No, it’s not Obama’s economy

The recession was over in June 2009, but the reason the workers didn't see a lot of change was the government intervention, so there wasn't real progress. Business owners who could just waited it out--didn't expand, didn't hire, and cut their labor force. Others went under if they didn't have lobbyists and friends in the party. One of the worst programs I thought was "cash for clunkers." It was a give away to the car companies, and it seriously damaged lower income people who needed transportation to get to work or find work--they were the ones who would buy those clunkers that were being destroyed. It was also a give away to the green lobbyists and the mortgage industry because so many people had to finance those new cars even with government handouts. On a graph, it looks like economic growth, but really solid growth happened after Obama was out of office and unable to terrorize business.

It's no wonder Democrats focus on "infested" as a racist word (Elijah Cummings), or Trump's tax returns (Gavin Newsome). Low unemployment, low inflation, low mortgage rates, shrinking credit card debt, higher savings rates, higher consumer confidence, and for me, I'm making more with my 403-b than I when I worked. And there are millions and millions of retirees having the same experience with their 401-k, pensions and savings--even those who hate Trump.

The next step for the Democrats is to deliberately sabotage the economy and the American people in order to get Trump and their power back.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/03/11/trumps-policy-magic-wand-boosts-manufacturing-jobs-399-in-first-26-months-over-obamas-last-26/#7f5e1d6d20a6

THE ECONOMY: The way to make it grow is really simple.

1. You create an environment where people have money to spend on goods and services.
2. You create an environment where jobs are plentiful.
3. To create jobs, you lower corporate tax rates and regulations to make businesses easier to start or grow and encourage them to bring back business they have taken to other countries because they could make more money there.
4. You equalize trade to also make it less lucrative to buy from other countries and more lucrative to sell to other countries, thus making AMERICAN MADE more profitable. This also raises the incentive to keep business in the USA and bring it back here meaning American jobs! (Think steel, aluminum, etc.)
5. When you make America more business friendly (and not via lobbyists buying self-serving votes from congress members for HUGE corporations, but for mom and pop businesses we all frequent daily), those companies can hire more workers, more people are working so there is more money to spend at the small businesses, thus the businesses grow and hire more people.
6. More people working takes them off government assistance which allows them to better their lives and work towards the American Dream.
7. Less people on government assistance and more people working brings in more tax money which can be used for what it SHOULD be for, not to keep the poor barely surviving.

SIMPLE! Takes someone who is a businessman to realize this and make it happen

Obama, as a community organizer, only knew to throw government money at things that needed money. The boondoggle giant Stimulus Program was just spending more and more money but little came back in. Hiring people with taxpayer dollars (shovel ready jobs) are not permanent and while those people are paying in taxes, their entire salaries COME from tax dollars. Thus the deficit grew like crazy and we were worse off. Jobs were temporary so people were back to unemployed, and on government assistance again. Government jobs are funded by taxes, while private sector jobs are funded by business owners. It is THEIR money backing it, and if they succeed, they do well. If they fail, only they lose.

Obama believed in subsidizing everything instead of fixing the problem. Solyndra should have been some PRIVATE OWNER'S dream and they should have been the ones to take the fall, not paid for by taxpayers. Supply and demand. Subsidies mean that business isn't working. To make them work, that business owner/board needs to make necessary adjustments to be prosperous, or shut down.

It's really simple. You bring jobs and business BACK to America. You make it easier to start businesses, not harder. THAT is why the economy, jobs, and the GDP are so good now, not because of Obama's ideas and actions.

Permission to share Jennifer Rymer Krawsczyn

Back in my day. . .

Oh, young people love to hear that one, don't they? My chosen career, librarianship, was and probably still is, at the bottom of the pay scale for an advanced degree (entry level degree is a master’s but many have PhDs).  But I loved it. What could be more fun than buying, organizing, preserving and distributing information, knowledge and wisdom? ("For the protection of wisdom is like the protection of money, and the advantage o...f knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of him who has it." Eccl. 7:12) I don't envy Bill Gates' wealth or the 3 winners of the Megamillions. In fact, my religion says coveting is very, very bad not only for a society but for me personally. However, my president says it's good. He wants "fairness," which actually means coveting what others have. If you don't believe me, try teaching fairness to 6 year olds--you'll create jealousy as they each eye what the other has and start to whine.

