And They Called Me Pure Evil

John Ransom
|
Posted: Dec 08, 2013 12:01 AM
And They Called Me Pure Evil

Swift Boat Captn wrote: And things were so great before Obama took over. Let's go back to the Chimp's economy that he started by turning surpluses into deficits then finished by losing 800,000 jobs per month and Wall Street on the brink of extinction. - This Won’t End End Well: Obama Giveth X and Taketh Away 7.6 Percent More

Dear Comrade Kerry,

In February 2007, when the terrible, evil George W. Bush was president, there were 2,427,000 more jobs than there are today.

In February 2007, when the terrible, evil George W. Bush was president, there were 5,167,000 fewer unemployed.

There’s more money in the system, going to fewer people than ever before.

The average American can’t afford to buy a new car now. Thanks GM/Obama.

The average American is watching as home prices climb for rich Americans, but stagnate for everyone else.

Top tier homes are selling- and have been selling since Obama became pope- outpacing middle tier and lower tier homes.

The rest of us have to make due with home prices that equal those seen in 1894…That’s 1894…not, 1994.

“Whether real or manufactured by record-low foreclosures, bank supply withdrawals, and fed-subsidized cash REO-to-rent trades,” writes Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge, “the sad truth is that jobs (and the GDP-enhancing multiplier effect that they create) are just not coming. Even Bob Shiller prefers the potential for 4% gains in stocks over housing risk in the medium-term as he points out that - inflation-adjusted - house prices are back at levels first seen in 1894... now that is a long-term investor. “

And just because the Dow’s making new highs, you think everything is wonderful. What happened toOccupy Wall Street?

This is a system that was deliberately crafted by your buddy BHO.

Congrats Comrade Kerry!

You’re right: In America, you in particular, have a right to be stupid.

Donald6189 wrote: Sort of, but not quite on topic, just wondering if anyone has come up with a tshirt with the caption "The government went on Sequestration and all I got was this lousy economy!"? Sort of fits with the topic just not completely. - This Jobs Report Not Actual Size

Dear Comrade Don,

Actually it doesn’t fit with the topic, nor is it correct. It’s not even funny.

The economy was lousy before sequestration. Sequestration is aimed at improving the economy even though the politicians would have you believe otherwise.

The only problem I have with sequestration is that it didn’t start a long time ago and it isn’t big enough.

As Mark Twain once observed of his misshapen theatrical production Ah Sin:

When this play was originally completed it was so long, and so wide and so deep--in places--and so comprehensive that it would have taken two weeks to play it…. [B]ut the manager said no, that wouldn't do; to play two weeks was sure to get us into trouble with the Government, because the Constitution of the United States says you sha'n't inflict cruel and unusual punishments. So he set to work to cut it down….I never saw a play improve as this one did. The more he cut out of it the better it got right along. He cut out, and cut out, and cut out; and I do believe this would be one of the best plays in the world to-day if his strength had held out, and he could have gone on and cut out the rest of it.

If Congress just had just half of the strength of that theater manager, I’d feel less cruel and unusual toward the government.

Half of sequester is aimed at money that is an increase in spending over what we are spending today rather than true cuts.

As Larry Kudlow explains:

For example, the $85 billion so-called spending cut is actually budget authority, not budget outlays. According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one quarter of 1 percent of GDP (GDP is $15.8 trillion). What’s more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25 percent of the $3.6 trillion government budget.

So the actual outlay reduction is only half the budget-authority savings. The rest of it will spend out in the years ahead -- that is, if Congress doesn’t tamper with it.

When I was growing up, I was taught by Keynesian economists that government could borrow about three percent of GDP to sustain the economy in bad times- otherwise borrowings would have a crowding-out effect in capital markets, leaving the private economy to compete with the government.

Assuming a $16 trillion in 2013, even 1970s Keynesians would have to admit that we overshot the mark by double.

But even so, let’s say that the crowding out in capital markets out wasn’t happening. The question then becomes should the government account for 40 percent of our GDP?

Heck. And. No.

Government spending doesn’t not deliver the return on capital that private investment does. When it accounts for such a large part of our economy, you’ll get poor GDP growth mostly.

