Muscatine

from the InMuscatine website I thought I'd share with everyone.  I highly recommend InMuscatine for an honest and alternative view of today's news you won't find in the mainstream media.  Enjoy.

MSM Lying About the Economy

0 Comments Published by Buster December 1st, 2008 in General, News, Politics, History

The MSM is lying to you. What shocking news that is, right?

Rushing in reinforcements, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who along with Bernanke has been leading the government's efforts to stem the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, pledged to take all the steps he can in the waning days of the Bush administration to provide relief. Specifically, Paulson is eyeing more ways to tap into a $700 billion financial bailout pool.

[From Dow plunges on news recession began in Dec. 2007 - Yahoo! News]

This is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, and there is one simple way to prove it.

Where is the 20% unemployment?

Currently, the rate stands at 6.5%, a far cry from 20%. And we repeat one more time that in the no-so-distant past economic theory stated full employment in the USA was 6%. Therefore, we stand at one-half of one percent unemployment. Period. End of story. Full stop.

So every time you hear the media spout about how bad things are, know they are lying to you. But if you repeat a big enough lie enough times, stupid people will believe it to be the truth. But that, gentle reader, is why you read InMuscatine - to Know The Naked Truth.

UPDATE : Well, what do you know! We just stumbled upon this :

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said Monday the current economic situation bears "no comparison" to the much deeper crisis of the 1930s Great Depression.
"Well, you hear a lot of loose talk, but let me just ... say, as a scholar of the Great Depression - and I've written books about the Depression and been very interested in this since I was in graduate school, there's no comparison," Bernanke said in a question period after an address in Austin, Texas.

Bernanke cited "an order-of-magnitude difference" in the current situation compared to the 1930s.

"During the 1930s, there was a worldwide depression that lasted for about 12 years and was only ended by a world war," he said.

"During that time, the unemployment rate went to 25 percent, at least, based on the data that we have. The real GDP (gross domestic product) fell by one-third. About a third of all of the banks failed. The stock market fell 90 percent."

Bernanke said the situation at that time represented "very difficult circumstances," because "we didn't have the social safety net that we have today. So let's put that out of our minds; there's no - there's comparison in terms of severity."

[From Bernanke says crisis ‘no comparison' to Great Depression]

So there. We are not heading for the next great depression, so just call a liar a liar if someone is saying we are heading there.

Hmmmm, a Federal Reserve chairman talking about social safety nets.  That most likely will cause a buzz amongst our conservative posters here. 

I found this one enjoyable Amy:

Why the Republicans Lost

0 Comments Published by Buster November 16th, 2008 in General, News, Politics, History

We cannot report any better sentiment than this :

Good comments about Gov. Palin. It drove me up a wall everytime I heard Democrats complain about the governor's supposed lack of qualifications for the No. 2 slot, when their candidate for the No. 1 slot was woefully unqualified by their own criteria. For all his charm, Sen. Obama has never run anything except his mouth.

[From 5 Myths About an Election of Mythic Proportions - washingtonpost.com]

This is why the Republicans lost. We disagree with Chris Cillizza that no Republican could have won. What we believe cost McCain more than Sarah Palin was being such a hypocrite about picking Palin.

For six months (or more) all McCain did was hammer on Obama about how inexperienced Obama was to be President. Then what does McCain do? Picks a running mate with even less experience than Obama! All the Republican heavy-hitters we talked to in Iowa and Illinois picked that as the moment they slammed shut their wallets and walked over to the Obama camp.

Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but the inarguable fact is she had zero national experience. None. Well, ok - she did have those days where she stared across the Bering Strait. At least Obama had a couple of years as Senator at a national level, and that is a claim Sarah Palin cannot make.

So, here is the truth - as much as we can discern it about why John McCain lost the election :

1. McCain is not a conservative.

2. McCain picked a running mate absolutely bereft of experience.

3. McCain's choice of running mate shocked the electorate, and demonstrated his faulty decision-making abilities.

4. McCain picking a running mate who could only deliver three electoral votes.

5. McCain's failure to properly vet his running mate, leading to several "deer in the headlights" moments for the campaign.

6. McCain surrounding himself with incompetent staff.

7. The GOP's stubborn insistence upon this asinine "senority" system where the "next guy in line" gets to run for President rather than the best person for the job.

8. The GOP's inherent bigotry against Mormonism preventing Mitt Romney from even being considered for VP, let alone President.

So most of what was wrong with the McCain campaign was the very flawed candidate himself. We wish John McCain a speedy retirement so other, younger members of the GOP can salvage the wreckage strewn by McCain (and the other pseudo-Conservatives infesting the GOP) and go about the business of restoring the GOP to its limited government roots.