Yesterday White House spokesman Jay Carney attempted and failed at explaining how his boss Barack Obama can defend using taxpayer money for failed companies such as Solyndra and at the same time rip into private sector investments that sometimes fail and many more times succeed. Mr. Carney couldn’t explain or defend Obama either.

Look…there, there, there is the…the…difference in that, your overall view of what…huh, your responsibilities are as president and what your view of the economic future is.

And the president believes as he’s made clear that a president’s responsibility is not just to, ah, those who win but those who, for example in a company where ah, there have been layoffs or a company that has gone bankrupt, that we have to ah make sure that those folks have the means to find other employment, that they have the ability to train for other kinds of work and that’s part of the overall responsibility a president has.

Hmmm….Does anyone in the Obama administration know what their responsibility is under the Constitution?

Welcome to Obama’s Bizarro World where sunny is cloudy, hot is cold, right is left, daytime is nighttime, good is bad, commonsense is illogical, and the political class has taken reality to divorce court.

Quoting George Orwell:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible… Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… the great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms …

Obama has handed out vast amounts of money to politically preferred businesses in search of job creation along with a brand new “green” economic system. It’s taxpayer-funded crony capitalism which has neither produced new jobs or created the green-energy payout that Obama wanted. In reality, it is a policy which has failed totally, resulting in bankruptcy followed by bankruptcy. However in spite of the numerous disappointments — as well as zero accomplishments — Obama and his Administration are generally defending the indefensible and standing by a plan which has forfeited taxpayer funds.

Obama committed $465 million of taxpayer money to Tesla, which was founded by a campaign mega-donor and the 63rd richest man in the world, Elon Musk, to build a $130,000 battery-powered sports car that become permanently inoperable if left uncharged for 30 days.

In one program, of the $20.5 billion in loans granted, $16.4 billion went to companies linked to donors who contributed to Obama and the Democrat Party.

Soon after his inauguration Obama declared:

“Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”

While Obama economics and “stimulus” is a complete failure he continues to lecture us on evil venture capitalists – institutions where private investors risk their own money in enterprises that are already failing – in hopes to bring in fresh ideas and to rescue them from potential bankruptcy or shuttered factories and plants.

Many times these projects fail but when they succeed, and they often do, jobs are created, profits are made and new investment is generated for expansion.

This election cycle we have a former venture capitalist in Mitt Romney, who created jobs, rescued numerous businesses from sure failure, and knows what it’s like to manage a business. On the other side we have Obama defending crony capitalism, a person who has never has a legitimate private sector job, has never run a business but consistently ridicules free market systems.

Barack Obama defends the Marxist way while his spokesperson has trouble defending it or even explaining it. Obama thinks he can pick winners and losers in the business world. This is what we call Obama’s Bizarro World.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Yes, it’s all around, we’re surrounded by dumb people, morons who can’t think for themselves, are too busy pretending they’re smart while aimlessly glaring at their Smart phone. All you have is dumb people using so-called smart phones who wouldn’t know how to operate a vehicle even if they weren’t text messaging behind the steering wheel, their car veering over the center line attempting to engage with your front bumper.

People don’t pay attention, they don’t listen, they are clueless in every sense of the word and we wonder why our over-crowded, dumb-downed school system is failing. It’s failing because we’re surrounded by dumb people. From administrators, to teachers, to students, to parents and the beat goes on. Everyone has a cell phone but not everyone uses their brain. Attention Deficit Disorder is only rampant because people don’t care, they aren’t motivated, they are lazy and taught to depend on someone else to get their daily bread.

I didn’t even have to leave my office to see dumb people today. It first started at Yahoo with this headline – 8-Year-Old Gets ‘Catastrophe Award’ for Most Homework Excuses.