 
The Buffett rule is something for President Obama to talk about during the campaign so he doesn't have to face the huge economic problems he has created and to rail against “rich Republicans” if it fails.  The biggest, wealthiest donors are all contributing to Democrats, but don’t let the facts confuse him—he’s already way off track and it plays well with the unemployed he hasn’t helped.   He wants the government to take more of what you or someone else has, not to use for any particular purpose, but to satisfy a vague belief in "fairness."

The Buffett rule takes money out of the economy and gives it to the government, where it will be spread around the various bureaucracies, revolving door non-profits and unions and you'll never see a dime of it.

Echoes of the Great Depression

Phil Gramm lays out the similarities and differences between the 1930s and today, and between the American people then and their willingness to try collectivism and their unwillingness today. He's put a pretty positive spin on November's election. I'm not so sure. My generation, although we heard about the Great Depression all our growing up years, has become very careless, and the Boomers? My, they've always expected more and better, and they are the parents of the Gen-Y and Gen-X who just a few years ago needed toys, trinkets and prizes just to show up to work (I assume that has changed since 2008).

Barack Obama is a Marxist--true, not a terribly successful one, but you can see the power of his supporters, now angered by his ineffectual programs, when they show up tomorrow in Washington as One Nation of Trouble Makers Asking for More and More and More. Every Communist, Socialist and crooked union leader will be there, paying the way for their lackey workers to assemble and protest a administration which promised to steal from the rich and give to the middle-class while ignoring the poor (who already have 70 or so programs to help them stay at the bottom).

Phil Gramm: Echoes of the Great Depression - WSJ.com

And sound and look of affluence

On my morning walk today I could hear the sound of traffic roaring both north and south from Rt. 315--several miles away. I could also hear the happy sounds of the Upper Arlington High School band practicing miles away. I saw construction/remodeling signs of contractors in the yards of the upscale neighborhood built in the mid-1970s. Then I picked up a flyer from a real estate sign for 3815 Criswell Drive.

Half a million won't get you much in Huntington Beach, California, or Coolidge Corners, a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, but it buys a heck of a lot of house in a very convenient neighborhood of Upper Arlington, a community of outstanding schools and community services, minutes to Dublin or downtown Columbus or OSU, Battelle or Chem Abstracts and a stone's throw from one of the country's best golf courses.

1. Almost 3,000 sq ft
2. 112 x 150 lot
3. finished media room
4. bump out on garage for hobbies or third car
5. beautiful yard with patio and irrigation system
6. island kitchen with pantry wall and mud room
7. dining room with wet bar and built-ins
8. marble floors in foyer and kitchen
9. 2nd floor laundry
10. deluxe master bath with jetted tub and shower

So the taxes are over $10,500, but we don't have personal property taxes like some of you do; we don't have mountains and beaches near by, but there is an airport; and of course, we have football out the wazoo.

Today I got an e-mail from Bob, a high school friend warning me Starbucks prices were going up, up and away. (About 6 guys from my high school (1950s) have e-mail lists--and they say women talk. . .) I wrote back and told Bob I judge affluence by . . . kitchen counter tops. Recently our neighborhood had a home tour. You would think laminate counters are a sign of 3rd world poverty. Granite, marble, polished concrete, and the new cabinets to support them, the track lighting to shine on them, and the gorgeous art to hang above them are a sign that Americans are still doing quite well, thank you. Also, I'm a fan of HGTV, and hooked on the home buying "reality" shows (completely unreal). You would think people have seen a rat if the buyers see laminate.

Personally, I think marble is way overrated. It's hard to clean--in fact my kitchen counter never feels clean to me and it's too dark to tell. The instructions for its care read like a school exam, so now I just clean it with anything handy--usually Windex, which I've learned is just about the handiest tool around.

The point of all this is to tell all those economic experts and journalists who for the last 30 years have been telling me how awful it is to be poor in the United States and how we're all going to hell in a hand basket, that many Americans are doing just fine. And they are very, very tired of hearing our scolding, obsequious president diminish what a market economy can provide for most of us, and give hope for the rest. We started our marriage in the bottom quintile 50 years ago and never even noticed we were poor because we had so much for which to be grateful.

