Now They Tell Us - The economy never really got better

PJ Media ^ | 12/8/2012 | Tom Blumer

[Lakeshark]

Now that Barack Obama is safely ensconced in the White House for another four years, several items which should have been noticed or revealed before Election Day have come to the fore. Collectively, they tell us two things: that the pre-election economy was worse than voters were led to believe, and that the prospects for meaningful improvement under the current regime are bleak at best. Additionally, in at least one instance, economic activity itself was likely manipulated.
*snip*
The probable gamesmanship occurred at Government/General Motors, which is still effectively under Obama administration control, still on track to saddle U.S. taxpayers with a loss of $25 billion or more, and still losing market share. Despite already-bloated inventories at its dealers, GM’s production lines ran full throttle during September and October. Thanks to that ramp-up and unimpressive sales growth, retail inventories grew by an astonishing 99,000 in October and November.
*snip*
News in the housing market, particularly concerning sales of new single-family homes, suddenly went from pre-election exuberance to post-election bleakness.

[Lakeshark]

You remember incorrectly. The choppers thing was reported heavily, unlike Benghazi. Sure the media was against Reagan, they just didn't know how to handle him, this was new for them. The death spiral has had thirty more years to make mush skulls via Hollywood the media and school; a majority of people actually were offended by gay extremism, and Sandra Fluke would have been laughed off the stage. Half of the public wasn't on assistance or the government teat either, and most Americans still didn't like the idea of socialism or government hand outs.

You forget what it was like.

It ain't the eighties any more, and the media has learned big time.

As to the base, it turned out, all except the stupid purists and third party glorifiers who were dumb enough to believe the Axelrod broadcast that they shouldn't vote. There is a special place in Hell reserved for those types, they may have given Bambi the election in their idiocy. Dumber than a bunch of stumps.

It has never been the case that 'boogey-man' politics has ever worked, such as was played by the GOP this time.

I have no idea what you mean by that, from what I saw it was the opposite, there were no PAC's that ran with those kind of things except the leftist ones, and they were effective. Conservatives had plenty to vote for and they did, I proudly voted to take out the Bamster, and so did millions of others including the vast majority on FR. It was the fringe lunatic purists staying home to show "someone" some kind of lesson (wtf lesson is this?), and those that don't pay attention enough, yet lean right who were fooled by the negative campaign of the bamster that did us in.

[Terry Mross]

First of all, the people weren’t fooled. They were screwed through voter fraud.

Second, I know people who actually believe GM has already paid the government back.

[Vince Ferrer]

It ain't the eighties any more, and the media has learned big time.

What we need to understand is that there is an entire generation that has now grown up after the Berlin wall fell, who don't know what it was like in the Soviet Union, who see Chinese Communism as successful in providing growth. We are surprised that totalitarianism is making a comeback, but do we teach what it was faithfully?

[4Liberty]

Media = Rat spokesfolks
great cartoons, thanks.

[redpoll]

>>>Anybody who read the government pronouncements each month about unemployment and such with upbeat optimistic acceptance has an IQ less than room temperature.

In Alaska in January with no heat.<<<<

Currently -32.7 degrees up here, and it’s only December.

Strangely, most of the Native people I know here voted for Obama, yet say in the same breath that they just want to be left alone and they despise government interference. This has led to some interesting conversations, let me tell you. The good news is that these guys will probably the best folks to live alongside when it hits the fan, since they still have a strong cultural belief in subsistence. Which will mean a fair amount of beaver stew and dried fish, if it comes down to that.

[VideoDoctor]

Roamer_1,

Your post #47 is dead on accurate and well stated.

The conservative SPIRIT is waiting to be IGNITED.

[roamer_1]

You forget what it was like.

No, I don't forget. And while you are right to some degree, what you see as a media/government role in 'dumbing down', I see as a direct and predictable result from the 60's flower children. You see manipulation of events driving those results, whereas I think that the result was a foregone conclusion to the events.

As to the base, it turned out [...]

No, it didn't. Don't look at who voted, look at who didn't.

all except the stupid purists and third party glorifiers who were dumb enough to believe the Axelrod broadcast that they shouldn't vote. There is a special place in Hell reserved for those types, they may have given Bambi the election in their idiocy. Dumber than a bunch of stumps.

