Election 2012

"The New Economic Patriotism" Is Not a Jobs Plan

The truth about Obama's shiny, substance-free pamphlet.


Fear not; Barack Obama has an economic plan for America, and it's all in a glossy brochure, called "The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan for Jobs & Middle-Class Security"—an antidote, we're told, to the vagueness of Mitt Romney's agenda.

This is what the president, according to a campaign official, believes will ensure that "every voter knows what a second term of an Obama presidency would mean for middle-class Americans." So, in other words, a shiny substance-free pamphlet is a metaphor for the Obama presidency—because these 11 pages of fluff make Romney's tax proposal look like an annotated edition of the Talmud.

Even if we accepted that this is a "jobs plan" at all—and one would have to stretch the imagination—there are perhaps two items even tangentially connected to the issue at hand.

Members of the middle class will be pleased to learn that their children's future will feature marginally smaller class sizes and work as a midlevel functionary in a green-energy factory. According to the president, the best way to grow the middle class outward (whatever that means) is to strive for more menial labor work in an unproductive manufacturing sector. Forward.

Obama supported cap-and-trade legislation, the sole purpose of which is to make fossil fuel more expensive, so let's dismiss his contention that the administration would concern itself with expanding oil and gas work in a second term. Let's focus instead on the green energy sector, which cannot sustain itself today—just look at the slew of clean-energy bankruptcies we've involuntarily invested in—or in the future. As The New York Times recently reported, "stimulus money is almost all gone, leaving many of these projects without a government benefactor and making them orphans in a competitive marketplace dominated by the deep-pocketed fossil fuel industries." (Deep-pocketed industries will remain deep-pocketed if they continue to offer Americans things we value—you know, like energy.)

Another foundational element of Obama's wholly unserious proposal is hiring more teachers—even though this isn't a function of the federal government to begin with and even though, according to Lindsey Burke of The Heritage Foundation, since 1970 the number of students in public schools has increased by 8 percent while the number of teachers has increased 60 percent and even though hiring more teachers would, at best, have a marginal impact on economic growth.

But we love teachers. Check the brochure.

Another component featured in the Obama plan is tax cuts for small business with a side order of fairness. This would impel the wealthiest among us to chip in just a little itty bit more to bring down the deficit. Here we are faced with two problems:

If you believe that Obama would use the extra $80 billion in revenue extracted from the rich to reduce the deficit, I have an 11-page glossy jobs pamphlet for you. And Obama's tax on the rich would hit more than 1 million small businesses, according to the Internal Revenue Service, which would make his tepid supply-side policy item—the kind of policy he regularly mocks, incidentally—useless.

Still, according to a Bloomberg survey of selected economists, under Obama's plan, "13,000 jobs would be created in 2013, bringing the total to 288,000 over two years." That's hundreds of billion in spending—deficit spending—aimed at creating a few unsustainable jobs without the benefit of any real private-sector growth.

Do the math, as they say.

NEXT: Russia Spacecraft Successfully Docks with Space Station

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does the plan involve turnips?

    1. Whooo… all this talk of Umar brings back memories, let me tell you! My great-great-cousin One-Knee was one of the adventurers that hunted the Great Witch of the Hills a long time ago. Said she had a fondness for little children and that her house was made out of chocolate candy, of all things. Personally, a house made of turnips sounds much more appealing, but One-Knee stated decisively that the house was delicious, nevertheless. According to his stories, the witch was dead… something about getting shoved in an oven… but then Grammy Jansen said that One-Knee was pretty delusional, so who knows?

      1. Old One-Knee’s progeny went on to populate much of Skyrim. True fact.

  2. All this translates to is axe the economy, give the middle class a band aid to treat cancer of the employment market and pander to unions.

    So, anybody else out there starting to think America’s next currency standard will be the .22 LR?

    1. We cut ’em in half with a machine gun and give ’em a Band-Aid. It was a lie. And the more I saw them, the more I hated lies.

    2. Obama reveals his true priorities in every debate. he says the deficits are important, then caveats the statement with “but we also need to make sure (fill in with spending on education, green energy failures, make the tax system “fair”)

  3. I didn’t see the Blue Eagle in there. Maybe I missed that page, though. Or maybe in the printed version, it’s a watermark on EVERY page.


  4. Does the pamphlet mention Libya?

    1. ’cause he’s created a number of jobs for terrorists.



