THE ENTERPRISE--PIVOTAL MID-TERM ELECTION IS ONLY 2 MONTHS AWAY--VOTE TO KEEP GOP CONTROL OF CONGRESS

 

 

BARACK OBAMA IS BACK IN THE SPOTLIGHT OF THE NEWS MEDIA WHO LOVE HIM (AND HATE TRUMP)

PS: OBAMA IS NOT RUNNING FOR ANYTHING EXCEPT HIS OWN PERSONAL GLORY AND HIS “LEGACY"

Obama made a practice during his presidency of blaming someone else for everything and anything that went wrong. He uses his teleprompter aided oratory to spin webs of what he would do, has done, and why anything bad that happened was someone else’s fault.

He’s BAACK—like the Terminator that never goes away. He wants to hoodwink the independents and moderates to believe hmagain. He really wants to add to his personal glory and defend his legacy. He can and will throw all the rocks he wants at Trump (who is methodically dismantling Obama’s legacy, but also deserves many of the things he is accused of being—an egotist, a narcissist, a blowhard, and too often factually-challenged).Trump also deserves credit for caring deeply about America and Americans!

 

WHAT OBAMA IS NOW TRYING TO DO IS TAKE THE CREDIT FOR THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY MADE POSSIBLE BY TRUMP’S ELECTION AND HIS ACTIONS

As much as Trump’s Tweets and overlong speeches are excessive, he has made almost all of the right decisions. The economy shows it, and no matter how long Obama talks, he can’t claim he did that.I predicted that the US economy would not fully recover as long as Obama and his anti-business policy wonks were in control. That was true. Now it is recovering. Confidence is up. Unemployment is way down.Minorities—especially blacks and Hispanics are doing better than ever. Everyone is doing better, 

 

The only reason jobs numbers aren’t up even more, is thatcompanies can’t find people to hire(that can pass drug tests). BarackObama’s welfare state took so many peopleout of the workforce and into the stay-at-home, do nothinglifestyles(except demonstrate now & then)and collect a government check—or several.

 

1) TRUMP’S POLICY AND NEGOTIATING STRATEGY IS CLEAR—IF YOU UNDERSTAND NEGOTIATIONS.

Thehigher your initial demands are, until they far exceed the bounds of credibility (and even then),the higher your result will be.

This has been proven over and over all the way back to my first negotiation training with Chester Karrass organization in the 1970’s—and it is still true now. Trump learned it in the big time real estate business, where price high, then negotiate down the where a DEAL can be closed. It works—in real estate and in domestic and foreign relations. (e.g., NAFTA, NATO, etc.!)

 

2) TRUMP’S FOREIGN RELATIONS TACTICS COME FROM MACHIAVELLI (OR SONNY CORLEONE)

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”Trump knows that by cozying up to Putin and Kim, and complimenting them, (while the liberal media and pols scream) they will feel like "he’s with them.” (Trump may understand that because others do it to him all the time.) Then he leaves, and turns his staff loose to impose even tougher sanctions on them. He’s in the midst of a protracted back and forth with Xi of China too. Iran knows Trump isn’t kidding because he clamped down on Obama & Kerry’s folly, which Iran was pretending to conform while violating in secret (ICBMs for just one example, selling nuke tech for another).

 

3) TRUMP’S MOST VISIBLE FAILURE IS IN CHOOSING AND HIRING PEOPLE WHO PRETEND TO BE LOYAL

A loyal person is valuable—if they are genuine—and if they arecompetent.Trump has erred on both counts. (e.g., Flynn, Priebus, Sessions and OMG—Omarossa—really Donald?) Many of Trump’s picks for his administration are like him—wealthy, successful business people—and then bring the conflict of interest baggage with them. There’s no dismissing this failure. Fortunately, he picked a few good ones and they are serving him—and us—well, but steering him through his fits of meteoric histrionics, and finding sensible and sound decisions that he can back into. Generals Kelly & Mattis, Pompeo, etc. N

 

4) TRUMP’S LEGAL ISSUES WILL CONTINUE TO MOUNT—HOPEFULLY FENDED OFF—TEMPORARILY

The Mueller investigation is totally out of control.Here’s the best recap of why that is true:

 

Download When Justice Is Partial - WSJ

 

WITH ALL THAT OUT OF THE WAY—CONSIDER THE MIDTERMS: DO YOU REALLY WANT NANCY PELOSI BACK IN THE LINE OF SUCCESSION?

