GDP gimmicks before elections

 

Brandon avoids 3 quarters of negative GDP growth with gimmickry

The economy went into a recession in the first quarter, and followed it with another negative print in the second quarter. To avoid an election year problem with this kind of negative information, Brandon went into denial on the public stage, and went into gear privately to avoid another negative print just before the election. How did Brandon do it?

He sold oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is not what the SPR is for. It is for national emergencies, not political emergencies caused by bad public policy. When the Russians blocked oil and gas from Europe, Brandon arranged it so that the sales could be made with American produced gas. Meanwhile, he is blocking new production at home. The main point here is that these policies won't work long term. It is just good enough to get him past election day. The SPR will take imports to refill, and the blockage of oil and gas production will cause prices to go back up.

As the quote below shows, "trade" is what produced the positive GDP number. The rest of the ecomomy is still in the tank.

Weapons to Europe also bolstered the GDP number. Brandon has depleted US weapons inventories to defend Ukraine. It could be very costly to replace these stocks. Not to mention the weapons may be needed for OUR OWN USE. It is only to help Brandon in the election, not to help folks here at home.

These are short term gimmicks to improve the appearance of a failing economy. All of this is intended to help with the elections. Once the elections are over, there's nothing to be done until the next election. Here's the quote that summarizes the point---

Quote (from Zero Hedge):

"On the positive side net exports rose by 2.77% courtesy of a 1.63% increase in exports and a decline in imports which contributed another 1.14% to the GDP print. As noted above, this alone was enough to explain the entire gain in Q3 GDP, and is a function of US support of the European war economy as the US exports record amount of commodities (oil and gas) as well as weapons to Europe."

The most important right we've got is to throw the bums out. If the bums aren't held accountable, then we'll all be stuck with them. If the bums actually win, they may make it permanent. Imagine not being able to get rid of these bums. That's the choice we have. Either we keep our rights, or we lose them. Brandon and company do not care about anybody but themselves. But you've still got the right to say no. Use it or lose it.

Why I knew early on that there was not any Russian Collusion in 2016

Why I knew early on that there wasn't any Russian Collusion in 2016

This link shows how somebody managed to obtain confidential information for use in a political campaign. This is a tactic seen many times over the years, but I have yet to see this tactic employed against a DEMOCRAT. Got that? If there was ANY information of the type that would have shown collusion in 2016, the Democrats would have obtained it. It wouldn't have to legitimately obtained either. It could have been any kind of information, illicitly obtained or otherwise.

What we DID see was the Steele Dossier, which turned out to be a pure fabrication. It was doubtful to me that any of the things that was claimed there were accurate to begin with. If there was anything, they wouldn't have had to use something like the dossier in order to "prove" a case that didn't exist in the first place.

That sums of why I knew that there was no collusion. If it existed, then it would have been found--one way or another. It simply didn't exist. Also, the Democrats have shown an increasing tendency to make stuff up. That isn't new, but it is getting more and more common. These days, it seems that the Democrats have absolutely nothing to recommend themselves, so they have to resort to the sleaziest tactics imaginable.

Pelosi was quoted as saying she couldn't understand why anyone would vote for Republicans. Actually, it should have been the other way around. As a matter of fact, I think Pelosi and the rest know that they aren't worth a damn. They are hoping enough people believe them that they can make it all continue to work, and that means just enough to be within the margin of cheat.

It really has gotten to that point with them. If there was any justice, the Democrats should get absolutely crushed in this election. But it wouldn't surprise me at all that they don't.

Lowered expectatations

What should the GOP do if they were to regain control of Congress? The answer is not a whole lot. The most likely outcome would be narrow majorities. With such an outcome, very little could be done, except to control the agenda going forward. Even if anything were to pass both houses, Brandon would veto it.

Furthermore, in a closely divided Congress, any defections would likely prevent anything substantive to be passed anyway.

