Without her brilliance, I would be a simple conservative Neanderthal that thought that more people getting unemployment meant that more jobs were being lost.

Silly me. And you, if you thought the same way.

Turns out that, according to Pelosi, when more people are paid unemployment, that means more jobs are being created, not lost:

[Direct link]

Now, don’t you feel silly?

This new awareness got me to thinking. If more people getting unemployment checks means that more jobs are being created, what else having I been wrong about?

I’ve compiled a partial list:

• Rain falling from the sky means we’re in a drought.
• People flying planes into our buildings means that we are evil.
• Water flows uphill.
• You can get out of debt by borrowing more money to spend.
• Record snowfall means it’s hotter.
• All your base are belong to us.
• You can secure the borders by leaving them wide open.
• You can lose weight by eating more and exercising less.
• Government money is really free money that doesn’t cost anyone anything.
• Resistance is futile.
• Cats are not evil.

I wonder what other lessons are there for me to still learn?

UPDATE:

Ed Morrisey and Allahpundit has a good explanation of how the numbers were fudged in this post. To make the 10 year estimate trillions less, they just wait four years to actually implement anything (only $17 billion of the estimated $940 billion is spent the first four years). So the cost is really $927 billion over six years, with those last four missing years being the greatest cost.

It’s easy. Make Congress make up for any shortfall in the budget. Take it out of their pay. Cut Congressional pay (House and Senate) for every dollar the budget is in deficit.

What about the president? Well, if he vetoed the deficit budget, he’s off the hook. If he signed it, he’s liable. Dock his pay, too.

Now, what happens if the deficit is more than the pay of Congress? As is the current situation? Congress is on the hook for the balance. Personally. If Congressman A has twice wealth as Congressman B, he’s responsible for twice as much of the deficit.

When that still doesn’t cover the deficit, spread the debt around to other members of the government, exempting military pay only.

If Congress tries to get around it by raising taxes, count every tax increase as deficit money, and cut Congressional pay accordingly.

I learned a long time ago, that if someone had the solution to a problem, but had no interest in solving the problem, it was because it didn’t personally affect them; it wasn’t their problem.

Make it their problem.

The report can’t just be dismissed. Once the snow effect is filtered out, they say the data will still signal weak hiring: Little if any job growth, and an unemployment rate predicted to rise to 9.8 percent or more from 9.7 percent.

While everyone’s getting their panties in a wad over the number of unemployed, they don’t realize that there is an easy way to solve the unemployment problem.

Make more people lose their jobs.

Now, sure, this sounds like a Barack Obama solution. He’s one to address a problem of too much government by having more government.

But, this isn’t the same thing. You see, I’m thinking that we could get more people back to work if a few certain select people joined the ranks of the unemployed. I can think of 257 people that need to lose their jobs, and things will get better.

Wait! I just thought of 59 more!

This will work.

You’re welcome.

Look at this graph from the Bureau of Labor.

[Source: Bureau of Labor]

Notice that unemployment was on its way up before he took office. It looks like Obama did inherit rising unemployment.

But then, take the statistics from this source — the Unites States Senate — showing which party controlled the Senate, and apply it to that graphic.

What do you get? This:

[Source: American Thinker]

So, when you go to criticize Barack Obama for his dismal performance, keep in mind that it’s not just his fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault.

And the fault of those that keep electing Democrats.

The rest might as well be.

“Before/After – no more wallowing in freakish misery.”

* Getting Nancy Pelosi the reconstructive surgery needed to stop people from describing her face as “had a swordfight ‘To The Pain‘ and lost”.

* Hiring people to fill out the government paperwork on how many jobs you created with your stimulus money

* Hitting on college freshmen (just the hot chicks).

* Buying cars for a Driver’s Ed class.

* Giving the baby-sitter a raise.

* Putting even MORE chocolate chips in Chips Ahoy! cookies.

* Requiring road construction projects to employ both primary and back-up “shovel leanin’ guys”.

* Shopping cart repair for homeless people.

* Lawnmower drag race pit crew.

* Re-felting old muppets.

* Upgrading the nation’s energy grid to allow it to receive power directly from the Energizer Bunny.

Unemployment is now at 9.7% — the highest it’s been since 1983.

The “underemployment rate” — the unemployed rate plus part-time workers who prefer a full-time position plus people who want work but have given up looking for a job — is at 16.8 percent, a record.

What does all this mean?

Obviously, nearly 1 in 10 Americans are out of work. But what else does it mean?

It means that the wrong people are losing their jobs.

We need to fire some elected officials. I’m thinking the entire Obama administration would be a good place to start. But then, I said don’t hire those rascals to begin with. But did America listen to me? No. 52% of American voters went and did something stupid.

Oh, sure. They were frustrated. They didn’t like how things were. But not putting any thought into a solution is a bad solution.

So, we have unemployment near 10%.

I think we ought to give Congress a 10% unemployment rate. That would mean 10 Senators losing their jobs. And 43 or 44 Representatives being sent packing.

