only to learn that opportunities are scarce because employers are “scared to death.” Welcome to the reality:

“A few blocks from where President Barack Obama was raising money for Gov. Ted Strickland, Dan Howard was in line with about 400 other people at a job fair Downtown. ‘I wish he could come," said the 48-year-old Grove City man, who lost his job in the spring. ‘I would love to talk to him about what it's really like. … Companies are just frozen,’ said Howard, who holds three college degrees.

“Bob Hillman, who ran the employment event for National Career Fairs, said employers across the country want to hire but are uncertain about what will happen in Washington with taxes, health care and financial regulation, and that is keeping them on the sidelines. ‘They're simply scared to death,’ he said.” (The Columbus Dispatch, 8/19/10)

LISTENING AND OFFERING BETTER SOLUTIONS. As part of America Speaking Out, House Republicans have been meeting with constituents to hear their concerns and to engage them in the creation of a new governing agenda for the nation. With an innovative web forum at AmericaSpeakingOut.com, through cutting-edge mobile applications, and at nation-wide town hall meetings, House Republicans are giving Americans a megaphone to make their priorities heard. Throughout this week, Republicans have been fostering national dialogues on better solutions to provide the fiscal discipline economists say is needed to get people working again. Republicans on the House Budget Committee have identified $1.3 trillion in spending cuts that could be implemented right now to make Washington do more with less and focus on growing the economy, not the government.

Reagan just happened to be there when the IBM PC was born

The Apple computer had been around a couple years under Carter. Unix had been around since 1973. Home loans were over 15% in 1980, short-term loans were at 18.5%, unemployment 10%.

And Maggie Thatcher had been in power only since 1979. Same with Paul Volcker. Carter and the U.S. Congress was idling while Sandanistas were preparing killing fields in Nicaragua.

Then Reagan took office. He had a Democrat House and a (barely) Republican Senate. Yet Reagan and Thatcher, and their key advisers, turned the U.S. and Britain around.

Note that the economy was not visibly better until mid-1983. But Reagan convinced Americans by explaining, in simple language, was his plan was and how and why it would work.

Obama, in contrast, tries to explain why the U.S. government spending more than it ever has before, and paying people to eat, and paying people not to work, and violating contract law (GM and Chrysler), and violating banking and bankruptcy law (GM, Chrysler, AIG, C, WFC, CWC, BAC, etc.) by paying bankers not to loan money to people and businesses, and paying the bills of big banks, while letting smaller banks close, and taking over life-and-death decisions in medical care, how this is the American way to return to prosperity.

Obama can't explain this, because it is designed to destroy America, not rebuild it.

"If that doesn’t give pause, nothing will."

I remember you and have always had the upmost respect for your activism and your Constitutional acumen.

However, it's all over unless the Individual States just say enough! Once enough of them re-claim their rights as guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments, all the protests, demonstrations, elections won't be worth a plug nickel. States' Rights can be.

It is our only way back, even if the USSC says otherwise. So what? They have no enforcement authority. What is the executive branch going to do with some currently 20 States passing legislation to exempt themselves from the obscenity that is obamacare and other job-killing mandates? What exactly would/could the administration do? Send in the US military or the Individual States' National Guard?

What if those States' Governors REFUSED to allow their State National Guard not be mobilized by DC to enforce those unConstitutional decisions AND stop sending the fedgov State tax receipts? Really? What would they do?

This is not the mid 1800's. There would be NO civil war. The fedgov would have to negotiate because no one in DC has the stomach for an internal war in this day. They are punks and know they would be the first target (peacefully that is...har).

Think. American totalitarian utopians are wimps. They are used to the populace wanting stuff and have built upon that said fact for some 40 year designs on a couple of mis-construed and spun clauses in the Constitution: General Welfare and Commerce. I firmly believe DC would have to back off, if nothing more then for their own political survival and all the perks they have grown accustomed to.

STATES' RIGHTS! WE JUST NEED STRONG GOVERNORS WHO UNDERSTAND CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN STATE GUARDS and willing to use them! ARIZONA IS ON THE CUSP. MANY OTHERS ARE TIRING OF THEIR STATES' RIGHTS BEING TRAMPLED.

Oklahoma is also on the cutting edge for STATES' RIGHTS. This is where all true Americans and the TEA Party folks should be concentrating.

The Republican party is lying to you. What part of that do you not understand?

You've really gone overboard on aiming solely at the GOP instead of taking even 10% of your shots at Democrats.

I didn't realize we had to meet some quota when it came to the despicable things the Democrats do. Pray tell, what percentage of my posts have to restate the obvious here about Democrats? 25%? 50%? 95%? Please let me know. And for the record, I do slam Democrats here.

The issue I was addressing here, is the Republican claim that they have about $1.3 trillion in savings they could implement right now. That's the same party whose members keep devising their own multi-trillion dollar spending plans. Remember TARP? Remember the additional $300 billion Bush set up for Obama during his last days in office? That's just short of $1.3 trillion right there.

When the health care bill was being debated, most of the criticism by our party leaders was based on the idea their plans to do it more reasonably were ignored. What's reasoned about doing something that isn't Constitutional no matter whose plan you use?

Are you under the impression that I am attacking Leftist leanings in our own party, because I only support the Democrats doing it?

Since you don't seem to understand, I will assure you I am not happy about Leftist policy in either party. Since there is only one that professes to speak for me, I will tend to focuse on it so that people will hold it's official's feet to the fire. Otherwise we wind up with more Leftists in positions of power within our own ranks.

You seem to think I need to state I don't like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank. Kennedy, Kerry, et all. Is that true? You don't know that I disapprove of close to 100% of what they are involved in?

Let's just review who our niminee was in 2008. Should I have been happy about that? Should I have spent all my time railing on Obama, considering the down-side we faced with John?

