Our taxes were never hiked to pay for the outlandish costs of invading a country which never attacked us. Our fighting men and women and thousands of reservists pulled from mainly small town America and middle class homes primarily in the service so they could get an education and a better life, were the only ones called on to sacrifice.
The awful quote by Bush after 9/11 "go shopping" rings in my ear as 4,487 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq.
I read recently when the American Flag was lowered for the last time in Baghdad no Iraq officials bothered to show up instead crowds celebrated with banners decorated with burning American Humvees. So much for Dick Cheney we will be received as hero's.
No wonder when over 100,000 thousand civilians died during the war. There will be no ticker tape parade down Wall Street for these men and women who died in a war of choice. A war of choice in which no Senator's kids or Congressman's kids participated in it. Like Cheney I guess they were too busy at the time.
The war mongering is already starting in the debates for "intervention in Iran" If our leaders in Congress believe that we are prepared to defend Israel with the bodies of our sons and daughters they are deluded. Israel's existence is not essential to us. No American has ever heard a full explanation for why we have a "special relationship" with Israel.
We may begin our next military misadventure long before the tab for this one is fully paid for, if we believe the Republican Party Candidates.
Happy New Year
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Ms. Kardashian's sin
She pays what she owes in state taxes under California law, instead of the much larger amount that some self-appointed advocacy group thinks she ought to be paying.
An organization called Courage Campaign and its website reveals it to be a California mélange of activist groups and labor unions. In a video that presents Ms. Kardashian in some of her more conspicuously consumptive moments, Courage Campaign claims that while Ms. Kardashian made more than $12 million in 2010, she paid only one percentage point more in taxes (10.3%) than a middle-class Californian (9.3%).
"That's not OK," says Campaign Courage. And in their video, they get right to the point, calling on viewers to "Ask Kim to support the millionaires tax of 2012." The reference is to a proposed California ballot initiative that would raise the top income-tax rate to 13.3% from 10.3% on income over $1 million—and to 15.3% on income above $2 million.
In the real world, of course, taxes affect behavior all the time. It might be as simple as a mom buying a camera online to avoid paying local sales tax. Or it could be a basketball star such as LeBron James saving more than $12 million a year by signing with the Miami Heat, a team based in a state with no income tax.
The assumption behind the Courage Campaign video is that raising taxes on millionaires wouldn't change Ms. Kardashian's behavior—and the money would fund public services and "critical programs for children."
As a commentator on one blog pointed out, however, if Ms. Kardashian responded to the millionaires tax by relocating, then instead of gaining an additional few hundred thousand in revenue, the state would be out the more than $1 million she's now paying (assuming the $12 million that Courage Campaign lists is all taxable income).
It's tempting to dismiss this campaign as the work of a bunch of California crazies. The problem is that its assumptions about wealth and taxes extend far beyond the Golden State. Indeed, they have calcified into an orthodoxy that defines the Democratic Party. Look at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Two weeks ago, the Nevada Democrat didn't stop at insisting that millionaires turn over more of their money to the federal government. "Millionaire job creators are like unicorns," he said. "They're impossible to find and don't exist."
The point here is that faith in the millionaires tax has moved beyond argument. It matters not that even if the state sucked every last dime from Ms. Kardashian and those who share her tax bracket, it still wouldn't fix California's troubles. Nor will believers be swayed by evidence that our governments have been spending more and more for vital public services and getting less and less in return.
They will not be swayed because they are not being driven by their economics. They are being driven by their conception of immorality: the idea that millionaires have more than they should—and that any wealth they have is not something they have earned but something the state has allowed them to keep. It says much about the progressive Puritanism of our age that what these folks really find most sleazy about Ms. Kardashian is not her sex tape or her marriage, but that she's unembarrassed about making money.
An organization called Courage Campaign and its website reveals it to be a California mélange of activist groups and labor unions. In a video that presents Ms. Kardashian in some of her more conspicuously consumptive moments, Courage Campaign claims that while Ms. Kardashian made more than $12 million in 2010, she paid only one percentage point more in taxes (10.3%) than a middle-class Californian (9.3%).
"That's not OK," says Campaign Courage. And in their video, they get right to the point, calling on viewers to "Ask Kim to support the millionaires tax of 2012." The reference is to a proposed California ballot initiative that would raise the top income-tax rate to 13.3% from 10.3% on income over $1 million—and to 15.3% on income above $2 million.
In the real world, of course, taxes affect behavior all the time. It might be as simple as a mom buying a camera online to avoid paying local sales tax. Or it could be a basketball star such as LeBron James saving more than $12 million a year by signing with the Miami Heat, a team based in a state with no income tax.
The assumption behind the Courage Campaign video is that raising taxes on millionaires wouldn't change Ms. Kardashian's behavior—and the money would fund public services and "critical programs for children."
As a commentator on one blog pointed out, however, if Ms. Kardashian responded to the millionaires tax by relocating, then instead of gaining an additional few hundred thousand in revenue, the state would be out the more than $1 million she's now paying (assuming the $12 million that Courage Campaign lists is all taxable income).
It's tempting to dismiss this campaign as the work of a bunch of California crazies. The problem is that its assumptions about wealth and taxes extend far beyond the Golden State. Indeed, they have calcified into an orthodoxy that defines the Democratic Party. Look at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Two weeks ago, the Nevada Democrat didn't stop at insisting that millionaires turn over more of their money to the federal government. "Millionaire job creators are like unicorns," he said. "They're impossible to find and don't exist."
The point here is that faith in the millionaires tax has moved beyond argument. It matters not that even if the state sucked every last dime from Ms. Kardashian and those who share her tax bracket, it still wouldn't fix California's troubles. Nor will believers be swayed by evidence that our governments have been spending more and more for vital public services and getting less and less in return.
They will not be swayed because they are not being driven by their economics. They are being driven by their conception of immorality: the idea that millionaires have more than they should—and that any wealth they have is not something they have earned but something the state has allowed them to keep. It says much about the progressive Puritanism of our age that what these folks really find most sleazy about Ms. Kardashian is not her sex tape or her marriage, but that she's unembarrassed about making money.
Dark Times Fall on Solar Sector
The solar industry is dimming as makers of panels used to harness the sun continue to fall by the wayside. At the heart of the industry woes are swiftly falling prices for solar panels and their components because there are too many manufacturers.
Can't argue
Mitt Romney was a moderate governor in Massachusetts with an unimpressive record of governance, who left office with an approval rating in the thirties, and whose signature achievement was a Hurricane Katrina style disaster for the state. Since that's the case, it's fair to ask what a Republican who's not conservative and can't even carry his own state brings to the table for GOP primary voters. The answer is always the same; Mitt Romney is supposed to be "the most electable" candidate. This is a baffling argument because many people just seem to assume it's true, despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary.
1) People just don't like Mitt Romney: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. Doesn't it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?
To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don't like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it's true the swayable moderates don't want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don't just automatically gravitate towards the most "moderate" candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate's base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.
2) He's a proven political loser: There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachussetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of vote. Worse yet, he left office as the 48th most popular governor in America and would have lost if he had run again in 2006. Then, to top that off, he failed to capture the GOP nomination in 2008. This time around, despite having almost every advantage over what many people consider to be a weak field of candidates, Romney is still desperately struggling. Choosing Romney as the GOP nominee after running up that sort of track record would be like promoting a first baseman hitting .225 in AAA to the majors.
3) He'll run weak in the Southern States: Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, & Florida in 2008 and you can be sure that Obama will be targeting all three of those states again. This is a problem for Romney because he would certainly be less likely than either Gingrich or Perry to carry any of those states. Moderate Northern Republicans have consistently performed poorly in the South and Romney won't be any exception. That was certainly the case in 2008 when both McCain and Huckabee dominated Romney in primaries across the South. Mitt didn't win a single primary in a Southern state and although he finished second in Florida, he wasn't even competitive in North Carolina or Virgina. Since losing any one of those states could be enough to hand the election to Obama in a close race, Mitt's weakness there is no small matter.
4) All of Mitt's primary advantages disappear in a general election: It's actually amazing that Mitt Romney isn't lapping the whole field by 50 points because he has every advantage. Mitt has been running for President longer than the other contenders. He has more money and a better organization than the other candidates. The party establishment and inside the beltway media is firmly in his corner. That's why the other contenders have been absolutely savaged while Romney, like John McCain before him, has been allowed to skate through the primaries without receiving serious scrutiny.
If you took all those advantages away from Romney in the GOP primary, he'd be fighting with Jon Huntsman for last place. So, what happens when if he's the nominee and suddenly, all the pillars that have barely kept him propped up in SECOND place so far are suddenly removed? It may not be pretty.
5) Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. This has been a plus for Romney in the Republican primaries, where the grassroots tends to be dominated by people who love capitalism and the free market. However, in a year when Obama will be running a populist campaign and Occupy Wall Street is demonizing the "1%," Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by putting a lot of poor and middle class Americans out-of-work? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?
“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”
The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.
They show pictures of dilapidated, long since closed factories. They trot out scruffy looking workers talking about how bad life has been since Mitt Romney crushed their dreams and cost them their jobs. Then they show a clip of Mitt making his $10,000 bet and posing with money in his clothes.
6) The Mormon Factor: More than 40 percent of Americans would be uncomfortable with a Mormon as president, according to a new survey that also suggests that as more white evangelical voters have learned White House hopeful Mitt Romney is Mormon, the less they like him.
You should also keep in mind that if Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Hollywood and the mainstream media will conduct a vicious, months long hate campaign against the Mormon church.
7) He's a flip-flopper. Is it just me or didn't George Bush beat John Kerry's brains in with the "flip flopper" charge back in 2004? So now, just eight years later, the GOP is going to run someone that even our own side agrees is a flip-flopper right out of the gate?
There are lot of issues with trying to run a candidate who doesn't seem to have any core principles. It makes it impossible for his supporters to get excited about him, because you can't fall in love with a weathervane. It also makes hard for independents to take anything he says on faith. Additionally, since politicians tend to be such liars anyway and you know Romney has no firm beliefs, it's very easy for everyone to assume the worst. Democrats will assume Romney will be a right wing deathbeast. Republicans will assume that Romney will screw them over. Independents won't know what to believe, which will make the hundreds of millions that Obama will spend on attack ads particularly effective. Ronald Reagan famously said the GOP needed "a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors." That's particularly relevant when it comes to Mitt Romney, who has proven to be a pasty, grey pile of formless mush.
1) People just don't like Mitt Romney: The entire GOP primary process so far has consisted of Republican voters desperately trying to find an alternative to Mitt Romney. Doesn't it say something that GOP primary voters have, at one time or another, preferred Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and now even Ron Paul (In Iowa) to Mitt Romney?
To some people, this is a plus. They think that if conservatives don't like Mitt Romney, that means moderates will like him. This misunderstands how the process of attracting independent voters works in a presidential race. While it's true the swayable moderates don't want to support a candidate they view as an extremist, they also don't just automatically gravitate towards the most "moderate" candidate. To the contrary, independent voters tend to be moved by the excitement of the candidate's base (See John McCain vs. Barack Obama for an example of how this works). This is how a very conservative candidate like Ronald Reagan could win landslide victories. He avoided being labeled an extremist as Goldwater was, yet his supporters were incredibly enthusiastic and moderates responded to it.
2) He's a proven political loser: There's a reason Mitt Romney has been able to say that he's "not career politician." It's because he's not very good at politics. He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994. Although he did win the governorship of Massachussetts in 2002, he did it without cracking 50% of vote. Worse yet, he left office as the 48th most popular governor in America and would have lost if he had run again in 2006. Then, to top that off, he failed to capture the GOP nomination in 2008. This time around, despite having almost every advantage over what many people consider to be a weak field of candidates, Romney is still desperately struggling. Choosing Romney as the GOP nominee after running up that sort of track record would be like promoting a first baseman hitting .225 in AAA to the majors.
3) He'll run weak in the Southern States: Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, & Florida in 2008 and you can be sure that Obama will be targeting all three of those states again. This is a problem for Romney because he would certainly be less likely than either Gingrich or Perry to carry any of those states. Moderate Northern Republicans have consistently performed poorly in the South and Romney won't be any exception. That was certainly the case in 2008 when both McCain and Huckabee dominated Romney in primaries across the South. Mitt didn't win a single primary in a Southern state and although he finished second in Florida, he wasn't even competitive in North Carolina or Virgina. Since losing any one of those states could be enough to hand the election to Obama in a close race, Mitt's weakness there is no small matter.
4) All of Mitt's primary advantages disappear in a general election: It's actually amazing that Mitt Romney isn't lapping the whole field by 50 points because he has every advantage. Mitt has been running for President longer than the other contenders. He has more money and a better organization than the other candidates. The party establishment and inside the beltway media is firmly in his corner. That's why the other contenders have been absolutely savaged while Romney, like John McCain before him, has been allowed to skate through the primaries without receiving serious scrutiny.
If you took all those advantages away from Romney in the GOP primary, he'd be fighting with Jon Huntsman for last place. So, what happens when if he's the nominee and suddenly, all the pillars that have barely kept him propped up in SECOND place so far are suddenly removed? It may not be pretty.
5) Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. This has been a plus for Romney in the Republican primaries, where the grassroots tends to be dominated by people who love capitalism and the free market. However, in a year when Obama will be running a populist campaign and Occupy Wall Street is demonizing the "1%," Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by putting a lot of poor and middle class Americans out-of-work? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?
“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”
The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.
They show pictures of dilapidated, long since closed factories. They trot out scruffy looking workers talking about how bad life has been since Mitt Romney crushed their dreams and cost them their jobs. Then they show a clip of Mitt making his $10,000 bet and posing with money in his clothes.