That’s why I was deliberate in using the phrases “government spending” versus “private investment.”

Government does not invest; it spends.

Government does not say, “Let’s take a trillion dollars and make it turn into five trillion dollars worth of value.” If they did, you wouldn’t have guys like Obama making the case that tax rates should go up based on “fairness,” while admitting that higher tax rates will lower government revenue.

That would be like a computer company arguing that, yes, profits will go down on computer sales, but prices must be lowered based on “fairness.” Government instead says, “Let’s spend a trillion dollars on highways, because construction contractors need the work and that money will come back from construction contractors to fund political campaigns.”

The return on capital to the overall economy is both incidental and accidental when government spends money.

Private investment, in contrast does spending money- even political donations- with a return in mind. That’s why we call it investment.

Here’s an idea even liberals will probably misunderstand: Intention has a direct effect on outcome, by and large. If a society invests with the idea of profit, a society- or economy- will enjoy larger profits than a society that spends money with the intention of taking care of political friends and allies- which is what government is all about.

But it’s not just the deleterious effect that large government spending has on the economy to which I object.

A government that controls your mortgage, your student loan, your car loan, your retirement savings, your healthcare, your right to own property and to defend your liberties- with a gun if necessary- is a government that owns your liberty and just rents it back to you for a while at election time.

J wrote: You just hate poor people.What the War on Whatever is Really About

Dear Comrade J,

I don’t hate poor people.

I employ them cutting my grass, clipping my hedges, taking out my garbage, cooking and cleaning up for me, just like all Republicans do.

We have a secret website that matches up greedy Republican bankers with desperate people who needs jobs doing stuff that none of us have never had to do to feed our family by the sweat of our own face.

That’s because no Republicans are ever poor.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was born to a rich Prussian family that owned huge tracts of land; Nixon’s dad was a Baron who hailed from a Canadian province that his family almost wholly owned.

And don’t get me started on Ronald Reagan: we all know his family had the banana concession in Central America ever since the Pope granted it to the family 1574.

Who said I couldn’t be an Obama speechwriter?

Arthur Brooks from the American Enterprise Institute was a guest on Ransom Notes Radio Friday and he spoke about a recent editorial he published in the Wall Street Journal last week:

We have a robust and growing economy for high-income Americans. Those at the bottom see few prospects for growth and little reason for optimism. Nevertheless, a 2013 analysis by researcher Mark M. Gray at Georgetown University found that Mr. Obama mentions the poor less than any president in decades. In his public statements and official communications on social class, he mentioned the poor only a quarter of the time; in contrast, Ronald Reagan talked about the poor in two-thirds of his public pronouncements. This is puzzling indeed.

Census Bureau data show that in 2006-11, real annual income for the top 20% (quintile) of Americans fell by about 5% but rose almost 2% in 2010-11—and shows signs of continuing an upswing. For the bottom quintile, income fell by over 11%, and there was no upswing.

In 2011, workers in households earning between $40,000 and $60,000 had a 7.8% unemployment rate. In households earning under $20,000, unemployment was 24.4%. The unemployment for households earning more than $150,000 was 3.2%

In other words, high-income households were at or above full employment. Meanwhile, the lowest-income households looked at an employment landscape resembling the worst years of the Great Depression.

Say what you want, but the record say Obama is the one who hates poor people. Or at the very least, just uses them.

Jonesy wrote: John, How can you blame the President for the beheading of a priest? Of course, you blame him for everything, so why not add this. - Obama Allies Behead Catholic Priest In Syria

Dear Comrade Jones,

No, no, no: I blame Obama for what he really did do. That is, SUPPORT the faction that killed the priest.

Show me where I blame Obama for the beheading of a Catholic priest?

Are you speaking about the headline where I say Obama allies beheaded a Catholic priest? Or in the body of the work when I say that Obama has declared war on the Catholic Church here in the USA?

In any case, you have the usual reading-comprehension problem that liberals do.

True schizophrenics have two perception issues that are the result of organic defects of their brain that I know of.

They have depth perception problems and so consequently sometimes take small, mincing steps. They also have a hard time distinguishing from language that happens in their head and language that is spoken out loud. Their brain cannot distinguish between the two.