Hell NO!The speaker of the House IS two heartbeats away from the White House. Aside from her misguided California “nutty” policies, having her in that seat is just SCARY. We’ve seen that before. Remind your voting age friends and family that Margaret Thatcher was right. “Other peoples money runs out"—and the working people get stuck with the bills.

 

DO YOU REALLY THINK THE BIG GOVERNMENT, FREE EVERYTHING (PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS AND DEBT) IS THE RIGHT COURSE

It’s been proven time and again. Obama’s non-recovery that he handed over to Trump to make a real recovery is only one instance. Take most major US cities and a few states (Obama’s home state of IL) have proven to be dismal failures. Mounting deficits, impossible budgets, businesses baling out, and crime running rampant. 

 

If you vote for the Democratic candidate—no matter what they say they’ll do—they won’t. They’ll toe the party line and take America back to low growth—except in government— which will once again explode.Why? Because “government knows best” what is good for you. —You get that, right?

 

READ THIS AND USE IT TO DISSUADE THEM FROM VOTING FOR PEOPLE LIKE SANDERS, WARREN AND THE OTHER DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS WHO WILL BE RUNNING FOR CONGRESS

 

Download How to Argue With a Young Socialist - WSJ

 

NOW IS THE TIME TO STEP UP—WE ARE THE ONES WHO CAN MAKE/KEEP AMERICA GREAT AGAIN—BY KEEPING THE DEMOCRATS FROM CONTROLLING CONGRESS—ONE VOTE AT A TIME—GETTING EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO VOTE GOP

To every American who is currently appreciating the economic recovery stimulated by President Trump and the GOP Congress (albeit it has been of modest —choose the GOP candidate in your District. Go meet with him/her, help shape the policy, but most of all donate to their campaign (yes small donations add up!) and educate your family’s Millennial or GenZ voters 

 

This November the moneyed elite who fund the increasingly Socialistic Democratic party, aided and abetted by the heavily Liberal mainstream media (NYTimes, WashPost, et. alcollusionwith CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) are dumping everything (with $$$ from George Soros, etc.) they have to elect Democrat lefty liberals to the House and Senate.

 

The large number of retiring GOP Congressional Representatives is asymptomof the failure of the very narrow Senate majority to move the many bills passed in the House on to the President’s desk to become law.

 

The retiring incumbentrs' frustration has been palpable—and well deserved. Many were good people, who simply got tired of passing bills to serve their constituents and help rebuild America after Barack Obama left it in a mess, only to see them die in 

the Senate because a couple of Senators had their own selfish agendas.

 

Obama’s weakness abroad led to terrible —or no— practical foreign policies.Obama’s flawed and failed economic policies costAmericans$18 Trillion (see article below). Eighteen Trillion Dollars!

 

AS I WARNED—NO REAL RECOVERY WOULD COME WITH OBAMA IN THE WHITE HOUSE—and it didn’t! This article belowexplains why. It also explainswhy a Trump presidency, however you may feel about Trump the man, is good for America and Americans.

 

 

The Good Times Can Roll On

The economy isn’t on a ‘sugar high.’ Pro-market policy improved incentives to work and invest.

By Edward C. Prescott and Lee E. Ohanian

Aug. 23, 2018 6:30 p.m. ET

Some Keynesian economists argue that the U.S. economy’s recent uptick is only a “sugar high.” They predict that the slow-growth conditions of the Obama years will soon return. But this pessimistic view is misguided. Better economic policies are the primary reason the economy has improved since 2016. If pro-growth policies remain in place, the economy’s strong performance will likely continue.