6) The Mormon Factor: More than 40 percent of Americans would be uncomfortable with a Mormon as president, according to a new survey that also suggests that as more white evangelical voters have learned White House hopeful Mitt Romney is Mormon, the less they like him.
You should also keep in mind that if Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Hollywood and the mainstream media will conduct a vicious, months long hate campaign against the Mormon church.
7) He's a flip-flopper. Is it just me or didn't George Bush beat John Kerry's brains in with the "flip flopper" charge back in 2004? So now, just eight years later, the GOP is going to run someone that even our own side agrees is a flip-flopper right out of the gate?
There are lot of issues with trying to run a candidate who doesn't seem to have any core principles. It makes it impossible for his supporters to get excited about him, because you can't fall in love with a weathervane. It also makes hard for independents to take anything he says on faith. Additionally, since politicians tend to be such liars anyway and you know Romney has no firm beliefs, it's very easy for everyone to assume the worst. Democrats will assume Romney will be a right wing deathbeast. Republicans will assume that Romney will screw them over. Independents won't know what to believe, which will make the hundreds of millions that Obama will spend on attack ads particularly effective. Ronald Reagan famously said the GOP needed "a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors." That's particularly relevant when it comes to Mitt Romney, who has proven to be a pasty, grey pile of formless mush.
What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice.
Anyone who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them -- instead of answering their arguments.
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite.
In the 1920s, Congressman Thomas S. Adams referred to "the ease with which the income tax may be legally avoided" but also said some Congressmen "so fervently believe that the rich ought to pay 40 or 50 per cent of their incomes" in taxes that they would rather make this a law, even if the government would get more revenue from a lower tax rate that people actually pay. Some also prefer class warfare politics that brings in votes, if not revenue.
Anyone who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them -- instead of answering their arguments.
The real egalitarians are not the people who want to redistribute wealth to the poor, but those who want to extend to the poor the ability to create their own wealth, to lift themselves up, instead of trying to tear others down. Earning respect, including self-respect, is better than being a parasite.
In the 1920s, Congressman Thomas S. Adams referred to "the ease with which the income tax may be legally avoided" but also said some Congressmen "so fervently believe that the rich ought to pay 40 or 50 per cent of their incomes" in taxes that they would rather make this a law, even if the government would get more revenue from a lower tax rate that people actually pay. Some also prefer class warfare politics that brings in votes, if not revenue.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
House Overreach Fails
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/us/politics/senate-republican-leader-suggests-a-payroll-tax-deal.html?hp
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
OLD SCHOOL REPUBLICANS WEEPING
Somewhere in America there are some old-school republicans who weep at what their party has become. But we can't hear them.
Newt having judges arrested if you don't like their rulings, suggesting the military should be under the command of it's Generals rather than the President.
Doesn't the Tea party know what "WE the people mean"
They are like of bunch of badgers tearing at each other in these final days. Newt like a man walking around with a live granade holding the pin saying " Watch this".
It's like Jeffrey Dahmer calling John Wayne Gacy a sicko! I LOVE IT!!!
Newt having judges arrested if you don't like their rulings, suggesting the military should be under the command of it's Generals rather than the President.
Doesn't the Tea party know what "WE the people mean"
They are like of bunch of badgers tearing at each other in these final days. Newt like a man walking around with a live granade holding the pin saying " Watch this".
It's like Jeffrey Dahmer calling John Wayne Gacy a sicko! I LOVE IT!!!
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Mitt
WASHINGTON: South Carolina state's Indian American governor Nikki Haley's endorsement of front runner Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is threatening her own support at home.
Former Massachusetts governor Romney's campaign is using Haley's endorsement to build his acceptance among the tea-party base that's never been comfortable with his candidacy, especially in a state where former House speaker Newt Gingrich has been running even stronger than elsewhere, the influential Washington newspaper Politico said.
But the people in that base who propelled Haley to the governor's mansion last year see the endorsement of the more moderate Romney as abandoning them - and giving them another reason to turn away from a governor whose approval rating has dropped to 34.6 percent, the daily focusing on politics said.
Former Massachusetts governor Romney's campaign is using Haley's endorsement to build his acceptance among the tea-party base that's never been comfortable with his candidacy, especially in a state where former House speaker Newt Gingrich has been running even stronger than elsewhere, the influential Washington newspaper Politico said.
But the people in that base who propelled Haley to the governor's mansion last year see the endorsement of the more moderate Romney as abandoning them - and giving them another reason to turn away from a governor whose approval rating has dropped to 34.6 percent, the daily focusing on politics said.
Mitt
The news shook the political world: perennial Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell made her pick in the 2012 presidential race last night. And, that pick was former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney....Ok, not really.
At first glance, the O’Donnell endorsement seems like an obvious “pariah endorsement” slot. Yes, she was the Republican nominee for Senate in Delaware in 2010 but she lost that race badly and, in so doing, proved herself to be something short of a serious candidate — though, of course, not a witch.
O’Donnell seemed to be pushing for the “pariah endorsement” in announcing her support of Romney Wednesday on CNN, telling that network that Romney’s flip-flopping was “one of the things that I like about him — because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind.” Um....
But, it’s impossible for us to categorize O’Donnell as a full-fledged “pariah endorsement” for one simple reason: the Romney campaign touted it.
“Christine has been a leader in the conservative movement for many years,” Romney said in a release put out by his campaign. “Christine recognizes that excessive government threatens us now and threatens future generations, and I am pleased to have her on my team.”
Why would Romney tout the endorsement? In theory, O’Donnell’s still retains credibility among some tea party activists. And her donor list — she raised $7.3 million in 2010 — is worth something to Romney.
At first glance, the O’Donnell endorsement seems like an obvious “pariah endorsement” slot. Yes, she was the Republican nominee for Senate in Delaware in 2010 but she lost that race badly and, in so doing, proved herself to be something short of a serious candidate — though, of course, not a witch.
O’Donnell seemed to be pushing for the “pariah endorsement” in announcing her support of Romney Wednesday on CNN, telling that network that Romney’s flip-flopping was “one of the things that I like about him — because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind.” Um....
But, it’s impossible for us to categorize O’Donnell as a full-fledged “pariah endorsement” for one simple reason: the Romney campaign touted it.
“Christine has been a leader in the conservative movement for many years,” Romney said in a release put out by his campaign. “Christine recognizes that excessive government threatens us now and threatens future generations, and I am pleased to have her on my team.”
Why would Romney tout the endorsement? In theory, O’Donnell’s still retains credibility among some tea party activists. And her donor list — she raised $7.3 million in 2010 — is worth something to Romney.
Mitt
The Des Moines Register, Iowa's biggest and most influential newspaper, announced that it would endorse Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee for president.
Sobriety, wisdom and judgment.
Those are qualities Mitt Romney said he looks for in a leader. Those are qualities Romney himself has demonstrated in his career in business, public service and government. Those qualities help the former Massachusetts governor stand out as the most qualified Republican candidate competing in the Iowa caucuses.
Sobriety, wisdom and judgment.
Those are qualities Mitt Romney said he looks for in a leader. Those are qualities Romney himself has demonstrated in his career in business, public service and government. Those qualities help the former Massachusetts governor stand out as the most qualified Republican candidate competing in the Iowa caucuses.
Mitt
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney cast himself as a tea party-friendly candidate–and took a swipe at opponent Newt Gingrich–in a campaign swing through South Carolina on Saturday. “I line up pretty darn well with tea partiers,” the GOP presidential hopeful said in a press conference Saturday.
Polls show that Mr. Gingrich is viewed more favorably by tea-party supporters than is Mr. Romney, but Ms. Haley made a push for tea-party support on Mr. Romney’s behalf. “I think the tea party will take their time and analyze him appropriately,” she said. “I know that his answers will make them feel good at the end.”
The most important priorities for tea-party supporters, she said, are keeping Washington out of their hair and putting tax dollars back in their pockets.
Mr. Romney detailed his plan to cut government spending while increasing investment in military operations.
Mr. Romney faces a tough slog in South Carolina, where he has spent little time campaigning until now. Mr. Gingrich has held a large lead in polls of the state, which Mr. Romney acknowledged Saturday.
Polls show that Mr. Gingrich is viewed more favorably by tea-party supporters than is Mr. Romney, but Ms. Haley made a push for tea-party support on Mr. Romney’s behalf. “I think the tea party will take their time and analyze him appropriately,” she said. “I know that his answers will make them feel good at the end.”
The most important priorities for tea-party supporters, she said, are keeping Washington out of their hair and putting tax dollars back in their pockets.
Mr. Romney detailed his plan to cut government spending while increasing investment in military operations.
Mr. Romney faces a tough slog in South Carolina, where he has spent little time campaigning until now. Mr. Gingrich has held a large lead in polls of the state, which Mr. Romney acknowledged Saturday.
Greece, Illinois, California...the USA won't be far behind spending money we do not have.
"At every town-hall meeting I hear, 'Can't we separate from Chicago?'" says Mr. Mitchell.
Chicago pols control almost all seats of power in Illinois. Gov. Pat Quinn, House Speaker Mike Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Secretary of State Jesse White are all Democrats from Chicago. So was former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who this month was sentenced to 14 years in prison for corruption, including trying to sell President Obama's vacated seat in the U.S. Senate. Consequently, as Mr. Wooters says, a lot "of the money that we have down here goes up there to bail out Chicago."
The state's bond debt has soared to $30 billion from $9.2 billion in 2002, when Democrats seized control of both the governorship and statehouse. Lawmakers have borrowed $10 billion just to fund the state's pension system, which is running a $210 billion unfunded liability. In fact, all of the $7 billion raised by this year's income and corporate tax hikes is going toward funding pensions.
Meanwhile, Republicans, who occupy about 40% of legislative seats, aren't exactly holding the Democrats' feet to the fire. As Speaker Madigan's spokesman Steve Brown told me, "95% of things that get done in Illinois are a result of compromise." "Republicans who held power in the 1980s and '90s were not ideological. They supported tax increases," says John Tillman of the Illinois Policy Institute. More recently, most Republicans supported the Democrats' crony-capitalist tax credits for Chicago businesses, rather than insisting that the legislature roll back the corporate and income tax hikes. AND WHY COMPROMISE ON THE CANCER OF EXCESS SPENDING CAN'T BE COMPROMISED.
But is booting Chicago from the state a feasible answer? A few years ago it seemed unlikely that Republicans could seize control of legislatures and governorships in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, all heavily unionized states. But it's happened in all three. That's the difference that budgetary chaos, a strong party organization and the right message can make.
Chicago pols control almost all seats of power in Illinois. Gov. Pat Quinn, House Speaker Mike Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Secretary of State Jesse White are all Democrats from Chicago. So was former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who this month was sentenced to 14 years in prison for corruption, including trying to sell President Obama's vacated seat in the U.S. Senate. Consequently, as Mr. Wooters says, a lot "of the money that we have down here goes up there to bail out Chicago."
The state's bond debt has soared to $30 billion from $9.2 billion in 2002, when Democrats seized control of both the governorship and statehouse. Lawmakers have borrowed $10 billion just to fund the state's pension system, which is running a $210 billion unfunded liability. In fact, all of the $7 billion raised by this year's income and corporate tax hikes is going toward funding pensions.
Meanwhile, Republicans, who occupy about 40% of legislative seats, aren't exactly holding the Democrats' feet to the fire. As Speaker Madigan's spokesman Steve Brown told me, "95% of things that get done in Illinois are a result of compromise." "Republicans who held power in the 1980s and '90s were not ideological. They supported tax increases," says John Tillman of the Illinois Policy Institute. More recently, most Republicans supported the Democrats' crony-capitalist tax credits for Chicago businesses, rather than insisting that the legislature roll back the corporate and income tax hikes. AND WHY COMPROMISE ON THE CANCER OF EXCESS SPENDING CAN'T BE COMPROMISED.
But is booting Chicago from the state a feasible answer? A few years ago it seemed unlikely that Republicans could seize control of legislatures and governorships in Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, all heavily unionized states. But it's happened in all three. That's the difference that budgetary chaos, a strong party organization and the right message can make.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
RON PAUL WORTH LISTENING TO!
I would love to have Ron Paul taken seriously by the Republican Party. He states his beliefs clearly without equivocation, and given how quickly Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich change their positions, a threat from Ron Paul might even get these two men to see the wisdom in supporting a big cut in defense spending. And I would love to hear the two give reasons to do away with the fed in response to Mr. Paul's insistent that it be demolished.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Bush and the Bush doctrine was right?
OBAMA: When I took office, nearly 150,000 American troops were deployed in Iraq, and I pledged to end this war responsibly. Today, only several thousand troops remain there. This is a season of homecomings, and military families across America are being reunited for the holidays. In the coming days, the last American soldiers will cross the border out of Iraq with honor and with their heads held high. After nearly nine years, our war in Iraq ends this month. I'm proud to welcome prime minister Maliki, the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant, and Democratic Iraq.
Of course the surge, which he opposed was a major reason for the success.
Let's all say that together again, because, my Dear Lib/Socialist/Commie friends, even your Dear Leader...our President... knows it is a good thing.
the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant, and Democratic Iraq.
Of course the surge, which he opposed was a major reason for the success.
Let's all say that together again, because, my Dear Lib/Socialist/Commie friends, even your Dear Leader...our President... knows it is a good thing.
the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant, and Democratic Iraq.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Newt's Wife three is Laura Bush, Jaqueline K, etc
In an interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich shrugged off Palestinian statehood with this incendiary blast: “I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.”
Republicans still seem a bit dazed by Newt’s dizzying rise from the ashes
. Peggy Noonan calls him “a trouble magnet” and “a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, ‘Watch this!’ ”
Joe Scarborough, one of the House plotters against Speaker Gingrich back in 1997, quipped, “Let me just say, if Newt Gingrich is the smartest guy in the room, leave that room.”