Apparently a parent is in a snit over her child receiving an “Award”, a “Catastrophe Award.” What was the “Catastrophe” you ask? Having the most excuses for not having homework. Yes that is a catastrophe and the little girls mommy thinks it’s cruel. I think maybe it’s a wake up call for Christina Valdez and her daughter, Cassandra Garcia. Wasn’t mommy paying attention to her child’s school work? Was she not checking to see if little Cassandra had homework, getting it completed, and seeing if she needed help or guidance? The school principal said it was a joke but I don’t think not doing your homework is a joke, it’s a crime, it’s cruel that parents aren’t staying on top of what their children are doing.

But why should I be surprised as I move over to the Wall Street Journal and this headline – Obama Insults Poles with Mention of ‘Polish Death Camp’. Yes, it said Obama not Biden. Imagine that! Two dim-wits leading the list of incompetence in the US government.

It wasn’t bad enough that a 60s retread like Bob Dylan received the country’s highest civilian award but another honoree of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Jan Karski, a hero of the Polish resistance against Nazi occupiers in World War II stood their while Obama referred to Mr. Karski’s smuggling into a “Polish death camp” to see for himself that Jews were being murdered “on a massive scale.”

Within hours, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski posted a message on Twitter declaring that the White House “will apologize” for the “outrageous” statement, and promising that Prime Minister Donald Tusk will make a statement about it in the morning. He also said that it was a shame that the “important ceremony” had been overshadowed by “ignorance and incompetence.”

It didn’t take long to find more “dumb people” as another Wall Street Journal headline proclaimed – Photos, Tweets: Romney’s ‘Amercia’ Goes Viral. I thought, oh no, how dumb can they be?

A Romney campaign Web app, “With Mitt.” lets users take pictures with various Romney campaign slogans overlaid on them, and then send them to friends or post them online. Themes include “American Greatness,” “We’re With Mitt,” and “A Better Amercia.” That’s right, Amercia.

How could anyone not proofread one word, the word “America” and see something is wrong before putting it out on the Internet as an app for millions to use. I make typo’s all the time, some go unnoticed or are discovered much later, sometimes weeks after a post but I don’t have editors, proofreaders or staff to check my every word. I use spell-check, I reread things but I’m not running a presidential campaign where ever word is used against you. Why give more ammunition to your opponent? Who is responsible for this? Are they still employed?

So yes, we’re a country with the highest standard of living, institutions of higher learning abound, you have few excuses for failure, or at least you have no excuse for not trying your hardest to succeed.

In AMERICA, opportunity is knocking for everyone, you must simply G.O.Y.A. (Get Off Your Ass) and open the door.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

On justifying his assaults on Bain Capital, Barack Obama is adamant that “profit maximization” may be the ideal objective for any private-equity company, although not for additional public policy. This particular discussion disregards the single most fundamental principles of economics.

Knowledgeable economists believe that businesses always maximize profits, understanding that profit maximization by businesses (all companies, not only private-equity models) is definitely a positive thing. However this isn’t for the reason that profits are on their own very good. Instead, profit maximization is good given it leads straight to maximum advantages with regard to consumers. Profits present the motivation for companies to accomplish exactly what consumers would like.

Take into account what plays a role in profit maximization. Essentially, profit maximization indicates creating the products that will generate the highest return on investment, and making these items at the minimum achievable expense. They are both culturally beneficial behaviors which benefit consumers.

Which goods generate the maximum revenue? The correct answer is the merchandise that buyers would like and tend to be currently under-produced. In the event that there is excessive revenue (profits) to be generated in a marketplace, this happens because individuals are prepared to spend more for those goods in comparison to the present cost of manufacturing.

Profits are attained simply by making additional goods – which is, through fulfilling unmet consumer demands. Profit maximization signifies performing the ideal task of fulfilling these unmet demands, and thus delivering benefits to customers. When the unmet demand is for a currently nonexistent product which customers will value when it’s manufactured, then obviously additional profits will be earned.

