The Result Of Obama’s Socialist Vision Is A Double-Dip Recession

I agree, he not only wants to tax everyone and their mother, but also blame them for not being confident enough to invest in the environment he has created. Who does the chairman of the Federal Reserve think he is kidding. If they had more to do on the train wreck course they are going down it would have been done a long time ago. Maybe they should begin to think about another track for the train to go down. It won’t happen with this regime.

This is NOT a “U” recession. We are going to go back down to form a “W” depression. Hate to see it but the last real one, (I think) was Carter’w watch. And that was not fun for my family and for many others too.

Good luck to all

jensad 🙂

“The confidence in our economy just isn’t there due in large part to Obama and his policies.”

Perhaps confidence in our economy has been diminished in some small measure by 20 months of 24/7 doom, gloom, and fear mongering on the part of Obama’s political opposition.

An hour hasn’t gone by that they haven’t loudly repeated the message that the President is incompetent or worse, that anything and everything the administration does, or might consider doing, is wrong, and that any efforts on their part to encourage economic recovery are doomed to inevitable failure.

Such levels of relentless, orchestrated negativity could reduce any successful American business dependent upon maintaining the confidence of its customers to total ruin inside of a week. They can do the same for an entire nation. It just takes a bit longer.

Patvann

If there is one thing to come from Greg that is clear to me . . . he and his kind are already defeated. Greg’s words are of desperation as you so clearly state. However, I do not want Greg to shutup . . . he is doing us great favor . . . keeping us tuned in to the sit-rep of the enemy.

So Greg is serving a valuable service. Thank You, Greg.

We’re not those with the lengthening enemies list. To a list of democrats in general, Obama voters in particular, environmentalists, mainstream scientists, educators, progressive intellectuals, union members, gay people, community organizers, womens’ rights advocates, those who’ve lost their homes to foreclosure, Hispanic immigrants, the freeloading poor, the lazy unemployed, and American Muslims, those on the right now seem ready to add all current state and federal employees and retirees. Perhaps some consideration should be given to how many voters will be left.

One shouldn’t mistake a hardening defensive posture for desperation. At some point people grow weary of continuous attacks.

Greg #9 great post.Reminder Skooks wasn’t lying when he said “this is a tough crowd” for Dems and moderates.It does appear that the right’s DEMONIZING of so many groups will continue to leave them as a very loud minority, though they obviously don’t see it that way.
OldPuppyMax “Hussein’s master plan to destroy the U.S. economy”If you think that kind of rhetoric will improve your electoral chances I say Keep It Up.
I also remind the “birthers” to Keep Up The Fight.

I couldn’t help but notice in the news today (online news) that none of the websites for newspapers had ANYTHING at all about OBAMA in headlines — NONE. I went from FoxNews, MSNBC, Reuters, USAToday to others and used by FIND feature on my blogger to see if there was ANYTHING to be found about Obama. With all the bad news coming out today, I thought maybe there would be some remark from Obama.

Nothing. The only entries were either old links or commentary, but NO NEWS headlines about Obama. None. Now that the Obama economic plans are tanking out, there is no word from the Commander-in-Cheese. A really genuine large RAT — Obama!

Is Obama still on vacation? Does the condition of the economy and the country not worry him enough to make a comment? And, is the MSM helping shield and hide Obama from the fallout of Obama’s lackluster economic plans?

What Ben Bernanke is saying today about the economy and the Fed, he said a few months ago when the bad news reared it’s ugly head back then. Same thing. If you have a brain cell you’ll note that the Fed can’t do a DAMN thing.

Why is Obama hiding? Because of the attention on the BAD economy and the state of the unemployed in America. The lights are on and the focus is on our economic future. So why is Obama hiding? You’ll recall that COCKROACHES only come out when the lights are out.

@Greg:

You obviously have not stopped to think that at least eight of the categories you list does actually have conservatives among them. Just as faith based groups, CEOs here and overseas, Wall Street execs, big banks, big pharma, southern rednecks, etc., people the left makes a habit of demonizing, have liberal progressives among them.

Seems to me years of demonization of the opposition worked just fine for the democrats, all of a sudden the whiners are crying uncle. boo hoo. 🙄

Greg, are you really that ignorant and forgetfull?? Can you really tell me that the Democrats didn’t blame Bush for everything including the weather during his tenure. Sorry dude but you need to get real and understand that 0-bama has failed!! Not Bush and NOT the American people who have watched his socialist policies bring our country to brink of destruction. And all the while he takes vacation after vacation and his wife does the same. I have watched in amazement as you respond with your trash to every article that rightly points out how your boy has failed. I suggest you go back to your MSM networks and dring more of their Kool Aid vs. facing reality.

“As a result the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said they will do whatever “is necessary” to prevent a further slide….” Does this mean that all of the Obama administration is resigning?