Gov't: Spending to rise under health care overhaul

This doesn't come as a huge surprise, but who can we blame. The American people wanted him. His agenda from the beginning has been to destroy, and we are sure getting it. Don't worry about this "low" figure--the next report will show it to be much higher, I'm sure.

"Factoring in the law, Americans will spend an average of $13,652 per person a year on health care in 2019, according to the actuary's office. Without the law, the corresponding number would be $13,387. That works out to $265 more with the overhaul. Currently, Americans spend $8,389 a year per person on health care."

The Associated Press: Gov't: Spending to rise under health care overhaul

There's no joy in being right

Neo-Neocon writes: "A number of readers felt that the high rates of unemployment among the young is a case of just desserts: serves them right. And although I want a great many young people to learn the lesson that voting for a con man, an empty suit with little or no experience who makes beautiful promises that mean little or nothing, is a bad idea—and that they retain the information for decades to come, so it doesn’t happen again—there’s no joy in my heart about the rest of it."

Like me, she used to be a Democrat, so she knows how easy it is to fall for that feel-good, do-good line. And these young people didn't even have parents who made it through the Great Depression like we did. They've never known anything but good times. It's tough out there.

And still Obama wants to raise taxes!

Higher taxes hurt everyone. It particularly hurts the little guy. But that's what FDR did too during the Great Depression of the 1930s-1940s. His little tax increments, like on entertainment or candy, hurt the poorest the most. Now Obama wants to kill investment. Folks, the richest can always go elsewhere with their money--like India or Europe whose economies are growing much faster than ours as they pull back from socialism.

Obama has no intention of turning the economy around. Many panelists on these TV talk shows, cable or broadcast, right and/or left, just don't get it. They keep making hopeful suggestions. But his plan is working--more people than ever are dependent on the federal government.

More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA Today shows. That’s up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007.

The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. Private physicians are already indicating that they’re at their limit, says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.

In other areas:

◦More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50 percent during the economic downturn, according to government data through May; the program has grown steadily for three years.

◦Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance (nearly four times the number from 2007); benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits; caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January.

◦More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18 percent increase during the recession.

As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs, says USA Today:

◦The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36 percent in two years, to $273 billion.

◦Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion.

◦The food stamps program has risen 80 percent, to $70 billion.

◦Welfare is up 24 percent, to $22 billion.

Stats from Texas Insider which apparently (not clear) got them from USAToday.

You don't have to have a degree in economics to see that in a free, market economy, government programs slow down recovery. It adds costs to hiring and expansion, it competes with private employers and industries, and encourages people to stay home and wait til something better comes along, thus extending the slow down. The blueprint for government expansion while depressing the economy was laid out during FDR's reign. Obama's right on the plan.

What exactly is "top priority" for President Obama? Not the economy, stupid

It certainly isn't the oil spill is it? He'll do what he always does. Create a commission and build a gallows for the CEOs. Then pounce on more green in the sky plans.

If you google "Barack Obama top priority" you'll get 444,000 matches, many duplicates, many off topic. But most will show he'll put on a happy (or defiant) face for whomever is the audience. A true politician--that behavior knows no party, kingdom or philosophy. When he was campaigning he was all over the priority map, just like today, but ECONOMY certain was a biggie--and it has worsened since he became the candidate to beat in July 2008 because he switched priorities as soon as he took office. Dates refer to the reporting, not the speech--and I've selected just a few--but it was pretty obvious, unemployment / jobs / economy certainly took a back seat to taking over segments of the economy, discouraging investment, and raising taxes during the recession.