  5. Funny how this thing came out after the debates. Everything in it is too mockable.

    1. But Romney has binders full of women! Isn’t that just a fucking knee slapper!?

      1. Why, yes it is, but more in the apolitical mold of “I am a Jelly Doughnut”.

        1. “mould”

        2. Whoah, not funny at all in these obesity epidemic times.

    2. “The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan for Jobs Middle-Class Security”?

      Also referred to by it’s shorter name –
      “To Serve Man”

    3. which illustrates how little confidence they have in their own agenda. If it’s such a great agenda for the second term, why not wave it around for all to see and put it up against your opponents’ best shot?

  6. Nixon’s plan to end the war was more realistic.

  7. I’m thinking my next business will be selling squirrel stew out of my VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER.

    Of course the food inspectors and other county jackboots will be chasing after me.

    1. In the post-apoc economy they’ll be more interested in shaking you down for a bowl of stew than actually enforcing anything.

    2. I’m looking to get a squirrel from the farm today.

      Then skin him, gut him, and roast his little ass over an open fire.

  8. I’d like to see Hank Scorpio’s plan. I hear working for him is the best.

    1. Hank Scorpio: By the way, Homer, what’s your least favorite country? Italy or France?
      Homer: France.
      [Scorpio adjusts a giant laser cannon pointing towards the sky]
      Hank Scorpio: Heh heh heh. Nobody ever says Italy…

      1. That may be my favorite episode.

        1. Written by John Swartzwelder, the reclusive libertarian who wrote nearly all the good Simpsons episodes. (Conan gets credit for the Monorail one).

          1. the reclusive libertarian

            There’s another kind?

            1. Well, Penn Jillette, Drew Carey, maybe those guys from South Park.

              Swartzwelder is more like Bill Watterson from Calvin Hobbes, in that he doesn’t do interviews and hasn’t appeared on any of the dvd commentaries. It seems like the greater someone’s creative genius the less likely they want to deal with the fan’s response to it.

            2. The Everest-dominating superman kind.

        2. Agree. You’ll find me in the Hammock Complex, down on Third.

      2. “I’m having a little trouble with the government right now.”
        “Those jerks? Always picking on the small businessman. Don’t get me started on the government.”

      3. “I just moved here from Canada and everyone thinks I’m slow, eh?”

        1. “I set fires!”

  9. Actually, it’s the old “Stone Soup” story. From Wikipedia:

    Some travellers come to a village, carrying nothing more than an empty cooking pot. Upon their arrival, the villagers are unwilling to share any of their food stores with the hungry travellers. Then the travellers go to a stream and fill the pot with water, drop a large stone in it, and place it over a fire. One of the villagers becomes curious and asks what they are doing. The travellers answer that they are making “stone soup”, which tastes wonderful, although it still needs a little bit of garnish to improve the flavour, which they are missing.

    The villager does not mind parting with a few carrots to help them out, so that gets added to the soup. Another villager walks by, inquiring about the pot, and the travellers again mention their stone soup which has not reached its full potential yet. The villager hands them a little bit of seasoning to help them out.

    More and more villagers walk by, each adding another ingredient. Finally, a delicious and nourishing pot of soup is enjoyed by all.

    Obama is the guy with the rock.

    1. Or is Obama the rock?

      Or are we the frog in the pot?

      I’m so confused now.

      1. I think the Apostle Peter is The Rock.

        And G-d Said to the Apostle Peter, “That Church? You didn’t build that!”

        1. And Christ turned stone soup into single malt whisky!

    2. I thought Obama was the guy with the pot?

      1. See, he brings his rock and cons everyone else into giving him soup for free.

    3. God, I hate that story.
      It’s like a Bible-story for progressives.

      That and the one about the fisherman who decides never to try getting rich because it’s easier just to live in a hut and fish every day.

      Hey everybody, it’s awesome being poor! As long as everyone does just a tiny minimal amount of work and SHARES a lot, we’ll all eat. Yay communism!

      1. That’s one reading. Another is that some guy wants some soup and concocts a bullshit story to get other people to make it for him.

        1. But using bullshit stories to get other people to share is GOOD.

          Hey, the sharing is what is important, not the fact that you lied to get it. After all those mean rich people didn’t deserve their food and were obligated to share in the first place, but were too selfish to do so. So lying to get them to donate food to you is a-ok.

          Pretty much sums up progressive philosophy in a nutshell.

          1. Considering the soup was made due to fraud and envy, I’d say you’re spot-on.

            1. I don’t see any fraud or envy in that story. The travelers were totally honest in saying what it was. Saying something tastes good is an opinion, so it can’t be fraudulent.

