You can’t make this kind of stupid up

At the risk of you thinking this idiotic NYT article “titled How Regulators Mess With Bankers’ Minds, and Why That’s Good” has to be an Onion piece, from back in the days before a Hillary shill bought the Onion and turned it into a parody of itself, I am still bringing it to your attention. From the article:

Bank regulators on Wednesday sent a message that big banks are still too big and too complex. They rejected special plans, called living wills, that the banks have to submit to show they can go through an orderly bankruptcy.

The thinking behind the regulators’ call for living wills is that if a large bank crash is orderly, there will be no need to save it and no need for taxpayer bailouts.

Pretty straightforward, right? Not for the banks.

The regulators deliberately did not communicate the exact things the banks needed to do for their plans to pass muster. In this way, they kept them on their toes — and treating powerful banks this way may end up playing a surprisingly important role in keeping the financial regulation effective over time.

Emphasis mine. In a system where they need you to not understand and know all the rules so they can come after you whenever it hits their fancy, you have stopped being a nation of laws and equal men, and become a tyrannical shitbag. For you fucking morons that think this is cool because the target is those evil bank, remember that these crooks have no problem applying this practice not just to their opposition political enemies, but to anyone that pisses them off.

And leave it to a shill for the DNC and the crime syndicate running DC these days to actually make the argument that this kind of practice is a good thing somehow, because when they don’t understand the laws it makes it less likely that they will sidestep them. Can you imagine the reaction of these idiots at the NYT if it was a republican president doing this shit? Can you imagine their heads exploding if that president did this to one of the left’s near & dear causes? Can you imagine the IRS telling those of us that actually pay taxes this is a good practice for them to have in place as well? All so you don’t get any bad ideas about abusing the system. And can you see them accusing you of doing exactly that when the lack of clarity causes you to make a mistake?

Only the left can go this low to defend the indefensible. We deserve what’s coming our way for giving these people power. When the banking system ends up experiencing another meltdown due to the lack of clarity of an obviously idiotic system that tries to defy the laws of nature and economics, do you think they will take the blame for it? Oh, who am I kidding. They will blame everyone but themselves, then demand that they be allowed to “fix it”. Calling this shit criminal or a travesty is being to kind.

This is working out well…

In case you don’t live in the US, today is tax day. If you are like me, you set it up so Uncle Sam takes the least amount possible during the year from your paycheck, and after you do your taxes, sent these parasites a check for whatever you owe them. Unlike most of the people that tell you our system is unfair because others are doing better than them, I can actually control my spending and even do a bit of saving. I know how to make my money work better for me and don’t need to use government as a savings plan to make sure I don’t blow my cash on blow, booze, and bitchez. That whole thing about if we magically managed to redistribute the world’s wealth equally today, by the end of the month, with so few exceptions we can drop them as statistical noise, we would be back exactly where we started, with the same people complaining about how the system is rigged against them and looking for a handout. But that’s not what this piece is about.

I actually wanted to point out a major flaw in our system. When you have almost half of the people in your country not paying federal taxes or ending up with an effective marginal rate of zero or lower, and they get to vote, these people will never have a problem with the rest of us getting soaked by the crooks in DC, which continue to collect record amounts of money, despite most people predicting that things are heading south. Yeah, I know we have been told by a complicit and completely owned subsidiary of the DNC that masquerades as the media that we have been in an economic recovery, for 8 years now since Obama took over, but those of us actually working don’t see any of that recovery, and actually see things getting worse.

The thing is that we have 2 candidates, both in the same party, telling us DC should be taking even more money from the productive so they can increase the number of people sucking at the government teat. Shit, one of them has dropped any pretense of reality, and is promising $18 trillion in new entitlements and government handouts. My favorite one is free college. We get told that college has now become a necessity for people to qualify for better jobs, and thus, college should now be treated like so many other things the left wants us to now take as obligations of the productive to pay for the masses to have. I have yet to get any of the “free college” morons to explain to me why I should expect this to not result in college educations turning into even bigger wastes of money and time than they have become today. After all, we already have a government run free K-12 education system, and nobody that has a modicum of honesty and scruples, believes this system has been anything but an abysmal failure. It used to suffice to finish high school to actually be qualified for good employment. Then government took that over and dumbed it down so the failure of the unionized but well connected education establishment could avoid owning the miasma they created, and we all know how many people now leave high school without having met even the lowest of standards to show they actually worked on getting educated. Anyone else find hilarity in the fact that it is the same people that fucked over the K-12 system that now want to take over and make college free as well? That’s gonna end so well…

