Obama and Lew Trying to Crash the Stock Market

Yesterday, Obama warned that Wall Street should be very "concerned" about government default on it's debts. What is that supposed to mean?   The day before that, a call from the White House closed WWII monuments in Washington in response to a partial shutdown of the government.  WWII veterans happened to be in town to visit these monuments but were shut out for a time.  Someone with sense overrode such orders.

Obama is back to maximizing damage to US citizens when he doesn't get his way.  Obama has previously tried to create the maximal disruption to Americans flying commercial flights after he lost the sequestration fight.  Remember that at the start of sequestration cuts, the administration irresponsibly furloughed essential air traffic controllers?   Irate travelers put an end to that nonsense. 

Today, Jack Lew warned of catastrophe that will last a generation if the US defaults on it's debts in an attempt at more fear-mongering.  Obama and Lew are trying to crash the market to put pressure on the political opposition.   It's working as the Dow is down 180 points.
 
Lew's and the President's statements are not even true.   The annual net interest payments on the Federal debt is $255 billion.  Since the Government receipts are over $3,000 billion per year, there is no chance of any default on US debt obligations.

This fear-mongering is unbelievably irresponsible.  It's unbelievably irresponsible for the President to try to crash the stock market to put pressure on the Republicans when it's Obama himself that refuses to discuss a few simple amendments.  It's Obama that's in denial that the Republicans hold the House of Representatives and therefore have a (small) say.  This guy appears traumatized by ordinary politics.  It's because he is, at best, an amateur.  At worst, he's mentally ill.  I happen to think that he has a Narcisstic Personality disorder.

The President has lied that this situation has never happened before.  It is routine that budget (and other) issues are discussed during debt ceiling negotiations.  Therefore, the President is the insincere one in his "I will not negotiate" rhetoric.  It is highly irresponsible, and beneath the office, to try to crash the stock market!

The Media has been their usual irresponsible selves in this too.  They keep saying that we have a government "shutdown" but only about 40% of federal employees are furloughed.   Oh, and these people will be paid in full later for their "vacation."  What we have is a "slowdown."

My Damage from ObamaCare

I am accustomed to buying high deductible medical policies over many years--when I'm not overseas. Since I worked as a contractor, I would maintain my own policies rather than accept company insurance for continuity sake.  I would get deductibles of $6000 or higher and the monthly premium was about $85 per month.

As soon as Obama floated the idea of government provided health insurance in 2009, my premiums jumped to $145 per month immediately in what felt like a pre-emptive strike from the insurers.

I returned last Dec 2012 from living in Thailand.  I was self-insured there because medical costs are from 5 to 10 times cheaper than in the US.   Plus I wasn't there permanently (but that might change).

Shortly after returning to Texas, I went online to E-health Insurance dot com and purchased a hospitalization-only policy from Aetna with minimal other benefits: no coverage for out-patient procedures, no prescription benefit, no coverage of doctor visits except they would pay for preventative medicine.  But the policy would pay for hospitalization with a $2500 deductible if in-network.   If I were hospitalized, they would also pay for the ambulance if used.  The cost of this premium was $233 per month.  I was OK with all of that.

Yesterday, I got a notice that the same Aetna policy compliant with the increased coverage of ObamaCare will cost $477 per month.  That's up from $85 per month from pre-Obama times.

So, since Obama became president, my medical costs have quintupled.  That works out to medical cost inflation of 40% per year for five years!   I would call that hyperinflation!  

Yeah, there may be more benefits under the ACA compliant policy.  But I'm being forcibly upgraded by the Sebellius' and Obama's notions of what insurance is and their healthcare law.   I've written that Kathleen Sebellius doesn't really understand what true insurance is!    So, I'm being screwed-over by ignorant bureaucrats who think they know best (and they don't) and forced to accept a one-size fits all approach to my health insurance.

This is the ignorance and arrogance of Liberals.   Now, I'm forced to pay the price of their ignorance.

I might just go live permanently in Thailand and get a policy there for about $65 per month rather than pay nearly $500 per month.

Ben Carson Gets IRS Visit After Criticism of Obama

Remember the prayer breakfast back in February where Ben Carson, the famed black conservative neurosurgeon, politely critiqued Obama and ObamaCare?  Well, Dr. Carson said that he got a visit from the IRS after that incident.  Coincidence?  I doubt it, especially after IRS behavior finally became mainstream.