Economy, June 10, 2008

Liberalize abortion laws, October 17, 2008

Improve image abroad, November 6, 2008

Economy, November 7, 2008

India, (date not posted, but appears to be 2008)

Health care reform, June 3, 2009

Haiti, January 14, 2010

Clean energy jobs, January 27, 2010

Jobs, January 29, 2010

Health care, January 28, 2010

Unemployment, April 2, 2010

Jobs, April 27, 2010

Oil spill, April 28, 2010

Planes will start flying again; stupidy will linger

The same people who were hysterical over the cost of "Bush's Wars" are oddly silent on the cost of "Obama's Wars," both the ones in the middle east and the one on our economy. These are often the same people who believe passionately in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), even though they've just had a brilliant display of how little we control and how commerce and climate can both cool with just a few burps of a volcano through a glacier. For some reason they are willing to spend mega-trillions attempting to control the climate at some unknown future date by a degree or two, when a few hundred million could insure every African would have safe water and control malaria in this decade.

When the rich don't buy

All sorts of people are losing their jobs--not so much from the recession, although that's part of it--but from the hostile, unfriendly, investment-cooling policies of the Obama administration. Let's say, just for fun and fantasy, you are worth a few million (like the current President) or many millions (like our former Presidents Bush and Clinton). How eager in today's climate would you be to invest in the finer things of life--like art. Now if you're a speculator, this might just be a great time. But let's say you became wealthy through solid investments and/or the smarts of your handlers and political friends.

In the WSJ today there's a story about a classy art gallery defaulting on loans. And apparently there have been a number of NY galleries go under. The rich aren't buying and probably credit sources have dried up because the bailouts have gone to a much higher tier in the credit food chain (that's not in the article--just my opinion). What happens when a first class art gallery closes? Staff is left go, of course; rent isn't paid and that hurts the bank that holds that mortgage; real estate firms are hurt; neighborhood business is hurt; the staff and shoppers who would have patronized the area shops now go elsewhere to spend their money; the delis and restaurants in the area lay off their immigrant counter clerks and bussers; the graphic artists and printers that worked up the catalogs have to cut back; the webpage designer for the gallery's sales has lost an important customer; rent payments and mortgage payments fall behind sending the economic ripples far down the subway line through people that never bought a piece of art in their lives; less tax money comes to the city, district and state; city workers get laid off; more demand on unemployment payouts.

On the plus side there are very good buys for art speculators; warehouses and storage facilities are doing well as banks look for places to store the seized art; court dockets fill up keeping their clerks busy; there's a demand for bubble wrap and protective coverings as art goes into storage; fraud investigators have more work as owners try to hide sales; lawyers are rubbing their hands since it looks like the terrorist trials might move elsewhere; they all need to hire more support staff.

And in Washington DC and the rubber chicken campaign circuit, our President flogs his health care plan oblivious to the ripples he sends out every day that keep the economy struggling and businesses sinking to the bottom of the government quagmire.

The Obama Dependency Economy

". . . the U.S. economy has now lost a total of 3.8 million jobs since President Barack Obama signed his $862 billion stimulus plan. We are 8.1 million jobs short of the 138.6 million he promised the American people.

It is good to see the American economy finally recovering again. It demonstrates the resilience of the American entrepreneur in the face a punishing job killing agenda from Washington. And don't fall for any White House claims that this belated recovery is due to the stimulus."

Read the entire article here. Find out what the government coulda, shoulda, woulda do if economic recovery instead of more control of our lives were the goal.

And by the way, I'm still waiting to see what the ARRA funds will be doing on the Upper Arlington street just west of us. I drove the distance of the orange barrels, and don't even see a problem, let alone a worker. Meanwhile, the landscape company reworking our condo entrance (which included a Saturday and a brief snow storm) is finished.

January 21, 2009--On this day

President Obama should have hit the floor running to fix the economy. Instead we got apology tours, unspent and poorly planned ARRA funds for businesses and districts that don't exist, inexplicable loitering, dithering and floundering over military requests instead of decisive action, bailouts of auto companies to save the unions, and months and months and months of boring, repetitious campaign speeches on "fixing" health care where he lied and obfuscated through his teeth and teleprompter. This man doesn't understand basic math. Can he add 65 to 1945 and figure out the Boomers are going to be collecting Social Security? That pensions are invested in private companies? Can he do the math on what a national unemployment rate of between 9-10% (but locally much, much higher--18-19%) does to tax revenue at the state and local level, to say nothing of the federal?