A company similar to Bain Capital which is associated with investing funds is only able to generate income when it is successful in fulfilling customer demands. Naturally, their objective in determining best places to make investments would be to maximize earnings for their shareholders, yet that’s merely a fine detail. They will only be successful in this objective if they do a good job of pinpointing and fulfilling customer demands for goods.

The next strategy to maximizing profits would be to keep costs down wherever possible. This might require getting rid of a number of needless assets, which might result in unemployment within the short term. It might include recombining assets into more effective designs, or perhaps restructuring management of the company.

The primary reason for lowering expenses would be to raise the profits of shareholders, however, the ultimate outcome is to reward consumers. Within the textbook ideal of the absolute competitive economic climate, cost savings will instantly result in more affordable prices for customers. Yet within any kind of marketplace structure-competition, monopoly or even oligopoly -profit-maximizing behavior converts minimized expenses directly into reductions in price for customers.

Take into account the opposite: Let’s say a company doesn’t maximize profits? Then it’s possibly not producing the merchandise that customers would like most, or perhaps it’s not manufacturing their goods at the least expensive cost. In any event, customers are hurt. Any kind of discussion in opposition to “profit maximization” is surely a discussion in opposition to consumer well being.

Maximizing consumer welfare stands out as the epitome of validation to have an economic system. Individuals are naturally also employees as well as voters. In contrast to Barack Obama’s assertion, ability to create profit maximization does indeed convert straight into ability to govern the economic climate. Failing to comprehend this most basic and most fundamental concept is most likely more than enough to disqualify an individual from the presidency whenever economic concerns are critical.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Just prior to this post I was discussing the flop of the Facebook IPO and then noticed the Wall Street Journal Notable & Quotable quoting Rich Karlgaard writing Monday at Forbes.com concerning the same topic.

Reading the list was like getting an echo to my own feelings concerning Facebook as follows:

1. Too late. Facebook’s shares have been dead in the water for the last 12 months. Private investors had already bid up Facebook to a $100 billion value a year ago.

2. Mark Zuckerberg’s disdain for investors. He never wanted to be a public company. This became all too obvious during the IPO road show’s crucial stop in New York when (a) Zuck hid out in the bathroom and forced the audience to wait, and (2) he took the stage wearing his hoodie. Zuckerberg’s view of shareholders is like President Obama’s view of blue collar workers. He needs them but secretly laughs at them.

3. Facebook left nothing for the common investor. The insider pig pile of PE firms and celebrity Silicon Valley angels took it all. This is a rather new, post-Sarbanes-Oxley fact and it should make Americans very, very angry. When Microsoft went public in 1986, its market value was $780 million. Microsoft’s market value would rise more than 700 times in the next 13 years. Bill Gates made millionaires of thousands of ordinary public investors. When Google went public in 2004 at a $23 billion valuation, it left less on the table for you and me. Still, if you had invested in Google then and held your stock, you would be sitting atop a 9x return. Zuckerberg and his Facebook friends took it all. . . .

5. Facebook boredom, particularly among professionals. The company says it is zeroing in on a billion members. Good for Facebook, but what I would like to know is how many Facebook users have grown bored. I have not visited my Facebook page in two months. Almost every professional person I talk to who is over 25 years old has grown bored with Facebook.

6. Facebook is not necessary. Investing in tech companies is never easy. The great Warren Buffett eschews it. The key question about tech companies is not P/E values, but necessity. I like Google, Intel, Cisco, IBM, Oracle, EMC and SAP because the world’s economy depends on them. Sure, we could live without them, but not without major disruption. . . . Facebook is not integral to the global economy and its cool brand is rapidly fading.

7. Mass social media is a crock. It is an inherent contradiction. This is why I like LinkedIn more than Facebook. It has a special purpose and therefore doesn’t feel like a time waster. FWIW, I predict the next huge win in social media will be in health care.

I’m not particularly on board with everything Mr. Karlgaard writes but it’s my opinion Facebook is losing more than it’s stock value, the interest is falling quickly, it is indeed boring and it’s not a money maker. What’s the term? One trick pony?