I think it's more lawlessness out of this administration.  Nixon has nothing on these Chicago thugs.

From the Washington Times,

Dr. Ben S. Carson went years without ever having a run-in with the Internal Revenue Service. But his good fortune changed after his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February, the former Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon said Monday night at an event with business leaders and elected officials in Alabama.

Alabama’s Yellow Hammer News tweeted Dr. Carson’s remarks from the annual Business Council of Alabama Chairman’s Dinner: “I had my first encounter with the IRS this year, unsurprisingly after the Prayer Breakfast.”Dr. Carson’s speech at the prayer breakfast went viral, in large part, because his criticisms of the public policy coming out of Washington happened with President Obama sitting only a few feet away.

Obama Loves Crisis, Traumatised By Normal Politics

From Peggy Noonan's Blog in January 2013, written after the election but is still a very solid analysis some 9 months later:

"One of the odd things about the Obama White House is that they are traumatized by the 'normal.'

A lot of the president's staffers were new to national politics when they came in, and they seem to have concluded that the partisan bitterness they faced was unique to him, and uniquely sinister. It's just politics, or the ugly way we do politics now.

...it seems clear Mr. Obama doesn't really want to work well with the other side. He doesn't want big bipartisan victories that let everyone crow a little and move forward and make progress. He wants his opponents in disarray, fighting without and within. He wants them incapable. He wants them confused.

 I doubt now he has any intention of working with [Congress] on big reforms, of battling out a compromise at a conference table, of having long walks and long talks and making offers that are serious, that won't be changed overnight to something else. The president intends to consistently beat his opponents and leave them looking bad, or, failing that, to lose to them sometimes and then make them look bad.

Here's my conjecture: In part it's because he seems to like the tension.  He likes cliffs, which is why it's always a cliff with him and never a deal. He likes the high-stakes, tottering air of crisis.  Maybe it makes him feel his mastery and reminds him how cool he is, unrattled while he rattles others. He can take it. Can they?  [Yeah, It's because Obama has a narcissistic personality disorder]

He is a uniquely polarizing figure. A moderate U.S. senator said the other day: "One thing not said enough is he is the most divisive president in modern history. He doesn't just divide the Congress, he divides the country."

Maybe he thinks bipartisan progress raises the Republicans almost to his level, and he doesn't want to do that. They're partisan hacks, they're not big like him. Let them flail. [More Narcissism again]

This, however, is true: The great presidents are always in the end uniters, not dividers. They keep it together and keep it going. And people remember them fondly for that."

ObamaCare Websites Traffic Driven by Promise of Free Money

Thousands, and perhaps millions, of people went on the ObamaCare websites yesterday but servers crashed.  CBS's Scott Pelley, in his usual tone of a Kindergarten school teacher (a sign of the low level mentality of the media), was touting the high traffic on the sites but correctly noted that no one reported any actual sales.  Good teleprompter reading Scott!

Obama was flapping his lips today as well---touting the high web traffic on the healthcare site. It wasn't true as most people couldn't even access the sites.  But he (incorrectly) said that it showed the popularity and importance of the ObamaCare law.  Sorry, ObamaCare is not popular and never has been.

Most couldn't access anything.  Marketwatch couldn't access any state site.  Those that did access the sites, found that nearly all of the errors were design issues---not traffic issues.  From Commentary magazine,

The interesting part about the difficulties, especially online, is that they aren’t caused by a massive influx of traffic.

The issues being reported are entirely design-based: drop-down menus that weren’t populated with text and coding gibberish on several pages that was never replaced with the appropriate language. Many of the pages were entirely inaccessible, with error messages asking visitors to “Please wait” and later, after going through the steps to open an account an error message told users “Your account couldnt [sic] be created at this time.” The most troubling of these “glitches,” takes the form of lax online security. Numerous fake websites have apparently emerged by third-party websites aimed at stealing the information respondents enter online.

I'm not surprised there was significant traffic.  After all, Obama promised free money to all.  He said that HE would waive the income verification part of the law---essentially promising subsidies to all----whether you need it or not.  You can bet that the numerous "gamers of the system" will be in full force to take advantage of free money--thus the high website traffic.  Scott Pelley wouldn't be smart enough to make such a connection much less report any of this information at all.