I wonder what organic brain defects liberals have that so affect their perception? Liberace, perhaps?

Anonymous wrote: You are such a dumb, fat piece of $^!& it's not even funny. You should seek out good and truth in life. Instead, you seek out BS and spread false information. Lose some weight, fat @ss. - The Chevy Volt Sales Figures are on Fire!

Dear Comrade-Captain Anonymous,

It never fails that when I write about the Chevy Volt that I get tons of hate mail. The hate mail is of two types: The first says, “I’m a Republican, and I own a Chevy Volt, and I couldn’t be happier. I never pay for fuel because I steal electricity from my neighbors.”

I know this can’t be right because there are only about 3,273 people in the United States who will actually admit to being both a Republican and a Chevy Volt owner, according to data by JB Powers- that’s JD Powers other brother- and all 14,422 have written to me.

The other type is full of cursing, moral superiority, and diet advice.

Barbara1247 wrote: The Republicans have helped bring us to this sorry state of affairs. - How About More Scandal, Incompetence, Venality, Hubris, Vanity and Error to Start

Dear Comrade 1247,

You’re a liberal, so even when you are right- like you are now- it’s accidental.

So as a public service, let me explain to you, in the simplest terms, what you got right, accidentally.

Certainly the GOP has helped establish a track record of what might be the sorriest 25 years of governing in American history. But it’s because they have supported watered-down versions of the Democrat agenda.

For every frick we have in government, we have another frack on the other side, proposing something equally idiotic.

I mean really: How do you run against each other for president as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama did and pretend like there is that much substance between the two parties at times?

Obama spied, so did Bush.

Was Mitt Romney going to stop the NSA spying program? Heck and no.

Obama declared war, as president, without the consent of Congress. Bush waged an unpopular war, which was poorly justified and poorly run.

Obama’s kept GTIMO open, killed American citizens by assassination, which he claims he has the legal authority to do.

George Bush on the other hand opened GITMO as a prisoner of war camp and allowed the torture of enemy combatants, which he claimed that he had the legal authority to do.

But here’s the difference: Bush isn’t some moralizing, Nobel-peace prize-winning, hypocrite wannabe who thinks America’s problem is that he’s not emperor.

Obama, on the other hand, is.

If the GOP – and George Bush- made mistakes, they’ve been honest mistakes.

Obama’s nothing but a pile of deceit, stuffed into an empty suit and trumpeted from a teleprompter.

When you allow your president to allow the attorney general to desist from prosecuting one of the most egregious examples of voter intimidation in the last 30 years, it’s not going to end well for you and your party.

And do you know why?

Because you pretend that there is some moral virtue that makes progressives better than anyone else.

And you pinned that claim to a guy with many talents, but virtue is not amongst them.

You guys have that habit too.

Bill Clinton was even a more talented guy than Barack Obama is; he’s a wretched person, however. And I think his wife is even worse.

I can’t wait to read the new book, she’s writing. From what I hear, it will likely make average Americans cringe.

Of course Democrats will treat it like it deserves a Noble prize in literature.

But here’s the real point for both parties: Our mode of government is inadequate for a period of time when there is more freedom, more equality of access, more people entering the middle class globally than ever before.

What we need is less government interventionism, less Big Brother, not more.

In a period where we have more data to make decisions about how to live our lives, how to best use our talent and how to gain an education that’s right for us, our government is using that technology to limit our choices, to revert to a patristic, feudalism that keeps us trapped in the intellectual remnants of the 19th and 20th century.

What people do with the conflict between technology’s liberating capacity and the desire of government to limit us, well, one day that will be called “The History of the 21st Century.”

Drayburn wrote [with both fine gramear and speliing]: So Johnny Boy you have lost your faith in God, becoming a Loin of the Devil wondering around stealing souls, at least God found use for a donkey riding it though the city. As most Republicans the Devil has made his deals with for there great power over others and blind them to reality and fact, there comes the time to pay the piper, well time to pay little man time to pay. The braking of the Republican bubble has come for them to face there hate and lies they spread for years. We Are Lions That Are Lead By Donkeys

Dear Comrade Dray,

You seem to be suffering from a flight of ideas or some other similar thought disorder. Or perhaps it’s derailment of ideas.