Facebook, the next MySpace – remember that?

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Viewing Obama campaign advertisements or perhaps MSNBC, you could quickly arrive at the judgment that Bain Capital makes revenue by simply wiping out the businesses it owns. Therefore, voters uncertain regarding the enterprise which Mitt Romney created yet still hesitant to have confidence in the financial analysis provided by community organizers, a little perspective may be beneficial.

The essential Obama-liberal analysis flows this way: Bain purchases a business, loads it with financial debt after which they pull out funds prior to foisting the damaged enterprise upon a naive buyer or perhaps a bankruptcy court. Inside the risk-taking realm of private equity finance this type of case can potentially occur, and it is correct that Bain enjoys management payments as well as dividends just as much as the next business partnership.

Yet, how do you describe the history involving Bain Capital? Mr. Romney launched the company back in 1984. The organization has since purchased and sold off numerous enterprises and conducted countless financing deals.

If Bain’s normal operational methods had been to hand the subsequent person of one of its businesses a ticking bankruptcy bundle, exactly how does Bain continue to locate customers virtually 3 decades later? In addition, who’d consent to lending funds to a business guaranteed by Bain? Might not word of mouth have gotten around as early as 1987 exposing Bain’s portfolio of business enterprises as not creditworthy?

The liberal analysis of private equity considers the financial sector is brimming with lame individuals who have been keen to lose cash across the table from Bain for twenty-eight years. This is basically the identical financial industry in which the very same liberal pundits declare is filled with money grabbing schemers when it pertains to cushioning their own personal pay or perhaps stealing from the general public. Yet financiers cannot be both rogues and fiendish prodigies simultaneously.

Understanding Bain achievements such as Staples or Gartner or Steel Dynamics demonstrates the reasonable observation in which Bain must have been generating value through the years for investors and lenders, which indicates pertaining to workers as well.

It’s simply a matter of leftist class warfare, something they do best.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Being a lifelong Chicago Cubs fan is not something you go around bragging about. Last evening, with the Philadelphia Phillies in Chicago the final blow to the Cubs loss was a 9th inning grand-slam homerun to place the final nail in the Cubs coffin for the game.

Yet today I see a startling headline – Harsh attack on Obama campaign leaked – with the sub-headline:

A group’s $10 million blitz would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do” in 2008.

No more Mr. Nice Guy – not really since Mitt Romney is not putting out the intended blitz against Obama. But who is behind the “blitz” in campaign advertising?

Chicago Cubs billionaire owner Joe Ricketts commissioned the $10 million plan, know as “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama:(From Yahoo News)

The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good.” The strategy is one of several being considered by the Ending Spending Action Fund super PAC.

According to a copy of the plan obtained by the New York Times, the group wants to expose the ties between President Obama–who is referred to as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln”–and Wright’s “black liberation theology.”

“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” the 54-page proposal says, according to the Times.

The proposed assault, including television commercials and full-page newspaper ads featuring Wright, along with “aerial banners” in the sky, would be timed to the Democratic National Convention in September.

Ricketts’ plan includes “preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting,” according to the paper and goes as far as suggesting the hiring of an “extremely literate conservative African-American” spokesman.

It also refers to an apparent ad featuring Wright that was produced for McCain’s 2008 campaign but never aired. “If the nation had seen that ad,” Ricketts writes, “they’d never have elected Barack Obama.”

“Joe Ricketts is prepared to spend significant resources in the 2012 election in both the presidential race and congressional races,” Brian Baker, the super PAC’s president, told the Times. “He is very concerned about the future direction of the country and plans to take a stand.”

It’s about time Barack Hussein Obama is exposed with a full-blown frontal assault across America and for the world to see. It’s about time someone with power and money broker a campaign exposing Obama for what he is – an anti-American, Communist, Marxist hate-monger.

