Saturday morning a friend of mine on Facebook was talking about how President Trump was keeping all of his promises. He brought up the Keystone Pipeline. It was interesting to me because I heard a Trump surrogate on CNN talking about how Trump was keeping all of his promises, and she too brought up the Keystone Pipeline. Now understand that at this point it would be silly for me to say that he hasn't kept his promise because the pipes aren't in the ground with oil flowing through them. This caused me to wonder if Trump's supporters actually know what he has done on the pipeline, because if they did they should see that it's equally silly to claim that Trump has kept his promise on that subject. First, let's look at some of the language in the executive order that he signed on the subject.

If you ever played a game of basketball with your friends as a kid, then you probably know both of these jerks. You've got the guy who thinks that everything that happens to him is a foul, but he never fouls anyone else and the guy who gets sick of it so he takes his ball and goes home. The kid who always thinks he got fouled never considers it to be his fault that the other guy took his ball and went home, and the kid who went home didn't consider the other kids who had to deal with the jerk and are now left standing around on a basketball court with no ball looking for something else to do. But what in the world does any of this have to do with facebook and taxation?

You can color me shocked. For anyone who watches MSNBC and has followed the debate on the Alabama Illegal Immigration law, you know what the stance of that network has been. The law is racist, and it unfairly targets Hispanics. It makes their mere existence a crime. On and on they go with their silly stories about how families could be arrested just for going out for an ice cream cone... wait a second, that one wasn't a silly left wing moonbat on MSNBC, that was our President. But I digress. If you have followed the story on a different network (one like FOX News, for example) then you likely were presented with a different view on the issue.

It's amazing how much can change in 3 years. In 2008, it was a Senator who told us that it was the policies of a President that were responsible for the shape of the economy. Now that Senator is President, and he is telling us that it is the failure of the Senate to work with him that is shaping our economy. 3 years ago, 7.2% unemployment was the worst economy since the Great Depression. Today, 9% unemployment is a recovery. $8 trillion in debt was unsustainable then. $12 trillion isn't enough now. It has been only 3 short years since the man who is complaining about Congress not working with him told us we should not vote for the other guy because he voted with the President 80% of the time. Yes, a lot has changed in the last 3 years. But do you remember then Senator Obama's reaction to Phil Graham's take on the economy?

Billionaire Warren Buffett recently wrote an op ed for the New York Times in which he complained that he just wasn't being taxed enough. He griped that he and his "mega-rich" friends had been "coddled long enough" and it was time for our Government to get serious about "shared sacrifice". President Obama seized on this opportunity to propose the "Buffett Rule", which would ensure that millionaires are taxed at a higher rate than their non millionaire counterparts. We are supposed to pay no attention to the fact that the average American pays 16% of their income in federal taxes, while the average millionaire pays 20%, which means that this is already happening without the Buffett rule. I suppose that we are also supposed to pay no attention to the fact that Warren Buffett not only has the opportunity to pay more taxes than he already is, but he also has a damn good reason to.

Recently, Paul Krugman was on CNN describing how an alien attack would help our economic recovery. If you have not already seen it, no, this is not a joke. He said it and repeated it, so it was not a slip up either. In the video below, I have a little fun at his expense pointing out how silly of a notion it is, and discussing what it means for the Obama economic efforts if some far out scenario is needed to make his plans work. What I did not address in the video is the intellectual dishonesty contained in Paul Krugman's statement. In 2003, Paul was speaking at Berkley when he said the following. (below video)