# State of the Union Bipartisan Seating Made a Difference

'Investments' is the new code-word for stimulus. We dumped the selectively-rewarding/everyone-never-stops-paying long-con of 'stimulus' last November.

Because we are talking about investing, consider this: If somehow you had five thousand dollars to 'invest' while having \$45,000 in credit-card debt, who would advise you not to pay down the credit-card debt first? Only someone whose livelihood depends on you staying in debt -- and stupid.

Recall that I said "if somehow" you had five thousand to invest. We don't even have any money to invest. We won't have any 'money' to invest until existing federal debt is retired. What we do have is that \$45,000-plus per person in federal debt.

(http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

And Obama wants to make (you) believe that somehow we currently have money to invest.

But for the sake of argument that leaves no idiot behind, let's say we do have money to invest. Okay, consider then the astronomical rate of return Obama and his idiot relay satellites assume such an 'investment' would have.

For instance, this very moment, hypothetically, if the world stood still, a(nother) whopping \$500 billion 'investment' would have to yield a staggering \$14.5 trillion return instantaneously, just to wipe out current federal debt (\$14 trillion plus that new \$500 billion in federal debt).

Divide \$14.5 trillion by \$500 billion and you get 29. That Obamanomics \$500 billion 'investment' would have to yield 2,900% -- instantaneously -- to wipe out existing federal debt (\$14 trillion plus that new \$500 billion).

You're doing exceedingly well now just to get a solid 5% annual rate of return. But Obama implicitly suggests we could get 580 times that annual rate of return -- instantaneously. You may think it facetious to suggest an instantaneous return period. No, it's not, because here's the non-hypothetical real-world kicker:

Guessing how much a \$500 billion 'investment' made now would have to return in a year's time, or two year's time, four year's time, or ten year's time to catch up to the new amount of federal debt at the end of those time periods (which again would include that \$500 billion in new federal debt, PLUS any other new federal debt from other sources) would stump a Cray supercomputer. Such rates of return would dwarf the hypothetical instantaneous rate of return.

And if a \$500 billion 'investment' requires that rate of return to fulfill it's purpose, how much of a rate of return would say 'only' \$10 billion have to have?

Now are you beginning to get it? Obama makes Madoff look like a nickel-and-dime con artist, and all the worst of Wall Street look like Boy Scouts helping little old ladies cross the street.

Palin nailed it in her SOTUS response: WTF? when it comes to Obama.

I'll take substance over symbol every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I don't know who came up with the prom date idea, if it was Democrats or Republicans. To be honest. I don't even care and it was a trivial excercise. Nice, but meaningless. Why? Because, as politicians, they have perfected the ability to be sincere on every side of every issue. I'm certain that manifest amicable politeness was contrived as a result.