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who was in the House when Gingrich was speaker, told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” that he would have a hard time supporting Newt because his leadership was “lacking oftentimes.”
Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, who worked with Newt in the House, noted, “He’s a guy of 1,000 ideas and the attention span of a 1-year-old.”
Congressman Peter King of New York told CNN’s Erin Burnett that Newt’s “inflammatory” statements, his “erratic” and “self-centered” behavior, and his “Armageddon language” wear people out.
The Gingrich grandiosity was on display, King asserted, when the new frontrunner “compared his wife to Jacqueline Kennedy and Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan.” King said that because Newt “puts himself at the center of everything."
Republicans still seem a bit dazed by Newt’s dizzying rise from the ashes
. Peggy Noonan calls him “a trouble magnet” and “a human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, ‘Watch this!’ ”
Joe Scarborough, one of the House plotters against Speaker Gingrich back in 1997, quipped, “Let me just say, if Newt Gingrich is the smartest guy in the room, leave that room.”
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who was in the House when Gingrich was speaker, told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” that he would have a hard time supporting Newt because his leadership was “lacking oftentimes.”
Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, who worked with Newt in the House, noted, “He’s a guy of 1,000 ideas and the attention span of a 1-year-old.”
Congressman Peter King of New York told CNN’s Erin Burnett that Newt’s “inflammatory” statements, his “erratic” and “self-centered” behavior, and his “Armageddon language” wear people out.
The Gingrich grandiosity was on display, King asserted, when the new frontrunner “compared his wife to Jacqueline Kennedy and Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan.” King said that because Newt “puts himself at the center of everything."
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Jews, the Blacks, the Bankers, the one percent.
In times of trouble, demagogues have always been able to blame the ill on "groups" The simple minded will always follow their lies and falsehoods.
Now we have a group of entitled who think they deserve a lifestyle, deserve a job, and blame the producers for their ills when they have contributed nothing.
Hitler grew out of such circumstance. The fools on the left will listen to our President blame us, blame Wall Street. Blame those not paying their fair share, when it is apparent they are paying the whole bill.
Why? Absolute power corrupts, always has, always will. A freedom agenda takes courage, a courage President Obama does not know.
We survived Teddy Roosevelt, but that was a different time. Is out President leading us to "education camps"? Can violence be far behind? It will certainly be "community organized"
Help us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJD8pZiRIzs&sns=fb
Now we have a group of entitled who think they deserve a lifestyle, deserve a job, and blame the producers for their ills when they have contributed nothing.
Hitler grew out of such circumstance. The fools on the left will listen to our President blame us, blame Wall Street. Blame those not paying their fair share, when it is apparent they are paying the whole bill.
Why? Absolute power corrupts, always has, always will. A freedom agenda takes courage, a courage President Obama does not know.
We survived Teddy Roosevelt, but that was a different time. Is out President leading us to "education camps"? Can violence be far behind? It will certainly be "community organized"
Help us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJD8pZiRIzs&sns=fb
Monday, December 5, 2011
Democracy, Some Assembly Required. OWS!
Jim says in his latest blog, no evidence of fat cats hurting the economy Well Countrywide Financial, acquired by Bank of America in 2008, was a central figure in the housing collapse and subsequent foreclosure crisis. Once America's largest mortgage lender, the company has agreed to a litany of settlements since 2008, including a $600 million class-action settlement, an $108 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and the ousting of former CEO Angelo Mozilo, who paid $67.5 million in penalties to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Still, no top level finance executives have faced federal prosecution for actions related to the financial crisis, despite several reports,that fraud was a common practice. At the same time, as Federal prosecution of financial fraud falls to a 20-year low, while over two thousand people have been arrested in connection with the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Yes let's get those Occupy Wall street people, their ruining America.
Still, no top level finance executives have faced federal prosecution for actions related to the financial crisis, despite several reports,that fraud was a common practice. At the same time, as Federal prosecution of financial fraud falls to a 20-year low, while over two thousand people have been arrested in connection with the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Yes let's get those Occupy Wall street people, their ruining America.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Barely four months into his presidency, President George W. Bush fulfilled a campaign promise by signing a $1.35 trillion tax cut over 10 years and declared, "This is only the beginning."
How right he was, although in ways he could not have foreseen. A decade later, with a sagging economy and soaring debt, arguments over the tax cuts passed in May 2001 and additional 2003 cuts are a leading cause of the fiscal paralysis of Congress and President Barack Obama. The looming expiration of the cuts at the end of next year has complicated attempts to reduce the nation's $15 trillion debt.
Obama argues that the cuts unfairly favor higher-income taxpayers and should be extended only for couples earning less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000. Republicans say Democrats have yet to get serious about cutting spending, and Republicans argue that raising taxes on anyone -- especially small-business owners who create jobs -- is financial suicide in a struggling economy.
Both sides seem willing to let voters decide which vision they favor in the 2012 elections. But some say that a financial shock might force Congress to act sooner on long-term tax and entitlement reform.
Republicans needed 60 votes under Senate budgeting rules to make tax cuts permanent, so they settled on 10-year cuts through the use of a legislative procedure known as "reconciliation" that required only a majority vote. In 2001, the U.S. was running modest budget surpluses. It was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the economy was softening, bolstering arguments for a tax-cut stimulus.
Democrats complained the cuts would starve government of money to run necessary programs, but 28 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate voted for the Bush tax cuts.
Republicans said restricting revenue fit their vision of smaller government that voters said they wanted in electing Bush, and they vowed to make the tax cuts permanent. They never were able to do that, but they did cut taxes again in 2003.
Many knew Congress would face consequences down the road. "Everybody knew we were baking in a problem," Stretch said, because health-care costs were skyrocketing and Baby Boomers would reach retirement by the end of the decade and begin to strain entitlement programs.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $1.2 trillion, adding to what Stretch called "the tectonic plate of Bush tax cuts moving north and the costs of growing entitlement demands moving south."
But blaming all or even most of the debt crisis on the Bush tax cuts misses the bigger picture. Heritage Foundation tax expert J.D. Foster estimated the Bush tax cuts reduced government receipts by about 1 percent of the gross domestic product last year but that the deficit was about 8.9 percent of GDP.
Obama and Republicans agreed after the 2010 elections to a two-year extension in exchange for things Obama wanted, including a temporary cut in the payroll tax that itself is set to expire at the end of this year. The piecemeal approach makes it difficult for businesses to make long-term plans, and it prolongs the uncertainty about revenue expectations necessary for any serious debt agreement between Congress and the White House.
Foster said he expects pressure for tax and entitlement reform to open a unique window after the November election, when Congress will be forced to either extend the Bush tax cuts, let them expire and risk the political and economic fallout of rising tax burdens, or take a more comprehensive approach to taxing and spending early in Obama's second term or in the opening months of his successor's.
How right he was, although in ways he could not have foreseen. A decade later, with a sagging economy and soaring debt, arguments over the tax cuts passed in May 2001 and additional 2003 cuts are a leading cause of the fiscal paralysis of Congress and President Barack Obama. The looming expiration of the cuts at the end of next year has complicated attempts to reduce the nation's $15 trillion debt.
Obama argues that the cuts unfairly favor higher-income taxpayers and should be extended only for couples earning less than $250,000 a year and individuals making less than $200,000. Republicans say Democrats have yet to get serious about cutting spending, and Republicans argue that raising taxes on anyone -- especially small-business owners who create jobs -- is financial suicide in a struggling economy.
Both sides seem willing to let voters decide which vision they favor in the 2012 elections. But some say that a financial shock might force Congress to act sooner on long-term tax and entitlement reform.
Republicans needed 60 votes under Senate budgeting rules to make tax cuts permanent, so they settled on 10-year cuts through the use of a legislative procedure known as "reconciliation" that required only a majority vote. In 2001, the U.S. was running modest budget surpluses. It was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the economy was softening, bolstering arguments for a tax-cut stimulus.
Democrats complained the cuts would starve government of money to run necessary programs, but 28 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate voted for the Bush tax cuts.
Republicans said restricting revenue fit their vision of smaller government that voters said they wanted in electing Bush, and they vowed to make the tax cuts permanent. They never were able to do that, but they did cut taxes again in 2003.
Many knew Congress would face consequences down the road. "Everybody knew we were baking in a problem," Stretch said, because health-care costs were skyrocketing and Baby Boomers would reach retirement by the end of the decade and begin to strain entitlement programs.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $1.2 trillion, adding to what Stretch called "the tectonic plate of Bush tax cuts moving north and the costs of growing entitlement demands moving south."
But blaming all or even most of the debt crisis on the Bush tax cuts misses the bigger picture. Heritage Foundation tax expert J.D. Foster estimated the Bush tax cuts reduced government receipts by about 1 percent of the gross domestic product last year but that the deficit was about 8.9 percent of GDP.
Obama and Republicans agreed after the 2010 elections to a two-year extension in exchange for things Obama wanted, including a temporary cut in the payroll tax that itself is set to expire at the end of this year. The piecemeal approach makes it difficult for businesses to make long-term plans, and it prolongs the uncertainty about revenue expectations necessary for any serious debt agreement between Congress and the White House.
Foster said he expects pressure for tax and entitlement reform to open a unique window after the November election, when Congress will be forced to either extend the Bush tax cuts, let them expire and risk the political and economic fallout of rising tax burdens, or take a more comprehensive approach to taxing and spending early in Obama's second term or in the opening months of his successor's.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Newt, Run, Newt, Run.
Next to Romney, Gingrich seems authentic. Next to Herman Cain, Gingrich seems faithful. Next to Jon Huntsman, Gingrich seems conservative. Next to Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, Gingrich actually does look like an intellectual. Unlike the governor of Texas, he surely knows the voting age.
The 68-year-old has compared himself to Charles de Gaulle. He has noted nonchalantly: “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.” As speaker, he liked to tell reporters he was a World Historical Transformational Figure.
Run Newt Run as the Master Card ad says it will be priceless to see the debates.
The 68-year-old has compared himself to Charles de Gaulle. He has noted nonchalantly: “People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.” As speaker, he liked to tell reporters he was a World Historical Transformational Figure.
Run Newt Run as the Master Card ad says it will be priceless to see the debates.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Thomas Sowell
It used to be common for people to urge us to learn "the lessons of history." But history gets much less attention these days and, if there are any lessons that we are offered, they are more likely to be the lessons from current polls or the lessons of political correctness. Even among those who still invoke the lessons of history, some read those lessons very differently from others.
Talk show host Michael Medved, for example, apparently thinks the Republicans need a centrist presidential candidate in 2012. He said, "Most political battles are won by seizing the center." Moreover, he added: "Anyone who believes otherwise ignores the electoral experience of the last 50 years."
But just when did Ronald Reagan, with his two landslide election victories, "seize the center"? For that matter, when did Franklin D. Roosevelt, with a record four consecutive presidential election victories, "seize the center"?
There have been a long string of Republican presidential candidates who seized the center -- and lost elections. Thomas E. Dewey, for example, seized the center against Harry Truman in 1948. Even though
Truman was so unpopular at the outset that the "New Republic" magazine urged him not to run, and polls consistently had Dewey ahead, Truman clearly stood for something -- and for months he battled for what he stood for. That turned out to be enough to beat Dewey, who simply stood in the center.
It is very doubtful that most of the people who voted for Harry Truman agreed with him on all the things he stood for. But they knew he stood for something, and they agreed with enough of it to put him back in the White House.
It is equally doubtful that most of the people who voted for Ronald Reagan in his two landslide victories agreed with all his positions. But they agreed with enough of them to put him in the White House to replace Jimmy Carter, who stood in the center, even if it was only a center of confusion.
President Gerald Ford, after narrowly beating off a rare challenge by Ronald Reagan to a sitting president of his own party, seized the center in the general election -- and lost to an initially almost totally unknown governor from Georgia.
President George H.W. Bush, after initially winning election by coming across as another Ronald Reagan, with his "Read my lips, no new taxes" speech, turned "kinder and gentler" -- to everyone except the taxpayers -- once he was in office. In other ways as well, he seized the center. And lost to another unknown governor.
More recently, we have seen two more Republican candidates who seized the center -- Senators Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 -- go down to defeat, McCain at the hands of a man that most people had never even heard of, just three years earlier.
Michael Medved, however, reads history differently.
To him, Barry Goldwater got clobbered in the 1964 elections because of his strong conservatism. But did his opponent, Lyndon Johnson, seize the center? Johnson was at least as far to the left as Goldwater was to the right. And Goldwater scared the daylights out of people with the way he expressed himself, especially on foreign policy, where he came across as reckless.
Senator Goldwater was not crazy enough to start a nuclear war. But the way he talked sometimes made it seem as if he were. Ronald Reagan would later be elected and re-elected taking positions essentially the same as those on which Barry Goldwater lost big time. Reagan was simply a lot better at articulating his beliefs.
Michael Medved uses the 2008 defeat of tea party candidates for the Senate, in three states where Democrats were vulnerable, as another argument against those who do not court the center. But these were candidates whose political ineptness was the problem, not conservatism.
Candidates should certainly reach out to a broad electorate. But the question is whether they reach out by promoting their own principles to others or by trying to be all things to all people.
It used to be common for people to urge us to learn "the lessons of history." But history gets much less attention these days and, if there are any lessons that we are offered, they are more likely to be the lessons from current polls or the lessons of political correctness. Even among those who still invoke the lessons of history, some read those lessons very differently from others.
Talk show host Michael Medved, for example, apparently thinks the Republicans need a centrist presidential candidate in 2012. He said, "Most political battles are won by seizing the center." Moreover, he added: "Anyone who believes otherwise ignores the electoral experience of the last 50 years."