The good news is that these conditions are covered under Obamacare.

The bad new is that you probably need an exorcism too.

And what d'ya know? Not covered under Obamacare, yet!

I know. I’m surprised too.

"For the devil has come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” - Revelation of John 12:12

It is not I that is rolling out a broken healthcare system because I have such a short time left to accomplish my goal.

But then when has Obama ever cared for the consequences to his party or his country when contemplating anything?

Look, I’m not saying Obama’s the devil. He’s not bright enough for that.

But his works are certainly devilish.

Remember those terrible Republican conservatives who wanted to delay the implementation of Obamacare?

It looks like they were the only ones who knew what the hell they were talking about.

You know it’s bad when Ezra Klein, my favorite idiot, thinks there are problems with Obamacare much bigger than the website:

To understand why these problems are so dangerous to Obamacare it's helpful to understand how the Obama administration thinks about Obamacare.

With my colleague Sarah Kliff, I spent much of May and June working on that. What we wanted to know -- and asked repeatedly -- was how administration officials defined success for the health care law.

Here is what we learned: “To the White House, the difference between success and failure is straightforward: They need to entice a sufficient number of young and healthy adults into the new insurance marketplaces that open Oct. 1.”

I want to be clear on this: No one said that success was letting kids up to age 26 stay on their parents' insurance plan. No one said it was regulating insurers or covering preventive care. Instead, everyone in the White House shared a singular definition: Success meant setting up the exchanges and attracting enough young people that premiums stayed low.

And he concluded:

The problem is precisely that the people who really need insurance will be patient and persistent. The people who don't need insurance as badly may not be. And if that happens, then in year two, costs are going to rise sharply for those sicker, older people left in the exchanges. And Republicans who see Obamacare's problems as a path to success in 2014 won't even think about expanding Medicaid.

When ANY liberal is being this honest it’s refreshing.

But Klein has made supporting Obamacare his raison d'être for the better part of the last 4 years. And make no mistake, he still a fan. He’s trying to save Obamacare, but he says there isn’t much time: “The White House has time to right the ship. But not much. Health-care experts suggest the Web site needs to be running smoothly by Thanksgiving at the latest.”

Just another thing to be thankful for on Thanksgiving Day.

“Give me six hours to chop down a tree,” said Lincoln, “and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.”

Obama blew his four hours. He’s got two left.

Oden wrote: A Goldman Sachs guy quits the firm and blasts its greedy practices and disregard for its clients, millions of people have seen his parting letter and its reportedly the talk of Wall Street. And here's a Towncrier "finance editor" and the other "finance editors" just shoveling more anti-Obama garbage. Where's the story on Towncrier? Where's the idiot analysis y'awl are known for? Wotta bunch of hacks.- Obama's Phony Numbers Adding Up

Dear Comrade Oden,

A Goldman Sachs guys quits Wall Street in bitter disgust every day. Half the brokers I know are thinking about quitting at any given moment.

It’s not really news unless you subscribe to the New York Times.

But if you have read me for the last year, you’ll know that I’m not exactly a cheerleader for Wall Street types like Bernanke or Paulson or Geithner or Goldman Sachs.

Just for you, however, I’ll include some analysis of the Goldman news:

Who was the second largest contributor to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008? Goldman Sachs, via your Democrat friend John Corzine, who used to be the CEO at Goldman. Of course Corzine himself is responsible for one of the largest bankruptcies in US history at MF Global. MF Global clients are still out $1.7 billion in supposedly segregated customer accounts. And where are Eric Holder and the Justice Department on that one? I’ll tell you where: They’re still covering up Fast and Furious. Way too busy to enforce the law of the land and arrest someone for stealing $1.7 billion, especially big Obama campaign contributors.

I want reform on Wall Street. The sooner Washington and Wall Street separate, the better it will be for Main Street.

But don’t come at me with your faux OWS outrage about greedy bankers.

Your guys- the Soroses, the Buffetts, the Franks, the Corzines, the UAW’s Kings- are the problem with Wall Street not the solution.