Anyway, back to talking taxes. Don’t get me wrong. I understand that we should pay some taxes. My disagreement is with a system that allows people that don’t pay anything to elect politicians that then tell the rest of us we need to pony up even more of our money for them to expand the abuse and corruption already rampant in the system. The best change to save our system of government right now, the one that would do the most to curb government abuses across the board, would be a flat tax and the abolishment of the IRS. If everyone has to pay an equal percentage, we will all have the same skin in the game, and with people that vote for a living suddenly out of that job, DC might finally be forced into fiscal responsibility. Even more important, the current corrupt system that allows the political aristocracy to abrogate itself unlimited wealth and power by forcing the rest of us to buy favors from them, especially taxation mitigation related favors, would implode overnight. No wonder that neither the collectivist & crony economy party nor the less collectivist and crony economy party want to do that.

As you send more of your hard earned pay to DC to be squandered by the vote buying aristocracy and their schemes and scams, remember that the answer to quite a few of this great country’s problems is actually quit simple. A flat tax would do away with so many of the special mechanisms that have propped up this dysfunctional bloated government we have today and in a single move force DC into dealing both with the economic reality they have created as well as return some sanity to the political class. It is therefore that it is anathema to the current political aristocracy whom would lose drastically should the status quo be upset. A man raped every year by the big government state – so people that pretend they mean well ca keep buying votes from close to half of the country that has no skin in the tax paying game – can dream.

The Cruelty of the $15 Minimum Wage

Reason posted this over the weekend. It’s a good review of why the $15 minimum wage, which Clinton has now embraced, is insanity.

Boudreaux gets into an aspect of the wage hike I didn’t: that he thinks the gradual increase is designed to conceal the effects. If the economy does well for other reasons, the Democrats will then claim the $15 minimum wage is having no effect on jobs.

Here’s the thing: the Democrats are claiming, based on a grand total of one study that doesn’t say what they think it says, that we can raise the minimum wage without increasing unemployment. Let’s pretend that this point is up for debate and that we are, in effect, engaging in a massive gamble on the laws of economics. What is the downside risk if they’re wrong?

As I noted in my last post, long-term unemployment is one of the most damaging things that can happen to someone. It can repress earnings for a lifetime, it can affect health and happiness and, as we’ve seen in Europe, masses of unemployed young men can become a hotbed of crime and extremism. That’s the risk if they’re wrong.

The Democrats are gambling the futures of millions of people on this will-o-the-wisp idea that the Law of Supply and Demand is magically suspend for labor because … well, because the unions want it to be. If they’ve gambled wrong, they won’t be paying the price. Millions of poor people and minorities will. If the $15 wage causes mass unemployment, the effects will last for generations. It may not be reparable in our lifetime.

I’m glad the Democrats have a few pet economists who will tell them this is a low-risk bet. But it’s yet another illustration of how the Democrats “help” people by holding their heads underwater. I have no doubt that they think they are being compassionate. But gambling someone’s life on crackpot economic ideas is not compassion.

Democratic Debate #425

Here’s the wonderful thing about Democratic Part debates. Any time I even entertain the notion of voting for a Democrat, all I have to do is watch them debate and I am instantly dissuaded. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton debated again last night. I don’t know (or care) who the winner was. I know who the loser was: anything approaching sanity.

Here is a short list of the things the candidates basically agree on:

  • We should address global warming. But in doing so, we should abandon the technologies that have made the most progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: nuclear power and fracking.
  • Government should spend yet more money making college more expensive. I mean, cheaper, definitely cheaper.
  • We shouldn’t reign in exploding retirements. We should expand them. And we can pay for that with taxes on the rich.
  • We need way more liberals on the Supreme Court.
  • Any SCOTUS opinions liberals like is “established law” and should not be touched. Anything they don’t like, such as Citizens United should be overturned.
  • We need a $15 national minimum wage.
  • Boy, do we need to spend more money. For jobs and stuff.

There is some daylight between the candidates. Clinton is more of an interventionist abroad while Sanders is more isolationist. Clinton is also a bit more hostile to civil liberties. And, to be fair, Clinton has frequently taken the opposite opinion on the minimum wage and fracking. But it was kind of scary listening to these chowderheads last night and imaging what they might do with a Democratic Congress.

On style, Sanders won. But, were I a Democrat, I would probably be voting Clinton. Sanders has the big ideas and high-sounding rhetoric. But Clinton is the one who could actually get things done. If I were a Republican, I’d probably want Sanders since even a Democratic Congress wouldn’t do all the crap he wants.