              The story is silly because no real villagers are stupid enough to believe that “stone soup” is delicious.

              1. They’re tricking people into making soup for them for free.

                1. Not all trickery is fraud. They made no false statements about the contents in the pot, and weren’t even proposing a transaction. Allowing people to do stupid things that work in your favor isn’t fraud.

                  1. Shut up.

          2. I’ve never thought of the soup makers int he stone soup story as the good people in the story. Is that how people usually interpret it? I thought they were just supposed to be con artists.

            1. That’s how I’ve always read it.

              1. Maybe this is why you’re not a progressive.

                Progressives hear this story and think “What an awesome way for the poor to get the rich to share!”

                Libertarians hear this sotry and think “Wahat and awesome way to trick stupid people into making you a meal!”

            2. I don’t know if they’re good people, but they are clever, and lucky to find a village full of idiots.

              1. [i]lucky to find a village full of idiots.[/i]

                Explains the Obama administration.

        2. How the hell is it reasonable to just stroll into a community and expect other people to give you their resources without anything in return? Imagine some settlers in the old western days trying to pull that. You would be lucky if all you got was the boot.

      2. It’s really a trickster story, Hazel, which makes it teh awesome. It’s currently interpreted as a sanctimonious parable about sharing, but it actually glorifies the con-man.

        1. It glorifies con-artistry in the service of sanctimonious communism.

          1. Tough crowd.

              1. /uses tomato in soup

        2. There is no coercion in the story, Hazel, so I’m having trouble with the communism part.

          The fact that everyone shares in the meal allows the people who actually contributed to not feel they were taken advantage of, even though they were.

          The trickster is a rule-breaker and not a savior. He’s more in the libertarian mould of self-reliant individualist, rather than follower.

          But, yes, I can see some glorification of collectivism in there, especially interpreted through the lens of post-communist libertarian thought.

          /social anthropologist

          1. Well, I guess the problem is I’ve heard this story way too often in the context of a bunch of socialist-progressives admonishing other people to contribute to their “stone soup” endeavor. Whatever it is. It is frequently used as (as you say) a parable about sharing, to bully people into contributing to projects that they’d rather not. Everyone who donates to the stone soup is a good guy, everyone who doesn’t is a greedy capitalist.

            1. In Burlington Vermont there is a little restaurant called Stone Soup. You know I went in there and they wanted money for everything on the menu. You couldn’t even take a piss in the bathroom unless you were buying. Bastards.

              1. To be fair, Tim, did you bring in a stone?

          2. Fraud is a form of coercion. The stone contributes nothing edible to the final product.

            I’ve always read it as a parable about the dangers of magical thinking. (Even before I knew that term.)

            1. The stone is a perfect metaphor for the state. Something that adds no value, but is sold as something that is good for you. The facade is used to aggregate the earned goods of other people, again, without adding value. One could argue that if it wasn’t for the stone (and the politician/con artist) that the soup would never have been made, but this ignores a) people would figure out a way to make soup on their own (as the villagers were undoubtedly already doing) and b) some (if not all) of the soup was consumed by the traveler.

            2. Where did the travelers claim it did?

              It sounds like fraud because it’s totally unbelievable that people would actually give up food for “stone soup” unless there was fraud involved.

              1. “Soup” implies nourishment; the completely factual “Hot rock water” doesn’t.

                See how far you get in defending yourself from fraud is you sold someone a car for $5,000 and it was a cardboard box with drawn-on doors. Fraud is based on reasonable expectations of deliverance or service.

                The traveler lied when he called what he was making soup; that they are gullible idiots doesn’t change anything.

                1. That’s not really a good analogy. Plenty of liquids of questionable nutrition value are colloquially called soup.

                  There’s also the matter that he wasn’t actually proposing a transaction when he said it was soup. If I’m sitting in a cardboard box and claiming it’s my car, and then you offer me $5000 for it, I haven’t committed fraud.

          3. The main problem with the story is that it requires a village full of idiots.

          4. Self reliant?

            That’s the opposite of what he is.

      3. Could be worse, it could be Rainbow Fish or the Giving Tree

        1. I’d always hoped that I got some alternative version of the Giving Tree, where it stood up, marched off like an Ent, lifting a single branch like an extended middle finger as it strides away.

        2. Rainbow Fish just pisses me off. What a piece of shit book. I don’t know how that commie bullshit ended up on my kid’s bookshelf, but now that I’m thinking about it, I think I’ll use it as kindling the next time we make a fire.