So he's got less, owes more, and like a hoarder applying for another credit card from China, decides that fixing something that wasn't broken is more important than saving the economy. Why? I don't think it's "legacy." It's way beyond that. He's a marxist; wants to destroy our market economy. He needs passionately to dismantle it. It's all he knows; all he's been taught from the beginning of his sad, stunted life. We're seeing him take it down, piece by piece.

Hoover was hardly a conservative

He was a progressive, and FDR followed his path until it was set in concrete and took 10 years and WWII to recover. This letter was in today's WSJ by George C. Leef. According to various bios on the internet, he's a libertarian and did run for office in Michigan back in the mid-80s.

"The standard leftist narrative about our history holds that President Herbert Hoover was a die-hard laissez-faire advocate who wouldn't budge from his capitalist convictions even as the nation's economy spun into the Great Depression. The truth is that Hoover was a "big government conservative" who believed that aggressive federal economic intervention would speed recovery and reduce suffering. He specifically rejected the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon that the best policy would be the same as President Warren Harding had pursued after the sharp 1920-21 recession: to cut taxes, cut federal spending and allow market adjustments to proceed unimpeded.

FDR did not take the country down a different path, but accelerated rapidly down the failed, counter-productive statist path Hoover had chosen. The parallels between the Hoover-Roosevelt era and the Bush-Obama era are striking."

I've been saying this for years, and I'm not even a libertarian. George W. Bush spent like a Democrat, especially on social programs, and it took Obama to get even more reckless. But at least GWB had the economic sense to encourage more tax money for the government coffers instead of discouraging it with punitive regulations, cap and trade, higher taxes, and finger wagging threats.

Media got their talking points

It was announced on its one year anniversary that the stimulus is working--the Obama Biden dog and pony show said so. This morning the two newspapers I checked--Wall Street Journal and USAToday--obviously received their talking points. Both papers were just full of it--happy clappy, hopey changey articles. Whoopee. It's over. New housing starts. Our great leader has saved us from a Depression! More businesses hiring. They really spread it thick. Still, it's odd isn't it, that so little money has actually been spent, and yet they claim it's working? And didn't they say that in June and September too? I thought TARP was supposed to stop us from tumbling into the Depression. Oh, and USAToday threw in not one but two H1N1 articles about very serious complications for children with other health problems, just in case people were a bit suspicious of all the scare tactics and shortages in that program.

Job killers in the second stimulus

If you needed any additional evidence that Obama has no intention of rescuing the economy, that it's right where he wants it:

"The Las Vegas Sun reported this weekend that big labor leaders are pushing to include their long-sought "card check" provisions into Obama's Second Stimulus. This legislation would effectively end a worker's right to fight unionization through secret ballot elections, would give the federal government the power to run small businesses and would cost the American economy thousands of jobs.

The other major provisions of Obama's second stimulus are also job killers. The $5,000 new worker tax credit does not create any incentive for already-struggling companies to begin long-term hiring. What's worse, it could even increase unemployment; companies would delay existing plans to create jobs so they could take advantage of the tax credit. And it would add to our national debt. Then there's the TARP-funded government-subsidized loans for small businesses. It's a big-government program destined to fail since the Small Business Administration has a terrible record of effectively allocating capital to the private sector." Morning Bell

It isn't that he's stupid about free markets and what it takes to turn this around--lower taxes and less regulation and interference by the federal government--it's that he knows exactly what works. That's why he won't do it.

There is another sector growing besides the federal government in this economy--lobbyists.

It only took me a month

There have been many assessments of Obama's first year--the left claiming his victories, and the right claiming his failures, or even victories if like me they thought the downward spiral was intentional. But at the end of February 2009, I provided a first month evaluation. If he'd been like other state and federal employees, he wouldn't have made it beyond the probation period. I was 100% on target.

I think the federal government--whether Bush with the Democratic Congress or Obama with the Democratic congress--needed to back off in 2008 and 2009 and let those companies in debt, banks and insurance companies included, struggle and die or merge and be bought out. President Bush failed his party and became President Hoover overnight--but he really stopped governing in October and turned everything over to Treasury and the incoming Obama administration. Hoover had 3 years of throwing money at the problem 1929-1932, Bush didn't. Then FDR continued socializing industries and the courts for another 12 years, until WWII pulled us out of it. Hoover is blamed and Roosevelt acclaimed. Baffles me. Allowing the economy to come back on its own is what happened in 1999-2000 during the last bear market. Jump starting it with tax cuts for tax payers, not tax takers, is what got it going again after 9/11.