The more I turn this over, the more I think retaining Congress has to be the priority for the GOP. I’ve basically given up the White House for lost this year. I think Clinton is going to win the nomination and the election, despite her high negatives and ethical problems. I base this partly on intuition. In every election since 1980, I’ve gotten a feeling for who was going to win. It has rarely failed me. The only time I was even uncertain was 2000. I’m now getting that feeling about Clinton. I see her on TV and think, “Jesus, we’re actually going to do this thing, aren’t we?”

But I also base on the GOP, which is either going to nominate Trump or nominate someone else to lead a badly fractured party. I’m hoping it’s Cruz, since he will probably lose but would at least bring enough voters to the polls to hold Congress. But if Trump is the nominee …

This is a bad year. I’ve been watching politics since 1980. I’ve been blogging about it, off and on, for the last 15 years. I’ve never seen anything like this. Even Gore and Obama had their redeeming features. Even Bush and Dole had reasons to vote for them. I look at this field — a socialist, a criminal, a fascist and a twerp — and all I can think is, “please, someone else.”

Fuck you Paul Ryan, it is

If you had any doubt that there really isn’t that much of a distinction between the political elites in DC that has driving the pro-Trump revolution, all you need to look at is Paul Ryan’s pittiful appeal to pretend sending money to blue model Puerto Rico isn’t a bail out. Puerto Rico is as blue model as you can get. It’s what the left is all about: spend too much, massive corruption, cronyism, and abuse of power to the max. Now they are downright broke and dying, just like most blue model stats on the continent, think Illinois and soon, California itself, and they are going to DC to ask US tax payers to bail them the fuck out:

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) blasted Wall Street investors on Wednesday as he tried to tamp down conservative discontent with a bill to assist Puerto Rico.

The GOP leader charged that “special money interest groups on Wall Street” are trying to sabotage the legislation by billing it as a “bailout.”

Ryan said that the government will be forced to actually bail out the island if Congress fails to act, predicting massive defaults on its bonds.
“Many big-money interest groups on Wall Street know this and have put a lot of money toward sabotaging this legislation in order to force a last-minute bailout upon Puerto Rico, putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook for their bad loans,” his office said in a lengthy statement. “They call this a bailout, because they know it is not. And a bailout is what they want.”

Ryan’s push comes as GOP leaders are trying to pull in enough support from both parties to clear legislation that would impose a fiscal oversight board on Puerto Rico and allow it to restructure some of its debts.

He dismissed “buzzwords and special interest ad campaigns” that describe the package as a bailout, and instead argued the House plan imposes much-needed fiscal rigor on the island while avoiding a messy set of defaults.

What a pile of crock. This is a bailout for a bunch of crooks that ran their protectorate’s economy and finances into the ground, and Paul Ryan blaming Wall Street for pointing that out is about as idiotic as it gets. Congress is starting with this bailout of Puerto Rico for a reason: doing it for Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Michigan or anyone of the other blue states looking at the looming bankruptcy their blue model tax-and-spend, free-for-all, vote-buying scam system first, would leave the tax payers that foot this bill for broken government systems no doubt that this was them bailing out failed blue model states, and then in a way that allows these blue states to keep doing the same stupid shit that got them broke and begging in the first place. No dice.

Fuck a Puerto Rico bailout. Tell them to tighten the belt and deal with the shit that happens. The blue model states on the mainland can then absorb the army of free-loaders that will move there to suck at the government’s teat, and their demise will be hastened as well. We all will win when the vote-buying blue political model implodes and we can do away with this shit, the pain it will cause notwithstanding. The sooner this house of cards collapses, the sooner we can burn down the nanny state.

If it is made by HBO you can bet your ass it will be pro-democrat fiction

So after HBO basically produced a series of pro-DNC, highly fictionalized, propaganda pieces and tried to pass them off as accurate or documentaries, it seems that they now find the need to preempt the obvious accusation their latest attempt is not more of the same. HBO has been heavily advertising this dreg between their scheduled programs, and I can tell you that just from that content that this will be a giant pile of democrat fiction supporting garbage likely to make Michael Moore feel jealous he didn’t think of pushing this nonsense.

The problem with these tools at HBO is the same that infects the LSM: they would love you to believe that they are unbiased and objective, when nothing can be further from the truth. They are shills for the progressive side, and they want to hide that fact. Don’t buy the nonsense about how much research they did to depict this story accurately. If this mockumentary keeps in tune with the other crap HBO has produced, it will be replete with inaccuracies that favor democrats and their narrative and paints republicans as downright evil and corrupted. If it wasn’t for “Game of Thrones” I would have dumped this MSNBC clone a long time ago. I pity the morons that will get their history from HBO, because as usual, they will be liberals believing their own lies and hoping everyone else does because the lie has been told often enough.