        3. I don’t know. The Giving Tree is kind of nice. No one forced the tree to be generous and self-sacrificing. And the boy is kind of a jerk sometimes. That one is more complicated.

          I know nothing about this Rainbow Fish thing.

          1. I don’t think anyone is supposed to imagine themselves as the tree in the story. It’s a lesson about the many uses of trees, not a lesson about self-sacrifice.

        4. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the Rainbow Fish of Giving Tree parable.s Enlighten me.

          1. Rainbow Fish

            The Giving Tree

            Basically the rainbow tree is a story that says you can’t be happy unless everyone has the same stuff and the giving tree says that it is ok to take everything that someone else has and be an ingrateful jerk about it. Add them together and you get attitude of the average Ocutard.

        5. Having looked up Rainbow Fish, I can now see what a horrifying piece of tripe it is.

          Someone should write a sequel in which the Rainbow Fish, naked and bleeding from having all his scales removed leads a shark back to the fish school and watches as the parasitic jerks are devoured.

      4. Now that I think of it, Stone Soup could also be a story on the benefits of the division of labor, sort of like “I, Pencil”. None of the villagers could have made the soup on their own with only their own resources the stone soup tricksters got them (though dishonest means, granted) to combine their resources and skills to make a meal better than what any of them could have made on their own.

        1. Except it’s totally unrealistic. Sort of like some Trekkies say that Star Trek “proves” that socialism works.

          1. Oh, yeah sure. I’m just playing with ideas. I really think it is mostly just an amusing story about naive or stupid people getting tricked.

    4. Did they have a license to cook out in the open like that and a permit for the fire? I hope they don’t plan on serving that soup to anyone else as it was made in an non-inspected location.

      1. The stone is the license. See, the stone represents the benevolent hand of government, delivered via deceit, which makes things that otherwise could never be made. Not ever.

        In the modern telling of the story, the guy has a stone. . .and a gun.

    5. Or maybe this little parable.

      The loaves and fish are the rich “paying a little bit more.” And from that shall come student loans, birth control, health care, disability and retirement homes, cheap green energy, unchanged entitlements, deficit reduction, and, of course, jobs for the multitude. Amen, and hallelujah.

      1. …and sloths and orang-utans and breakfast cereals.

      2. Yes, but in that parable, Jesus offers a post-scarcity society, where he can create stuff from other stuff at will. The stone soup conman is just tricking people into giving up their resources.

        1. So combining the two stories, we have a con man with a messiah complex. Sounds about right to me.

        2. Yes, the loaves and fishes thing is a step down on the intelligence ladder from the stone soup parable. In Jesus land, sharing automatically creates more resources, all by itself. Magic.

          In stone soup land, you never see the marginal effect of the loss of resources on others, but at least the assumption is that they exist. The pot doesn’t magically create extra carrots.

          1. Sharing? It was magic, like changing water to wine. I don’t think there was a parable there, except that Jesus magically creates snacks for people.

            1. Actually it is about sharing. See Jesus “divides” (i.e. shares) the loaves and fishes, and it turns out there’s enough for everyone.

              Moral of the story: If we all share, there will be enough to go around.

              The concept of limited resources never enters into the parable, because the other half of the equation is “god will provide”.

              So it’s basically “share and there will be enough to go around because God will magically create more shit”.

              1. My alternative interpretation goes more like this: They collected the loaves and fishes and everyone hoarded because they didn’t think there was enough food and they were all starving. Then Jesus set an example by sharing the small amount of food they had collected equally, and other people felt guilty and stopped hoarding the food they had hidden and it turned out they had enough for everyone.

                1. That’s a common interpretation, but the problem is where the hell were they hiding all this food? This wasn’t happening at their homes, they were out in the wilderness. It would have smelled like a Grateful Dead concert with people hiding fish in their underwear all day.

                2. You’re an idiot. It’s explicitly a miracle.

              2. The story explicitly states that there were five loaves and two fish to feed 5000 people. Unless you think the Gospel author is lying — in which case you have bigger problems with Christianity than loaves and fish– there’s no way for the “sharing makes enough” interpretation to fit the story.

                Also, the loaves and fish came from the apostles themselves, not from the 5000 people. So it wasn’t “sharing” anyway.

                1. The Bible is a collection of morality tales.

          2. But at least at the end you get soup. At the end of Obama’s con, you get none of the things that were promised.

            1. You get the part of your soup that the conmen didn’t con you out of.

              1. You get plenty of free shit if you happen to be old or poor or disabled.
                Or own a stake in a green energy company.