 

The growth paths in a market economy depend on the quality of government policies and institutions.These affect the incentives to innovate, start a business, hire workers, and invest in physical and human capital.If policies are reformed to increase incentives for market economic activity—as many have been under President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress—then investment and labor input expand as the economy rises to a higher growth path. Once the economy reaches its new growth path, labor and investment stabilize at higher levels.

 

When policies change to depress these incentives, the economy moves onto a lower long-run growth path.That happened after the 2007-09 recession. Because of the severity of the downturn, the economy recovered organically to some extent. But that partial recovery stalled by the end of 2014 because of higher tax rates and increased regulation. These policies produced a long-run growth path below the pre-recession path.

 

It’s clear the recovery ended in 2014 because the two hallmarks of recovery—investment’s share of gross domestic product and labor input relative to the adult population—stopped increasing. This left a large gap between actual output and the output level that would have occurred had the economy recovered to its pre-recession growth path.According to our calculations, the U.S. cumulatively lost about $18 trillion in income and output between 2007 and 2016. Everything suggested this shortfall would persist or even grow. 

 

Yet economic performance began to improve beginning in the first quarter of 2017. Real GDP growth accelerated to about 2.7% between the end of 2016 and the second quarter of 2018, up from about 2% between 2014 and the end of 2016. The share of GDP devoted to nonresidential business investment rose to a historic high. 

 

The best measure of labor input—the total number of market hours worked divided by the 16-and-older population—is growing faster than in 2014-16, and is now close to its all-time high. This is all the more impressive since the growth rate of the working-age population is slowing. Perhaps the most exciting aspect of the current economy: The emergence of better job opportunities has reduced the number of people on disability. This has led the Social Security Administration to reverse its previous warning that the disability system would become insolvent as soon as 2023. 

 

U.S. economic performance is the strongest in years. One policy driving this turnaround is the substantially lower corporate-tax rate, which has made the U.S. more competitive with other countries. Regulatory changes—such as the partial rollback of Dodd-Frank and new leadership within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—also have proved helpful, particularly for small businesses, which are benefiting from lower record-keeping and compliance costs. Meanwhile, the number of regulatory pages in the Federal Register has been cut by a third since President Obama’s last year in office. That’s a major reason the National Federation of Independent Business reports that more small-business owners are hiring than ever. They’re also increasingly optimistic about the future of the U.S. economy.

 

As the two hallmarks of recovery are still rising, the economy likely has not reached its new, higher growth path. This means that the U.S. can expect above-normal growth in the coming months, possibly even years. 

 

Growth rates could improve with further policy changes. One example is a reduction in trade barriers. Since the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed 70 years ago, international commerce has expanded dramatically, hugely benefiting U.S. consumers by lowering prices and increasing the variety of available goods. The average household’s benefits from trade are greater than $10,000 a year, according to the Tax Foundation. Further cooperative trade agreements—rather than wide-ranging tariffs—would expand these already large benefits.

 

A second area for reform that could put the U.S. on a still-higher growth path is health care. The rise of health-care costs is the most important reason wages have not increased more for U.S. workers. The extra compensation is swallowed up by health-insurance premiums. Expanding medical savings accounts and decoupling health plans from employment would create incentives for both consumers and their health-care providers to economize on health-care spending. This would lower costs without compromising quality.

 

U.S. economic performance over the past decade illustrates the substantial influence of government policies on growth. While some are reluctant to admit it, the current performance is a result of policies that basic economic theory tells us will increase investment and hiring. Even greater prosperity is possible if policy makers stay the course and continue to implement pro-market economic policies. 

 

Mr. Prescott, a 2004 Nobel economics laureate, is director for the Center for the Advanced Study in Economic Efficiency at Arizona State University. Mr. Ohanian, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is associate director of the center at ASU.

Appeared in the August 24, 2018, WSJ print edition.

A DISASTER FOR AMERICA—“CRAZY BERNIE SANDERS”—THE "DONE-NOTHING” SO-CALLED “INDEPENDENT” SENATOR (Socialist=make everything free/let "working Americans" pay for it) IS TOUTING PLANS SO IRRESPONSIBLE THEY ARE UNBELIEVABLE EXCEPT TO THE NAIVE AND UNIFORMED.