I see your hubris has not been stunted by your losses. That's amazing... But somewhat to be expected, I suppose.

[roamer_1:] It has never been the case that 'boogey-man' politics has ever worked, such as was played by the GOP this time.

I have no idea what you mean by that [...]

You seem to have a defective, or selective memory. You didn't see that the overarching theme to this past election was 'Anybody But Obama'?

from what I saw it was the opposite, there were no PAC's that ran with those kind of things except the leftist ones, and they were effective.

I don't think the leftists were that effective either (you are right, they also played a boogey-man campaign), though more effective than the GOP. But that is because the leftist cause is driven by fear. The Conservatives who were the erstwhile base of the Republicans are driven by principle.

Conservatives had plenty to vote for and they did

Riiiight. That's why Romney won, eh? Dunno where you are from, but I don't know anyone who voted for Romney. I also don't know anyone who voted for McCain't either... Maybe some did, but not proudly enough to admit it...

I proudly voted to take out the Bamster [...]

'Proudly voting out Obama'... And you don't think it was a boogey-man campaign?

[...] and so did millions of others including the vast majority on FR [...].

Millions of others, but not enough. And as for FR, it is politically oriented... the 'vast majority' here will pull the lever for the big rhinestone 'R' regardless of who he is, as the last two elections plainly demonstrate. Still, the bellwhether was here too - the dissent hereon could not be shouted down. And IMO, if one cannot turn FR, one can bet money on the result. And that result is what happened nationally.

It was the fringe lunatic purists staying home to show "someone" some kind of lesson (wtf lesson is this?)[...]

The lesson is that you LOSE without the far right. The 'Purists' like myself know why, and your following comment shows that you don't:

[...] and those that don't pay attention enough, yet lean right who were fooled by the negative campaign of the bamster that did us in.

K... Here's a clue: MOST do not 'pay attention enough'. MOST Conservatives are not politically oriented. They show up in the last month or so to take their decision...

The reason to insist upon the principles we stand for is because there is not enough cohesion within the base without all those principles being served. Period. If you try to make any faction of conservatism take the back seat, YOU WILL LOSE. Simple as that. And if one steps on Conservatism generally, standing for that which Conservatives abhor, the loss is even more certainly guaranteed.

I keep hoping one of these days y'all will learn, but with each passing election, the same ol' thing transpires. That is exactly why I am no longer a Republican, and why I never will be again.

!UP! the middle... yeah, that's the ticket... After all, it worked so well the last time. ROTFLMAO!!!

[roamer_1]

The conservative SPIRIT is waiting to be IGNITED.

TRUE. And thank you for your kind reply.

[annelizly]

You know what i see in my little town that makes me know that the reports of the economy getting better were just lies? coffee tins in the stores for locals who have lost loved ones and can’t afford a funeral! collection cans for funerals!! WTF?

[Kickass Conservative]

It’s not the News Reports, it’s Who Reports the News.

I asked a Lib what they thought about Benghazi.
They replied, who is Ben Ghazi?

I wasted another five minutes explaining the situation. From now on I’ll just reply, the guy who was on that 60’s TV Show, “Run for your life”.

If they’re interested, they can check it out on You Tube.

Since the Election, I have given up trying to explain Common Sense to people who make Clueless Wonders look like Albert Einstein.

The Useful Idiots outnumber us, no doubt about it.

[pabianice]

It will take a US military defeat — or a successful terrorist attack — to show the lie of Obamaism. With the Navy being hacked to pieces after January, we will see the defeat/sinking of a carrier battle group within the next several years. The public outcry from that will make the House impeach The Traitor. The Senate will not convict but the Dem candidate in 2016 will lose.

[pabianice]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

[going hot]

All they know is when Dancing with The Stars, The Bachelor and Two and a Half Men are on the boob tube.

I have been told that "feee healthcare", govt birth control, and kids staying on mom's health insurance until 26 is worth the rich paying 55 per cent of their income to the feds.

I don't spend much of the time of the day with libs anymore.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Anyone who thinks we can win a national election with the media we have now is simply kidding themselves.

