IT'S NOT YOUR JOB, MAN

Ms. X writes:  “As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.”… blah, blah, blah, Bush was a big meanie-head, blah, blah…. The Center for American Progress’ Joshua Picker explained, “… the country lost ground on Bush’s two terms.”  The National Journal… blah, blah, parsing Census data…. Blah, blah… data and info out there which backs up the Wall St. Journal’s assessment.”

To which I responded:

Ms. X,  do you approve the performance of GWB?  No?   Neither do I, at least not his fiscal leadership in the last half of his second term.  But if you think what he did was so reprehensible, THEN WHY THE BLOODY HELL DO YOU APPROVE THE SAME THEORIES CARRIED TO AN INSANE EXTREME BY THE RACIST, FASCIST, LYING, MEGALOMANIAC, TREASONOUS PIECE OF EXCREMENT WHO TOOK HIS PLACE?

The WSJ, and 99% of the rest of the news media are starting with a fallacy.  Have you ever heard of the GIGO principle?  It means “Garbage in, garbage out,” and is one of the fundamental rules in statistics and analysis.  They are starting with garbage in the form of the assumption that it is the role of the president in the American government to create jobs, at all.  The president is part of the executive branch.  Except for signing bills into law, his sole function is to enforce the law.  I have no doubt the bean-counting weasels at the WSJ have found an enormous body of evidence to show that Bush did a worse job than Obama.  Look at it this way:  if you were ordered to go east, and someone else were told to go north, and the WSJ printed proof that you did as lousier job of going west than the other person, it would have about the same significance. 

The president does have a very important role in leading the nation by example, encouragement, and teaching, but in the realm of creating jobs, his only role is to out of the damned way and let the American people work!  There is a word for the system of government in which one man or one office holds both the power to make law and the power to enforce it.  Three syllables, 7 letters, starts with a T and ends with y.   What the morons at the WSJ should be pointing out, instead, is how the progressive/fascist educational system has created a society of morons who ACTUALLY THINK THE PRESIDENT MAKES LAW! 
“Oh, knock it off with the hyperbole,” I can almost hear you say.  “There is no connection between creating jobs and enforcing the Law.”  (I know you are thinking that because all Leftists think the same thing at the same time. They are the most programmed, patterned, predictable set of quasi-sentient beings on Terra – which makes me ask why they instantly accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a brain dead Rush clone.)  Anyway, where was I…? Oh, yes.  The Law is a set of thou shalts and thou shalt nots, and the last word in the Law’s argument is always a loaded gun.  There’s nothing wrong with that, at all; it has to be that way.  However, the only way the president could direct the actions of others to carry out his plan of job creation is if he were able to compel them to follow instructions.  Otherwise, he’d say, “Joe the Plumber, you must pay more taxes,” and Joe would say, “Go piss up a rope,” and that would be that.  No, if you seriously mean to hold the president responsible for creating jobs, you must give him the authority to see to that Joe, if he persists in his refusal, gets to look down the barrel of a Lawman’s gun.

The instant you do that, you have thrown the Constitution and the entire history of individual rights in the toilet.

It is only valid to discuss the creation of jobs during a president’s tenure in the context of the effects of the laws he signed, and the leadership he provided.  (It is also important to remember when attempting to back-engineer causality from statistics, that the two are very often unrelated.  For example, during WWII, the American birth rate dropped.  One should be wary of assuming from this that FDR had a depressing effect on the collective libido of American women.  The fact that someone has used, “supply side economics,” and “…fostered  the weakest jobs and income growth…” in the same sentence is not defacto evidence of causality.)

 In the case of our current idiot, we may also look at the bullies and thugs he has set up, without congressional approval, to write rules that have the power of Law, i.e., of the bullet.  I do not hold Obama responsible for not creating jobs.  I hold him responsible for appealing to the welfare-state looter latent in so many of our countrymen, of inciting them with cries of racist victimhood, promising them the opportunity to destroy and loot the estates of anyone who has more than they, and finally, of encouraging the Congress that was elected under the same premises to send to his desk laws that fly in the face of all human dignity and decency.

Having accomplished THAT, he has sat smirking as millions of Americans have lost their jobs.  So, Ms. X, once you start from the correct premise, everything changes. Hopefully, you will chuck the Wall Street Journal into the toilet instead of the Constitution.

4 August, 2012
Rebsarge