      3. No, it just shows that Jesus is anti-IP.

    6. Some travellers come to a village…

      Finally, a delicious and nourishing pot of soup is enjoyed by all.

      The next day, the village arose to find the travellers and their pot, along with most of the villages food stores missing. Winter came and disease, famine and cold wiped out the village.

      The following year, the travellers and their magic pot came through again, but this year there was no garnish for the stone, just one cooked stone with a slight bit of flavor remaining.

      The travellers now died of disease, famine and cold.

      And that, my friends, is the rest of the story…

      Good day!

      1. Thank you Paul Harvey.

    7. I’m trying to make the connections to declare this racist. Gimme a minute…

    8. huh, the Travellers I know usually try to sell you a discounted TV in a box that actually contains stones.

    9. No he’s not.

      Obama’s in a different story, with a gang of thugs who go through the village shaking people down for food.

      This seems like a capitalist fable to me.

      Guy with a capital good – the pot – comes up with a plan for a joint stock (get it, stock?) company, starts it up with his own labor by filling the pot and making the fire, then shares his plan and offers shares to others in proportion to their ability to provide value to the enterprise.

      People who add a useful ingredient get soup, and he has to make sure that *only* useful ingredients are added.

      As more and more people join, the synergy of their additions increase through wise selections of allowed ingredients, and everyone benefits because of the guy with the capital, the knowledge, the plan, and the hustle.

      Yay, Capitalism!

      1. Notice also that the villagers were capitalists as well. They didn’t just give away food. They traded value for value with the guy with a plan and materials for making soup.

        In Capitalist City, people eat well through voluntary exchange, with entrepreneurs playing the critical role in value creation.

        Yay, Capitalism!

    10. Now if it was a village of cannibals, it would be a much better story. Still needs carrots though.

  10. Also known as neo-merchantilism.

  11. Economic Patriotism =/= Gimme some munny, yo!

    1. Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone……..Obama Phone….

      I guess Chris Mathews is right.

  12. best way to grow the middle class outward

    I thought they were trying to cure the obesity epidemic.

    1. More, please!

      1. You mean, “MOAR.”

    2. OK, that was funny, right there.

    3. Guess he knows we can’t all be wealthy, but he thinks his plan will bring more americans into the middle class even though the middle class wealth will remains stagnant. No rising tide to lift all boats.

  13. According to the president, the best way to grow the middle class outward (whatever that means) is to strive for more menial labor work in an unproductive manufacturing sector.

    There is nothing intrinsically “bad” about working with your hands.

    I have known a lot more smart mechanics and welders than smart newspapermen.

    1. Yes, but Obama wants everyone to get a college degree first.

      So we’ll be a country of PhDs working the assembly lines in the factories.

      1. Jinx! I love when the Union tells me about all the guys in the plant with Masters degrees.

        “Yeah – weird. I only have a bachelors, and yet I’m the manager. No offense, but I went to college so I DIDN’T have to work in a plant, cause I’m not cut out for that kind of work….”

      2. “So you can be the factory worker, or you can be the manager of the factory! Don’t you want to get that degree so you can be the latter?”

        “Yeah, but if everyone has a degree, who will be the factory workers?”


    2. I think “menial” is the key.

      You can operate a machine? Pretty skilled, actually. We’ll gladly pay you $35/hour fringed to do that.

      You wanna be a cleaner? Yeah – we outsourced that and get it done for $10, $12/hour…which is what it’s worth to us.

      1. I’m pretty sure that Winston Wolf made more than $12 an hour.

  14. Embracing the Internationale has been disastrous for Obama. Like Stalin before him, the second term will be devoted to The New Economic Patriotism: Socialism In One State.

    1. Hopefully his two terms don’t run quite as long as Stalin’s did…

    2. Five year plans and new deals, wrapped in golden chains…

    3. The words “Economics” and “Patriotism” in one sentence sends communist chills down my back.

      1. It’s straight from the 2nd principle of Juche.

    4. TRACTORS! FTW!!!

      1. tractor pullz! /channeling the ghost of MNG

  15. Somewhat Related: Audi Ditches Plans for Electric Supercar. So either the battery technology has been found lacking, despite massive government handouts, or the whole enviro-catastrophism thing is over, or both. Win-win.

  16. some guy wants some soup and concocts a bullshit story to get other people to make it for him.

    I greatly prefer the story of the Little Red Hen.

    “Fuck off, you don’t get any bread, you lazy bastards!”