But just when did Ronald Reagan, with his two landslide election victories, "seize the center"? For that matter, when did Franklin D. Roosevelt, with a record four consecutive presidential election victories, "seize the center"?
There have been a long string of Republican presidential candidates who seized the center -- and lost elections. Thomas E. Dewey, for example, seized the center against Harry Truman in 1948. Even though
Truman was so unpopular at the outset that the "New Republic" magazine urged him not to run, and polls consistently had Dewey ahead, Truman clearly stood for something -- and for months he battled for what he stood for. That turned out to be enough to beat Dewey, who simply stood in the center.
It is very doubtful that most of the people who voted for Harry Truman agreed with him on all the things he stood for. But they knew he stood for something, and they agreed with enough of it to put him back in the White House.
It is equally doubtful that most of the people who voted for Ronald Reagan in his two landslide victories agreed with all his positions. But they agreed with enough of them to put him in the White House to replace Jimmy Carter, who stood in the center, even if it was only a center of confusion.
President Gerald Ford, after narrowly beating off a rare challenge by Ronald Reagan to a sitting president of his own party, seized the center in the general election -- and lost to an initially almost totally unknown governor from Georgia.
President George H.W. Bush, after initially winning election by coming across as another Ronald Reagan, with his "Read my lips, no new taxes" speech, turned "kinder and gentler" -- to everyone except the taxpayers -- once he was in office. In other ways as well, he seized the center. And lost to another unknown governor.
More recently, we have seen two more Republican candidates who seized the center -- Senators Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 -- go down to defeat, McCain at the hands of a man that most people had never even heard of, just three years earlier.
Michael Medved, however, reads history differently.
To him, Barry Goldwater got clobbered in the 1964 elections because of his strong conservatism. But did his opponent, Lyndon Johnson, seize the center? Johnson was at least as far to the left as Goldwater was to the right. And Goldwater scared the daylights out of people with the way he expressed himself, especially on foreign policy, where he came across as reckless.
Senator Goldwater was not crazy enough to start a nuclear war. But the way he talked sometimes made it seem as if he were. Ronald Reagan would later be elected and re-elected taking positions essentially the same as those on which Barry Goldwater lost big time. Reagan was simply a lot better at articulating his beliefs.
Michael Medved uses the 2008 defeat of tea party candidates for the Senate, in three states where Democrats were vulnerable, as another argument against those who do not court the center. But these were candidates whose political ineptness was the problem, not conservatism.
Candidates should certainly reach out to a broad electorate. But the question is whether they reach out by promoting their own principles to others or by trying to be all things to all people.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Bye-Bye, Barney!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/28/rep-barney-frank-wont-seek-re-election/
If you are wondering if the Dems expect to re-take the House, wonder no longer. Barney's decision tells all.
Bye-bye, Barney! Can Nancy be far behind?
All the best,
Hags
If you are wondering if the Dems expect to re-take the House, wonder no longer. Barney's decision tells all.
Bye-bye, Barney! Can Nancy be far behind?
All the best,
Hags
Sunday, November 27, 2011
HUNTSMAN MAKES SENSE
Huntsman HAS A plan TO call for placing a hard cap on bank size, defined as the bank's total assets as a share of the U.S. economy. The biggest American banks have grown massively larger since the 1980s, and have actually increased in size since the bailouts of 2008 -- which policymakers insisted were necessary due to the sheer size of major Wall Street banks. The proposal also would impose a hard cap on bank leverage, the amount of money a bank could borrow against its pure equity. Banks will have to limit their leverage under an international reform agreement known as Basel III, but they would nevertheless be permitted to gamble higher raters of borrowed money than Lehman Brothers did shortly before the mega bank went bankrupt.
The program would also adjust calculations relating to the FDIC's program to shut down failing banks. Currently, banks pay a regular insurance premium to the FDIC, which the federal agency can use to pay off the bank's creditors if it fails. Huntsman would have banks that engage in riskier activities pay more money into the FDIC fund than more conventional lenders do. He would also adjust the FDIC's policies for shutting down failing banks when they are particularly large.
The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill grants the FDIC the ability to shut-down complex banks like Goldman Sachs or Bank of America, which engage in both securities trading and conventional lending. Prior to the legislation, the FDIC could only shut down conventional lenders that accept deposits and make loans. But economists have questioned the viability of such a program with regard to big banks that operate in multiple nationalities. Big American banks operate all over the globe, and the wind-down policies required by the United States government would not carry the force of law in Europe or South America.
Huntsman would also encourage banks to shrink by charging additional taxes on banks that get too big. But unlike progressive proposals to do the same, Huntsman would explicitly devote this bank tax revenue toward lowering the overall corporate tax rate. In effect, Huntsman would marry a major progressive bank reform wish with a conservative wish -- shrinking Wall Street's influence while cutting corporate taxes.
The program would also adjust calculations relating to the FDIC's program to shut down failing banks. Currently, banks pay a regular insurance premium to the FDIC, which the federal agency can use to pay off the bank's creditors if it fails. Huntsman would have banks that engage in riskier activities pay more money into the FDIC fund than more conventional lenders do. He would also adjust the FDIC's policies for shutting down failing banks when they are particularly large.
The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill grants the FDIC the ability to shut-down complex banks like Goldman Sachs or Bank of America, which engage in both securities trading and conventional lending. Prior to the legislation, the FDIC could only shut down conventional lenders that accept deposits and make loans. But economists have questioned the viability of such a program with regard to big banks that operate in multiple nationalities. Big American banks operate all over the globe, and the wind-down policies required by the United States government would not carry the force of law in Europe or South America.
Huntsman would also encourage banks to shrink by charging additional taxes on banks that get too big. But unlike progressive proposals to do the same, Huntsman would explicitly devote this bank tax revenue toward lowering the overall corporate tax rate. In effect, Huntsman would marry a major progressive bank reform wish with a conservative wish -- shrinking Wall Street's influence while cutting corporate taxes.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Do Nothing, Cut Deficit $6T
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-gops-dual-trigger-nightmare/2011/11/23/gIQA1BmxnN_blog.html?hpid=z1
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Baxter..first bold. Terry...second. Eric...all things always.
As for the 7.8% across-the-board sequester in domestic programs, this may be the only way to begin cutting a government that has grown by $600 billion in three years.
Much of the world, and especially the press corps, will look at this failure and wail about the "dysfunction" in Washington. And it is pathetic that Congress couldn't agree to cut even a single dime from the projected $45 trillion in spending over 10 years. But this is the product of divided government and a clash of political visions. Unlike Bill Clinton in 1996, President Obama is unbowed by his party's defeat in 2010 and is determined to reclaim his mandate to expand government next year.
Democrats are confident they can blame Republicans for the failure and ride their president's class war campaign to victory. Republicans have to counter with a message of economic growth and sensible reforms of our government institutions so the U.S. doesn't end up like Europe.
This is for voters to decide. Let's have it out.
Much of the world, and especially the press corps, will look at this failure and wail about the "dysfunction" in Washington. And it is pathetic that Congress couldn't agree to cut even a single dime from the projected $45 trillion in spending over 10 years. But this is the product of divided government and a clash of political visions. Unlike Bill Clinton in 1996, President Obama is unbowed by his party's defeat in 2010 and is determined to reclaim his mandate to expand government next year.
Democrats are confident they can blame Republicans for the failure and ride their president's class war campaign to victory. Republicans have to counter with a message of economic growth and sensible reforms of our government institutions so the U.S. doesn't end up like Europe.
This is for voters to decide. Let's have it out.
So where do you stand...on the THIRD paragraph?
So it's all Grover Norquist's fault. Democrats and the media are singing in unison that the reason Congress's antideficit super committee has failed is because of the conservative activist's magical antitax spell over Republicans.
Not to enhance this Beltway fable, but thank you, Mr. Norquist. By reminding Republicans of their antitax promises, he has helped to expose the real reason for the super committee's failure: the two parties disagree profoundly on a vision of government.
Democrats don't believe they need to do more than tinker around the edges of the entitlement state while raising taxes on the rich. Republicans think the growth of government is unsustainable and can't be financed no matter how much taxes are raised.
Not to enhance this Beltway fable, but thank you, Mr. Norquist. By reminding Republicans of their antitax promises, he has helped to expose the real reason for the super committee's failure: the two parties disagree profoundly on a vision of government.
Democrats don't believe they need to do more than tinker around the edges of the entitlement state while raising taxes on the rich. Republicans think the growth of government is unsustainable and can't be financed no matter how much taxes are raised.
Monday, November 21, 2011
REAL CLASS WARFARE
Jim, here is class warfare
Attacking unions which is the core of the middle class, is class warfare.
Politicians with quality health care unavailable to common citizens is class warfare.
Congressman Ryan's plan to cut back social security, medicare is class warfare.
Laws that enable wealthy Americans to become more wealthy while many sink into poverty is class warfare.
Signing a pledge to NEVER RAISE taxes no matter what the consequences is stupidity.
Most Americans Jim don't want to be rich, they just want a full time job with basic health care, keep a roof over their head at affordable costs, food on their table that's safe, a chance to send their kids to college.
It's difficult to fathom for the millionaire's and billionaires in Congress ( 11% of the 1%) to see the despair in middle class America. But hopefully they will see the light in the next election.
Attacking unions which is the core of the middle class, is class warfare.
Politicians with quality health care unavailable to common citizens is class warfare.
Congressman Ryan's plan to cut back social security, medicare is class warfare.
Laws that enable wealthy Americans to become more wealthy while many sink into poverty is class warfare.
Signing a pledge to NEVER RAISE taxes no matter what the consequences is stupidity.
Most Americans Jim don't want to be rich, they just want a full time job with basic health care, keep a roof over their head at affordable costs, food on their table that's safe, a chance to send their kids to college.
It's difficult to fathom for the millionaire's and billionaires in Congress ( 11% of the 1%) to see the despair in middle class America. But hopefully they will see the light in the next election.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Congress approval rating is what?
The top 1% of Americans possess a greater net worth than the entire bottom 90% !!!!
But yet let's not tax these job makers, because they create wealth, on it's face that doesn't make sense. They got the Busch tax cuts in a way promising more jobs, that did not happen. As Baxter says it doesn't matter what the taxes are Jim will complain they are too high. It would be easier to explain this gulf between the haves and have nots if it was intelligence, but the reality is it is about generational wealth accumulation. It's about mergers, that do not benefit anyone but the shareholders, certainly not the customer. It's about financial instruments that produce nothing but roving casino's. It's about laws so poorly written, that financial institutions, can run around them like stone statues.
We can't solve the inequality unless we give the poor and working class kids in this country a better educational opportunity, and show them that education is the way out of poverty. That means better schools, better books, better teachers, better computers, who is going to do that?
The job creators who are in a race to the bottom on wages for American workers?
Can't this Congress at least agree on this, we need better schools, higher wages to attract teachers. That's what we would do to attract business's. The approval rating for Congress is about 9%, I would want to pass something that shows they care about working Americans
But yet let's not tax these job makers, because they create wealth, on it's face that doesn't make sense. They got the Busch tax cuts in a way promising more jobs, that did not happen. As Baxter says it doesn't matter what the taxes are Jim will complain they are too high. It would be easier to explain this gulf between the haves and have nots if it was intelligence, but the reality is it is about generational wealth accumulation. It's about mergers, that do not benefit anyone but the shareholders, certainly not the customer. It's about financial instruments that produce nothing but roving casino's. It's about laws so poorly written, that financial institutions, can run around them like stone statues.
We can't solve the inequality unless we give the poor and working class kids in this country a better educational opportunity, and show them that education is the way out of poverty. That means better schools, better books, better teachers, better computers, who is going to do that?
The job creators who are in a race to the bottom on wages for American workers?
Can't this Congress at least agree on this, we need better schools, higher wages to attract teachers. That's what we would do to attract business's. The approval rating for Congress is about 9%, I would want to pass something that shows they care about working Americans
Monday, November 14, 2011
Economics and Morality
Economics is premised on the assumption that people will act solely on their best interest. Morality is premised on individuals will act on another's best interest and benefit.
Capitalism works best when there is morality and sense of fairness among all. The reluctance of the top 1% to shoulder any significant burden in this country's effort to rebuild the economy and put people back to work is sickining. It is this display of indifference by the Republican's and the tea party that has ignited the country. Hence the morality issue, It's all about me. My taxes, My Wealth, My Way, it's not my fault your not rich, it's yours.
The responsibility to help rebuild the middle class, put people to work, is not my responsibility. Social morality exists no more in this 1% of the population.
In 1982 when the nation's unemployed was 11% where were the protesters then Jim? They were not there because they understood it was a shared experience and the gap between rich and middle class was a lot less.
Christianity which is the religion of choice of the Tea party (85%) seems to go out the window along with social morality (helping others).
The Tea Party is made up of working people, who see no others except themselves in the mirror. SAD! REALLY!
Capitalism works best when there is morality and sense of fairness among all. The reluctance of the top 1% to shoulder any significant burden in this country's effort to rebuild the economy and put people back to work is sickining. It is this display of indifference by the Republican's and the tea party that has ignited the country. Hence the morality issue, It's all about me. My taxes, My Wealth, My Way, it's not my fault your not rich, it's yours.
The responsibility to help rebuild the middle class, put people to work, is not my responsibility. Social morality exists no more in this 1% of the population.
In 1982 when the nation's unemployed was 11% where were the protesters then Jim? They were not there because they understood it was a shared experience and the gap between rich and middle class was a lot less.
Christianity which is the religion of choice of the Tea party (85%) seems to go out the window along with social morality (helping others).
The Tea Party is made up of working people, who see no others except themselves in the mirror. SAD! REALLY!
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Various.
