In other words, what effects United States effects Asia, and what effects Europe effects the United States, what effects Asia effects Europe… in fact it may be easier just to state what effects any major economy, effects the global economy as a whole. I don’t feel it would be unreasonable to make the argument that any second “great depression” felt by American would almost certainly be global in nature. Likewise, if there was a large scale economic breakdown in Europe or Asia it would almost certainly be shared by the United States…. especially considering the fragile nature of our economy today.

So when Paul Krugman or others of his ilk suggest that an $850 billion dollar stimulus was not enough to make a difference in the larger scale of things… they probably have a point (even if it’s not the point that they are trying to make). After all, we have a global economy that spits out about $60 trillion in Gross Product each year. Does anyone seriously believe that our mish-mosh of spending concentrating on propping up our own public sector employees and tossing about scraps to various liberal special interest groups can “really” effect a $60 trillion economy? If your answer is what it should be, you are now starting to really realize how preposterous the arguments are that this poorly designed and poorly executed stimulus bill actually saved the United States (and the world) from a depression. You would be better off believing that Santa Claus exists, the Easter Bunny is real, or that margarine actually tastes like butter.

The second realization would be more along the terms of a question. As in, how much “stimulus” would it actually take to “create a game changing demand” in a $60 trillion dollar global economy? The answer to that question might be the same sort of answer to a question such as… “how many rabbits would have to mate in order for one of the litters to produce an actual Easter Bunny” or “how long would you have to search the north pole before you found Santa Claus” or “which special blend of tasteless oils will actually make margarine taste like butter”.

The reality here folks is that there is not enough money, not enough government cooperation, and certainly not enough philosophical agreement to coordinate the sort of global stimulus that would be required to actually come close to testing the Keynesian theories that are being tossed around by these economic academics. The only thing I can say for certain is that the United States cannot fund a stimulus anywhere near big enough to effect the global economy, if such an amount actually exists at all.

So now the Krugmans and Obama’s of the world are mad at countries like Germany who are choosing to side with history and consolidate spending and get their fiscal house in order, rather than side with the text books and spend money like drunken sailors. What really probably chaps their collective asses is the fact that since implementing this strategy, the German economy is now outpacing the world economy (and most certainly outpacing ours). Once again, the economic theories of these academics are struggling to take hold in the real world, whereas the policies they criticize continue to work.

The problem here folks is simple. A large portion of those who voted for Barrack Obama (including moderate Democrats, independents, and cross-over Republicans) did not offer their support for a potential feisty partisan President who would appeal to the readers of the Daily Kos. Rather they voted for Obama because they believed that he was capable of “changing” the partisan undertones of Washington and bringing about more cooperation and blending red and blue into purple. I would argue that while the economy is certainly an obvious factor in the drop in the President’s personal approval, the basic underlying reason why his support is waning is that he has not lived up to the promise of being the “post-partisan” and “post-racial” President expected.

Sure, those on the left will make the tired old argument that the ongoing partisanship is not his fault, but rather the fault of all of those mean, evil, racists Tea Party members. Even if that was true (which it isn’t – the Tea Party is a byproduct of the arrogant partisanship of the Democrats), the reality is that it is “still” his responsibility to bring about the change he suggested he could foster. Short of being able to do so, it would be up to him to take the high road and at least show people that “he” is capable of being “post-partisan” and “post-racial”. Of course, he has been neither. He has been partisan in both rhetoric as well as in a manner of pushing policy and he has fanned the “race” issue again and again.

More over… people want solutions and people want results. Obama is offering no real solutions and has delivered no results. Attacking the GOP as responsible for not only our problems in general, but also responsible for his Party’s inability to deal with them is seen for what it is… finger pointing and excuse making.

Of course, this might be all he has left. His text book Keynesian economic stimulus plan failed. While there is some suggestion of a
Plan A2 (more text book Keynesian economic stimulus with a bit of tax shifting favoritism put in play), it appears fairly obvious that there is not much in terms of a plan B. I am fairly sure that the possibility that the real world economy would not react to his policy the way it does in mathematical models never occurred to Obama and his economic team. They are out of fresh ideas, which means that they resort to pure politics and partisanship rhetoric in place of fresh ideas. While this no doubt excites the far left… it leaves the rest of America in the lurch. The expectations of a great post-partisan leader with all these wonderful ideas about how to fix the world have been dashed… and in their place we now have just another angry politician attacking and blaming the other side.

1) Everything that is wrong with the country is the fault of the GOP
2) The Democrats cannot fix it because the GOP keeps blocking their agenda

This would be a fine strategy indeed if only the American public still thought that everything wrong with the country is the fault of the GOP, the Democrats had not actually gotten most everything they wanted, and if the American public didn't actually agree with the strategy of blocking any additional moves towards massive liberal policy agenda of Obama and the Democrats.