    1. Haven’t you heard the new approved ending to the LRH?

      Farmer Obama comes out and cuts off Henny Penny’s head and feeds chicken and bread to Turkey Lurkey, Ducky Lucky and Goosey Lucy for their vote.

      But after that, nobody’s making anymore bread or volunteering to be the chicken.

      1. And I think you could add something about some pigs being more equal than others.

  17. Also, if you really want to bitch about the menial soul-crushing repetitiveness of assembly line work, thank a union.

  18. It looks like they left out his introduction:

    “Now I understand everyone’s shit’s emotional right now. But I’ve got a 3 point plan that’s going to fix EVERYTHING.”

    1. Somebody please photoshop Obama’s pamphlet into a picture of President Camacho. #lulz


    1. Threadwinner

      This should be the alt text.

    2. I laughed too.

  20. Eleven pages to say nothing better than anyone else can.

  21. Obama: Math is hard.

    “The math stuff was fine up until about 7th grade,” Obama said. After that “I’m pretty lost”

    I think that explains his economic plan.

    1. Anybody who still thinks Obama is even remotely intelligent needs to take an IQ test themselves. Or hit themselves in the head repeatedly with a hammer. Either way, you get the same results.

      1. Yeah, I’m just not seeing it. He’s not a moron, scholastically speaking, but he uses reason in ways that I find. . .unsound.

        1. He got annihilated by an android because he didn’t have a teleprompter. Obama may not be a moron, but he can smell moron from where he’s sitting.

          1. I never saw it. I just saw a human projection screen. That’s the only reason he was ever thought to be a genius, or even marginally intelligent.

            1. The best part is that TEAM BLUE is populated by retards who fancy themselves intellectuals. So they projected their delusion on their object of worship who turns out to be as stupid as they are and just as delusional. It’s all kinds of lulz.

              1. Yep, basically that. They gave him a Nobel not because he deserved it — how could he — but rather because they did, for having electing him. They thought he would heal the world, because he was them, and that is what they would do.

                But it was just a giant circle-jerk by proxy.

                If he falls, though, that is one thing in which they will not share. That will be all him.

                1. The usual narrative: the Democrat candidate is the most intelligent to EVER run for the office and the Republican is dumb as a box of rocks.

                  Well, at least they get it half right…

    2. President O’Barbie.

    3. What do you actually learn in math up to 7th grade? Multiplication tables? How to compute fractions? Does he get stuck on solving single variable equations or what?

      1. iirc 7th grade is spent mostly with baby algebra. Drawing graphs, computing distance vs. time formulas, and lots of geometry.

    4. Thank a teacher.

    5. Holy shit. I knew the guy was dumb, but unable to do algebra dumb? Fucking Christ. Anybody who can’t do at least calculus should be executed on the spot, as far as I’m concerned.

      1. /Looks at old calculus grade

        Uh, ‘scuse me while I skeddale out of Warty range.

        Trigonometry was good enough for artillery plotting!

        1. Come on, sir. That’s because some pencil pusher did all the hard math and compiled it neatly into firing tables for us dumb muzzle monkeys.

      2. “Anybody who can’t do at least calculus should be executed on the spot”

        Seconded. I don’t know how you can even live without at least a basic grasp of calculus. Even just to know what it is and how it works is a big step. It should certainly be a requirement to graduate from high school.

        1. No one had a basic grasp of calculus until the late 1600s, so it must be possible to live without.

  22. I think it was on Conan the other night that Obama opened up his plan and inside was written “Rekill Osama Bin Laden.”

    1. Shouldn’t have gotten rid of the body so quickly, eh?

  23. Romney is coming back to Iowa tomorrow making his third trip to Iowa in one week. So Iowa must be in play, and Romney is less concerned about Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.

    Between that and today’s Des Moines Register, I’m starting to think Romney just might win.

    1. Oops, he’ll be back Monday.

  24. That “Math is hard!” business might ex-plain how he can believe CAFE will hit 50mpg plus.

    1. That’s his belief in free enterprise. He thinks that the private sector can do anything, so long as government takes a strong hand with them.

      1. Obama wields the “invisible pimp hand of the market.”

    2. And he wonders why the American auto industry has a hard time.

  25. Ok so I was thinking.

    Assume for the sake of Argument that Obama wins this election.

    Romney having been rejected twice will have little chance of attracting much support for a 3rd bid and Obama will no longer be eligible to run. Hillary would likely be too old and Biden is just a joke in the first place.

    Besides Paul Ryan who could realistically run from EITHER party?