Now the Democratic party is reacting to its rigging of the Democratic primaries last time so Hillary Clinton would win, and Sanders could not. Both were terribly flawed candidates. One was a “crook;” the other was “crazy.” You can decide which is which. Current Democratic stalwarts like Elizabeth Warren (“Pocahontas” according to Trump) is only slightly less bad than Sanders. Party leaders like Chuck "Two-faced” Schumer and Nancy Pelosi (Really, her again!?) are a sorry lot, whose hypocrisy knows no bounds. They make Trump’s ranting sound good.

 

What Kind of Socialist is Bernie Sanders?

The kind that doesn’t argue with redistributing $32.6 trillion.

By James Freeman

Aug. 21, 2018 7:22 p.m. ET

Is Bernie Sanders a socialist like Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro, whose mania for wealth redistribution has brought a country to its knees? Or, as Mr. Sanders suggests, is he merely a “socialist” in the manner of Scandinavian politicians, who presided over thriving free economies before imposing entitlement programs and have since cut corporate tax rates to allow economic growth to fund their promises?

 

The reaction of Sen. Sanders to a critique of his single-payer health care plan may be instructive. Recently in the Journal, former Social Security and Medicare trustee Charles Blahous forecast the spending required to allow Mr. Sanders to implement his vision of changing health care for every American. Mr. Sanders calls it “Medicare for All.” Mr. Blahous, now at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, explained what it could mean for all taxpayers: 

 

According to my calculations, paying for every American’s health-care expenses would increase federal spending by $32.6 trillion over the first decade of Medicare for All. Even if Congress were to double what it collects in individual and corporate income taxes, there still wouldn’t be enough money added to the federal coffers to finance the costs of this plan.

While such large amounts of money are difficult to comprehend, my cost estimate is essentially a lower bound. Medicare for All’s actual price tag would likely be even higher. 

 

If the Blahous analysis is even close to accurate, it’s a damning indictment of the Sanders plan. How many politicians have even considered wealth redistribution on such a scale? Certainly one would expect a spirited rebuttal from just about any American or Scandinavian elected official accused of planning such an explosion of taxpayer obligations. Remember, before a single nickel is spent on a Sanders-style makeover of American health care, the Congressional Budget Office is already forecasting that U.S. government debt held by the public will surge over the next two decades to 118% of GDP from its current 78%.

 

Well, Mr. Sanders has lately been pushing back, but he’s not quarreling with the idea that he will be pulling huge sums out of the private economy and into his new health bureaucracy. Instead he’s arguing that this huge federal money grab will be worth it because it will allegedly result in lower overall U.S. health care spending.

 

No doubt mindful that government services are not generally regarded as models of efficiency and thrift, Mr. Sanders is now appealing to the authority of a third party to back his claims of future cost savings. 

 

Specifically, he’s pretending that the same analysis that exposed the gargantuan size of his new taxpayer burden also concluded that the plan would reduce overall medical costs. This week Mr. Sanders tweeted that “the Mercatus report found that the American people would save $2 trillion over 10 years under Medicare for All.”

 

But Mr. Blahous of Mercatus found no such thing. For the purposes of his analysis he simply evaluated the Sanders plan on its own terms and accepted the senator’s assumptions about his ability to ratchet down payments to doctors and hospitals. As Mr. Blahous wrote in the Journal: 

 

My projection generously assumes the plan would succeed in lowering prescription-drug costs and that administrative costs would somehow be less than half what they are among private insurers.

Most important, it assumes Medicare for All would successfully cut all health-care provider payments down to Medicare’s reimbursement rates, which are more than 40% lower than private insurance rates—and even below providers’ costs of delivering services. Moreover, it assumes that Medicare for All will somehow do all this without disrupting the availability and quality of health care....Without such cuts, Medicare for All would drive national health costs further upward, and the federal price tag would be $38 trillion during its first 10 years.

The Sanders whopper has proven to be too much even for CNN and the oddly namedFactCheck.org.