StephanusCA wrote: John Ransom: "What it means, rather, is that no one, but mostly including Muslims, can’t afford to tolerate Islamists.” So apparently Ransom distinguishes between Muslims and Islamists. I am not sure how he would define Islamist. But most of the comments here seem to lump all Muslims together, even to the point of arguing that Islam is not a genuine religion and those who follow it are not entitled to the same rights of religious freedom as others in our society.- in response to Tolerating Islam: “He grabbed her by the hair and then shot her in the head”

Dear Comrade Stephen,

An Islamist is a person who advocates Islam as a contained religious, social and political system that is destined to take over the world. Generally speaking, Islamists reject the materialism of the two previous dominant Western philosophies of Communism and Capitalism- along with liberty in the case of Capitalism- as unable to satisfy man’s longing to know God, live for God and fulfill God’s will. Islamists believe that by forcing people, even against their will, into the Islamic system that they are acting in behalf of God.

Personally, I think that Islamists under the above definition are mostly sexually frustrated, intellectual dwarfs. I would include in that group every ayatollah who has ruled Iran, but most especially, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. I think there is a legitimate question of whether Khomeini’s version of Islam even qualifies as Islam.

Only God can know for sure what’s in the heart of any man. It’s not the popular version that most people are taught about Catholicism, but as a Catholic I was taught to respect all religions, including Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.

I believe that there is a Divine plan, and I am content to let God sort it all out without me interposing. In other words, I think God can handle every person’s salvation without me having to butt in.

But it’s interesting to note that people in this country who argue for freedom from religion-as opposed tofreedom of religion, on which the country was founded-seem to have no problem with Muslim countries that routinely oppress religious, political and social minorities.

Those same people also seem to have no problem with the attacks that are going on against the religious here in America. Attacks on religion can easily be turned into attacks on freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom to live without insurance.

On the other, if Islamists weren’t blowing people up, shooting them, hanging them and beheading them in public squares; if they weren’t engaged in “honor killings” and female circumcision; if they weren’t special pleading for exemption from a common-law system that has been the most successful in history, in order to implement feudal law that protects male insecurity, you’d probably not see people arguing about the legitimacy of Islam as a religion. For example you don’t have people furious with Hindus in this country or Buddhists.

Truth001 wrote: We always have had right wing and in some cases left wing extremist that are ticking time bombs wanting to force their ideals on the US. This kind of problem has been around for years. This not new to the US. Has everyone forgot about Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to right wing extremious who blow up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. So Mr Ransom is sounds like you would like to round up all the Muslims and march them to gas chamber much like the Nazi's to the Jews. I guess that is one way to deal with what you perceive as problem. - in response to Tolerating Islam: “He grabbed her by the hair and then shot her in the head”

Dear Comrade Pravda001,
No, it actually doesn’t sound like I want to round anyone up and put them in the gas chamber. I’m generally opposed to the death penalty. Generally.

My recollection is that Timothy McVeigh was convicted in federal court of murder and died by lethal injection, under the law. While waiting to die, he was housed with other terrorists in ADX Florence, such as Islamist Ramzi Yousef, who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.

Nichols is serving 161 life sentences at ADX Florence.

I have no pity for McVeigh or Nichols. Both got the justice they deserved. They don’t represent the right-wing of anything.

Your claim that I want to march Muslims en masse to the gas chamber is the usual liberal hysteria that you guys throw up when can’t come up with anything else. I never hinted at such a thing and would be the first person to protest against it.

Homicide is wrong for Nazis, Christians, Jews and, yes, even Muslims.

SPEAK for DCSD wrote:: John Ransom, part of Parent Led Reform and I Stand For DougCO Kids. Also the man responsible for the famous quote, “We will break your union and choke your schools.” The man in pure evil. - Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Speak,

Well, that’s not exactly what I said. Actually I didn’t say anything of the kind.

What I did say is that if the union wanted to be in the politics business, then they were welcome to it.

Congratulations. You’ve made it.

Politics seems to be working out pretty well for you guys.

And don’t give me the excuse that school board elections are non-partisan. If that were true why do 99 percent of the political donations from your affiliate, the AFL-CIO, go to Democrats? Why did your own union, the AFT, give $29 million to Democrats and $258,000 to the GOP since 1990?