Now while it's true that voters are about split regarding who is "to blame" for the economic conditions (Latest Rasmussen poll shows 48% blame Obama, 47% blame Bush), there is no question that Obama and the Democrats are "entirely" responsible for the lackluster (or non-existent as it where) recovery. Democrats have been in charge of congress for nearly four years, and they have held both the executive and legislative branches for two years. About half of the $700,000 from TARP was left over for the Obama administration, and they passed the largest stimulus bill in the history of the world. They passed signature health care and financial reform bills... and yet the economy seems to be getting worse rather than better.

A quick recap:

• With the help of President Bush, the Obama administration had $350 billion to spend from TARP.
• With the passing of the Obama stimulus package, they had another $850 to $900 billion to spend.
• They passed the largest reform of the medical industry since the medicare.
• They passed one of the most comprehensive financial reforms in history

In other words, they have gotten almost everything they could have possibly hoped for, and yet the economy gets worse rather than better? How, do you go from getting almost everything on your political wish list and still want to blame the GOP for "blocking their attempts to fix the economy". I am curious as to "exactly" what the Republicans have specifically "blocked"?

Is it some hypothetical Paul Krugman style stimulus package that is being blocked? Is it some hypothetical socialist plan to take over more of the private industry that is being blocked? What is it, exactly, that the Democrats are trying to accomplish currently that does not involve opposition from a solid portion of their own congressional membership?

Truth is that the American public by and large does not believe that the stimulus package was worth the money we spent (if they believe it helped at all). They did not want health care reform and would actually like it repealed. They are against the federal government's involvement in private industry. In other words, they pretty much are universally opposed to most of the specific policy initiatives still being suggested by those on the left.

Simply put, by putting their foot down and saying no, the GOP is standing "with" the American voter. In fact, this midterm election is almost entirely a referendum on the "progressive" agenda. If the GOP makes the sort of gains the most pundits expect, it will be "exactly" because the voters want the GOP to "stop" the Democrat's continued attempts to remake American under the guise of "fixing the economy".

Bottom line: The public is "on to" Obama and the "progressive" agenda. They want no part in it. Yet Obama and many of these Democrats "still" act as if what they want is popular and that they still have a popular mandate to govern in this manner. This is why Obama running his mouth off on the subject is little more than a continuous GOP campaign commercial reminding the public of his overbearing arrogance regarding his own popularity and failed economic agenda.

We told you it was bad and unpopular policy. But Obama, Reid and Pelosi didn't care what most of America thought. Now they reap what they sow.

No... not seven seats in the House, but seven seats in the Senate. Which means that if polling was accurate and the elections were held today that the Senate breakdown would end up at 52-48 in favor of the Democrats. A year ago this would have been considered best case scenario for the GOP. But as it stands, this might be the new break even point.

Let's start with Seats currently held by Democrats:

(North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Delaware - Safe GOP pickups)
(Pennsylvania - Likely GOP pickup)

They hold almost insurmountable double digit leads in four pick up states (North Dakota, Arkansas, Indiana, Delaware), as well as a solid 8.5% lead in Pennsylvania. The first four have never been seriously challenged, and you have to go all the way back to a Daily Kos sample in May to find a poll that show Democrat Joe Stestak with a lead over Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania race.

(Colorado - Leans GOP)

In Colorado, Ken Buck is leading incumbent Michael Bennett by 2.5% in the RCP average. More importantly, Bennet is polling at a measly 43.5% which usually spells big trouble for incumbents. Buck has lead or been tied in every poll "other" than the PPP and Daily Kos polls.

(Illinois,Wisconsin, Nevada, Washington, Boxer - Toss up)

In Illinois, Mark Kirk (R) is leading Alexi Giannoulias (D) by much smaller margins. In fact, up until very recently, Giannoulias has had the upper hand. I see this race as pretty much toss up, with momentum on the side of Kirk.

In Wisconsin, the seemingly safe Russ Feingold finds himself in a dog fight. He is only polling at 45.3% and the latest poll showed the challenger Ron Johnson with a 1% lead. This one is about as close to leaning GOP as it can get.

In Nevada, Harry Reid's seemingly unlimited money resources has changed the dynamics of a race he was once losing by double digits. Right now polling is neck and neck with the last two showing a split result. If his initial attacks against Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle wears off, he could easily find himself down again.

In Washington, incumbent Patty Murray was another Democrat who was not supposed to be seriously challenged. How shocking must it be to see the recent SUSA poll showing challenger Dino Rossi (of recount fame) leading her by 7 points. A couple new polls showing a similar number and this could be another race "leaning" towards the GOP.

In California, Barbara Boxer (yes Barbara Boxer) also finds herself in a honest to goodness race with Republican Carly Fiorina. In fact Fiorina led Boxer by five in the latest SUSA poll. Other polls have shown Boxer with leads, but her average support has dwindled down to 44.8% which is certainly in the danger zone for incumbents.

Recap: So the GOP needs to pick up 10 seats to take the outright majority (although many believe that Joe Lieberman would be willing to caucus with them if they got to 50). I would currently project that they will pick up six seats and have at least an even chance at five others. Depending on how things go over the next two months... those other five could fall in line for the Republicans.