When the country is on the course its captain sets, the captain can vacation and party all he wants. The USS America is being scuttled by its captain and crew. Everything is going to their plan, so they can party on. The way I understand it, the captain parties an average of once every three days. I am going to guess that the further the USS America sinks, the more parties that will be held.

johngalt/Smorgasbord;

The US currently has 104 operating nuclear power plants, France has 59 operating plants. However, France generates more than 70% of their electric power from nuclear where the US generates only about 19% of electric power from nuclear.

I was in the US Navy Nuclear Power Program for 10 years and then worked in the US commercial industry for an additional 17 years. I know well the challenges that are faced by the commercial verses the department of defense programs. Currently and since the inception of the defense departments use of nuclear power, all expended reactor cores have been reprocessed and useable materials recycled for further military use. Only about 5% of the fissionable material in a reactor core is actually expended, the remaining 95% is recovered and used to make new fuel. All reprocessing facilities are owned by the Defense Department. No civilian company in the US of A is allowed to own such reprocessing facilities.

Commercial nuclear plants at the present time must store all expended fuel either on site at the nuclear power plant or at an approved storeage facility. Most of the long term storage is in “dry” storage and the containers are located either in the outside areas of the associated plant or inside of specially designed fuel storage buildings. Such storage facilities are fully approved by the NRC with respect to all safety features.

The reprocessing of commercial waste (as in spent reactor fuel) is a political limit only. This is a carry-over limit from the “Atoms for Peace Program” that resulted in the commercialization of nuclear power, but also prevents the use of any commercially produced material from being used in a military application. Such use of commercial material of even a single atom would violate the Atoms for Peace limits. Thus the Defense Department can not reprocess waste (as in spent fuel) from commercial plants because the Defense Department can not assure the political agenda that NO ATOMS FOR PEACE are USED IN MILITARY APPLICATIONS.

@Tallgrass: #23 How long will it be before the storage areas are full? Keep in mind that the waste will last at least several thousand years and possibly many times more.

johngalt/Smorgasbord/Romeo

I was Nuc Power School Class 7101 at Mare Island, NPTU Idaho, USS Daniel Boone SSBN-629 and USS Seahorse SSN-669 (1970 to 1980)

Neglible amount of radioactivity . . . hum . . . how can I answer this without sounding like I don’t respect peoples concerns and fears . . . which I most certainly do have great respect for the fear that has been “purposefully” created. There was a time in the mid 1970’s through mid 1980’s when there were many, many “anti-nuclear” groups and organizations which when you added up the numbers of people that participated in the groups there were thousands, maybe hundreds of thousnds of people that were vehemently opposed to nuclear power. They continuously harped on “radioactive waste”, “reactor meltdowns”, “china syndrome”, “cancer rates”, ‘birth defects”, “millions and millions would be killed” . . . all fears based on ZERO real understanding of what they were talking about. It was a hopelessly confused situation and ultimately brought on the decline of the nuclear alternative. Not because of the loss of viability of the technology, but because of the “career” suicide it meant for any nuclear utility executive that supported it. Any electric utility executive knew that to announce the construction of a new nuclear power plant meant that their career was zeroed. The final and coup de grace to the industry was the Three Mile Island induced morotorium on new plants . . . then as now . . . our government discovered then that a “morotorium” on anything, as in the drilling for oil today, ultimately was a death blow to the industry.

So now lets talk about radioactivity. Neglible amounts, less than “minimum detectable” acitivity (the NRC words to describe this) exist everywhere on the earth, and in the universe for that matter. This includes even deep within the earth it self. If you build your home from brick it has slightly higher natural radioactivity than if you build from wood. If you have a basement again you have higher levels of radioactivity. If you get more medical x-rays you get more radiation exposure . . . ride on air planes you get more . . . if you live in the city surrounded by lots of concrete . . . if you live high in the mountains you get more exposure. A coal fired fossil fuel electric power plant that produces 1000 MWe of electric power releases more than 100,000 times that amount of radioactive material to the atmosphere than does the equivalent nuclear power plant. If you eat food produced in certain areas of the US you get more than if the food you eat comes from another area. All are neglible by government standards and are just a fact of life . . . thus neglible exposure to radioactive material is LIFE, period. So to be overly concerned about radioactivity and radioactive materials is truly and exercise in futility.