The fact that Obama himself decided not to enforce the income verification part of the law is disturbing enough.   Add this to the ObamaPhones scam which provides cell phones and pays the bills for anyone who asks,  Foodstamps for anyone who asks, the vastly expanded fraud in Social Security Disability, the Pigford Scandal, prosecution of States that have the temerity to enforce immigration laws where the Feds refuse to do so, then you have a good picture of the increasing fraud and lawlessness sponsored by this administration and Obama himself.  

George Washington must be rolling over in his grave.

ACA Increases Family Healthcare Spending by $7450 Per Year

Obama said in 2008 that the Affordable Care Act will save the average family $2500 per year.  And it won't add a dime to the deficit.  You would have had to be an idiot to believe that.  I'll refrain from making my usual comment about the quantity of idiots in our country.

Medicare's actuaries have shown that the law will actually increase healthcare spending by $621 billion over the next 10 years.  That's spending above and beyond what would have been spent without the law. That's works out to be $7450 per family per year of extra spending.

From Chris Conover at Forbes:

I have taken the latest year-by-year [medicare's actuarial] projections, divided by the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person and multiplied the result by 4.

Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.

Of course, some Democrats (the few that don't have their heads in the sand) are desperate to dispute these claims to keep the American people confused and befuddled.  (Actually, Democrats themselves are the ones confused and befuddled.)   It's worked so far. They were successful in keeping people in the dark until after the 2012 election was over.   Now, however, the rubber is meeting the road.

ACA Will Put Most Families on the Dole

Democrats are looking to put as many people as possible on government subsidies in their ongoing strategy to buy votes.  It might work (until bankruptcy of course). 

If the "average" family is facing $7450 per year of extra healthcare spending, it's obvious that they can't afford that.  But never fear the government is here. ACA (Obamacare) will put the average family on public assistance.

From Creators dot com:

The Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty level for a family of two is currently $14,570.   That means a husband and wife with no children who earn up to $58,280 (400 percent of the poverty level) would be eligible for federal health insurance subsidies.

For a family of four — mom, dad and two children — the poverty level is $22,050, and the upper income for getting federal health insurance subsidies would be $88,200.

For a family the size of the one Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., grew up in — two parents and nine children — the poverty level is $48,230, and the cutoff point for federal insurance subsidies would be $192,920.

You can imagine the effect on the Federal budget when even the average family gets healthcare subsidies.  As more government spending inflates medical costs even more, the government will be in a position to pay more of the bills and increase healthcare inflation even faster.  That's exactly the wrong direction.

Not only will government spending continue to inflate medical costs, it will open an avenue to extend more government control over it's "subjects" all in the name of "saving" costs.   Think of Mayor Bloomberg trying to ban jumbo sodas.  There will be thousands of rules and regulations of your life and lifestyle justified by this government program and spending.  If this isn't bad enough, rules and regulations coming from the Federal level of government rather than your State gov't, undermines the entire intent of our Federal system.  Then there's the Death Panel.  See my blog: Dems Agree That ObamaCare Panel Will Not Work.

None of this is what America is about. The liberal agenda is all about control and the infringement of your freedoms by a Federal bureaucracy--even if inadvertent.  See my blog: Liberalism: Imposed by Lies and Tricks, Doesn't Work.

Don't say that I didn't warn you.

Government Shutdown a Great Idea!

I agree with Mish at Mish's Global Economic Analysis that a government shutdown is a really great idea.  Consider Mish's quote from Bloomberg:

A U.S. government shutdown means President Barack Obama will have fewer people to cook meals, do the laundry, clean the floors or change the light bulbs, according to a White House contingency plan.

About three-fourths of president’s 1,701-person staff would be sent home. The national security team would be cut back, fewer economists would be tracking the economy and there wouldn’t be as many budget officials to track spending. White House policy decisions on the environment and drug policy might get postponed, as the executive mansion struggles to cope with a shutdown of the government.

The executive office of the president would designate approximately 436 employees as “excepted,” or exempt from furlough to perform their jobs. The remaining 1,265 employees would be sent home.

Top White House aides, political appointees and officials requiring Senate confirmation are permitted to work. Of the total, 438 people work directly for the president. Under a shutdown, 129 could continue working, according to the contingency plan.

Biden, who has a staff of 24, would have had to make do with 12.

Of the 90 people who maintain the president’s family living quarters, only 15 would remain to provide “minimum maintenance and support.”

Obama’s national security staff of 66 would be cut to 42. Similar staff cuts would be imposed at the White House Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which are all part of the president’s executive office.

Sounds good to me.