    I mean we knew in 84 that it would be Bush vs someone and had a few ideas who some of the Democrat candidates would be with Hart and Gephardt.

    In 88 Clinton was a rising star Democrat who would obviously be a candidate in 92 as was Bob Kerry.

    When Clinton beat Bush Dole was the obvious candidate to replace him.

    For 2000 everyone knew Forbes, McCain, Quayle, and Buchannan would be candidates.

    In 2004 Graham and Gephardt were obvious candidates before the election

    Finally in 2008 Everyone knew years in advance Hillary, McCain, and Romney would be candidates for their respective parties.

    So for every election of my life time we had a pretty good idea who some of the main candidates for the next election would be before the election cycle was over but if Obama beats Romney then there is no realistic Democrat to take his place and the only realistic name we have from the Republican side is Ryan and probably Rand Paul.

    Are there any other politicians out there with any significant national profiles who could realistically be candidates, especially on the Democrat side?

    1. Easy on the Republican side: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, and like you said, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan.

      With the Democrats mostly older retreads come to mind, but you never know who might pop up out of nowhere. I can’t think offhand of any younger pols who are clearly being groomed like Obama was.

      1. I seem to recall some young Dem. Latino guy who was being touted as the Latino Obama.

        1. I’m thinking that no version of Obama will ever be welcome in the White House again. Even to just visit.

        2. You’re probably referring to Julian Castro, the mayor of San Antonio who gave the keynote address at the convention this year.

          BO gave the keynote address in 2004.

          1. Methinks Julian have a hard time winning Florida with that name, however.

      2. Weiner was being groomed before dropping out of sight.

    2. Team Red: Ryan, Christie, Rubio, Scott Brown (who’s basically another Romney), Rand Paul.

      Team Blue: Fauxcahotas, John Hickenlooper, Martin O’Malley, Tom Vilsack

      1. Wait, so you’re saying that we could see a reprise of this years Senate race for the presidency in 4 years?

        Not buying it.

        I could see Warren running in 4 years IF she wins but I don’t see Brown running at all ever.

        As far as the rest of the Republicans you note, My bet is that Christie will be out of the picture by 2014 because his act will have worn thin by then but I do conceed that Rubio could concievably make a run of it.

        Of the other 3 Democrats you mention I’ve only heard of 2 of them and am not terribly familiar with either.

        1. I don’t think anybody with a last name like “Hickenlooper” gets elected nationally. I’m just saying.

          Andrew Cuomo, I would expect, is the next Great White Hope for Democrats.

        2. They’re just guesses–every time there’s always 2-3 that come out of the nowhere that you’d never expect.

          Warren’s obviously being groomed for a Presidential run at some point in the future–her spot at the DNC convention is evidence enough of that. Vilsack’s got some name recognition, O’Malley’s close to the Beltway Political Incest Loop, and Hickenlooper’s a “moderate” type of Dem that independents tend to be drawn to–fairly young, inoffensive, but just liberal enough. Maybe not Presidential material, but his status in Colorado as a fairly popular Dem politician could make him an appealing VP candidate.

          1. The only Dems who’ve won the general election after 1976 were big speakers at the convention four years before. (Clinton gave the speech nominating Dukakis in ’88, Obama the keynote address in ’04)

    3. Andrew Cuomo. Other than that do what they did in ’08. Groom a non threatening minority who can read a teleprompter and wear a suit.

      1. Cuomo isn’t bad for a Democrat.

        I’d like to see Cory Booker run, though.

    4. Dems will probably be a primary between Biden and Hillary. Those are the two i hear the most about hinting at a 2016 run.

  26. “Members of the middle class will be pleased to learn that their children’s future will feature marginally smaller class sizes and work as a midlevel functionary in a green-energy factory. According to the president, the best way to grow the middle class outward (whatever that means) is to strive for more menial labor work in an unproductive manufacturing sector. Forward.”

    Sounds more and more like Moscow everyday. I bet Tony had two wanking sessions after “reading” that one.

    1. Look on the bright side: at least those kids will have an opportunity to take on tens of thousands of dollars worth of non-dischargeable federally-subsidized student loans getting a degree in Late Medieval Womyn’s Literature before they embark on that exciting career building energy-efficient batteries for Priuses.

  27. You had me at “patriotism”.


  28. New Economic Patriotism?


    We had that in the USSR. The last word was “plan”, but it’s the same thing. Glad to see we’re following the same blueprint here. Time to find another country.

    1. Lol. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe it’s meant to be a code word to Obama’s progressive-socialist base.