Chart from Open Secrets.org

Cycle

Total

Democrats

Republicans

% to Dems

% to Repubs

2012

$2,739,150

$1,130,450

$0

100%

0%

2010

$5,302,370

$2,803,870

$8,000

100%

0%

2008

$2,859,223

$2,826,923

$15,800

99%

1%

2006

$2,598,673

$2,573,673

$15,000

99%

1%

2004

$2,087,096

$2,038,846

$45,000

98%

2%

2002

$5,344,020

$5,300,970

$40,050

99%

1%

2000

$3,549,380

$3,520,230

$28,150

99%

1%

1998

$2,485,641

$2,456,241

$23,400

99%

1%

1996

$2,491,962

$2,465,645

$21,700

99%

1%

1994

$1,806,241

$1,793,741

$11,500

99%

1%

1992

$1,602,344

$1,567,194

$24,350

99%

2%

1990

$1,190,716

$1,165,666

$25,050

98%

2%

You want schools to be apolitical? Then get the union to stop spending money on politics and go back to bargaining for teachers. And here’s a question: Why do you guys support politicians up at the capitol who vote to take money out of your school district and give it to Denver? Doesn’t it drive you nuts that your union dues goes to pols who take money from your schools?

Now, as to me being “pure” evil, I’m not sure that you have the required FDA information to make such a claim. Nor could you call me either “naturally” evil or even “organically” evil without sufficient data to support the claim.

I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that liberals like you would trifle with the fine folks at the federal government by making unsupported scientific claims about the nature and quality of my evilness.

SPEAK for DCSD also wrote: Don't forget that John Ransom was the head of the Douglas County Republicans in 2009 when he publicly supported (using robo calls, mass mailings, emails, etc.) Carson, Silverthorn, Benevento and Gerken [the reform candidates]. Up until that election, school board elections were almost universally non-partisan. But even then he was very open in identifying himself as anti-union and pro-reform (charter.) http://coloradoindependent.com/41345/ugly-douglas-county-gop-campaign-alienated-republicans.- Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade,

Yes, I’m very proud of that election. From that election we got more charter schools, more transparency, merit pay, vouchers, a world class superintendent, and now the union has been expelled for not bargaining in good faith.

But even more importantly, we got in front of the financial crisis and avoided the types of problems they are having in places like Madison, WI and California.

Teachers in the county aren’t losing their jobs for financial reasons. Teachers are getting almost a 3 percent raise.

You’re welcome.

Brian wrote again: Ugh. See...idiot­.- Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Brian,

Please. Expand your vocabulary.

Chérie wrote: As I live and breathe... we've been graced with a celebrity right here on little ol' SPEAK! John Ransom has "liked" a few of your posts on this thread. (Consider yourselves some of the lucky few! ;-) Mr. Ransom: I'm sure you're not handing out condescending "likes", but instead, you're here to answer the questions that some of the people have asked. I'm sure you intended on answering the questions, but you were probably so busy "liking" all their posts that you forgot. I'm sure you're a very busy man, you know, with all the positive articles and blogs you probably have to write these days, so I've taken the liberty of re-posting their questions. ;)

1) What is your educational experience?

2) If you don't have experience, what is the level of research you have conducted on public schools, and specifically DCSD?

3) Do you have any financial investments/gain in the privatizing of education? (That question isn't listed above... it's my personal question that I'm sure you'll be happy to answer.)

Thanks again for stopping by SPEAK! I love to have celebrities such as yourself stop by! - Teachers’ Union Expelled from School District

Dear Comrade Cherie,

1) See above. Oh, and by the way, what’s your experience in finance?

2) See above. How much research have you done into the corrupting effects of public unions?

3) No. I have no investments in privatizing education, nor will I make any money out of it in any way. I invest in the popular mutual funds offered through my 401k plan. Do teachers have investments that require taxpayer support? Why yes they do. They have pensions don’t they?

BTW- How does it feel that you have now lost three elections in a row to me, especially this last one, which was a referendum on: 1) Vouchers for choice in education and 2) Kicking the teachers union out?

I never said anything about choking schools, but in 2013 we did break your union. I’m very proud of that.

That's it for this week,

V/r,

JR