Yes...Ohio rejected removing government workers from collective bargaining rights. OK, so Ohio is broke and going to get broker. What cha going to do now Ohio? Let's see how this gets played by the Conservatives after the upcoming tax increases:
Oh and....
Of all the noise of this week's state election results, what mattered most for Election 2012 came out of Virginia. It was the sound of the air leaking out of the Plouffe plan.
That would be David Plouffe, President Obama's former campaign manager and current senior strategist, who is focused today on how to cobble together 270 electoral votes for re-election. That's proving tough, what with the economy hurting Mr. Obama in states like Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania that he won in 2008. The White House's response has been to pin its hopes on a more roundabout path to electoral victory, one based on the Southern and Western states Mr. Obama also claimed in 2008.
Democrats were trounced in Tuesday's state legislature election, despite the president's heavy investment of time in the state.
States like Virginia. Mr. Obama was the first Democrat to win Virginia since 1964; he beat John McCain by seven percentage points; and he did so on the strength of his appeal to Northern Virginia's many white-collar independents. Along with victories in North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada, the Obama Old Dominion win in 2008 inspired a flurry of stories about how Democrats had forever altered the political map.
So the White House is pouring resources into what Tim Kaine, the state's former Democratic governor, now pridefully refers to as Democrats' "New Dominion." The Obama campaign has held some 1,600 events in the state in the last half-year alone. Only last month Mr. Obama hopped a three-day bus trip through Virginia and North Carolina. Obama officials keep flocking to the state, and Tuesday's election was to offer the first indication of how these efforts are succeeding. Let's just say the New Dominion is looking an awful lot like the Old Dominion. If anything, more so.
Every Republican incumbent—52 in the House, 15 in the Senate—won. The state GOP is looking at unified control over government for only the second time since the Civil War. This is after winning all three top statewide offices—including the election of Gov. Bob McDonnell—in 2009, and picking off three U.S. House Democrats in last year's midterms.
But then...The Az Republic never failing to misread the obvious.
Last week, voters nationwide said no to the right-wing efforts of some state political leaders.
Those in west Mesa's Legislative District 18 ousted one of Arizona's most powerful conservatives, partly because of his focus on illegal-immigration enforcement. Phoenix and Tucson elected Democratic mayors. In other states, voters overturned legislation that would have restricted unions and also rejected a ballot measure to ban all abortions.
The outcomes of these elections have politicians and analysts wondering whether the nation is moving left.
Lastly:...
I had cynically assumed that the superfriends would address America's imminent debt catastrophe with some radical reform — such as, say, slowing the increase in spending by raising the age for lowering the age of Medicare eligibility from 47 to 49 by the year 2137, after which triumph we could all go back to sleep until total societal collapse.
But I underestimated the genius of the superfriends' supercommittee. It turns out that a committee created to reduce the deficit is instead going to increase it. As the Hill reported:
"Democrats on the supercommittee have proposed that the savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be used to pay for a new stimulus package, according to a summary of the $2.3 trillion plan obtained by the Hill."
Do you follow that? Let the Congressional Budget Office explain it to you: "The budget savings from ending the wars are estimated to total around $1 trillion over a decade, according to an estimate in July from the Congressional Budget Office."
Let us note in passing that, according to the official CBO estimates, a whole decade's worth of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan adds up to little more than Obama's 2009 stimulus bill.
But, aside from that, in what sense are these "savings"? The Iraq War is ended — or, at any rate "ended" at least as far as U.S. participation in it is concerned. How then can congressional accountants claim to be able to measure "savings" in 2021 from a war that ended a decade earlier?
And why stop there? Why not estimate around $2 trillion in savings by 2031? After all, that would free up even more money for a bigger stimulus package, wouldn't it? And it wouldn't cost us anything because it would all be "savings."
Oh and....
Of all the noise of this week's state election results, what mattered most for Election 2012 came out of Virginia. It was the sound of the air leaking out of the Plouffe plan.
That would be David Plouffe, President Obama's former campaign manager and current senior strategist, who is focused today on how to cobble together 270 electoral votes for re-election. That's proving tough, what with the economy hurting Mr. Obama in states like Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania that he won in 2008. The White House's response has been to pin its hopes on a more roundabout path to electoral victory, one based on the Southern and Western states Mr. Obama also claimed in 2008.
Democrats were trounced in Tuesday's state legislature election, despite the president's heavy investment of time in the state.
States like Virginia. Mr. Obama was the first Democrat to win Virginia since 1964; he beat John McCain by seven percentage points; and he did so on the strength of his appeal to Northern Virginia's many white-collar independents. Along with victories in North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada, the Obama Old Dominion win in 2008 inspired a flurry of stories about how Democrats had forever altered the political map.
So the White House is pouring resources into what Tim Kaine, the state's former Democratic governor, now pridefully refers to as Democrats' "New Dominion." The Obama campaign has held some 1,600 events in the state in the last half-year alone. Only last month Mr. Obama hopped a three-day bus trip through Virginia and North Carolina. Obama officials keep flocking to the state, and Tuesday's election was to offer the first indication of how these efforts are succeeding. Let's just say the New Dominion is looking an awful lot like the Old Dominion. If anything, more so.
Every Republican incumbent—52 in the House, 15 in the Senate—won. The state GOP is looking at unified control over government for only the second time since the Civil War. This is after winning all three top statewide offices—including the election of Gov. Bob McDonnell—in 2009, and picking off three U.S. House Democrats in last year's midterms.
But then...The Az Republic never failing to misread the obvious.
Last week, voters nationwide said no to the right-wing efforts of some state political leaders.
Those in west Mesa's Legislative District 18 ousted one of Arizona's most powerful conservatives, partly because of his focus on illegal-immigration enforcement. Phoenix and Tucson elected Democratic mayors. In other states, voters overturned legislation that would have restricted unions and also rejected a ballot measure to ban all abortions.
The outcomes of these elections have politicians and analysts wondering whether the nation is moving left.
Lastly:...
I had cynically assumed that the superfriends would address America's imminent debt catastrophe with some radical reform — such as, say, slowing the increase in spending by raising the age for lowering the age of Medicare eligibility from 47 to 49 by the year 2137, after which triumph we could all go back to sleep until total societal collapse.
But I underestimated the genius of the superfriends' supercommittee. It turns out that a committee created to reduce the deficit is instead going to increase it. As the Hill reported:
"Democrats on the supercommittee have proposed that the savings from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be used to pay for a new stimulus package, according to a summary of the $2.3 trillion plan obtained by the Hill."
Do you follow that? Let the Congressional Budget Office explain it to you: "The budget savings from ending the wars are estimated to total around $1 trillion over a decade, according to an estimate in July from the Congressional Budget Office."
Let us note in passing that, according to the official CBO estimates, a whole decade's worth of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan adds up to little more than Obama's 2009 stimulus bill.
But, aside from that, in what sense are these "savings"? The Iraq War is ended — or, at any rate "ended" at least as far as U.S. participation in it is concerned. How then can congressional accountants claim to be able to measure "savings" in 2021 from a war that ended a decade earlier?
And why stop there? Why not estimate around $2 trillion in savings by 2031? After all, that would free up even more money for a bigger stimulus package, wouldn't it? And it wouldn't cost us anything because it would all be "savings."
Friday, November 11, 2011
Fight On, State!
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/10/should-penn-state-cancel-its-season
When this stuff happens, it scares me for the game. In the ivory towers of academia there are those who do not like football as it is and would like to see their schools go the way of the Ivy League or worse, the University of Chicago. That isn't imminent, but I hate to give such folks a piece of the sweater to pull on.
It should be pointed out that Paterno & McQueary both followed the letter of the law. Any punishment they receive (and I am glad they were fired) will be for not going above and beyond the requirements of the law. We agree that they had a moral duty to do so, but lets address laws if needed rather than further damaging a program that will be paying for this over and over - on and off the field - for years. Apart from the perpetrator, only two others have been charged by prosecutors thus far. That would be 3 bad guys, and 7 billion others on this little blue dot.
The 125 players of PSU have done nothing wrong, neither have (upcoming opponents) Nebraska, Ohio State or Wisconsin kids, nor have the schools that are competing with said four schools for the two spots in the championship game. The student athletes, student bodies and fan base of the B1G would all be punished and for what purpose? What would be solved? One pedophile and a half dozen cowards should damage the pocketbooks of eleven innocent schools, a great conference, and the joy of millions? Really?
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Pendulum Swings
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/us/politics/ohio-turns-back-a-law-limiting-unions-rights.html?hp
Sunday, November 6, 2011
'I hear your complaints,' Bloomberg said. 'Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn't have gotten them without that. 'But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will.
"'They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans.'The subprime thing is in the process of being repeated.
Then banks had to concoct ways to make that worthless mortgage worth something to them. So they found ways to sell what was worthless to a bunch of dupes who they lied to about what they were selling; and then those dupes figured out that they were dupes, and they repackaged the whole thing to another set of dupes. And that kept happening, until finally they run out of dupes -- just like the end of a Ponzi scheme. At the end of the day, there weren't any dupes left to buy these worthless mortgages.
"'They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans.'The subprime thing is in the process of being repeated.
Then banks had to concoct ways to make that worthless mortgage worth something to them. So they found ways to sell what was worthless to a bunch of dupes who they lied to about what they were selling; and then those dupes figured out that they were dupes, and they repackaged the whole thing to another set of dupes. And that kept happening, until finally they run out of dupes -- just like the end of a Ponzi scheme. At the end of the day, there weren't any dupes left to buy these worthless mortgages.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
Gerry Spence a Wyoming Lawyer
A corporation is a fiction that relieves man of responsibility to his neighbor. It permits him to do in the name of a corporation what he would not do in his own name. It shields him from from his human conscience.
The best way to get management's attention is to punish management directly. Why shouldn't the the corporation's leaders be as responsible for what he does on the job as he is responsible for what he does driving home from the job. If he runs someone down , we do not permit him to blame the car, nor should he be permitted to lay responsibility for wrongdoing of his company on the corporate machine
When the CEO of a corporation and the Board of Director's knows they will suffer personally then corporate crime will come under control. When corporate heads are charged with only one responsibility to make a profit---- we guarantee crime!
If the battle against Wall Street corruption were to fine based on a percentage of the firms net worth, we would have fewer crimes.
The President of a Corporation would not walk over to his neighbor's house and sell him a worthless IOU, knowing full well that it will never be paid, but yet his firm is doing that daily to strangers. If he did that to his neighbor, he would be jailed, but under corporate name, not so.
Corporate law needs to change in this country that is what Occupy Wall Street is saying so the Faux news channel calling the demonstrator's scum is really disgusting. They know something is wrong. Clarence Darrow said "Justice cannot be defined, it is something that can be felt. But the feeling of justice requires the wrong to be righted."
By the way most of this came from Gerry Spence in his book "Justice For None" published in 1990
Occupy Wall Street is wrong Think Again!
Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What's more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions — from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick "The Gorilla" Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars.
Instead, federal regulators and prosecutors have let the banks and finance companies that tried to burn the world economy to the ground get off with carefully orchestrated settlements — whitewash jobs that involve the firms paying pathetically small fines without even being required to admit wrongdoing. To add insult to injury, the people who actually committed the crimes almost never pay the fines themselves; banks caught defrauding their shareholders often use shareholder money to foot the tab of justice. "If the allegations in these settlements are true," says Jed Rakoff, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, "it's management buying its way off cheap, from the pockets of their victims."
To understand the significance of this, one has to think carefully about the fines as a punishment for a defendant pool that includes the richest people on earth — people who simply get their companies to pay their fines for them. Conversely, one has to consider the powerful deterrent to further wrongdoing that the state is missing by not introducing this particular class of people to the experience of incarceration. "You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."
But that hasn't happened. Because the entire system set up to monitor and regulate Wall Street is screwed up period.
Instead, federal regulators and prosecutors have let the banks and finance companies that tried to burn the world economy to the ground get off with carefully orchestrated settlements — whitewash jobs that involve the firms paying pathetically small fines without even being required to admit wrongdoing. To add insult to injury, the people who actually committed the crimes almost never pay the fines themselves; banks caught defrauding their shareholders often use shareholder money to foot the tab of justice. "If the allegations in these settlements are true," says Jed Rakoff, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, "it's management buying its way off cheap, from the pockets of their victims."
To understand the significance of this, one has to think carefully about the fines as a punishment for a defendant pool that includes the richest people on earth — people who simply get their companies to pay their fines for them. Conversely, one has to consider the powerful deterrent to further wrongdoing that the state is missing by not introducing this particular class of people to the experience of incarceration. "You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."
But that hasn't happened. Because the entire system set up to monitor and regulate Wall Street is screwed up period.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Democrats Efforts at Deficit Reduction Thwarted - Again
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/boehner-rejects-democratic-3-trillion-deficit-reduction-proposal-to-supercommittee/2011/10/27/gIQABPr2MM_story.html?hpid=z1
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Incoherent Grumbling or Stunned Silence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scientific-finding-that-settles-the-climate-change-debate/2011/03/01/gIQAd6QfDM_story.html?hpid=z2
Monday, October 24, 2011
Nothing to Lose
I'm on record predicting a relatively easy GOP nomination for Mitt Romney. I have also forecast a credible third party/Tea Party general election candidacy. It appears to be shaping up that way.
Romney is alone at the top for lack of any serious competition. The GOP field is poor by any standard. The gaffes of Perry, Cain and Bachmann would have caused early exits when their party was more serious. Donald Trump would never have been atop the polls in the party of Eisenhower, Nixon or Reagan. Mitt Romney is going to get the 2012 nomination nearly by default.