Obama and the banks

When the clutch/herd/murder/band/covey/swarm of advisers around Obama saw the stock market rally Monday at even the hint that Scott Brown might win, they squashed it on Wednesday with Obama's announcement of more bank regulation. I never had an economics course, but I was listening to Michele Bachmann, the lone voice of sanity in Minnesota (and the next legislator I'll support), yesterday who says Pelosi has painted a bulls eye on her forehead. Let me paraphrase until I can look her up. "Just get out of the way--no more new regulations or taxes and reduce what we already have. The economy will start to turn around in a quarter." Obama's move was a real smack down for any even considering saving the economy, a pay back for Tuesday's vote. I think he was responding to Brown's clear message, "Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don't Mirandize terrorists. Don't raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests." Krauthammer link.

But how was this portrayed by WaPo, which continues to carry his water even after all the disastrous moves (I won't call them mistakes, because I think they were intentional) with the economy, national security, and the environment of his first year. Here's what showed up in my e-mail--"The populist brushfire that has burned through Democratic fortunes this week threatened Friday to claim Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, imperiling his nomination for a second term and sending an unsettled stock market tumbling for the third straight day." Not a peep that the stock market tumble was as a direct result of Obama's announcement. Nope--just those stupid independent voters, those misinformed racist chicken littles out there running around like their heads were cut off. Why did this hurt the economy when unemployment is over 10%--and much higher here in Ohio?

"Daniel Ariens, whose company manufactures and markets snowblowers and lawnmowers, works closely with two regional banks in Chicago. If you want to stimulate the economy, he says, you can't keep "beating down on people who finance the infrastructure of this economy."

Todd Teske, CEO of Briggs & Stratton Corp., is concerned about who will pay for more regulation. "I've heard this has the potential for driving up costs for the banks," he said. "To the extent those costs are passed on to their customer base, that becomes problematic."

"Uncertainty over financial regulatory authority and what it means to the largest financial providers to the economy is not good," Keith Sherin, chief financial officer of General Electric Co., said Friday. GE is challenging some proposals in Washington that could change how its bruised finance arm, GE Capital, is structured, regulated or taxed. A recently proposed Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee could cost GE Capital $500 million, after taxes, for a full year." WSJ Link

Could the problem be that no one in the Obama administration has ever worked for any sector other than the government which only sees higher taxes and more regulations as the way to recovery and/or growth? Think about it. Gov. Granholm of Michigan is one of his economic advisers.

Maybe Obama should try some Reagonomics

Lower taxes, smaller government. After dawdling for a year over crises that don't exist, Obama now says he's concerned about jobs. That should have been his number one priority last January, instead he frittered away his popularity going after a notch in his history belt and a bee in his socialist bonnet.

Obama Tries to Turn Focus to Jobs, if Other Events Allow

IF OTHER EVENTS ALLOW? (Headline in NYT)

There was zero urgency to tackle health care; zero urgency to raise our taxes with cap and trade; zero urgency to insult the Cambridge police department; zero need to appoint all those czars and tax cheats who were clueless; zero, zero, zero. That's his score for his first year, not a B+ as he thinks. He should have tackled the economy as his number one priority. He was a Senator in a Democratic controlled Congress when unemployment started to rise a bit. It has soared on his watch with his absolutely ineffective "stimulus" and his threats to "fundamentally transform" our country while he's dawdled over the troop surge, played golf more than any other president in recent history, and refused to see terrorism as a necessary war we need to fight with determination and leadership.

"Anita Dunn [the gal who admires Mao so much], until recently Mr. Obama’s communications director, said that when the health care bill was completed, “that will give the administration more space to really communicate to the American people about those things that have been done and that the president continues to push forward on to make the economy work for middle-class families.”"

When Rush Limbaugh announced that he hoped Obama failed, he meant fail in his plan to destroy our economy. However, it looks like he has succeeded in proving Rush wrong--which is hard to do. His most egregious and grandiose plan is working!