Like the sequester, shutdown staffing levels should become permanent.  Soon comes the debt limit battle.  What if the Republicans started chanting in unison, "No More Debt," "No More Debt?"

Since the budget deficit is down to something less than 5% of GDP or about 20% of government spending,  a haircut of this magnitude would sting, but set up a healthy scenario for the country in the long term.

A reduction of 20% of government spending would reduce Federal spending back to 2008 levels or a ratio of Federal spending to GDP of something like 20% of GDP--more in line with the 1980s and 1990s.

Afterall, what part of the phrase "debt limit" do we not understand?

Obama Negotiates with Iran, But Not Republicans

You know that we're in a screwed-up times when the President is happy talking to Iran's Rouhani but not the Republicans.  It's as if he's saying Republicans are worse than the Mullahs of Iran.  But of course it's about Obama's Narcissistic Personality Disorder---he must be seen to be doing grand and exalted things even when the country really needs someone to roll up their sleeves to do their duty.

Iran is ruled by the biggest liars and cheaters the world has ever seen outside of the Communists.  There is little doubt that Rouhani is another liar who will succeed in tricking the "trickster" Obama while the centrifuges spin faster and faster. And since when are Iranian elections legitimate?  There's a reason that no American president has talked to Iranian leaders since 1979.  They are not only liars but are terrorists, murders and oppressors.  But Obama engages them but not Republicans.

Obama and Rouhani deserve each other.  Obama, arguably the worse president in American history,  talks to the leader of the worst country in the world when it comes to, well, anything!  Forget about freedom of religion, freedom of expression or any kind of freedom.  And remember that Obama had NOTHING to say to support Iranian student democratic protesters in Iran in 2009 who risked (and gave) their lives protesting the scorched earth fascism of the Mullahs only to be ignored by narcissist Obama. Obama is not about freedom either and democratic institutions are a problem for him.

Republicans Trying to Make a Stand on Spending and Debt

The Republicans are feebly trying to make a few points about out-of-control spending.  And Republicans represent about 1/2 of this country.  But don't complain because you'll be labeled racist!

The out-of-control spending includes the unpopular Obamacare.  More than 1/2 of the people don't want ObamaCare and these numbers are increasing.  The lies, which Obama made to "sell" the legislative abomination, are becoming known and it's popularity has never been lower.  It'll get much worse too.  The real cost of this disastrous example of central planning is now becoming clearer (after the election of course).   See Liberalism: Imposted by Tricks and Lies and Doesn't Work.

The federal deficit has shrunk to "only" $650 billion, so to force austerity on the government would cause some short term disruptions but could be a way to finally balance the budget. I like this idea! Austerity on the government is much better then austerity imposed on the people with higher taxes (the European way).

I think enforcing a balanced budget would hurt in the short term but would put this country on the right track long term. We don't need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  We have a debt limit if we choose to put our foot down.

Why Continue To Pretend Islam is a Religion?

Some Christians, in a fun way, will respond to a problem or dilemma by asking "what would Jesus do?"     Let's play that game below by asking "what would Muhammad do?"  See the chart below.

Compare the behavior and 'values' of the "savior" of Muslims in comparison to the peace-loving, justice-seeking, "turn-the-other-cheek" savior of the Christians. 

"What would Muhammad Do?" from The Religion of Peace:

Would Muhammad...?	YES!	NO!	Muslim Source (Links)
Have sex with a 9-year-old girl?			Hadith
Advocate beheading?			Qur'an
Require women to cover their faces?			Qur'an & Hadith
Befriend Christians and Jews?			Qur'an
Own slaves?			Qur'an & Hadith
Marry his daughter-in-law?			Qur'an
Approve of prostitution?			Qur'an & Hadith
Gluttonize?			Ibn Ishaq
Recommend wife-beating?			Qur'an & Hadith
Hit his own wife?			Hadith
Kill prisoners of war?			Hadith
Advocate suicide attacks?			Qur'an & Hadith
Kill apostates?			Qur'an & Hadith
Tell sick persons to heal them-selves by drinking camel urine?			Hadith
Beat children who don’t pray?			Hadith
Have boys as young as 13-years-old beheaded?			Hadith
Have eleven wives? (at one time)			Hadith
Approve of Sex with Minors?			Qur'an
Lie?			Qur'an & Hadith
Enslave women and children?			Hadith & Ibn Ishaq
Stone adulterers to death?			Hadith
Torture a man out of greed?			Ibn Ishaq
Consider men and women equal partners?			Qur'an & Hadith
Steal?			Qur'an & Hadith
Kill someone for insulting him?			Qur'an & Hadith
Preach love for people  of all religions?			Qur'an & Hadith
Extort money from other religions?			Qur'an & Hadith
Keep women as sex slaves?			Qur'an
Force conversions to Islam?			Qur'an & Hadith
Commit acts of terror?			Qur'an & Hadith
Kill a woman?			Biographers
Capture a woman and rape her?			Hadith
Encourage the rape of women in front of their husbands?			Hadith (Abu Dawud: 2150)