How about Democratic chances for Pickups? Currently they don't lead in any races that are currently held by the GOP... but they do have some chances.

(Florida - Toss up)

Polling has been all over the place in this three way race. But let's be clear... there is no chance that the Democrat Kendrick Meek will win this race. It's really between Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio and Independent candidate Charlie Christ. The Democrat's best chance for a pick up is two fold. Christ must win, and then must decide to turn his back on being a lifetime Republican to caucus with the Democrats. Had Christ not entered the race as an independent, this would be a no contest. Right now Rubio leads (according to RCP average) by 2.4%.

(Ohio, Kentucky - leans Republican)

In Ohio, Republican Rob Portman is currently ahead by 3.7% in the latest RCP polling average. This is a little misleading, as they are still using a two month old PPP poll showing the Democrat Lee Fisher leading by 2 points. Rasmussen and Reuters/Ipsos both have recently shown this race with Portman up by upper single digits.

In Kentucky, Rand Paul has led in pretty much every poll out there with the exception of one PPP and one local media poll. That being said, his leads do not appear insurmountable and he is certainly a polarizing figure.

(Missouri, North Carolina - Likely Republican)

In Missouri, Roy Blunt leads Robin Carnahan by an average of 6.7% according to RCP. However his leads seem to be increasing and it is unlikely that the Democrats can afford to put much money into the "possibility" of a pickup here when they have so much area to defend.

In North Carolina we are looking at the only real GOP incumbent candidate that we can even consider being vulnerable. That being said Richard Burr has led Elaine Marshall in every single poll that has been released.... and currently holds an average of 7.7%

Recap: The "best" that the Democrats could hope for at this point is that the Florida angle works out for them, and they can sneak through with an upset in one of these other races. But short of the political landscape changing drastically over the next few weeks, they are looking more at defending their seats than hoping to pick any up.

The "great communicator" strikes again! I wonder if this speech was heard in all 57 states?

Oh! And one other comment - I wish that Meg Whitman would put that money of hers to work for California. I mean, if she really wanted to help, she'd open a real business and put people to work.

CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about the effects of previous similar policies and drawing on various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. On that basis, CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the second quarter of calendar year 2010:

- They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic
product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent,
- Lowered the unemployment rate by between
0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points,
- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million, and
- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than).

Keep in mind that the CBO report does not, in fact, have any tangible evidence to support the mathematical models... in fact, there doesn't appear to be even any attempt by the CBO to verify one way or the other if these mathematical models are even close to reflecting any actual data that has been collected by other sources. While they claim to use historical trends to support the models, it seems unclear to me if the historical trends are using anything more than previous mathematical models. In other words, it certainly appears that they are just using previous "mathematical models" as support for the current "mathematical models". Likely the same mathematical models used to project that the stimulus plan would keep unemployment under 8%. Anyone see a problem here?

Anyway...

Based on "various mathematical models" the stimulus program increased the number of people employed by 1.4 and 3.3 million.

Based on "real data" the BLS shows a total of 524,000 jobs being created overall (including temporary census jobs) during the second quarter... while the ADP shows a total of 147,000 new private sector jobs were added over the same time period.

So on one side we have 3,300,000 and on the other we have 147,000. That's quite a difference. Which number do you suppose Americans believe deep in their souls reflects the reality they are currently living? The whopping hypothetical 3.3 million calculated from "mathematical models" or the paltry 147K collected from real live data sources?

Yet... rest assured that people within the Democratic Party will point to this report as vindication for the wasting spending of nearly a trillion dollars in tax-payer money for this. But I would argue that all that would show is how absolutely out of touch with reality these people are. Are they seriously going to cling to mathematical models in an attempt to disprove the reality that the American public is living and breathing? Seriously? I say they do so at their own peril!

This should show us "exactly" why it is so dangerous to put "academics" in charge of our Government.

Furthermore, the CBO currently projects that the cost of the war (on the Federal Government) has been just over $700 billion ($709 billion to be exact)... which is about 15% "less" than the cost of the worthless and ineffective Obama Stimulus bill.

Well, what about those tax cuts for the "rich" that people like Paul Krugman scream about. Well according to Krugman's own calculations... the tax cuts he would like to see phased out account for about $68 billion a year... if, of course, you conclude as these Keynesian loving liberals contend that there is no positive stimulus effect to tax cuts to offset the cost. You could poke that $68 billion onto the end of the past couple of budgets, and realize that neither those tax cuts or the war make a dent in our current deficit.

Now I will be the first to admit that I am always suspicious of the CBO reports because the CBO is basically a slave to what they are given by Congress. But considering congress is currently controlled by the Democrats (who are pushing the Iraq is creating the deficit fairy tale) it's hard to believe that they provided misleading numbers that would make war costs look "less".

Btw... the costofwar.com website currently projects the war cost of Iraq at $743 billion which is only slightly different than the CBO number. There is no doubt that this website is "not" controlled by the VRWC...