*********

It’s not enough to defeat the Dem opponent; the next Republican candidate will have to take on the media too. It’s a two front war and not for the timid.

It is especially not for the sufferer of doubt as to the superiority of hope and aspiration for posterity over government-sponsored shadenfreude.

As to taking on “the media,” it is necessary and sufficient that we take on the Associated Press and its membership.

But rather than attempting to tame them during the campaign of 2016, we need to take them down in court, in front of SCOTUS, ASAP.

This should be possible because:

• the internet actually performs the mission of allowing the public access to worldwide journalism, not only professional but amateur. This means that the AP is not in that sense “too big to fail."

• The AP was found to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945. The AP was considered “too big to fail” then - but now . . .

• The AP originated the conceit of “journalistic objectivity” as a way to evade charges of undue concentration of PR power, back in the Nineteenth Century.

• Claims of journalistic objectivity are actually proof that wire service journalists do not actually even try to be objective. If they did, they would start by declaring all the reasons - including their desire for ratings, circulation, and influence - why they might not be objective. Since they claim actual objectivity instead, they cannot do the first part of diligence in attempting objectivity. At all. Claims of journalistic objectivity are inherently fraudulent.

• The AP newswire is essentially a continuous virtual “meeting” of all the main journalistic outlets in America. The result of that “meeting” is inevitable:  

  "People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices.” - Adam Smith

  The conspiracy which results from the newswire is agreement to dismiss out of hand any possibility that journalism has a leftist tendency.

• Journalists evince

  "cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness . . .

  It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . . who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . . - Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne

  This mindset has obvious political implications.

• Politicians who lack scruples go along and get along with the journalists’ tendencies sketched by Theodore Roosevelt, and are rewarded with positive labels such as “liberal,” “progressive,” “moderate,” or “centrist.” Those who disagree are assigned negative labels such as “extreme,” “right wing,” or - yes, it must be said - “conservative."

It should be possible to sue mainstream journalism for its very socks, since it is a fraud and since it promotes witch hunts such as the Duke Lacrosse “scandal,” the Trevon Martin “murder,” the “Texas Air National Guard Memos,” the 2000 call of Florida for Gore, and about every October Surprise in history. There is no case to be made that journalism is politically neutral. And yet the FCC awards licenses on the basis that it is unbiased and in the public interest. Which is why the FCC should be sued along with the AP and all its membership.

[Lakeshark]

Ah, so you're one of the purists who decided to not show up and give four years to Bambi. I get it now. Congratulations. Unfortunately we get to share the coming Hellstorm you helped reelect by your stupidity.

And you have the nerve to speak of others having hubris, or lecture them on your purity.......

Oh, the irony.

Just wondering, who do you think was a pure enough candidate, a conservative who (obvious to you, and of course, no one else) would have won this time?

[roamer_1]

Ah, so you're one of the purists who decided to not show up and give four years to Bambi.

Nope... I showed up. But I didn't vote for Mittens, because I don't vote for socialism.

Unfortunately we get to share the coming Hellstorm you helped reelect by your stupidity.

Yeah, right... whatever. It is always a point of humor for me when Republican fanbois throw a hissy fit because Conservatives won't vote for their piece of crap candidate. Go ahead and throw yourself on the floor and pitch a fit. It won't change a dang thing, but it might get you over it quicker...

Trying to bury one socialist by covering him up with another is a waste of time.

Let me know when you have something worth voting for.

And you have the nerve to speak of others having hubris, or lecture them on your purity.......

If you will go read your last post, you will find that you asked for it.

Just wondering, who do you think was a pure enough candidate, a conservative who (obvious to you, and of course, no one else) would have won this time?

Short answer: None. Perry is the only one IMHO that had the credentials to appeal to all of the Conservative factions - But the quality of those credentials was somewhat lacking.

[RipSawyer]

“We are heading for a recession that will most likely turn into a depression.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

We have had four years of a depression if we would only admit the truth, what it is about to turn into will be the economic equivalent of the maiden voyage of the Titanic.

[RipSawyer]

Do you really believe he was VOTED back in for another term?

[rlmorel]

No. But it doesn’t really matter now. He’s there. And we let them get away with it.