What's the point of continuing to pretend that Islam is a religion?  Islam is not a religion but a violent, fascist cult based on the teachings of a mentally ill, violent, murdering, pedophilic, misogynist named Muhammad.
 
Is it any wonder that Islam is one screwed-up "religion"?   It's not even a religion but a violent, brutal cult of personality based on "the virtues" of Muhammad!   It's a sad joke.

Mariachi Kid Gets Racial Tweets

Did you see the young Mexican American singing the national anthem at the 4th game of the NBA finals in San Antonio back in June?  The boy sang so proudly in his custom-made mariachi uniform, of which he was so very proud.   I meant to comment about the story back in June. 

When I saw his performance I found it very moving in particular because he was a Mexican American and wearing his mariachi outfit.  He did a great job!  While listening to him, I couldn't help but think that this boy was a living embodiment of our nation's rich history and tradition of immigrants coming to this country to settle, have families, and become true Americans but still remain proud of their heritage.  The moment literally moved me to tears.

And this boy is so proud!! Everything about that boy and his performance spoke to me of his pride and confidence.  

His name is Sebastian de la Cruz, he's just 11 years old, is a San Antonio native and was born in the USA.  He filled-in at the last minute to sing the national anthem at the NBA game.  Darius Rucker, who was late, was supposed to have sung.

The most amazing about the performance was that some people made racist comments about the boy on Twitter.  When I heard about the racist comments I was truly shocked because I was so moved personally.  But I think that there were a very small number of these negative reactions.  I want to believe that most people were moved in a positive way as I was.  One point about Twitter: Twitter (and the internet) is a place where haters and cowards can thrive in anonymity.  People can be very rude online.

Here's a good clip about the story, his performance, the backlash and Sebastian's reactions from FOX in San Antonio (2:44 minutes)

One of the amazing things about this country is how well Latino immigrants integrate in this country despite their large numbers and controversy about their official status.   Despite that, there is really very little backlash against this group.  Most Americans surely recognize that they are hard-working and have similar ethical and family values as this country.

To give you an idea of how far this country has come with regard to racism,  remember the Broadway play and movie of Rodgers and Hammerstein's 'South Pacific?'  Nellie, the nurse from Arkansas, fell in love with a French planter Emile but she was shocked and repulsed by his Polynesian children!  Can you imagine??  In her mind, non-white was black.  It's an insanity now but not so at that time. It wasn't that long ago.   Also, remember the appalling story of our round-up and internment of Japanese Americans at the outbreak of World War II?  It seems insane now and is a shameful chapter in our history.  Interestingly, Hammerstein himself adopted two biracial (Japanese and American) children in the 1950s which was very controversial at the time.

Things have changed so much since then.

140 Years Of Bull and Bear Markets

Here are some interesting charts from Doug Short at Advisor Perspectives.

Are you aware that, from 1871 to 2009, the stock market was in a bear market for 40% of that time?  By definition, the market was in secular "bull" mode for 60% of the time.  Interesting, huh?  I grew up thinking that the stock market was a great place to lose money. (It still is!) I remember the bear market that lasted from 1967 to 1982.   That's 15 years of mostly down price action. The reason: inflation was rising that entire time and, toward the end of the period, interest rates rose up to 14% by 1981.

The chart below (click to enlarge) shows the inflation-adjusted S&P index and denotes secular bull and bear markets.  Notice, that we're still in a secular bear market since 2000.  The S&P 500 index has recently hit all-time nominal highs but not so after adjusting for inflation.  Technically speaking, this means that we've been in a secular bear market for 14 years, going on 15 years!   Maybe the bear market is about over given that duration?

Or, was the March 2009 crash bottom the start of a new bull market?  Time will tell.