 

What kind of socialist is Bernie Sanders? The kind that demands $32.6 trillion from taxpayers to alter their medical care and then misleads them about the imagined benefits. 

AS USUAL I TRY TO FINISH WITH SOMETHING INTERESTING AND UPLIFTING 

Steve Jobs died a billionaire at age 56. This is his final essay: (Not verified but still good).

 

I reached the pinnacle of success in the business world.In some others' eyes, my life is the epitome of success. However, aside from work, I have little joy. In the end, my wealth is only a fact of life that I am accustomed to. At this moment, lying on my bed

and recalling my life, I realize that all the recognition and wealth that I took so much pride in have paled and

become meaningless in the face of my death.

 

You can employ someone to drive the car for you, make money for you but you cannot have someone bear your sickness for

you. Material things lost can be found or replaced. But there is one thing that can never be found when it's lost - Life. Whichever stage in life you are in right now, with time, you will face the day when the curtain comes down.

 

Treasure love for your family, love for your spouse, love for your friends. Treat yourself well and cherish others. As we

grow older, and hopefully wiser, we realize that a $300 or a $30 watch both tell the same time. You will realize

that your true inner happiness does not come from the material things of this world. Whether you fly first class or economy, if the plane goes down - you go down with it. 

 

Therefore, I hope you realize, when you have mates, buddies and old friends, brothers and sisters, who you chat with, laugh

with, talk with, have sing songs with, talk about north-south-east-west or heaven and earth, that is true happiness! Don't educate your children to be rich. Educate them to be happy. So when they grow up they will know the value of things and not the

price. Eat your food as your medicine, otherwise you have to eat medicine as your food.

 

The One who loves you will never leave you for another because, even if there are 100 reasons to give up, he or she will

find a reason to hold on. There is a big difference between a human being and being human. Only a few really understand it. 

You are loved when you are born. You will be loved when you die. In between, you have to manage!

 

The six best doctors in the world are sunlight, rest, exercise,diet, self-confidence and friends

 

To readers in Mid-Ohio District 12:TROY BALDERSON NEEDS CONTINUED SUPPORT SQUEAKED OUT A WIN IN OHIO’S 12TH DISTRICT SPECIAL ELECTION TO THE HOUSE…NOW HE NEEDS ANOTHER ONE IN NOVEMBER—(PLEASE HELP IF YOU VOTE IN THAT DISTRICT) DEMS BIG MONEY IS FLOODING IN TO OPPOSE HIM—SENSING THE SEAT AS AVAILABLE TO “BUY!"

Balderson was not the most dynamic candidate (in comparison to prior incumbent Pat Tiberi’s 17+ years of experience). However Pat wasn’t always a seasoned and senior member of the House. He earned that spot and the respect that went with it over a period of years—and so, hopefully will Troy—given time and the chance (assuming he wins again in November.) FYI-Tiberi endorsed Balderson, as did Kasich and Trump—both!).

 

DANNY O’CONNOR WAS A PERFECT NAIVE “FRESH-FACE” DEMOCRAT—NO HISTORY, NO RECORD, & NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE. 

He was carefully scripted, to fool many people, (even smart ones at the Columbus Dispatch) by saying that he’d be a “moderate” and reach across the aisle to the GOP. No way the Democratic leadership would allow that. The first time he reached across the aisle, he’d get his hand and arm cut off (by party leadership.) He would be a fresh face and a good puppet, but he would also be a “babe in the woods” (or maybe “Daniel in the lion’s den” is more accurate.) Why? Read on.

 

O’Connor had NO legislative experience AND very limited "life experience" (at age 31.) He was a County Recorder—a purely administrative position.His relative youth might please the GenZ and younger Millennial voters (who also lack that life experience), but they’s be wrong.Danny showed how limited and timid he was when MSNBC’s “attack dog” Chris Matthews refused to accept O’Connor's scripted remarks—even when he repeated the script 4-5 times. Matthews just kept asking, until O'Connor had nothing else to say—and caved,admitting that he'd support the party and leader—whoever that was, including Pelosi.

 

 

ENJOY THE LAST OF A HOT SUMMER

 

JOHN