Ron Paul has stated that he will not run for re-election for his house seat. He has also refused to necessarily endorse the eventual Republican nominee. He is in this thing to win - not the White House, but a permanent place at the table for the Libertarian movement. He does not see much daylight between Romney and Obama and he simply cannot stand by and allow such limited choice two years after the Tea Party was at maximum influence. If ever his beloved movement could make solid inroads into the system, it is now. His son, Rand, stands ready to pick up the baton. Ron Paul will simply not walk away in 2012 with only a whimper. A prime-time slot at the convention will not impress Dr No.
Would such a move potentially delivering re-election to Obama engender lasting GOP hostility? Absolutely - but he doesn't care much about the party and has said as much. Those in his movement would be fully supportive and - to his way of thinking - he might find a place in history for his efforts.
Is it dirty pool to participate in primaries and, having failed to win, go independent? Yes. It's a real bridge burner. It usually fails, as Charlie Crist can attest. However, Lisa Murkowski is evidence that sometimes a primary loser can ending up winning the job after all. Should Romney get the nomination, Tea Party candidate Ron Paul has nothing to lose.
Romney is alone at the top for lack of any serious competition. The GOP field is poor by any standard. The gaffes of Perry, Cain and Bachmann would have caused early exits when their party was more serious. Donald Trump would never have been atop the polls in the party of Eisenhower, Nixon or Reagan. Mitt Romney is going to get the 2012 nomination nearly by default.
Ron Paul has stated that he will not run for re-election for his house seat. He has also refused to necessarily endorse the eventual Republican nominee. He is in this thing to win - not the White House, but a permanent place at the table for the Libertarian movement. He does not see much daylight between Romney and Obama and he simply cannot stand by and allow such limited choice two years after the Tea Party was at maximum influence. If ever his beloved movement could make solid inroads into the system, it is now. His son, Rand, stands ready to pick up the baton. Ron Paul will simply not walk away in 2012 with only a whimper. A prime-time slot at the convention will not impress Dr No.
Would such a move potentially delivering re-election to Obama engender lasting GOP hostility? Absolutely - but he doesn't care much about the party and has said as much. Those in his movement would be fully supportive and - to his way of thinking - he might find a place in history for his efforts.
Is it dirty pool to participate in primaries and, having failed to win, go independent? Yes. It's a real bridge burner. It usually fails, as Charlie Crist can attest. However, Lisa Murkowski is evidence that sometimes a primary loser can ending up winning the job after all. Should Romney get the nomination, Tea Party candidate Ron Paul has nothing to lose.
Your liberal/socialist/communist stupidity may prevent you from truly understanding the following article where stupid Paul K comments on the impending bankruptcy of Europe. But even as dense as you must be, the large concept of a huge unaffordable entitlement state insufficiently supported by ever enlarging taxes cannot escape even the most wacky.
Let's no longer argue that spending cuts or managing taxes around the margin will prevent us from going next.
I have argued with you and your kind for so long, I have come to the only sane conclusion...you hate this country and its system of government. And I ask why? We have been in concept a moral and economic guiding light for many years despite many opportunities to pursue exactly the opposite. YOU WANT TO MAKE US LIKE EUROPE...WHY?
From Stupid Paul: (and really, no shit Paul) The bitter truth is that it’s looking more and more as if the euro system is doomed. And the even more bitter truth is that given the way that system has been performing, Europe might be better off if it collapses sooner rather than later.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/opinion/the-hole-in-europes-bucket.html?_r=1
Let's no longer argue that spending cuts or managing taxes around the margin will prevent us from going next.
I have argued with you and your kind for so long, I have come to the only sane conclusion...you hate this country and its system of government. And I ask why? We have been in concept a moral and economic guiding light for many years despite many opportunities to pursue exactly the opposite. YOU WANT TO MAKE US LIKE EUROPE...WHY?
From Stupid Paul: (and really, no shit Paul) The bitter truth is that it’s looking more and more as if the euro system is doomed. And the even more bitter truth is that given the way that system has been performing, Europe might be better off if it collapses sooner rather than later.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/opinion/the-hole-in-europes-bucket.html?_r=1
Sunday, October 23, 2011
THE FAMOUS 3 AM CALL
The Famous 3 am call and who do you want on the other end of the line?
Perry? really he is dumb,
Romney hard to get out of bed in silk pajama's.
Herman Cain, this isn't as easy as Pizza delivery.
Newt who knows who will sleeping next to him at the time?
Obama rid the world of Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al Awlaki, Moammor Qaddafi in six months, if he were a Republican he would be on Mt. Rushmore by now.
Lost no soldiers getting Qaddafi, or Al Awaki or Bin Laden by the way.
The 3 am phone call has been answered Jim, Obama!
Perry? really he is dumb,
Romney hard to get out of bed in silk pajama's.
Herman Cain, this isn't as easy as Pizza delivery.
Newt who knows who will sleeping next to him at the time?
Obama rid the world of Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al Awlaki, Moammor Qaddafi in six months, if he were a Republican he would be on Mt. Rushmore by now.
Lost no soldiers getting Qaddafi, or Al Awaki or Bin Laden by the way.
The 3 am phone call has been answered Jim, Obama!
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Biden
"Here in this school, your school, you've had a lot of teachers who used to work here, but because there's no money for them in the city, they're not working. And so what happens is, when that occurs, each of the teachers that stays have more kids to teach. And they don't get to spend as much time with you as they did when your classes were smaller.
"We think the federal government in Washington, D.C. should say to the cities and states, look, we're going to give you some money so that you can hire back all those people. And the way we're going to do it, we're going to ask people who have a lot of money to pay just a little bit more in taxes."
Who knew it was that easy?
So let's see if I follow the vice president's thinking: The school laid off these teachers because "there's no money for them in the city." That's true. York City School District is broke. It has a $14 million budget deficit.
So instead Washington, D.C., is going to "give you some money" to hire these teachers back. So, unlike York, Pa., presumably Washington, D.C., has "money for them"?
No, not technically. Washington, D.C., is also broke - way broker than York City School District. In fact, the government of the United States is broker than any entity has ever been in the history of the planet. Officially, Washington has to return 15,000,000,000,000 dollars just to get back to having nothing at all. And that 15,000,000,000,000 dollars is a very lowball figure that conveniently ignores another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that the government, unlike private businesses, is able to keep off the books.
So how come the Brokest Jurisdiction in History is able to "give you some money" to hire back those teachers that had to be laid off?
No problem, says the vice president. We're going to "ask" people who have "a lot of money" to "pay just a little bit more" in taxes. Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pa. But they're out there somewhere.
"We think the federal government in Washington, D.C. should say to the cities and states, look, we're going to give you some money so that you can hire back all those people. And the way we're going to do it, we're going to ask people who have a lot of money to pay just a little bit more in taxes."
Who knew it was that easy?
So let's see if I follow the vice president's thinking: The school laid off these teachers because "there's no money for them in the city." That's true. York City School District is broke. It has a $14 million budget deficit.
So instead Washington, D.C., is going to "give you some money" to hire these teachers back. So, unlike York, Pa., presumably Washington, D.C., has "money for them"?
No, not technically. Washington, D.C., is also broke - way broker than York City School District. In fact, the government of the United States is broker than any entity has ever been in the history of the planet. Officially, Washington has to return 15,000,000,000,000 dollars just to get back to having nothing at all. And that 15,000,000,000,000 dollars is a very lowball figure that conveniently ignores another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that the government, unlike private businesses, is able to keep off the books.
So how come the Brokest Jurisdiction in History is able to "give you some money" to hire back those teachers that had to be laid off?
No problem, says the vice president. We're going to "ask" people who have "a lot of money" to "pay just a little bit more" in taxes. Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pa. But they're out there somewhere.
This weekend marks the 20th anniversary of Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court. In his first two decades on the bench, Justice Thomas has established himself as the original Constitution's greatest defender against elite efforts at social engineering. His stances for limited government and individual freedom make him the left's lightning rod and the tea party's intellectual godfather. And he is only halfway through the 40 years he may sit on the high court.
Justice Thomas's two decades on the bench show the simple power of ideas over the pettiness of our politics. Media and academic elites have spent the last 20 years trying to marginalize him by drawing a portrait of a man stung by his confirmation, angry at his rejection by the civil rights community, and a blind follower of fellow conservatives. But Justice Thomas has broken through this partisan fog to convince the court to adopt many of his positions, and to become a beacon to the grass-roots movement to restrain government spending and reduce the size of the welfare state.
Clarence Thomas set the table for the tea party by making originalism fashionable again. Many appointees to the court enjoy its role as arbiter of society's most divisive questions—race, abortion, religion, gay rights and national security—and show little desire to control their own power. Antonin Scalia, at best, thinks interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning is "the lesser evil," as he wrote in a 1989 law journal article, because it prevents judges from pursuing their own personal policies. Justice Thomas, however, thinks that the meaning of the Constitution held at its ratification binds the United States as a political community, and that decades of precedent must be scraped off the original Constitution like barnacles on a ship's hull.
In United States v. Lopez (1995), which held unconstitutional a federal law banning guns in school zones as beyond Congress's powers, Justice Thomas called on the court to reverse decades of case law that had transformed the legislature's authority "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" into what he described as a limitless "police power." He would restrict federal laws to commercial activity that crosses state borders and end national control over manufacturing and agriculture.
Any case that allows Congress to regulate anything that has "a substantial effect" on interstate commerce "is but an innovation of the 20th century," wrote Justice Thomas in a concurring opinion. Taken to its conclusion, his view would drive a stake into the heart of the New Deal state, which would have to return policy over welfare, health care, education, labor and crime to the states where they belong. Tea partiers who oppose wasteful federal spending and want a smaller national government are following in Justice Thomas's intellectual footsteps.
Justice Thomas's two decades on the bench show the simple power of ideas over the pettiness of our politics. Media and academic elites have spent the last 20 years trying to marginalize him by drawing a portrait of a man stung by his confirmation, angry at his rejection by the civil rights community, and a blind follower of fellow conservatives. But Justice Thomas has broken through this partisan fog to convince the court to adopt many of his positions, and to become a beacon to the grass-roots movement to restrain government spending and reduce the size of the welfare state.
Clarence Thomas set the table for the tea party by making originalism fashionable again. Many appointees to the court enjoy its role as arbiter of society's most divisive questions—race, abortion, religion, gay rights and national security—and show little desire to control their own power. Antonin Scalia, at best, thinks interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning is "the lesser evil," as he wrote in a 1989 law journal article, because it prevents judges from pursuing their own personal policies. Justice Thomas, however, thinks that the meaning of the Constitution held at its ratification binds the United States as a political community, and that decades of precedent must be scraped off the original Constitution like barnacles on a ship's hull.
In United States v. Lopez (1995), which held unconstitutional a federal law banning guns in school zones as beyond Congress's powers, Justice Thomas called on the court to reverse decades of case law that had transformed the legislature's authority "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" into what he described as a limitless "police power." He would restrict federal laws to commercial activity that crosses state borders and end national control over manufacturing and agriculture.
Any case that allows Congress to regulate anything that has "a substantial effect" on interstate commerce "is but an innovation of the 20th century," wrote Justice Thomas in a concurring opinion. Taken to its conclusion, his view would drive a stake into the heart of the New Deal state, which would have to return policy over welfare, health care, education, labor and crime to the states where they belong. Tea partiers who oppose wasteful federal spending and want a smaller national government are following in Justice Thomas's intellectual footsteps.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Another Victory for Obama's Approach
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/world/africa/qaddafis-death-is-latest-victory-for-new-us-approach-to-war.html?_r=1&hp
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Smooth!
Romney had yet another solid debate performance. Rick Perry looked small by comparison. The likeable Herman Cain was careful with his critical comments - he'd like to be on Romney's short list for VP.
Of course, I will be voting for Obama, but I am more impressed with Romney each time I see him. He is a man among boys (and girl) on the debate stage. Very presidential.
Of course, I will be voting for Obama, but I am more impressed with Romney each time I see him. He is a man among boys (and girl) on the debate stage. Very presidential.
Building a World We Want to Live In
Years ago, I pointed out to the Good Doc that America would not always be the world's sole superpower. While preeminent, we should be building global institutions to make the world an agreeable place when that day comes. As China's economy grows, so too will it's military potential. As emerging markets develop, America's relative place grows smaller and the corridors of power more crowded. I think I said the size of China's economy would eclipse ours in about 2025. Of course, my B-I-L completely rejected my forecast and any effort to leverage our position through alliances and protocols.
Financial Times suggests that events are moving faster than forecast:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c73f10e-f8aa-11e0-ad8f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1b8f1J5cx
Financial Times suggests that events are moving faster than forecast:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c73f10e-f8aa-11e0-ad8f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1b8f1J5cx
Friday, October 14, 2011
No Reason to change the tax code
Warren Buffett made 62 Million Dollars last year and paid taxes on 39 Million!
Warren paid 17.4% tax rate on his taxable income.
Therefore Warren was able to shelter 23 million dollars from being taxed.
Explain this to middle America Jim and see if you get them to understand it. Get them to somehow see the fairness in our tax laws.
This is what the OCW street people see even if that can't verbalize it. The tax laws in this country are full of special loopholes, special exemptions, and has been paid for by lobbyists for the wealthy, this isn't class war, Jim it's common sense and common math.
Warren paid 17.4% tax rate on his taxable income.
Therefore Warren was able to shelter 23 million dollars from being taxed.
Explain this to middle America Jim and see if you get them to understand it. Get them to somehow see the fairness in our tax laws.
This is what the OCW street people see even if that can't verbalize it. The tax laws in this country are full of special loopholes, special exemptions, and has been paid for by lobbyists for the wealthy, this isn't class war, Jim it's common sense and common math.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Just Curious -- Huntsman
Jon Huntsman is smarter than the rest of the GOP field combined. Why is it that the Republicans cannot see this and embrace him as a candidate? He has the best shot at knocking off Obama. Isn't that the party mantra? Seems like a gentleman and a scholar to me. Might be a fine US President. Hello! Anybody home?