      “Pssst. I’m secretly a communist. Psst.”

  29. Economic Patriotism. Creepy title in time for Halloween weekend.

  30. (part 3 of 3)

    In the end this strategy isn’t likely to work. There is still a connection between most white voters and serious hard work. These voters aren’t likely to willingly accept, in a matter of four years, being part of an underclass. It’s going to take a generation in the underclass for such voters to willingly accept being part of the underclass and accept being completely dependant on government. There are enough of 0bama’s targeted whites who will resist being part of the government dependant underclass that they’ll vote republican because they want a better economy and a shot at providing for themselves. Poor whites still have a sense of dignity, they still look at government as a last resort. It will take another generation, indoctrinated by government school teachers, before poor whites are broken.

    It is clear that 0bama has no use for the private sector. He is a socialist. If his policies did not prove this, then surely his re-election strategy does. He seeks the votes of those dependant on government whether they’re school teachers, government employees, librarians or the perpetually jobless and lazy who look to government to endlessly provide them food stamps and cash. Those of you with a job in the private sector, whose job isn’t dependant on the state, you’re out of luck with 0bama. His policies will hurt you and he is uninterested in your vote.

  31. (part 2 of 3)

    All other people who work in the private sector are out of luck with the 0bama administration, democrats and progressives generally. If your job isn’t somehow dependent on government, you have no reason to vote for these people because they couldn’t care less about you.

    Certainly 0bama isn’t going to do anything for private sector jobs, he hasn’t so far during his administration and it’s unlikely a second 0bama administration would do anything positive either. In fact, 0bamacare and a number of 0bama regulations have specifically hurt the private sector. But what does 0bama care, he isn’t interested in the votes of those who work in the private sector.

    At first glance one wonders how 0bama’s strategy can possibly win in 2012. 0bama needs to win Ohio and Pennsylvania if he wants to be re-elected. Both states have a legion of working class white voters. If 0bama abandons them how can he possibly expect to be re-elected? It comes in creating a permanent underclass, which includes not just minorities but whites as well. The more unemployment, the more underclass voters. Unemployment is high in both states, 0bama must be banking on an increased underclass offsetting a loss in white working class voters. He has no incentive to get the economy rolling, such would only hurt his chances and the chances of congressional democrats.

  32. (part 1 of 3)

    0bama and the progressive liberal democrats are going to abandon white working class Americans in their quest to win the 2012 election. In doing so Obama hopes to cobble together a coalition of white teachers, artists, social workers, lawyers and librarians with minorities and those who are otherwise dependant on government assistance. In other words, 0bama and the democRATs are setting up the 2012 election as a battle between the government class and the private sector class.

    The democrat strategy ought to put 0bama’s jobs plan from September in a different light. We all knew it was about getting re-elected. Now we can see how his plan fits perfectly into his re-election strategy. On one hand his jobs plan provides more money for teachers and those otherwise dependant on government for their job while doing nothing to actually better the economy. 0bama cannot afford to have the economy perform well because if it does he’ll lose the support of the minorities and whites dependant on government hand outs. In other words, 0bama and the liberals only win if they can maintain a permanent underclass that will vote for them.

  33. If you believe that Obama would use the extra $80 billion in revenue extracted from the rich to reduce the deficit, I have an 11-page glossy jobs pamphlet for you. And Obama’s tax on the rich would hit more than 1 million small businesses, according to the Internal Revenue Service, which would make his tepid supply-side policy item?the kind of policy he regularly mocks, incidentally?useless.
    coach outlet, Still, according to a Bloomberg survey of selected economists, under Obama’s plan, “13,000 jobs would be created in 2013, bringing the total to 288,000 over two years.” That’s hundreds of billion in spending?deficit spending?aimed at creating a few unsustainable jobs without the benefit of any real private-sector growth.coach outlet

  34. Soviet Commissar is hungry and enters village. Soviet Commissar says, “I am of hunger,” but proletarians are refusing to feeding him. Soviet Commissar procures stone strong as Marx and bashes proletarian in head. Proletarians are complying. Soviet Commissar eats fine soup. “Stone soup,” he is saying. Proletarians starve come winter.

  35. Still, according to a Bloomberg survey of selected http://tinyurl.com/8ma36ry economists, under Obama’s plan, “13,000 jobs would be created in 2013, bringing the total to 288,000 over two years.” That’s hundreds of billion in spending?deficit spending?aimed at creating a few unsustainable jobs without the benefit of any real private-sector growth.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.