What about the not an amnesty bill that John joined Ted Kennedy to push? Should I have remained silent about that?

When Michael Steele stated that those who were criticizing him were doing it because they were racists, did that seem like it was something I should be endorsing?

What about Medicare Part D, the multi-trillion Great Society level program Bush promoted? Do I have to remiain silent on that if I don't agree.

What about those endorsing John McCain now over a man with a 97.6% approval rating from the American Conservative Union? Do I need to refrain from addressing that?

When a prominent Republican comes out in support of the LOST Treaty, am I supposed to click my heels and salute?

Like many Republicans, I have come to the point I will only vote for solid candidates. And these days, that doesn't leave me much to champion from either party.

You and I have been around a long time. Well, long enough for you to know what my intentions are, that's for sure.

Do you want that to continue? That sounds an awful lot like a threat. Are you threatening me?

If that doesn’t give pause, nothing will.

I remember you and have always had the upmost respect for your activism and your Constitutional acumen.

I remember you too, and feel compelled to say that you've probably given me too much credit. None the less, I appreciate your comments.

I have appreciated your views over the years also.

However, it's all over unless the Individual States just say enough! Oh, here we go... just kidding. I do agree.

Once enough of them re-claim their rights as guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments, all the protests, demonstrations, elections won't be worth a plug nickel. States' Rights can be.

I agree with that. Right now the states have a perfect issue before them too, namely federal officials failure to demand the President adhere to his Constitutional Oath of Office, specifically Article Four Section Four. There it is loosly stated: "The president shall protect the states from Invasion." He also swears to uphold and defend the Constitution, another failure on this and the last president's part. (Later on you touch on the 9th and 10th Amendments, and they are all sans-Constitutional backing there)

Congressional officals also swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. Many state officials and mayors swear something similar. There is no compliance. Congress must hold the president's feet to the fire. They will not do it.

It is our only way back, even if the USSC says otherwise. So what? They have no enforcement authority. What is the executive branch going to do with some currently 20 States passing legislation to exempt themselves from the obscenity that is obamacare and other job-killing mandates? What exactly would/could the administration do? Send in the US military or the Individual States' National Guard?

IMO, yes, that's exactly what they would do. What's worse, is that both parties would basically sign on to this. Oh yes, you'd find some folks on the Republican side defending the states and the Constitution, but I seriously doubt the numbers would be significant.

Lincoln gave them excellent cover, and I think they would utilize it to the full extent they could.

As you have related, you are addressing much more than the states being invaded. Unfunded mandates are bankrupting the states. The federal government needs to go pound sand. If it won't do it because it's right, then it's the state's duty to push back. I fully support this. As you state, Obamacare is another very important relevant issue right now. I support the states standing up to the feds on the matter.

What if those States' Governors REFUSED to allow their State National Guard not be mobilized by DC to enforce those unConstitutional decisions AND stop sending the fedgov State tax receipts? Really? What would they do?

IMO, this is precisely what the new division that is assigned to internal duties on U.S. soil is intended to remedy. This in and of itself is another violation of long standing U.S. policy, if not an outright violation of the Constitution.

This is not the mid 1800's. There would be NO civil war. The fedgov would have to negotiate because no one in DC has the stomach for an internal war in this day. They are punks and know they would be the first target (peacefully that is...har).

You know what, I hope you would be closer to the truth on this than my prediction. I don't have faith in Leftists. When it comes to fighting Commies, Terrorists, oh yes, they're about as limp wristed as it gets. When it comes to fighting Constitution supporting citizens, you're forgetting that would be globalist public enemy number one. We actually support this nation against all comers. We must go.

Think. American totalitarian utopians are wimps. They are used to the populace wanting stuff and have built upon that said fact for some 40 year designs on a couple of mis-construed and spun clauses in the Constitution: General Welfare and Commerce. I firmly believe DC would have to back off, if nothing more then for their own political survival and all the perks they have grown accustomed to.

Look, your take on this is as valid as mine. You could be right. I just don't see the Left backing down on this. They have certain goals to attain, and ripping this nation right down the middle would suit their plans just fine. The more chaos, the better. Imagine the new laws the left could come up with to control the populace. They would be in seventh heaven.

STATES' RIGHTS! WE JUST NEED STRONG GOVERNORS WHO UNDERSTAND CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN STATE GUARDS and willing to use them! ARIZONA IS ON THE CUSP. MANY OTHERS ARE TIRING OF THEIR STATES' RIGHTS BEING TRAMPLED.

What troubles me, is that the National Guard can be nationalized. Witness George Wallace in the 60s. He brought them out to prevent the end of segregation, and Kennedy simply nationalized the troops. End of National Guard advancing Wallace's plan, end of segregation.

What we must address, is the issue of National Guard compliance with a nationalization order. Is that order honored? Will regular Army troops be ordered to confront non-complaint National Guard forces? Will 50 pre-emptive stand ins (and a sufficient force) be mobilized to replace any National Guard General that refused to honor a nationalization order?

Oklahoma is also on the cutting edge for STATES' RIGHTS. This is where all true Americans and the TEA Party folks should be concentrating.

I don't have a problem with that. I would support the Tea Party folks remaining active nation-wide in each county and city for that matter. Centering the leadership in Oklahoma sounds reasonable.

Course we might want to take a page out of the books of recent folks we have come up against, and locate in hard to access terrain, at an unknown location. Perhaps a number of them... LOL

I do take this serious. I don't think it should be discussed lightly. My views may seem off base, but I would urge you and others to realize these are the options. Your view or mine would certainly prevail. I can't say with certainty which, but one of us would come fairly close IMO. I doubt there would be much gray area here. It's all in or all out IMO.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.