Then, why should I be concerned of nuclear power plants? Good question and it does deserve a good answer. You should be concerned because it is a high technology facility . . . it does represent a potential health hazard. With that said, and with all due respect, YOU should also be concerned with ALL high technology facilities NEAR where you live . . . and be aware that unplanned and dangerous events occur around such facilities . . . some of these unplanned events (PC for accident) kill people, damage the environment, poision the water, kill little animals . . . so since there is no hope of getting away from technology that does all these things . . . where would I want to live? Sure can not run off and hide in the mountains . . . heck even in the most remote areas there are dangerous technologies . . . so should I just bury my head in the sand? No don’t bury your head in the sand . . . find the safest, most monitored, most controlled, most public friendly and informative place to live. Want to guess where that would be? AT THE FENCE SURROUNDING A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. LMAO. I did exactly that. My home is less than 1000 yards from the fence around the site where a nuclear power plant was to be built. Note the past tense, WAS. The plant was ultimately cancelled, so there is no plant there. My lifetime career, which I did plan to spend at this NOT built plant was cancelled. I know first hand what happens when our government creates a morotorium!!! LMAO. Peoples lives are ruined or changed forever.

Now more on nuclear waste. The quantity of “high level waste” produced by a nuclear power plant of 1000 MWe is about 1 cubic yard each year of operation. This includes, spent fuel and any material that is subjected to high levels of radiation, such as tools, monitoring sensors and waste collected by cleaning and purification systems that are associated with the reactor core. Only the fuel is stored at the plants. All other waste are sent to government owned and operated storeage facilities where the waste is usually prepared for long term storage by encasement in glass and then placed in specially designed buried storage. Some of this waste, prior to burial, is processed to reduce the volumetric quantity by removal of water, incineration, compaction and other volume reduction processes. Thus, in 40 years of plant operation, which is the design lifetime of a typical nuclear plant, the plant will produce about 40 cubic yards of waste. Most of the storage facilities at the US nuclear power plants have been built to hold this quanity of waste. However, if additional storage is needed, it is built. Thus, the storage facility is NEVER full as the needs are evaluated and new facilities are built long before there is a need for them.

When, in the politically enlightened future, reprocessing of fuel from the commerical industry is allowed all of those waste storage facilities will become superfluous and basically the money that was spent to build those facilities will have been a cost that was unnecessary. LMAO. Most importantly, is that the concerns that we have today about the safety of the on-site storage facilities will have been a totally government produced safety hazard to the public. Thus, we must today accept the fact that if the government thinks it is safe . . . it is safe. Would it bother me to live near a nuclear power plant that has a fuel storage facility? Not at all, again I want to live as close as possible so that they will come and tell me when something happens. IMHO, it is better to live close to a defined hazard, that I will be warned about than next to a facility where they don’t bother to tell me because of the negative publicity. Get this difference, it is IMPORTANT.

So now a question . . . If you are a “Green Freak” and you belive in the concept of global warming . . . how can it be possible to be Anti-Nuclear . . . when literally millions of tons of CO2 are produced by coal fired electric plants? If you think solar, wind, and other forms of green energy are going to save your lifestyle then YOUR are an IDIOT and I can not help you.

TALLGRASS : I am impress with the knowledge, and logic,and easy way ,you write so we
CAN understand the SCIENCE: I think that the COST to build a facility to produce that energy, capable to meet the ever growing consumption from the communitys of the country as a whole,
become a big factor of rejection, from A GOVERNMENT who is against spending for the interest
of the country, and prefer to only talk about it, but not do any positive actions,or will create agencys to study the subject, where they will spend many years to come with some understanding of it, that to me is creating all kinds of DELAYS, so there will never action the project.
THANK you. bye

Hey Bees;

Storage in space has been discussed and the feasibility has been studied. Thanks to NASA. There was a time, in the mid-60’s to mid 70’s when small nuclear reactors were used to produce electric power for satelites. The Russians used them more than the USA did. Some of these satelites have re-entered the earth’s atmosphere and burned up. The radioacitve material from those reactors has been spread across the earth’s surface and that material is still around today. Obviously we just live with it, there is nothing that can be done to collect and properly dispose of it.

The studies done by NASA include storage of hazardous materials on the surface of the moon. Yep, we would just load the waste on to a big rocket and send it off to the moon where it would just be crashed onto the surface of the moon and left there. Then someone realized, hey, we might want to build a colony up there one of these days and then we’d just have to collect that stuff up and send it on to the sun. So they studied that too. Why not just put it on a rocket, launch it toward the sun? Once the stuff came under the gravitational influence of the sun it would just continue on its merry way into the sun and be burned up by the sun. Then someone did the cost analysis and it turned out to be a lot cheaper just to live with it here on earth. They figured out that the cost of sending stuff up into space cost a few million dollars per kilogram and it just seemed like a waste of money to send it up there. So that idea just got put into the “round filing cabinet” and is now in a landfill somewhere, lol.

During the early days of nuclear power the US government had all kinds of “good ideas” to use nuclear power for including . . . hey, how about a nuclear powered air plane? So they built this 20 thousand foot runway up in Idaho so that they could have a place where the plane could take off, the run way can be found by looking at Google Earth, it is still there. The plane, well they built and tested a few different types of nuclear air plane engine, but they never built the plane (at least that is what is told to the public). Heck who knows, they might of actually built it and we see the darn thing as a UFO, lol.