The Anti-Gun Arguments Get Stupider

I’ve been pro-second amendment as long as I can remember. My dad owned guns. Most of the people I knew growing up either owned a gun or hunted. I try to engage the anti-gun arguments but I know I come at it from a bias: it didn’t occur to me until a relatively late age that there were people who wanted to rid our society of guns.

But as Americans continues to stock up on guns and gun violence continues to fall, the arguments of the anti-gun crowd are getting weaker and weaker. Samanatha Bee ran a bit on her show, demonstrating — to our supposed horror — that it’s easier to get a gun than to obtain a NRA mascot costume (although they didn’t actually buy any guns). Charles Cooke:

There are disagreements in politics. And then there is willful stupidity. This, alas, is an example of the latter. “Eddie the Eagle” is a private, trademarked, fictional character owned by an organization that is able to restrict his replication as much as it wishes. Firearms, by contrast, are constitutionally protected goods that cannot be denied to free people without good cause. Of course it is easier to get hold of one than the other. To buy a gun one needs to be of a certain age and to be without a criminal record; to obtain an “Eddie the Eagle” costume one needs to meet whatever conditions the character’s owners have imposed. One might as well ask why it is easier for a person to buy a machete than to take Jennifer Lawrence out for dinner. “But one is nicer than the other; surely that counts for something?!”

You can imagine, of course, how the Left Wing idiots praising Bee’s skit would react if Glenn Beck showed it was easier to get an abortion than to adopt a child. Some things are harder to do than others. This does not convey any kind of social commentary.

It is notable that when Bee finally compares like with like — that is, when both of the products within her comparison are available on the open market — she has to resort to debunked lies. “It turned out the organization that makes it easier to get a gun than Sudafed . . .” Bee claims at one point. This is false. In truth, both guns and Sudafed are regulated in all 50 states when they are purchased from a professional dealer. Moreover, as anybody who has bought both knows, it is infinitely easier to buy Sudafed from a pharmacy than to buy a gun from a dealer, and easier, too, to buy Sudafed from a secondary seller than it is to buy a gun privately.

I haven’t watched Bee’s show because I don’t watch much TV. I liked her on The Daily Show but the clips that show up in my social media are of a piece with this: condescending, incorrect and more smarmy than they are insightful. And liberals seem to love it. She had a recent bit responding to Rubio’s comment that some Democrats support abortion up until birth, saying, “Removing the baby on the due date isn’t an abortion, it’s a cesarean.” No, it isn’t.

The diaspora of Daily Show correspondents has been a mixed bag. John Oliver’s show is pretty good (and tackles issues that are in the libertarian wheelhouse, like asset forfeiture). Colbert’s show is OK. Whitmore’s show is OK at times. Bee’s show, from what little I’ve seen, mainly appeals to liberals who want more sass than fact. The Daily Show itself is struggling. Trevor Noah isn’t a bad host but he lacks Stuarts’ skill in making both sides laugh.

Well … it could be worse. We could be seeing this bullshit from a “real” news organization.

Update: A lot of the anti-gun foolishness these days is a result of desperation. The gun grabbers have lost the argument and keep losing it. Every time someone is hot, they try to milk the tragedy for more gun laws and it simply doesn’t happen.

How desperate are they? Well, the Brady Campaign has gotten shooting Alice in Wonderland in the face desperate.

Update: Oh. Guns are now racist as well.

Another one bites the dust

The Obamacare supporting retards a few months back were all pissed at those of us that pointed out the abysmal failure that the exchanges Obamacare were going to drive every insurer out of that scam. When United Health Group started talking like they would have to bail, we were told that this was all talk that would go nowhere, because in the end Obamacare was not just sound, but the law of the land. fast forward a few months, and we get an article titled “UnitedHealth Makes Good on Threat to Pull Out of Obamacare that points out just that:

The Affordable Care Act suffered another jolt late last week with the news that UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest health insurer, was making good on its threat to pull out of Obamacare, beginning with its operations in Georgia and Arkansas.

UnitedHealth roiled the market last November when it revealed that it was considering exiting Obamacare after incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in losses related to ACA business. Then UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley confessed to investors meeting in New York in December that the company should have stayed out of the program a little longer to better gauge its profitability potential.

The company had cautiously tiptoed into the market in January 2015 after sitting out the first full year of Obamacare operations in 2014. “It was for us a bad decision,” Hemsley admitted to his investors. “In retrospect, we should have stayed out longer.”

So it wasn’t a huge surprise on Friday when UnitedHealth spokesperson Tyler Mason confirmed to The Washington Post that the company, indeed, was pulling out of Georgia and Arkansas, two relatively small states that proved to be highly unprofitable terrain for the company.