Quick Exit for Perry?
Last night was another poor debate performance by the one time darling of the right, Rick Perry. He admitted as much at a fraternity house after the event saying, "Debates are not my strong suit." In the same talk, he noted that our founding fathers "fought the revolution in the 16th century." His deer-in-the-headlights appearance and well hidden intellect have already worn thin on the campaign trail. He is an embarrassment.
Personally, I hope he hangs in there and spends his war chest softening up Romney for the general election. To the extent that Mitt has to protect his right flank, it will benefit President Obama. It will create great video to insert into attack ads. The GOP establishment is well aware of this and must be troubled. As the likes of Chris Christie, Dennis Hastert, and Judd Gregg quickly endorse the front runner, won't the money guys soon follow? Won't Perry's own contributors warn him off now that his place in the sun has so quickly passed?
The Texas governor may well get out before the first primary. It's already shaping up as Obama/Biden vs Romney/Rubio, which would be a great race if they were the only ones on the ballot. I expect the Tea Party will have something to say about that.
Personally, I hope he hangs in there and spends his war chest softening up Romney for the general election. To the extent that Mitt has to protect his right flank, it will benefit President Obama. It will create great video to insert into attack ads. The GOP establishment is well aware of this and must be troubled. As the likes of Chris Christie, Dennis Hastert, and Judd Gregg quickly endorse the front runner, won't the money guys soon follow? Won't Perry's own contributors warn him off now that his place in the sun has so quickly passed?
The Texas governor may well get out before the first primary. It's already shaping up as Obama/Biden vs Romney/Rubio, which would be a great race if they were the only ones on the ballot. I expect the Tea Party will have something to say about that.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The GOP's Religious Test
I had dinner with my (conservative Republican) mother last night and the conversation moved to the fundamentalist Christian attacks on her candidate, Mitt Romney. She simply couldn't understand how this had become an issue. She said, "George Romney never had a problem in Michigan. It was never a problem when Charles Percy (Christian Scientist) ran for Senate in Illinois."
I explained that this is how today's Republican Party operates. I told her the (mostly Southern) fundamentalist Christians form the base of her party and that Midwestern common sense had been replaced by Bible Belt intolerance. She is upset at this development and pointed out that Michael Medved said on his radio show that "Born Again Christians" are only about 26% of the American population. "The way they act, you would think they were the majority!" I told her they are, in fact, the effective majority - in her party.
My lifelong Republican mother is upset and offended by this turn of events. Canary in the coal mine?
I explained that this is how today's Republican Party operates. I told her the (mostly Southern) fundamentalist Christians form the base of her party and that Midwestern common sense had been replaced by Bible Belt intolerance. She is upset at this development and pointed out that Michael Medved said on his radio show that "Born Again Christians" are only about 26% of the American population. "The way they act, you would think they were the majority!" I told her they are, in fact, the effective majority - in her party.
My lifelong Republican mother is upset and offended by this turn of events. Canary in the coal mine?
Sunday, October 9, 2011
THE OCCUPY WALL STREET VS TEA PARTY
The similarities between "OWS' movement and The Tea Party are too great to ignore Jim.
Both are grass roots movements to a perceived coziness between government and big business both are fueled by frustration and suffering created by economic hardships.
Both are populist responses
Both have gained some institutional support. The Tea Party is the Right Wing loonies, and the Occupy Wall Street is the left wing loonies.
The Republican response is so hypocritical that "they OWS " have no right to protest while I guess the Tea Party does is ridiculous.
The biggest lie of the Tea Party is they are " non partisan" that doesn't even pass the laugh test as they promote Republican candidates.
I for one believe the Wall street crooks who passed on misery to the middle of America need to face tight restrictions. (Legally of course)
It is not right to take my deposits and gamble with them on risky ventures. American's need to move our money to credit unions and get out of these crooked banks. Will we do so I doubt it.
Mortgages should not be able to be cut up and sold. If the Bank thinks your credit worthy than hold the mortgage.
When I buy a stock I believe it is going up and if it don't I lose.
But what do I know I'm just middle class America one of the 99%.
Both are grass roots movements to a perceived coziness between government and big business both are fueled by frustration and suffering created by economic hardships.
Both are populist responses
Both have gained some institutional support. The Tea Party is the Right Wing loonies, and the Occupy Wall Street is the left wing loonies.
The Republican response is so hypocritical that "they OWS " have no right to protest while I guess the Tea Party does is ridiculous.
The biggest lie of the Tea Party is they are " non partisan" that doesn't even pass the laugh test as they promote Republican candidates.
I for one believe the Wall street crooks who passed on misery to the middle of America need to face tight restrictions. (Legally of course)
It is not right to take my deposits and gamble with them on risky ventures. American's need to move our money to credit unions and get out of these crooked banks. Will we do so I doubt it.
Mortgages should not be able to be cut up and sold. If the Bank thinks your credit worthy than hold the mortgage.
When I buy a stock I believe it is going up and if it don't I lose.
But what do I know I'm just middle class America one of the 99%.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The difference between the current "Wall Street" protests and the antiwar protests of the 60's? The antiwar protesters had something to protest against...outside of themselves.
The current protestors are just a whinny bunch of idiots asking...everything...for free.
What I love most is that sooner or later these idiots will turn against our leader who, as a community organizer, helped create their beliefs and circumstance.
Terry, they are the logical extension and outcome of your beliefs. Good job!
The current protestors are just a whinny bunch of idiots asking...everything...for free.
What I love most is that sooner or later these idiots will turn against our leader who, as a community organizer, helped create their beliefs and circumstance.
Terry, they are the logical extension and outcome of your beliefs. Good job!
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Next?
Chris Christie wisely stuck to his guns and will not run for the top job in 2012. So then, who will be the next darling of this borderline party? Donald Trump was atop the GOP polls for some time, as was the half-term governor, Sarah Palin. Michelle Bachmann (who opposed raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances) had her time in the sun, though Herman Cain (who never served in public office) seems to have eclipsed her for the moment. Rick Perry, would-be-president of secessionist Texas has fallen as quickly as he rose the polls. Ron Paul, advocate of the gold standard, has won many GOP straw polls and Ryan-Plan-dissing Newt Gingrich has been declared the winner of a couple of the debates.
So - with such a distinguished field, who will "win" the nomination? Who will be the Republican standard bearer after such giants as John McCain, George W Bush and Bob Dole? Will it be Mitt Romney, a skilled technocrat who eschews constancy of opinion? Who else could it possibly be? Can Mitt win the presidency with a disconsolate Tea Party and uninspired GOP base? Will Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann launch a third-party candidacy under the Gadsden flag? Will the party that has moved ever further to the right be able to coalesce around anyone electable? Could things be much worse for the GOP under what should be promising circumstances?
Looks like 4 more years of President Obama. Thank God.
So - with such a distinguished field, who will "win" the nomination? Who will be the Republican standard bearer after such giants as John McCain, George W Bush and Bob Dole? Will it be Mitt Romney, a skilled technocrat who eschews constancy of opinion? Who else could it possibly be? Can Mitt win the presidency with a disconsolate Tea Party and uninspired GOP base? Will Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann launch a third-party candidacy under the Gadsden flag? Will the party that has moved ever further to the right be able to coalesce around anyone electable? Could things be much worse for the GOP under what should be promising circumstances?
Looks like 4 more years of President Obama. Thank God.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
New Military Corp?
It is often said that that recruits enter the service as boys and leave as men. My Korean-War-era dad said as much about his own experience and thought that everyone would benefit from two years in the service.
Perhaps, we need to start an aggressive new "Reserve Corp" that will act as a finishing school of sorts in the US Military environment. Youth unemployment, particularly among minorities, is very high and there is much work that can be done in our cities and small towns (AFSCME won't be happy). The new corp ought to have lower admission standards than the regular military and offer half the pay. Build new Quonset huts across the country on excess federal property to house those for their two-year hitch.
The New Corp personnel would go through basic military training - just as the regular service - and go on to learn useful trades in today's economy. Basic remedial education would be available so that those without GED's will get them during their service and be able to continue to college after their service, should they wish. If they have a particularly successful two years, members could transfer to the regular military for a career.
Meanwhile, our infrastructure would benefit from the myriad repairs and improvements that New Corp would regularly provide in it's basic mission. We would have many more men and women under arms should the need arise. Social engineering? Yes - the best possible kind and a bargain for taxpayers by any measure.
Perhaps, we need to start an aggressive new "Reserve Corp" that will act as a finishing school of sorts in the US Military environment. Youth unemployment, particularly among minorities, is very high and there is much work that can be done in our cities and small towns (AFSCME won't be happy). The new corp ought to have lower admission standards than the regular military and offer half the pay. Build new Quonset huts across the country on excess federal property to house those for their two-year hitch.
The New Corp personnel would go through basic military training - just as the regular service - and go on to learn useful trades in today's economy. Basic remedial education would be available so that those without GED's will get them during their service and be able to continue to college after their service, should they wish. If they have a particularly successful two years, members could transfer to the regular military for a career.
Meanwhile, our infrastructure would benefit from the myriad repairs and improvements that New Corp would regularly provide in it's basic mission. We would have many more men and women under arms should the need arise. Social engineering? Yes - the best possible kind and a bargain for taxpayers by any measure.
U.S. Rep. David Schweikert was the toast of protesters Wednesday at a meeting with his constituents in Mesa, and he didn't mind at all.
Dressed in tuxedos and top hats, members of Billionaires for Wealthcare piled out a sleek black Cadillac Escalade to "thank" Schweikert for supporting the wealthy and even attempted to give him a present during the meeting.
They ladled out the sarcasm by drinking sparking water out of wine glasses.
The seven protesters chanted such slogans as "hey, hey, ho, ho, keep the profits with the CEOs" and sang, "All we are saying is give greed a chance."
The protesters burst into the meeting while Mesa Mayor Scott Smith was speaking, shouted a few slogans and tried to give Schweikert a gift before they were ushered out by Mesa police.
But Schweikert seemed anything but upset at the protesters, who have visited him at other constituent meetings in Fountain Hills and elsewhere.
"It actually amuses me. You have to give them credit for trying to be funny," Schweikert said before he outlined problems with the national debt in a slide presentation.
"I think it's great. It helps me tell the story of how out of touch" the protesters are on the Medicare issue, he said.
Schweikert added that he believes the protesters represent the extreme liberal fringe and upset moderate Democrats who want an honest dialogue about Medicare funding.
But protester Barbara Njos said she joined the protesters to spotlight Schweikert's positions on Medicare and other issues.
"I care about the middle class. I think I might be losing middle-class status sometime soon," she said. "It's because I care about people."
Dressed in tuxedos and top hats, members of Billionaires for Wealthcare piled out a sleek black Cadillac Escalade to "thank" Schweikert for supporting the wealthy and even attempted to give him a present during the meeting.
They ladled out the sarcasm by drinking sparking water out of wine glasses.
The seven protesters chanted such slogans as "hey, hey, ho, ho, keep the profits with the CEOs" and sang, "All we are saying is give greed a chance."
The protesters burst into the meeting while Mesa Mayor Scott Smith was speaking, shouted a few slogans and tried to give Schweikert a gift before they were ushered out by Mesa police.
But Schweikert seemed anything but upset at the protesters, who have visited him at other constituent meetings in Fountain Hills and elsewhere.
"It actually amuses me. You have to give them credit for trying to be funny," Schweikert said before he outlined problems with the national debt in a slide presentation.
"I think it's great. It helps me tell the story of how out of touch" the protesters are on the Medicare issue, he said.
Schweikert added that he believes the protesters represent the extreme liberal fringe and upset moderate Democrats who want an honest dialogue about Medicare funding.
But protester Barbara Njos said she joined the protesters to spotlight Schweikert's positions on Medicare and other issues.
"I care about the middle class. I think I might be losing middle-class status sometime soon," she said. "It's because I care about people."
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
We Are Perp Walking Kids Now
We have now arrested some high school kids for taking SAT tests for other kids, and we are perp walking them HANDCUFFED.
Wall Street yet to see anyone in handcuffs.
Angelo Mozilo countrywide insurance guy still walking around.
Is it real hard to see what's happening in this country when you handcuff kids for cheating and real white collar crime that ruined so many people's lives goes by the wayside.
Anyone else outraged !
Booing soldiers, yelling let people die without insurance, clapping for executions, my! my! my!
The race to the bottom is on!
Trivial you say I think not!
Wall Street yet to see anyone in handcuffs.
Angelo Mozilo countrywide insurance guy still walking around.
Is it real hard to see what's happening in this country when you handcuff kids for cheating and real white collar crime that ruined so many people's lives goes by the wayside.
Anyone else outraged !
Booing soldiers, yelling let people die without insurance, clapping for executions, my! my! my!
The race to the bottom is on!
Trivial you say I think not!
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Terry and Crazy Rich, feel free to comment...or apologize.
By ANN MARLOWE
It should no more be necessary to write this article than to prove that there were Jews killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. And yet the mythology refuses to die. Just last week, two well-educated and well-known writer acquaintances of mine remarked in passing on the "fact" that those who serve in the U.S. military typically have no other career options. America's soldiers, they said, were poor and black.
They don't mean this to denigrate their service—no, they mean it as a critique of American society, which turns its unemployed into cannon fodder. Especially today with high unemployment, the charge goes, hapless youths we fail to educate are embarking on a one-way trip to Afghanistan.