S&P 500 Historical Composite:  Inflation-Adjusted Secular Highs and Lows

Here's another chart of the inflation-adjusted S&P 500 from 1871 shown with a linear regression trend line and variation from that trend line:

S&P 500 Composite Shown with Regression Trend Line

From Doug Short at Business Insider:

"Since that first trough in 1877 to the March 2009 low:

• Secular bull gains totaled 2075% for an average of 415%.
• Secular bear losses totaled -329% for an average of -65%.
• Secular bull years total 80 versus 52 for the bears, a 60:40 ratio.

"This last bullet probably comes as a surprise to many people. The finance industry and media have conditioned us to view every dip as a buying opportunity. If we realize that bear markets have accounted for about 40% of the highlighted time frame, we can better understand the two massive selloffs of the 21st century."

Why Are Democrats So Hysterical?

Look at some of the headlines hysterically denouncing the "hard ball" tactics of the Republicans with regard to the debt ceiling discussion.  Mind you, all of the so-called threats are not going anywhere. The Republicans don't control the Senate or the White House.  All of this is just theater.  Here's reactions to that theater from the hysterical media:

Republicans Trying to Burn Down Government - Rep. Nancy Pelosi, CNN
Coldhearted GOP Threatens the Economy - E.J. Dionne, Washington Post
A Ghastly Ritual Repeats Itself - Charles Blow, New York Times
Republican Party Is Destroying America - Kirsten Powers, The Daily Beast
Obama Refusing to Negotiate Over Debt Ceiling, CBS News
Obama: Republicans Using Extortion - Alexis Simendinger, RealClearPolitics
The Republicans' March to Anarchy - New York Times
Republican Debt Ceiling Strategy Courts Doom - Julian Zelizer, CNN
The GOP's Debt Ceiling Insanity - Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post
From the Stupid Party to the Crazy Party - Paul Krugman, New York Times

Extortion, cold-hearted, destruction of America, doom, insanity, crazy, stupid, ghastly and anarchy!!  Oh my!  Lions, Tigers and Bears!! Do you think Democrats are hysterical???

So-called 'Cuts' in Food Stamps

The NYT reported hysterically that the Republicans "cut" $40 billion from the Food Stamps program!!  Oh my!!  First of all it's not a cut at all---just a reduction of a 10 year projection of spending to $700 billion (from $740 billion).    I'll bet $100 that the so-called "cut" is a reduction of an increase.  There's never a real cut in Washington, never!

All of these 10 year projections of spending are bullshit--a way to feed into the prevailing demagoguery in Washington.  With no budget for this year or for many years, nothing is based in fact and statistics are bandied about without any anchor or basis!  Afterall, facts are an anathema to the Democrats.  It gets in the way of the demagoguery.

Nancy Pelosi, noted propagandist, said that Republican's "cuts" would “take food out of the mouths of millions of American children...”

Whose the party of stupid?

There Are No Adults In Charge in Washington.

There are no adults in power in Washington.  There is no national budgeting (which means no targets, no allocation of resources and no management), no strategy for the economy (except to get a many people hooked on government assistance as possible---which explains why there can be no budgets), no coherent foreign policies (just ad hoc reactions),  free money forever from both the Fed Reserve and the Federal government.

There's a free-for-all party going on in Washington.

It's as if there are a bunch of children running the country.  Naturally, spoiled adolescent children throw a temper tantrum when an adult steps up to demand discipline and control of their spending. This is the hardest lesson of life itself.  The temper tantrum would include hysterics and hyperbole about how devastating the new discipline is!   It's just what happens when you discipline a spoiled child.  This is also what's happening with the "theater" going on regarding the debt ceiling extension.

Democrats are the spoiled children and Republicans are "dad."

The problem is that the Republicans have less credibility now than in the past in being the "adult" in this drama.  The liberal media has been effective in denigrating Republicans and painting Democrats as the responsible and "intelligent' party.  I wish it were true. 

Republicans have a good history of competent leadership in the administration of the national budget and economy even in conjunction with Democratic congresses. Even today, sixty percent of US states have Republican governors and are enjoying the benefit of competent leadership.  But look at Democratic party's performance in places like California, Illinois and Detroit and you can see the difference.

Had Mitt Romney been elected, there would already have been an improved economy in this country as Romney would have signaled a withdrawal of government intervention in the economy. Such a decline has historically meant improvement in business sentiment and in the economy.  The people of America had that option just a few months ago but they chose more out-of-control-spending and debt.