Tag Archives: Jeff immelt

Senator Patty Murray – Your Money or Your Life!


In a move reminiscent of Bruno Hauptmann, the Senate’s No. 4 Democrat, Senator Patty Murray said, “Millions of jobs could be lost through the automatic cuts, programs families depend on would be slashed irresponsibly across the board, and middle-class tax cuts would expire. And once again, if Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal.” in a speech at the Brookings Institution on Monday.

She went on, “[I]f we can’t get a good deal – a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share – then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013, rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,”.

This is quite like asking, “Would you rather be strangled slowly or shot in the head?” With a 100 year drought looming, the USDA advertising to get more and more people on food stamps because they aren’t spending enough money, the HHS secretary illegally suspending welfare work requirements because they aren’t spending enough money, 4 major cities bankrupt and hundreds more on the brink, more people going on Social Security Disability each month than finding jobs, Ms. Murray is running an extortion scam to raise taxes on the folks who employ 53% of the work force, small business!

Either the Republicans agree with her, and we all jump off the fiscal cliff early next year, or taxes go up for everyone and we jump January 1st.

As we are falling off this impending cliff, I would like Ms. Murray to look my daughter in the eye and explain to her why she won’t be able to get a job when she finishes school. I want Ms. Murray to explain that it was much more important to appear to soak the rich in order for her party to perpetuate a senseless class war so they could get re-elected, than it was to be mindful of my daughter’s welfare.

Even the President acknowledged last year that the last thing you want to do in a recession is raise taxes on anybody. The job creators are leaving in droves. According to the Cato Institute, citizenship renunciation is up a whopping 750% since Barrack Obama was elected.

Jeff Immelt, Obama’s own Job CZAR has said the way to get us out of this mess was to create a stable and predictable tax environment with lower rates and closed loopholes to be competitive with other countries, smaller government, reduced debt and deficit, a trained workforce, a friendlier regulatory environment, and more certainty on health care costs and regulations. But the President hasn’t met with his jobs council in six months. He has been a little busy with all those golf outings and $40,000.00 a plate fund raisers.

Never mind all that, we need Barrack re-elected, and the way to do that is to engender resentment against those who provide the paychecks in this country, those evil rich. Well not all of them are evil rich. Not the ones who have donated money to his campaign. To them we give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and watch them go bankrupt or take the money and jobs to Finland, China, India, and Mexico.

By all means Ms. Murray ignore all the economic evidence since time began and continue your bolshevik revolution, it worked out so well for the Soviets.

VOODOO Food Economics

The USDA, in trying to increase participation in the SNAP or food stamp program, claims that for every dollar transferred to beneficiaries a dollar and seventy-two cents in economic activity is generated.

If we were to follow this mushy thinking to it’s logical conclusion, then if we all quit our jobs, closed our businesses and went on the program, we would live in a prosperous nation.

To illustrate this thinking, and expose it’s fallacy, suppose you have ten dollars to spend on food. The government takes one of those dollars from you, and gives it to someone else to spend on food. Now you only have nine dollars to spend on food, and someone else has one of your dollars.

It gets worse. It costs money in governmental bureaucracy to transfer your dollar to someone else, so by the time the recipient receives your dollar, it is only eighty-four cents. Now you have nine dollars to spend on food, and someone else has eighty-four cents.

Still it gets worse. Suppose instead of your original ten dollars, you only had nine dollars and sixty cents. The government takes your sixty cents, and borrows the other forty cents from China, at 3% interest, and gives you the bill. Now you have nine dollars to spend on food, but you owe China forty cents plus 3% interest on the forty cents, and someone else has eighty-four cents to spend on food.

The Chinese are better off by $0.012 (the interest on the forty cents borrowed in your name), the government is better off by $0.16 (administrative costs), but you are worse off by $1.012

Now instead your original $9.60 to spend on food, you only have $8.588 and the person your money was taken to help has $.084, making the total amount to spend on food $9.428

Wouldn’t it be better to improve the job outlook by putting into practice the recommendations of Obama’s own Jobs Czar Jeff Immelt, who told CNN in September of 2011 the way to create jobs in America was to create a stable and predictable tax environment with lower corporate rates and closed loopholes to be competitive with other countries, smaller government, reduced debt and deficit, a trained workforce, a friendlier regulatory environment, and more certainty on health care costs and regulations.