They designed and built, but never used, a nuclear powered rocket engine.

The Russians designed, built and deployed a few thousand nuclear powered navigation stations. These navigation stations were deployed to areas of the USSR where there was no electric power readily available, like on the frozen tundra of Siberia or deep in the forrest of Siberia. They never bothered to collect up these navigation stations, just left them setting around out there all by themselves. Well, a couple of hunters were out there killing little animals to eat and they stayed out past dark and got lost. As they were wandering around in the dark they found this nice warm “thingy” and they said, “wow, we don’t need no camp fire, we can just sleep next to this nice and warm thingy”. So they did and they got a little fried . . . kilted both them boys. They’d done found themselves a nuclear powered heater and it was a terrible thing to happen, but they did sleep warm that last night they lived. No this is not a joke . . . it sounds crazy . . . but this happened.

Them Russians they was smart folks. They also figured out that if they irradiated Quadrotriticale . . . yep that stuff from Star Trek . . . it is real . . . and we grow it for food!!! We call it a much more mundane word . . . we call it wheat. Anyway, wheat that is irradiated will sprout at a much lower temperature. So hey, if we irradiate our wheat seed we can get it to start growing when it is cold outside and we can get more wheat since our growing season is longer. Wow, what a great idea. So they produced a type of seed planter with a radiation source on it. Just like a cancer treatment machine . . . it had a cobalt-60 radiation source on it and they zoomied the wheat seed!!! So they did this for a few years and pretty soon that seeding machine got old and worn out. So what do we do with a old worn out seeder? We put it out there with the old junk farm equipment. So the Russians now have thousands of old seeding planters strewn all over the old USSR countries that create huge problems . . . cause they kill people that don’t know what they are. I think that most of these have now been rounded up and sent off to Siberia where they are buried.

Why am I telling you all these stories? Simply because these stories represent the way it “use-ta-be”. Threre was a time in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s when the concern for radioactive material was much less than today. Today, the technology has advanced, humans have died, and we know now what we can and can not do.

Waste from a nuclear power plant is so small compared to what we and they have done in the past. We have learned our lessons. Just as the railroad only puts crossing barriers at crossings where people have died, we now know how to be safe with nuclear material too.

@ilovebeeswarzone: #30 That was considered many years ago and quickly rejected. Rockets explode or go off course and have to be destroyed to keep them from landing in a populated area. Either way, the radio active waste could be spread over thousands of miles or just a few, contaminating millions of people with small doses of radiation or thousands of people with massive doses.

I still haven’t heard anyone say they would vote for the waste to be buried near them. I’m not thinking of now. The stuff will last for thousands of years. Will it be safe for people after that time? Will the government pay for monitoring all of the sights during those thousands of years? Will the land it is buried under be there in that length of time? That is my main concern.

I don’t mean to go on about this, and I know others don’t want to keep reading about it, so I will end my comments on it.

Keeping in mind that the CBO report cited (February 4, 2009), did not say that the economy “will fix itself if Government just stays the hell outta the way”, as this author purports. Actually, the CBO is reported in the original article as saying, “President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing.”

But, it does not logically follow from that statement that the economy ‘would fix itself’ if he’d done nothing. Actually, I agree with many economists, that the Administration should have done more of the right things to stimulate the economy, rather than the actions that have been taken, or doing nothing.

Many socialist countries are exhibiting recovering economies: The UK economy, Europe’s second largest, sustained the fastest pace of growth in a year during the first quarter on a revival in industrial production. http://en.ce.cn/World/biz/200604/27/t20060427_6839494.shtml

“Let’s see, which one is worse; two democrat presidents that signed into law programs that relaxed credit requirements, a current democrat president that claims one of his proudest achievements was housing advocacy, (a nice way of calling bankers racists if they refused loans to uncredit worthy applicants), or W PERSONALLY stressing the advantages of home ownership.”

thank you, well said Aqua.

@rich wheeler 44

No, the loans made during that period were based on the knowledge that Fannie and Freddie would take those loans off the hands of the origionator company… thus handing the liability for a bad loan to a Gov backed entity.

So, as long as the loan looked OK on paper, there was little to no real liability to those giving the loan…

And because of the “Jumbo” loan packages available, housing prices rose because that money was available.

But because the Governemnt primarily gages economic success by how much money is changing hands (GDP)… those higher prices for housing looked good… and housing became an ever greater portion of the GDP (because housing has to be a somthing built internaly to the country, ie, you can’t import housing…).

So, IMO, its not so much a Dem or Repub created problem… as a Washington created problem, with the collusion of the Fed Res Bank (whose members made a BUTT load of profit those years, while handing the liability off to Fannie and Freddie ie, the Government).