The one thing that would have to happen has already not happened. There would have to have been a lot of incumbents who lost in the primaries. Too many survived on the GOP side. There are a lot of Establisment GOP types remaining, who will probably "gum up the works", thus preventing anything useful from being done.

The best thing to happen would be a crushing defeat to the Democrats. It won't happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if they steal another election.

The only way to "save" democracy is to make sure that elections are honest. There's a lot of effort being expended to ensure that this won't happen. So I won't be surprised if it doesn't.

The obvious is not always obvious

This may seem excessive, but I'll take the risk anyway. This will be another post about the JFK assassination. Why write it? Number one, it is of interest to me. Second, there may be something important that is getting overlooked. So, as amazing as it may have sounded to me, I rented the Oliver Stone movie, and watched it all again. Yet, I do not write to critique the film. There is no need. In the Bugliosi book, it was mentioned that Stone received so much criticism at the time, that he admitted he was making a "counter-myth" that was to compete with what he called the myth of the Warren Commission. If Stone is already admitting lying, then there is no need to beat that dead horse. The movie has no credibility, even in Stone's own words.

Again, this isn't a critique of the film. But there was something that caught my attention while watching it. In the trial scene, Garrison mentions the alternative is "fascism". Ka-ching! So all of this was about fighting fascism? Funny way of doing it, in my opinion. Creating a pack of lies in order to fight "fascism". All the while, he is extolling the value of "truth". It just seems a funny way of defending anything. In fact, it would seem a risky way, because if the lies were discovered, the opposite of what was intended could result. Or at least, that is what I thought.

People still believe in the conspiracy theory. So, I am fascinated by that. Why believe in something, for which there is no evidence? What's going on here? The whys and wherefores of that may be the bigger story. So, here I am. It would seem to belabor the obvious, but if it was so obvious, why do people reject the obvious?

I could segue into a personal story, but I won't. The personal story is a painful and embarrassing one for me, and this isn't going to be that kind of post. But I'd like to use the experience anyway to try to show how you can be blinded to the truth. That blindness can lead to some unfortunate outcomes, as it did in my own experience. If it happened to me, it could happen to others. It can also happen on a mass scale. That is why I offer it. But not in a way that could be the most effective. I would tell the entire story to be the most effective, or in the hopes that it would be. Let it suffice here that I was blind to something that should have been obvious. It caused an cascade of errors. Such is life. All you can do is learn from experience, and try to do better in the future.

Could the broad public be blind to something here about this assassination and its aftermath? So many seem to believe this conspiracy. Well, the conspiracy is true or it isn't. I've looked at it and I think that it isn't true. Not everybody would agree. There are still people out there who seem to believe in it. Some prominent people like Dick Morris. He called the assassination a coup detat. Dick Morris advised a President. So, here is a person who has been connected to the highest councils in our government. He believes it. Why wouldn't others? But I won't be influenced by that.

All I've read about the assassination, and of the following murder of Oswald, there's no mention of the obvious. The obvious regarding Oswald was his motive. As Sigmund Freud said, there are two primary urges, to wit: 1) the sexual urge, and 2) the urge to be great. Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself, and so he did. And Ruby's? Ruby was motivated by grief, and an urge to avenge Kennedy's death. In both cases, an opportunity presented itself. Motive and opportunity existed, and that is why it happened. It is the simplest explanation and the most obvious. Keeping to the Occam's Razor principle, it is the most likely to be correct.

Occam's Razor was not known to me back when I was making my mistakes. Perhaps for a lot of people, it is the one thing that principle is the least obvious. There has to be more to it than that!!! Nothing so momentous could possibly be so simple. But on the other hand, why not?

But why mention it at all today after all this time? It happened almost sixty years ago.

If Stone made a movie that was counter factual to fight fascism, then it could that the same kind of mistake is being made today. If there is a real need to fight fascism, wouldn't it be better to think rationally about how to fight it? Stuff like making up a pack of lies won't work. It will only lead to bad outcomes. Or is something else afoot?

If you are going to fight a war, then you need the truth. If you are lying, then what exactly are you fighting?