Some say to throw them all out. But, as a Representative said yesterday, there are downsides to doing that. Remember, that’s basically what happened to put Obama in office: a desire to get rid of who was there. They seemed to forget that Bush wasn’t running for a third term. Stupid Obama voters.

So, which 10% of Congress should be unemployed?

Oh, I have some ideas.

Senators who are up for reelection in 2010:
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Specter, Arlen (D-PA)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR)

Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
…Oh heck, I could go on and on with Representatives. But I’d start with this group.

If 10% of Congress lost their jobs … the most useless 10% … then unemployment might not be a bad thing after all.

Imagine this group having to work for a living. Or even trying to find a job.

“Tax breaks for mind-bogglingly wealthy Ultra-Yuppies?”

Now that he’s President, he’s offering a National Park Fee holiday, where – on three select weekends this summer – you won’t have to pay to get into any National Park.

Fees range from $3 to $25.

Now, I hate slipping the government even the thinnest of dimes for anything, so I’m all for ANY instance of not having to render unto Caeser. However, I’d like to point out that this program is utterly useless, other than as a political publicity stunt.

I’ll explain.

It’s like those schemes to punish oil companies for high gas prices by not buying gas on some particular day. People don’t actually use less gasoline, they simply shift the date of purchase to a day earlier or later than normal. The same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don’t lose any money.

In this case, nobody’s going to make a special trip to a National Park on “no fee” day. All that will happen is that some people who were going to visit National Parks this summer anyway (mostly tree-hugging, Obama-voting liberals who only like nature when somebody else pays for its upkeep) are going to re-schedule their visits for the free weekends. Total visitorship won’t increase. Tourism won’t increase. And the government will go deeper into debt because it still has to pay National Park staff the same wages whether it collects fees or not.

So what he SHOULD do is permanently double the fees on all National Parks.

Why?

Because going to a park is a choice, just like smoking, and he raised taxes on that, even though it disproportionately affects the po’ folks who vote for him.

Also because park-goers are a HUGE burden on our health care system. They get lost, need rescuing, starve, dehydrate, break legs, get eaten by bears, and get itchy bums while being naughty in the poison ivy.

I think it’s about time they paid their fair share.

Personally, I’d go a little less softball. Here are some of mine:

“That’s a tough question… let me have my staff dig up some dirt on you to release to the media, and I’ll get back to you on that.”

* You say America needs jobs, green energy, and cheap health care, yet all you’ve done is “invest” trillions in financial institutions that are too stupid to earn a profit. Isn’t this like promising to buy your daughter a pony, then going out and buying yourself a Mustang?

* Could we maybe take your $3.5 trillion budget to Vegas and play blackjack with it? Statistically, we should still have $3.4 trillion left afterwards, which is better odds than we’re getting from you.

* You’re planning to lower the deduction on charitable giving. Are you also planning to spank your children when they share their toys?

* When asked why it took you so long to express outrage over the AIG bonuses, you said “because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.” Didn’t you actually mean to say “my teleprompter was broken”?

* A two-part question: In your speech on the economy, you said “there are no silver bullets”. If that’s true, then – first – how will America defend itself from a werewolf invasion, and – second – have you considered asking the Lone Ranger for assistance?

* You criticized AIG executives for “enriching themselves on the taxpayers’ dime”, calling it “inexcusable”. Does this standard apply to your $500,000 book deal? Or is your book deal OK because it was done before you assumed the Presidency? And does this make the AIG bonuses OK, because they were set up before they accepted the bailout?

* You said we “can’t afford to demonize every investor or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit”. Does that mean you have a list of people that you CAN afford to demonize? Does that list consist of the names of people who submit unflattering questions to the Open For Questions web site?

* Senator Benjamin Cardin has proposed a measure to help newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat by allowing them to reorganize as non-profit entities. If you support this measure, would you support a similar measure for bloggers? I mean, I sit around all day making stuff up, and I’m not making any money at it, either.

* If Treasury Secretary Geithner is fired or resigns, who will replace him. Are there any Democrat tax cheats left in Washington who aren’t already part of your administration?

* Although you expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses, you don’t seem too upset about the millions in Fannie Mae bonuses. Are you saying that it’s OK to use bailout money for bonuses as long as your company name sounds like a character from the Beverly Hillbillies?

Anything YOU want to ask That One?

Further discussion available here.

“we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles”

Which I found odd, because things have really been more like this:

[Hat tip: VW Bug]

The difference between a million and a billion is the difference between a sip of wine and 30 seconds with your daughter and a bottle of gin and a night with her.

Sure you do. It was in all the papers.

Anyway, there was talk about how bad the economy was, and that putting a Democrat in office — even a raving socialist like Obama — would bring back the Clinton economy. Remember that?

Well, guess what? It’s happened.

The Dow closed this afternoon at 6725.02. It hasn’t closed that low since April 21st, 1997, when it closed at 6660.21.

That’s when Clinton was president.

At this rate, we’ll soon be a prosperous as we were during the Roosevelt administration, where the Dow peaked at 194.40, on March 10, 1937.

Ah, the good old days.