This development is troubling, especially if it UnitedHealth pulls out of other bigger states, or if other major insurers such as Aetna and Anthem follow suit. But experts have cautioned not to make too much of UnitedHealth’s flight from the market. While it is one of the largest insurers on the national scene, UnitedHealth nonetheless is a bit player in Obamacare and holds a much smaller market share than other rivals like Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Get the fuck out of here! This idiotic Ponzi scheme will fall apart as the major players all realize they got duped and pull out? Say it ain’t so! I guess I shouldn’t be celebrating this vindication, because after all, Obamacare was never about fixing anything that the collectivists claimed was wrong with our existing healthcare system or controlling costs: it was about destroying the existing system by creating so much tumult, chaos, and pain, that even the most adamant anti-single-payer system advocate would have no choice to accept the left’s takeover of this enterprise that comprises 1/6th of the economy and gives a government that has already shown it is willing to use its various branches against its political and other enemies, even more power to do so and control the uppity serfs. All of us better get used to our healthcare being crappy like this.

Shades of Lois Lerner and the IRS Scandal coverup

I guess that fearing the fact that the Hillary Clinton e-mail security scandal was getting traction, despite a massive campaign by the DNC controlled media to conceal the criminal activity that caused a massive breach of security, Obama took to the airwaves this past weekend to defend Clinton. I can’t say I am surprised. Hillary probably has evidence that will drag Obama down with her if she gets indicted, as she should be, and then convicted an locked up, so Obama is now covering his ass. From the article;

The latest example came this weekend, when Obama again insisted that Clinton hadn’t put the country at risk by using a private email server during her time at the State Department.

“I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security,” Obama said during a Fox News interview, going on to praise her job as secretary of state.

Even in those remarks Obama noted he needed to be “careful” in what he said, since his administration continues an investigation into Clinton’s email arrangements. He stopped short of declaring that Clinton hadn’t broken any laws, a conclusion that his Justice Department has yet to make.

Why does this all conjure up memories of the Lois Lerner, IRS Scandal insider job? It is as if these democrats all think and act as if they are above the law, because they know that they will never be held accountable or something. This country is run by a crime syndicate that seems compelled to hand off the baton to another crime syndicate. How the mighty have fallen. Love that fundamental change Obama promised us all yet?

Religious fanatic wants to punish heretics.

I had to laugh at this idiotic and dangerous article by another one of the SJW morons that form the AGW priesthood. If you were to just read this stupid article, you might come away thinking that the idiot that wrote it, Michael E. Kraft, somehow has a scientist background, and thus, is to be taken seriously and even believed. This retard sure makes a call to authority with his demand that anyone not willing to just suck the cock of members of the AGW priesthood should be punished by the authorities, because “Scientific Consensus”!

I tried googling the guy, and while most of the links when followed through come up dead, I was absolutely not surprised to find out that the guy has no real scientific background to speak off: his supposed field of expertise is a fucking political science! Color me unsurprised, but to me political science ranks right up there with Astrology in scientific rigor or scientific depth, and given a choice between the two, I would rank Astrology as the more scientific of the two on the simple notion that political science is nothing but the refuge of old time collectivist douchebags and people that feel instead of reason.

People should also not be surprised that when you dig deep you find that the bulk of the supposed members of the “scientific community” that sign up to the beliefs of the AGW cult, and those that defend it the most vehemently and make demands like this one that the heretics be punished for their lack of faith, tend to be the members of the breadth of idiotic faiths that have added the terme science to what amounts to a refuge for collectivist twits and grievance mongers (it is an insult and something that detracts from other fields of study that actually amount to real disciplines to call these fucking duplicitous and garbage hangouts for the collectivist and grudge carrying dregs of society that have appropriated the term “science”).

While they are smart enough to never do so in public, and definitely not in the academic community, members of the real scientific disciplines – physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and the hard engineering disciplines (sorry social engineering) – laugh at those that belong those other jokes that have appropriated the word science to lend credence to the idiotic cargo cults, and they do so for a good reason. If you fall under the umbrella of “social” or “soft” science, you are part of a group of idiots that believes in and engages in practices that are anything but following rigorous scientific principles and/or methods. If you dare to point this out however, these fucking idiots will use the political correctness machine, by appealing to authority and resorting to the most mean spirited and despicable tactics you can imagine to destroy you. Which is exactly what Kraft is doing in this article.

When you have no real scientific claim to make a stand on, but you have a politically driven agenda you want to push, you are a faith. That’s also when you demand the heretics be punished for daring to defy your “scientific consensus”, a term that absolutely clarifies you are engaged in something wholly unscientific. Fuck the lot of you.