Is Obama and his minions playing nice? They are as vicious as any campaign could be. (Emphasis LCs)

“Unlike the Obama campaign, Gov. Romney is running a campaign based on jobs and the economy, and we encourage everyone else to do the same,” Matt Rhoades, Mitt Romney’s campaign manager, said in a statement to Yahoo News. “President Obama’s team said they would ‘kill Romney,’ and, just last week, David Axelrod referred to individuals opposing the president as ‘contract killers.’ It’s clear President Obama’s team is running a campaign of character assassination. We repudiate any efforts on our side to do so.”

Real nice vitriol coming out of the Obama camp using terms as “kill” and “contract killers.”

Finally someone has decided to step up to the plate and hit one out of the park. I was pleased when the Ricketts family purchased the Chicago Cubs franchise and even more pleased when they hired Theo Epstein out of Boston.

Would it be nice to see a new President in the White House in 2013 and the Chicago Cubs in the World Series in October 2013.

A coup de grâce times 2, indeed!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Barack Obama has put into practice an extreme understanding of “official business,” requiring taxpayers to pay for numerous excursions to swing states with regard to campaign-style rallies. White House press secretary Jay Carney is apparently similarly ambitious.

To evaluate, Mr. Carney is compensated by taxpayers to share with the press concerning the policies of the Obama administration. The Obama re-election campaign ought to employ their own advisers, compensated from resources raised by way of individual contributions.

While engaging in a Monday briefing with reporters onboard Air Force One, Mr. Carney had been questioned regarding the latest Obama re-election campaign commercial which blasts Mitt Romney with regard to his work at Bain Capital. The appropriate response might have been to direct these kinds of inquiries to the Obama campaign. That is what Mr. Carney started to do while he refused to talk about the timing of the advertisement, however he veered straight into what he termed as a “broader point” concerning Mr. Obama’s proclaimed dedication to the middle class.

Mr. Carney subsequently compared the Obama’s views with . . .

“. . . an approach that is basically-that says to the middle class, you’re on your own, that the best approach here is to double down on the policies that led to the worst recession since the Great Depression.”

This is precisely the caricature of Mr. Romney’s agenda which is conveyed through Obama campaign representatives.

Since Obama’s re-election campaign battles to fulfill fund-raising objectives, its capability to attract support through taxpayer-funded sources and staff might be essential to their likelihood of November success.

Should we really expect anything else from a corrupt administration who can’t discuss the economy but relishes in the blame game?

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

This is really great advice – Barack Obama says Europe should follow his lead to economic recover. Really? Anyone with half a brain and paying attention understands the American economy is still in the tank. Unemployment is being reported at over 8-percent, relatively unchanged for months and real unemployment, figures the government doesn’t discuss come in over 20-percent.

Yet, Obama the pseudo-economist is now telling Europe what they need to do – be like Barack.

“We’ve still got headwinds. Europe is still … in a difficult state, partly because they didn’t take some of the decisive steps that we took early on in this recession,” said Mr. Obama at a private 70-person fundraiser in Seattle, Washington.

I’m not sure what “decisive steps” Obama is discussing. A aide in the White House claims he is referring to “early stress tests on banks, requirements that banks bolster their capital cushions and an aggressive early response by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel says their is no “magic bullet” to solving Europe’s problems and must attack their “horrendous debts.”

Overcoming the crisis will be a long and difficult process that will only be achieved if we attack the origins of the crisis, which are the horrendous debts and a lack of competitiveness in some European countries.

Obama’s answer to attacking national debt is more spending and higher taxes. And doing the real math will show you that Obama, who loves blaming George W. Bush for all the economic problems added exponentially more debt for the nation than GWB to the tune of $4.939 trillion in three years compared to $4.899 trillion over eight years.

With prices increasing for consumers in threes years across the board and no sign of relief Barack Obama shouldn’t be handing out “free” advice to anyone on the economy. In fact, the incompetent Obama should simply leave office and allow some adults to straighten his mess out.

Now, if we could only elect some competent adults.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: