Skip to content

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Alvin Greene: The Three Economic Stooges

July 8, 2010

My latest post at RedState:

Evidently, not only are Democrats not creating or saving jobs, but it appears as if they are in cahoots to put The Onion out of business. You see, it is impossible to satirize people who are self-parodies themselves. The latest example is Alvin Greene, the current Democrat candidate for Senator in South Carolina, who recently announced in an interview with The Guardian his plan to bring jobs to my home state of South Carolina. His candidacy itself is schadenfreude-licious, but he somehow managed to make it even more so, with his grand job creation idea, as follows:

Said Greene: “Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That’s something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up. That’s something that could happen, that makes sense. It’s not a joke.”

Oh, dear. Bless his heart! Do you know what the worst part is, though? The saddest part is that Alvin Greene’s job creation idea is still better than any that President Obama, or any of the current Democratic leaders, have offered.

At least toy making jobs actually exist, unlike Obama’s nebulously defined, phantom “green jobs”. And what is Obama’s plan for job recovery? To go out and talk about how super his “Recovery Act”, also known as the boondoggle stimulus package, really is.

President Barack Obama and his team are trying to sell Americans on an economic recovery this summer, but the economy is stubbornly refusing to cooperate.

Obama and his Cabinet officials will fan out across the country over the next few days to spread the message to voters about how effective their $787 billion recovery plan has been, an effort they’re calling “recovery summer.”

To be fair, at least they are creating and saving a few teleprompter operator jobs. Sure, the economy isn’t cooperating, but that’s really our own fault, explained by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

Obama and his team did not do a strong job of communicating the necessity of the steps they took, and they have not been effective in convincing the country the situation would be much worse had Obama not pressed forward with his stimulus, he said.

“People don’t understand what the stimulus is about,” said Baker, who advocated for a more robust stimulus package. “He just really lost that debate.

You see, we are just too stupid to understand that it’s actually awesome.  Jobs Shmobs. It’s nuanced! We rubes just don’t get that. Much like how we must not understand Nancy Pelosi’s brilliant grasp of economics.

Let me say that unemployment insurance… is one of the biggest stimuluses (sic) to our economy. Economists will tell you, this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and it’s job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.

Um. What? How on earth does she keep a straight face saying things like that? Oh, yeah. The botox thing. Which makes sense now. It’s sort of a job requirement for her.  Speaker Pelosi, I’m no economics expert but I’m pretty sure that the people collecting unemployment checks are not using that money to start up small businesses and hire people. You see, Speaker Pelosi, if you want to create jobs, the people who actually create jobs need money. Hey, you know what does that? Those icky capital gains tax cuts.

Obama promised a “laser like focus on jobs”. Sure. If by laser like, he meant utterly incompetent and inept.

38 Comments leave one →
  1. July 9, 2010 12:13 am

    Before you take this down, follow the link. An actual economist explains how unemployment insurance creates jobs. If you’re in a hurry, look for it about 3:40 in:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-6-2010/america-s-got-nothing

    And then take this down, since it conflicts with your post, and as I recently learned, we can’t have that around here.

    Have a lovely morning.

  2. ph0n0graf permalink
    July 9, 2010 8:02 am

    No, Phi, I don’t think Lori will take down your post. It illustrates perfectly the vacousness of Pelosi’s arguments. You and the Huffylady Post accept a DAILY SHOW SKIT as rebuttal to this argument and proof of the Speaker’s assertions? God help us all.

    • July 9, 2010 9:56 am

      So, rather than object to the substance of what the economist in the clip had to say, you dismiss it because it is a clip from the Daily Show.

      You find Pelosi’s comments vacuous because you’re not even willing to try to understand what reasons she had for making them. The problem isn’t with Pelosi, it’s with you.

      Here’s another link. You might be tempted to ignore it, since it’s from Media Matters, and the worst thing you could possibly do is expose yourself to a web site that conflicts with your way of thinking. But if you take the time to read it, you’ll find that many agree with the economist in the clip, including one Fox News senior White House correspondent Major Garrett:

      http://mediamatters.org/research/201007020030

      • ph0n0graf permalink
        July 9, 2010 11:24 am

        Yes, you are right. I don’t trust anything that comes from the “research” arm of Media Matters. Just like you won’t trust anything that I post. I don’t care that Major Garrett is on it. I haven’t turned on my TV in 6 months. If it were not for my son with the 52″ TV in his room, I would pull the cable out. I do my own research. I won’t waste any more time on you. You are a drone, and like I said, a great example of the other side.

        And no, I didn’t dismiss it because it was on the Daily Show. What part of SKIT don’t you understand? I skipped forward… and forward… and forward… until I found the interview with the #4 of the top 100 “respected” economists before I found it… tied up in the closet, begging for water. Really a great intellectual discussion.

        • July 9, 2010 12:23 pm

          You claim that I wouldn’t trust anything you would post, and you imply that I wouldn’t even bother to read it and would dismiss it out of hand. It’s interesting that you would make that assertion, given that I’ve spent so much time reading this very blog.

          Actually, I would read your source, and evaluate it on its own merits.

          Merriam-Webster defines “skit” as “a satirical or humorous story or sketch.” Are you claiming that there is no truth in satire or humor? Do you honestly think that these “skits,” as you call them, are all fictitious and made-up? You don’t actually watch The Daily Show, do you?

      • July 9, 2010 4:27 pm

        Unemployment checks are not a stimulus to the economy. Jobs are! Polooka can make that statement only because she is stupid enough to believe it contrary to the facts. She should draw unemployment for about six months to see what it is like. Of course she should not be allowed to draw her pay from Congress or use her “fat-cat” husbands money during that time. As one who suffered unemployment for six months I assure you that she won`t like it, or consider it “stimulating”

        • July 9, 2010 4:59 pm

          You’ve simply ignored everything I’ve said here, haven’t you? Laziness is not an argument. Neither are personal attacks, and neither is calling the person you disagree with names. All that does is reflect badly on you. How would you like it if someone did that to you, Jonnycat?

          • July 9, 2010 5:46 pm

            It would not be the first time. Fortunately I still have my First Amendment right and can state my opinion even if it “hair-lips hell”. If you don`t like just hit the “delete button”. I was responding to polosi`s ignorant statement!

    • Molten permalink
      July 9, 2010 8:43 pm

      I guess the Congressional Budget Office is off limits to conservatives who disagree with Nancy. No more using those unreliable CBO statistics to criticize Obamacare. Bummer!

      The CBO rates the stimulus power of unemployment benefits second only to food stamps.

      • July 10, 2010 3:04 pm

        The CBO is off-limits to conservatives who disagree with Nancy when the CBO agrees with Nancy.

        Republicans and Fox “News,” their propaganda outlet, claim that the CBO is reliable when it agrees with their position. When the CBO disagrees with their position, they claim that the CBO is unreliable (http://mediamatters.org/research/201003190036).

        Why should we trust your judgments regarding the reliability of the CBO?

        • Molten permalink
          July 10, 2010 4:16 pm

          I wasn’t making a judgment as to the reliability of the CBO. I was simply stating what their research concludes about the stimlulus power of unemployment. I agree that Conservatives love to use CBO numbers, but only when they agree with their positions. On this issue, they most definitely do not.

          • July 10, 2010 6:03 pm

            Wow, I think I completely misunderstood you. My apologies.

  3. July 9, 2010 10:18 am

    The thinking of Pelosi and many economists is not rocket science.

    You can create as many businesses and hire as many people as you like, but you’re not going to get anywhere in a recession if no one is buying what you’re selling. Unemployment benefits put money in the hands of people who are certain to use it to pay their mortgage and utility bills and buy all kinds of things like food, medicine, toiletries, and so on. This creates demand, which creates jobs.

    Ziganto admitted that she’s no economist, and yet when I consulted one, you weren’t interested. That speaks volumes.

    • ph0n0graf permalink
      July 9, 2010 11:31 am

      Obviously you are no economist either. That argument speaks volumes.

      Economists that bless the Keynesian economic model have no value to me. I don’t know if the renown economist in the Daily Show SKIT follows this model, but if his comment is really his belief, I have no doubt. This model continues to fail time and time again, yet we just go ahead and intervene and spend, spend, spend because we haven’t done enough of it to make it work is ludicrous.

      I’m like Harry Truman, although probably in the opposite mold. I’m looking for a bunch of one-armed economists. That way, they can’t say, “On the other hand,”

      Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.

      I’m sure you will rebut this, but don’t look for any more discussion from me. That is all.

      • July 9, 2010 12:52 pm

        So I explain how unemployment benefits can create jobs by using the most basic economic reasoning, and your response is to slap a label on it and dismiss it without argument? Where is your argument that this “model” has failed “time and time again?”

        On economic matters, where you and the economists disagree, I’m going with the economists.

  4. macleod permalink
    July 9, 2010 10:43 am

    Gosh, I’m no economist, but I am a small business owner. I’ve had people turn down my jobs, because they wanted to stay home and collect–gasp!- unemployment.
    So the argument is apparently, if weextend unemployment, it allows people to buy groceries and therefore allows the market to hire one more stockperson. Wow! What have we spent on unemployment so far ? The stimulus was 787 billion, but we’ve spent less then half- so say 350 billion. By now we must be importing stockpersons from Asia to keep those supermarkets humming! But wait, The unemployment rate remains stubbornly fixed at about 9.7%- which is not real, by the way, cause it only reflects those still looking for work. ( the actual rate is probably moving toward 20 %). If we have created all of those stockperson jobs, why is the unemployment rate being so stubborn? Could it be that there’s something wrong with liberal thinking? No! The Obamamessiah would never mislead! Speaker Pelosi would never lie( unless her lips were moving). The dems are funny trying tio spin away these stubborn little numbers.

    • ph0n0graf permalink
      July 9, 2010 11:32 am

      What he said.

    • July 9, 2010 12:14 pm

      You make some very good points. Phonograf wants to call me names and dismiss my arguments simply because he doesn’t like my sources. (And I’M the drone!) But I think I can reason with you.

      Keep in mind that about a third of the second stimulus was in the form of tax cuts, which is not as stimulative as things like unemployment benefits. Also, if only half of the stimulus has been spent, that doesn’t show that stimulus doesn’t work.

      I agree with you that we can’t make unemployment benefits so generous that those who receive them lose the incentive to work. The key is to make them generous enough to achieve a stimulative effect while not affecting recipients’ incentive to work. I’m sure that you would want to work if you were out of work, even if you were receiving unemployment benefits. Why think that everyone else is different from you?

      And no one is talking about extending benefits forever (I hope). You yourself recognize the seriousness of the situation: you estimate that unemployment is around 20%. People forget just how bad this recession is. Stimulus spending is a temporary measure. The unemployment rate isn’t attributable to unemployment benefits; the problem is that companies aren’t hiring because we’re in a recession. And you can’t seriously believe that all that spending on unemployment benefits resulted in the hire of only one stockperson. You’re just not playing fair by saying that.

      You ask, “If we have created all of those stockperson jobs, why is the unemployment rate being so stubborn?” This assumes that the unemployment rate wouldn’t have been worse if there hadn’t been a stimulus. Why should I accept that assumption?

      If we’re not going to listen to what actual economists have to say about economic matters, then who are we going to listen to?

      I don’t like deficit spending, and I’m not sure that I would be in favor of a third stimulus. Extending unemployment benefits seems to make sense. Perhaps we should cut programs that don’t stimulate the economy to pay for it.

  5. desotobill permalink
    July 9, 2010 12:59 pm

    Unemployment insurance checks are not stimulative. Where did the gov’t get the money for the checks. They took it out of the private sector so that money wasn’t available to create or maintain jobs. They then took some of it and spent it on the beauracracy and what was left was distributed as unemployment checks. Lets see we take X out of the economy spend y then give back X-Y. That’s not a stimulous.

    • July 9, 2010 1:53 pm

      Let’s agree that government gets money for unemployment benefits from taxes, and that these taxes remove money from the private sector. You say that when this money is removed from the private sector, it’s not “available to create or maintain jobs.” You’re obviously assuming that money in the private sector will be used to create or maintain jobs. Ordinarily, that assumption is probably more or less correct. But we’re not in the ordinary situation right now. In times of economic recession, the private sector doesn’t create and maintain jobs: businesses contract. Everyone knows this. And that’s why unemployment has been so high. Economic contraction can be slowed by government stimulus for the reasons I’ve mentioned. And even government projects can be stimulative, since government often does business with the private sector to complete those projects. So I’m not ready to concede that spending money “on the bureaucracy” is necessarily pointless.

      • ph0nograf permalink
        July 9, 2010 6:22 pm

        OK, Phi, maybe I did jump to conclusions. But it’s been my experience that folks that comment off the bat like you did are indeed drones. You indicate that you want to read more to understand where we are coming from. I can’t give an exhaustive list, but I can tell you what to look for and stay away from.

        Stay away from anyone that thinks that the government is the solution to our problems. History shows that we can’t tax and spend our way out of economic problems. This recession is no different than any other. Honest economists will tell you that the make-work policies of FDR only extended the misery. Yes those folks were hurting like they are today. But the public sector never creates jobs, it just creates dependence.

        Realize that, in the last 50+ years, the only way that government has “created” jobs is to get out of the way. I was too young to remember the first, but I remember the next two vividly…
        1) John Kennedy CUT taxes in 1962.
        2) Ronald Reagan CUT taxes in 1982.
        3) George W. Bush CUT taxes in 2002.
        In each instance, the private sector invested, jobs and incomes increased, and revenue to the Government also INCREASED. In every instance of tax increases during the period, Government revenue decreased. Look at what’s happening now. Revenues are decreasing, the private sector is not expanding. Why? Businessmen and women, like our friend macleod above, ain’t gonna expand with all the tax increases coming in 2011. What’s the solution, then? More government spending and control, or more freedom and lower taxes?

        I fear the current Administration and Congress are going to chose the former, which NEVER has worked. Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter tried that in the 70s. I remember it vividly. Our best days were behind us. Then, with the tax cut in 82, 25 years of growth followed, with just a couple of hiccups, which were corrected in fairly short order. After 9/11, we were in bad shape, but, except for the leftist rhetoric, things were pretty good in 03 and beyond.

        Finally, stay away from Media Matters. They are violating the law, earning tax-exempt status status by being non-partisan, yet they might as well be a division of the DNC, with all the leftist hacks that run it.

        Good luck in your search.

        • July 10, 2010 3:30 pm

          Obviously, you’ve given me a lot to think about, phonograf. Many of the things you say strike me as being incorrect, but it wouldn’t hurt to reexamine my beliefs on this issue.

          I might sound kind of extreme to some people here, but I’m actually tired of extremist thinking. Obama pledged to try to move beyond that, and I have to admit that’s one of the things I liked about him. I don’t believe that government is the solution to our problems, and I don’t believe that government is the problem. I believe that government can solve some problems, but not others. Government can do some things right, but so can the private sector. I think that’s a pretty moderate position.

          I particularly like the details you gave me in your third and fourth paragraphs. This gives me something concrete to research. I don’t know whether the federal deficit increased under Kennedy, but it did under Reagan and Bush. I believe that cutting taxes can spur economic growth, but deficits can also create economic problems. Perhaps the flip side of this is Clinton. I don’t know if he cut taxes overall, but he did manage to eventually create a surplus, and the economy was relatively healthy. Whether that was due to balancing the budget, I don’t know. It sounds as if you might think that the reality is that the economy under Clinton benefited from Reagan’s tax cuts more than anything else. And it would also be good to get the current economists’ wisdom regarding the New Deal.

          It is weird that Media Matters is non-profit, because they seem pretty partisan. But I actually think that they do pretty good research. For the most part, their critiques seem fair, even if they are breaking the law. I don’t really know what the law is in this area. But I wouldn’t mind it if another non-profit acted as a watchdog for liberal media outlets like MSNBC, because they can be just as bad.

          I am worried about deficits; I have been for years. And I’m not convinced by people like Reich and Krugman that I have nothing to worry about.

          Anyway, thank you for this exchange.

  6. macleod permalink
    July 9, 2010 11:34 pm

    Hey phonograf, I’m much choosier then that about my friends. I’m no Keynesian. Neither was he at the end of his life. HIs economic theory hasn’t been a roring success in europe, where those countries just bitch-slapped the Obamamessiah over more stimulus spending. Now they’re trying to pull back from the brink. Even Sweden, is now trying to move back toward a more free market approach. I just came backfrom there.
    The problem with the Bush Derangement Syndrome victims is they believe that chanting Obama spin points will change reality. The reality of liberal democrat demogoguery is taking place in europe now. Currency on the brink of collapse, countries facing bankruptcy, riots in the streets from the enraged and entitled, and leaders who are trying to move back to where this country used to be.
    Meanwhile, Nameless keeps chanting Obama’s favorite talking point. The bailouts and stimulus didn’t fail, according to the prophet of hope and change, they kept things from being much worse. Talk about assuming facts not in evidence! ( That’s a logical fallacy, by the way, Nameless). There is ZERO evidence to prove that. It’s the fallback position to defend a trillion and a half dollars of worthless spending. What else can they say? They produced NO jobs. Their attempt at “wall street reform” hides the two giant elephants in the room, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
    The problem is, they want reality to be something else, because to face it as is, they have to admit that Bush did some good things, and the Obamamessiah is absolutely incompetent. They can’t face that reality.

    • July 10, 2010 2:50 pm

      Wow. I give you credit for being reasonable, and then I explain to you what my thinking is, and you act like a complete jerk. How dare I commit the crime of disagreeing with you! Clearly, I overestimated your maturity and intellect.

      Not only that, Phonograf and I are about to have a nice conversation, and you try to spoil it with your snotty comment. I can hear you now, saying in your best G.W. Bush impression, “Talking with the enemy is forbidden! I am the forbidder!”

      You accuse me of chanting “Obama’s favorite talking point, while at the same time rolling out that tired old stupid Obamamessiah talking point. The only thing worse than undeserved smugness is hypocritcal undeserved smugness.

      It’s funny. I suppose that the Messiah nonsense got started when Democrats and Independents looked to Obama to fix the complete mess Bush created. People like you mock that by sarcastically calling him the Messiah, and yet at the same time you complain about all the changes he’s making. That doesn’t make sense.

      You say you’re not Keynesian. Well, then, what does His Highness recommend? Lemme guess: tax cuts! That’s the Republican answer for almost everything. Oh, and privatize anything we can’t pay for as a result, so we can put our trust in entities like Enron, BP, and AIG, because the private sector is infallible.

      You write, “The bailouts and stimulus didn’t fail, according to the prophet of hope and change, they kept things from being much worse. Talk about assuming facts not in evidence!” But again, you are assuming, without evidence, that things wouldn’t have gotten much worse without the stimulus.

      As it turns out, many economists claim that the stimulus did help (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm). Not all, but many (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/28/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4759532.shtml). And yet you claim to know that the stimulus was a waste of time and produced no jobs. Apparently, you’re not an authority on economics. Or logic, for that matter.

  7. macleod permalink
    July 10, 2010 5:30 pm

    The obamamessiah is the completely expected result of political correctness and affirmative action. He appears articulate, but can’t formulate a sentence without a teleprompter. He’s a thug, who waves ” the rule of law” around like a flaming sword, but who loses in court everytime his edicts are challenged, and who threw out the already obtained conviction of a black panther rascist, with instructions in the DOJ not to bring cases against black defendents. His “stimulus” was used to keep and state and local governments afloat, with a remarkably disportionate amount going dem adminstrations. Unemployment in construction now stands at 23%. What happened to all those “shovel ready ” jobs the stimulus would provide?
    Sadly, no matter how much you want to, you can’t prove a negative. There is no proof that seatbelts save lives, because you can’t prove that something didn’t happen for a particular reason, because it didn’t happen!
    By the same token, you can never prove the “stimulus” kept things from getting worse, because no one knows what might have happen. Just keep chanting those obama talking points, and ignore reality.
    Keynesian economics caused and prolonged the depression. Wait till you see what they do to us next year.

    • July 10, 2010 5:53 pm

      Macleod, I agree with everything you just said except your statement about seat belts.I worked for the Texas Dept of Public Safety for 28 years and I know seat belts save lives and if you don`t believe me just ask any Highway patrolman who has worked collisions with fatalities. Outside of that you make a very good point.

    • Nameless permalink
      July 13, 2010 2:11 am

      Wait a minute, macleod. You claim that the stimulus was a waste of money and produced no jobs. Therefore, you assume that if there had been no stimulus, things wouldn’t have been any worse than they are now, all else being equal. Isn’t that trying to prove a negative? After all, no one knows what might have happened had things been different, right? So how could you know?

    • Nameless permalink
      July 13, 2010 12:37 pm

      I keep telling myself that if I hadn’t had breakfast this morning, I would have been hungry by now. But how could I possibly know that? I guess I’m just ignoring reality.

      Here’s a fun game!

      Can you find the teleprompter in this video?

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/29/president-holds-open-discussion-across-aisle

    • Nameless permalink
      July 14, 2010 12:06 pm

      [The sound of crickets]

  8. macleod permalink
    July 10, 2010 7:41 pm

    Johnny; I was a cop before med school. I have no doubt that seatbelts have saved some lives, but you still can’t prove a negative. And sadly, seatbelts give dip**** politicians a chance to pass nanny-state laws that allow them to collect ever-increasing fines from working class taxpayers– cause if you’ve ever gone to traffic court, you know we’re the only ones who pay our tickets.
    Her’s a better example; it was necessary to elect the obamamessiah as president to keep the Sears tower in Chicago from collapsing. He was elected: it didn’t collapse: ergo electing the obamamessiah kept the tower from collapsing. You can’t prove that it would have collapsed if he hadn’t been elected, but I don’t have to prove it would have. I can just say it would have and expect you to accept it.
    That’s exactly what dem spinmeisters have done to justify all of this slush spending that accomplished nothing. We can’t prove that it wouldn’t have gotten worse, but they expect us to accept that it would have, because it justifies their actions.

    • July 10, 2010 8:05 pm

      Macleod, You make a good point. I hate all the “butt-inski” bull crap too. However if you don`t mind I will continue to wear seat belts, not because some” boob” in the gov. says to but because I so choose. I have seen too many “totaled” vehicles where the driver did not die probably because they were belted in. You however have the right to refuse and I respect your right to do so, or not.

      • macleod permalink
        July 10, 2010 11:39 pm

        My problem with the belt is two-fold: 1) I didn’t grow up with them and when I trained as a cop, we were specifically forbidden to use them, because the intensity of our work environment put us at risk if we were slow getting out of a car. In fact, I was shot three times sitting in my patrol car. Last year, Seattle PD lost an officer who was shot in his car, and his trainee almost died because she was trapped in the vehicle by– wait for it– her seatbelt.
        2) As a young doc I worked in a bunch of ER’s and saw the other side of seatbelts. Lacerated livers and spleen, ruptured bowels, ruptured stomachs , ruptured and pregnant uteri(SP?), dislocated shoulders and multiple fractures of collar bomes. They are not perfect.

  9. Molten permalink
    July 11, 2010 1:57 am

    “I was shot three times sitting in my patrol car.”

    How do you get shot 3 times sitting in your patrol car?

    I smell donuts.

    • July 12, 2010 2:52 pm

      Molten, Did your parents keep you locked in a closet when you were growing up? Or maybe you majored in “Smart-ass” in college. You could have gone all day with out making that statement. Hope you have a better day tomorrow.

  10. macleod permalink
    July 12, 2010 4:43 pm

    When they described bloggers as living in mom’s basement, working at the comic book store, thinking that exercise was opening a ding-dong, thinking dating was too, I’m pretty sure they were looking at molten…….

    • Molten permalink
      July 12, 2010 8:05 pm

      I was genuinely curious as to how a cop gets shot sitting in his patrol car. I now see that it is a fairly common occurrence, and in none of the stories I read was the cop eating a donut at the time of the shooting.

      My apologies.

      Molten.

  11. macleod permalink
    July 12, 2010 8:48 pm

    Apology accepted. There was 50 k contract out on me at the time becauase I had been aggressively antagonizing EME, the mexican mafia, and the Mongols motorcycle gang. I went to a man with a gun call in my old area, only officer available, and parked around the corner where I could keep the street involved in view. Unbeknowst to me, the bad guy had shot a kid inside just before I turned on the cross street and he reloaded as I pulled up in front. The front door of the house was to my 5 o’clock, and he came out firing thru the passenger side window, hitting me three times. I pulled my weapon to fire, but there was a dead round under the hammer, and since he hit in both shoulders, I couldn’t clear it. i put out a broadcast and waited for help. It seemed like a long time. Still does 30 years later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: