Tag Archives: Republicans

It’s All Obama’s Fault

It rained today. Weather forecast from National Weather Service said sunny. So who supervises those people at NWS? Obama appointees. It’s his fault my picnic was ruined.

The stock market went down today. I lost money. See, Obama keeps bashing Wall Street, the economy is not as good as if Mitt were President. It’s Obama’s fault I lost money.

My dog is sick. Traffic is too heavy and slow on my commute to work. My wife/husband is angry at me all the time. It’s Obama’s fault–all of it! He is the President–he is responsible for everything wrong with America and with my life! He can’t do anything right! Just wait until Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans take over the Congress and the White House–then you’ll see! No more whining then–just cheese.

Building the Mighty Wall to Keep out Mexican Illegals

Picture this, the Republicans take control of the Senate and maintain control of the House. They want a taller, wider, longer wall between the United States and Mexico, to keep out all those unwanted illegals.  Republicans love contracting out tasks rather than paying government workers to do the job. When it comes to construction, maybe that’s who would be doing the job anyway.  So, what happens when it turns out that the Chamber of Commerce member company (the Chamber wants a guest worker program, you know) doing the job, has been using subcontractors employing illegals to build the wall? Oh, the embarrassment–the shame of it all.  Not saying it has happened, just speculating that it could happen.

Tea Party Shutdown

The original tea party was about protesting taxation without representation. What has that to do with a group of elected officials whose notion of representation is to shut down government because their personal opinions on the merits of laws legally enacted by a majority of other elected representatives? Nothing! Since Ted Cruz and his cronies wish to harken back to colonial America, perhaps the response to their antics should be taken from that same time. So the only question is, which of that era’s expressions of distaste and punishment is most appropriate: put them in stocks and throw rotten vegetables at them; tie them to a post and flog them or have them all tarred and feathered before riding them out of town on a rail. I am not sure myself, but tend to prefer the tar and feathers.

What a Rush–Lampooning Limbaugh!

If Limbaugh hates women so much, why does he keep marrying them? Bada Bing.

He seems to be coming up “short,” though, with no kids after four marriages. Shooting blanks? Erectile disfunction? Many bottles of aspirin? No wonder he gets so worked up about somebody else’s sex life–he may not have one of his own!

Rush on the couch–educational envy? Lawyers, judges and other highly educated Limbaughs across generations of nuclear and extended family members and then you have Rush: a flunk out/drop out after two semesters and a summer of college at Southeast Missouri. Not smart enough to cut the family mustard, evidently. Imagine, a woman succeeding at the education he failed at AND possibly (in his warped imagination) enjoying and succeeding in sex.

Woe be unto the Republican Party of America with Limbaugh as their premier spokesperson; perhaps their eventual nominee will get 15-20% of the female vote in November. Of course Rush doesn’t deserve all the credit–Republicans in Congress, statehouses around the country and the prospective nominees themselves are doing their manly best to lose as many women voters as possible.

Yes, help the automakers

Are bailouts of industries a good thing? Probably not, generally speaking. On the other hand, when in a financial crisis like the one facing America, they may be necessary. I find it peculiar that the financial “industry” (they manufacture or produce no goods; only facilitate production by others) could relatively easily obtain a $700 billion bailout but the auto industry has difficulty getting a dime. Note that should GM and Chrysler fail, it will have devastating impacts across the economy due to not only the umemployment of the car maker’s personnel but also collateral damage to all the companies that provide goods and services to the car makers.

Republicans in the Senate insist that the UAW give up wages and benefits that exceed the non-union labor costs at other car makers in America. This is nuts. Labor costs do make them less competitive with other companies. They were able to get over that handicap until now through the revenues they received from selling big SUVs, trucks, etc. Why can’t they do so now? Consumers are unable or at least worried about buying cars because of the financial crisis. Sure the car makers should have went with less expensive, more fuel efficient vehicles a long time of go. But if buyers didn’t want those oversized gax guzzlers, GM and the others wouldn’t have been able to sell them. Now that the buyers are unemployed, the price of gas jumped through the roof, and financing is tough, people are not buying cars. Not only that, but the car dealers can’t get inventory financing due to the financial crisis. The bottom line: the financial crisis is more of a factor in the car maker’s situation than the labor costs or their own management decisions–unlike the financial industry, Wall Street and the banks. It was the risky, greedy, management decisions of the latter that prompted the crisis and the need for a bailout. With unclean hands, they get relief but the car makers don’t?! Unbleepingbelievable!

Waiting for November 5th

I am getting impatient. I want the election to be over so I can stop watching Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Larry King, Nightline and local news. What else is there to blog about right now but the election? Plenty of stuff; the same stuff that I used to blog about. But I am consumed by the election. Watching Obama’s 30-minute infomercial reminded me how financially fortunate I am. I won’t brag or bore you with the details, other than to mention that my wife and I both were able to retire at 55 and do not have work or worry about income. That is not so for many people in America. I can understand, although not agree with, the choices of some voters to support a political party and candidates that want to dictate the sexual and reproductive habits of Americans. I find it more difficult to understand how the social conservatives, many of whom may not be as well off financially as me or the leaders of their party, can so readily buy the laissez-faire policies of socalled fiscal conservatism. I say socalled because while Republicans continually label Democrats as “tax and spend,” many (if not most) Republicans on the national and local levels spend as much or more than Democrats but they don’t tax–they spend at a deficit. Look at George Bush years as the paradigm. When Democrats brought fiscal order to Congress a number of years ago, it was through “pay as you go” budget programs. At the same time, while the socially conservative Republicans want to regulate what goes on in America’s bedrooms, they care little what goes on in America’s boardrooms. Look at the bailout for the results of that perspective. So I am looking forward to a new day and a new way on November 5th–or perhaps I should say on January 20th, 2009.