Imagine the howls of derision if Bush had said this...
The iPad, then, is a transition to a future when, in Apple's mind, multitouch is so good that we no longer need anything but a screen. Whether that's an appealing place for you or something that sounds dreadful, Apple obviously has a vision of the future for which they're smartly and methodically laying groundwork. And once the text input problem is solved (hyper-accurate handwriting or speech recognition, perhaps?), you can bet that's the future we'll have.
Being president isn't easy. A candidate can get away with speeches that are glib and vague. A president can't. "It's easy to sell ice cream," says Don Stewart, the spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. "It's hard to sell rum raisin ice cream." Obama's problem is he hasn't learned the difference.
"They want the freedom to have union leaders speak for them and the opportunity to pursue wealth regardless of the corporate balance sheet," he said. "They want the kind of safety and security that comes from knowing you'll always have a job, despite the ongoing threat posed by the fickle consumer."
Watch the last five seconds of this trailer for the what is surely the best line of the movie.
In short, Obama reminds me a little of myself–at 26.
It looks like the Democrats finally found a hockey stick graph that works.
Unlike the completely discredited Global Warming graph that was supposed to show a HUGE increase in global temperatures, this one depicts the HUGE increase in unemployment since Obama accomplished his ginormous transfer of wealth from the private to the public sector.
What a surprise.
OK, so let's be honest. Is all this unemployment due directly to Obama's policies? No. We are on our way out of a very deep recession. Unemployment would naturally rise at this point in the recovery.
(Remember the screaming MSM "jobless recovery" headlines for months during the recovery of 2003? Don't expect to see anything like that now, but you get the point. Ed: Wanna play WIBDI?)
Second question. Did the "Stimulus Package" create the 3 Million jobs Obama claimed it would and help shield us from our unemployment pain? Of course not.
Transferring wealth from the private sector to the public sector creates unemployment (see Europe). Only liberal politicians think otherwise. And they have, shall we say, an incentive to believe the wholly discredited fiscal spending clap trap of Keynsian economics.
Hell, even if government spending could get into the system quickly enough to impact unemployment (which, of course it cannot), the Obama spending package targets politically sensitive sectors of the economy, not ones suffering high unemployment rates.
It's a bit silly to think that truck company dispatchers are suddenly going to become solar panel engineers at "green" manufacturing boutiques. Or lawn care "specialists" are going to easily transfer their skills to eco-transport companies. Apparently that's a level of detail our compassionate leaders didn't consider when ramming a $700 Billion spending bill through congress in what, a week? (Which, of course, none of them even read!)
Democrats, being politicians first and economists, well never, can hardly understand the signals they have sent the business community. Obamacrats sit in their plush offices contemplating macro indicators and wondering why, after pouring massive liquidity into the economy, investment hasn't taken off.
The reason, of course, is that business people know that inflation is on the way and that it will undermine the value of any investments made today. The impact of the "Stimulus Package" was immediate, all right. It made business fearful of adding new capacity.
The wonderful thing about capitalism is that the rules never change. If you try to manage the economy using methods that don't fit the rule set, it comes around behind you and takes a big bite out of your butt.
For instance, if you borrow massively in a single (simple) -minded effort to move a politically sensitive unemployment number, the economy reacts with an expectation of inflation which stifles investment and creates higher unemployment. In policy circles, this is known as the Law of Unintended Consequences.
In other circles (mine, for instance), it is known as the "No Shit Rule of Basic Economics".