These allegations—most frequently leveled at the Army, the military's biggest service and the one with the highest casualty rate—are false.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576587244025371456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
It should no more be necessary to write this article than to prove that there were Jews killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. And yet the mythology refuses to die. Just last week, two well-educated and well-known writer acquaintances of mine remarked in passing on the "fact" that those who serve in the U.S. military typically have no other career options. America's soldiers, they said, were poor and black.
They don't mean this to denigrate their service—no, they mean it as a critique of American society, which turns its unemployed into cannon fodder. Especially today with high unemployment, the charge goes, hapless youths we fail to educate are embarking on a one-way trip to Afghanistan.
These allegations—most frequently leveled at the Army, the military's biggest service and the one with the highest casualty rate—are false.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903791504576587244025371456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
My BROTHER
I have a brother who is broke. He is not just broke, he is in debt! I know if I give him money he will spend it foolishly on cigarettes and booze, and not pay down his debt or look for meaningful work. I'm torn on what to do. Do I help him get a job that can help him out of debt and therefore help his family who is suffering also by no fault of their own. Do I send him money and put restrictions on what he can spend it on? A job won't work because he doesn't have the necessary school work, necessary tools to survive in the work force.
What is the right thing to do? I love my brother.
Tough Love you say! Really let him sleep under a bridge. I think not!
America is my brother! I love America, and if I have to sacrifice to have a better America, count me in! Those men who went to fight WW1 and WW2 did so for all of us, that was a generation that thought of others first.
Sadly that is not the Americans I see enough of today.
The don't tax me cowardly hides behind the " wasteful government mantra" Why don't they just come out and say the truth " I'm all about ME ME Me." Don't tax me I pay enough already, how much is too much to a country that has provided you and your parents with more than any country on earth has.
So what if someone in this country is getting food stamps and assistance REALLY!
Whine! because I'm pulling on the rope more than the others.
Thank God it isn't you.
We are in a hole, stop worrying about who dug it, who is to blame, whose not shoveling, start shoveling and get out of the hole, and that means all of us those with big shovels (rich) and those with small shovels (middle class) work together and help our fellow Americans.
If you truly love America and don't care who gets credit for turning this economy around you will know what the right thing to do is.
I'm sending a check to my brother today and few names of people who are hiring, and I'm hoping he gets things right this time.
What is the right thing to do? I love my brother.
Tough Love you say! Really let him sleep under a bridge. I think not!
America is my brother! I love America, and if I have to sacrifice to have a better America, count me in! Those men who went to fight WW1 and WW2 did so for all of us, that was a generation that thought of others first.
Sadly that is not the Americans I see enough of today.
The don't tax me cowardly hides behind the " wasteful government mantra" Why don't they just come out and say the truth " I'm all about ME ME Me." Don't tax me I pay enough already, how much is too much to a country that has provided you and your parents with more than any country on earth has.
So what if someone in this country is getting food stamps and assistance REALLY!
Whine! because I'm pulling on the rope more than the others.
Thank God it isn't you.
We are in a hole, stop worrying about who dug it, who is to blame, whose not shoveling, start shoveling and get out of the hole, and that means all of us those with big shovels (rich) and those with small shovels (middle class) work together and help our fellow Americans.
If you truly love America and don't care who gets credit for turning this economy around you will know what the right thing to do is.
I'm sending a check to my brother today and few names of people who are hiring, and I'm hoping he gets things right this time.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Truth
President Barack Obama’s debt reduction plan could be titled, The Audacity of Duplicity.
According to Obama, he is proposing $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years, with there being $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
Where to begin?
Half of the president’s claimed debt reduction comes from policies already in place. Obama says $1 trillion will be saved by winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, Obama wants credit for reducing debt that was never going to be incurred.
Another $1 trillion is from the agreement that was reached to increase the debt ceiling. But that agreement didn’t really reduce the debt by $1 trillion. It simply adopted future spending caps that would have that effect. However, there were no new laws adopted that would actually reduce spending. The caps are unenforceable promises to do something unspecific in the future.
Obama is actually only proposing $2.1 trillion in new stuff. Of that, nearly $1.6 trillion is increased taxes. So, he’s actually proposing $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts.
But that still doesn’t tell the real story. The “spending cuts” aren’t really all spending cuts. They are just things other than tax increases, and there’s over $135 billion in fee increases. Those may be warranted, but they aren’t spending cuts.
So, Obama actually is proposing over $1.7 trillion in additional federal revenue, making the ratio $4 in increased taxes and fees for every $1 in spending cuts.
But that still doesn’t tell the whole story. Obama, of course, is purposing increased stimulus spending now. Net, Obama is only proposing to decrease actual federal spending by about $245 billion over 10 years. So, the real ratio is $7 in increased taxes and fees for every $1 in actual spending cuts.
In short, Obama has proposed a massive tax increase while doing very little to control federal spending.
The bulk of the tax increases, $1.2 trillion, fall on individuals making over $200,000 a year. Supposedly, their tax treatment would only be returned to the levels prevailing during the Clinton prosperity, but that’s another bit of duplicity.
Obama proposes that the top two tax rates be returned to Clinton-era levels, but doesn’t stop there. He would also limit the deductions they take, which wasn’t the case during the Clinton bliss. And his health care bill already socked this group with an increase in payroll taxes of nearly 1 percent on wage income and an investment income tax increase of nearly 4 percent.
In short, Obama is advocating tax rates for those earning more than $200,000 a year much higher than the Clinton-era rates, which Bill Clinton himself described as too high.
This is supposedly so millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of tax filers has 16 percent of the country’s income, but pay 24 percent of all federal taxes and 35 percent of federal individual income taxes.
According to Obama mythology, millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than average Jacks and Jills. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent pays 18 percent of their income in federal income taxes. The middle quintile pays less than 3 percent. Those below that actually get more money back than they pay in.
Obama seems really worked up over the fact that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than wage income. But that’s not really the case. Dividends are taxed at the corporate level before they are distributed to individuals, when they are taxed again. Capital gains are taxed on their nominal value, ignoring the effect of intervening inflation.
If Obama were truly interested in a bipartisan down payment on debt reduction, he could have anchored his proposal in the recommendations of his debt commission. The debt commission, however, recommended about half of what Obama proposes in additional federal revenue and raised in a way that lowers rates across the board, including for millionaires and billionaires.
Obama’s interests, however, clearly lie elsewhere.
According to Obama, he is proposing $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years, with there being $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
Where to begin?
Half of the president’s claimed debt reduction comes from policies already in place. Obama says $1 trillion will be saved by winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, Obama wants credit for reducing debt that was never going to be incurred.
Another $1 trillion is from the agreement that was reached to increase the debt ceiling. But that agreement didn’t really reduce the debt by $1 trillion. It simply adopted future spending caps that would have that effect. However, there were no new laws adopted that would actually reduce spending. The caps are unenforceable promises to do something unspecific in the future.
Obama is actually only proposing $2.1 trillion in new stuff. Of that, nearly $1.6 trillion is increased taxes. So, he’s actually proposing $3 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts.
But that still doesn’t tell the real story. The “spending cuts” aren’t really all spending cuts. They are just things other than tax increases, and there’s over $135 billion in fee increases. Those may be warranted, but they aren’t spending cuts.
So, Obama actually is proposing over $1.7 trillion in additional federal revenue, making the ratio $4 in increased taxes and fees for every $1 in spending cuts.
But that still doesn’t tell the whole story. Obama, of course, is purposing increased stimulus spending now. Net, Obama is only proposing to decrease actual federal spending by about $245 billion over 10 years. So, the real ratio is $7 in increased taxes and fees for every $1 in actual spending cuts.
In short, Obama has proposed a massive tax increase while doing very little to control federal spending.
The bulk of the tax increases, $1.2 trillion, fall on individuals making over $200,000 a year. Supposedly, their tax treatment would only be returned to the levels prevailing during the Clinton prosperity, but that’s another bit of duplicity.
Obama proposes that the top two tax rates be returned to Clinton-era levels, but doesn’t stop there. He would also limit the deductions they take, which wasn’t the case during the Clinton bliss. And his health care bill already socked this group with an increase in payroll taxes of nearly 1 percent on wage income and an investment income tax increase of nearly 4 percent.
In short, Obama is advocating tax rates for those earning more than $200,000 a year much higher than the Clinton-era rates, which Bill Clinton himself described as too high.
This is supposedly so millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of tax filers has 16 percent of the country’s income, but pay 24 percent of all federal taxes and 35 percent of federal individual income taxes.
According to Obama mythology, millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than average Jacks and Jills. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent pays 18 percent of their income in federal income taxes. The middle quintile pays less than 3 percent. Those below that actually get more money back than they pay in.
Obama seems really worked up over the fact that investment income is taxed at a lower rate than wage income. But that’s not really the case. Dividends are taxed at the corporate level before they are distributed to individuals, when they are taxed again. Capital gains are taxed on their nominal value, ignoring the effect of intervening inflation.
If Obama were truly interested in a bipartisan down payment on debt reduction, he could have anchored his proposal in the recommendations of his debt commission. The debt commission, however, recommended about half of what Obama proposes in additional federal revenue and raised in a way that lowers rates across the board, including for millionaires and billionaires.
Obama’s interests, however, clearly lie elsewhere.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Great Piece on College Football Fandom
Worthy of posting on this blog, even though it is off topic.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?src=twrhp
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?src=twrhp
LET'S ALL PAY MORE TAXES, I'M IN !
No one in America can leave their home, eat a meal, make a phone call or even turn on their lights without paying some sort of regressive tax that is disproportionately effects the poor and working class more than the wealthy.
If you are born poor in the United States you probably will be getting sub standard education and less opportunity's and that is a undeniable fact.
We steadfastly refuse to to invest in anything that might help the poor to become viable and enter the workforce and possibly middle class, it is if we would rather see the nation fail rather than risk letting our neighbor's kid have it easier than we did.
You know what creates jobs in this country and others is a working class capable of making purchases. no one can deny the last ten years the wealthy have moved so beyond the middle class in income that adjustments need to be made.
Job creation, Revenue, and Healthy Economy can bring this country back.
I am middle class and am willing to pay more taxes if it means we can all recover but I don't hear this from the Tea party.
It's hard to get people to see personal sacrifice as a way for everyone to get better.
I came from the John Kennedy generation " ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country"
I know what everyone can do send a message to Washington we ALL will pay more taxes let's get rolling.
What have you got to say now TEA PARTY!!!!
If you are born poor in the United States you probably will be getting sub standard education and less opportunity's and that is a undeniable fact.
We steadfastly refuse to to invest in anything that might help the poor to become viable and enter the workforce and possibly middle class, it is if we would rather see the nation fail rather than risk letting our neighbor's kid have it easier than we did.
You know what creates jobs in this country and others is a working class capable of making purchases. no one can deny the last ten years the wealthy have moved so beyond the middle class in income that adjustments need to be made.
Job creation, Revenue, and Healthy Economy can bring this country back.
I am middle class and am willing to pay more taxes if it means we can all recover but I don't hear this from the Tea party.
It's hard to get people to see personal sacrifice as a way for everyone to get better.
I came from the John Kennedy generation " ask not what your country can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your country"
I know what everyone can do send a message to Washington we ALL will pay more taxes let's get rolling.
What have you got to say now TEA PARTY!!!!
Today our President declared war
He declared war on the Speaker, on the Republican and unfortunately the American people.
In a forceful speech, which finally demonstrated his stones, he outlined his ideas to reconcile our budget.
He plans to do so by increased central planning and increased taxes on a small portion of our population.
Mr. President:
The rich already pay the vast majority of taxes, now you want them to pay more? This is a good thing?
The rich already pay a higher percentage of their Income Taxes.
You are being disingenuous by talking about a lower tax rate for hedge fund managers who pay a lower capital gains rate.
You are just flat lying by ignoring that the possible rate of return of their investment is zero (loss).
You are, as always, being stupid by acting as if an economy which is starved for activity, will be better server by taxing capital gains at a higher rate.
You are being a central planner by calling for increased investment in the same speech that you called (apparently) for increased capital gains tax, logically implying that you want the government to do the investing.
In a forceful speech, which finally demonstrated his stones, he outlined his ideas to reconcile our budget.
He plans to do so by increased central planning and increased taxes on a small portion of our population.
Mr. President:
The rich already pay the vast majority of taxes, now you want them to pay more? This is a good thing?
The rich already pay a higher percentage of their Income Taxes.
You are being disingenuous by talking about a lower tax rate for hedge fund managers who pay a lower capital gains rate.
You are just flat lying by ignoring that the possible rate of return of their investment is zero (loss).
You are, as always, being stupid by acting as if an economy which is starved for activity, will be better server by taxing capital gains at a higher rate.
You are being a central planner by calling for increased investment in the same speech that you called (apparently) for increased capital gains tax, logically implying that you want the government to do the investing.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
5 DEFERMENT DICK CHENEY
Five time deferment Cheney in his new book knocks Colin Powell, and John McCain, who actually served in war time and were true American hero's. This guy has no shame and next to Robert McNamara is one of the all time America's worst. Headed up Haliburton and did not even know what they sold, and one of the most corrupt corporations in the United States.
Macho Dick served up Condaleeza as " crying" in his office, even if true it is not what a gentleman should say or worst write.
Dick Cheney book should be taken as a "supermarket tabloid" not a book written by a Vice President of the United States but what else would you expect from this a--h---.
OH! and by the way this brave American asked for and got an extension on his secret service protection after office, the only Vice President in History to do so.
Are you Afraid Dick? Oh I forgot 5 deferment Cheney your not afraid of anything. Torture, lying, and blaming everyone else is your legacy Dickie boy.
Macho Dick served up Condaleeza as " crying" in his office, even if true it is not what a gentleman should say or worst write.
Dick Cheney book should be taken as a "supermarket tabloid" not a book written by a Vice President of the United States but what else would you expect from this a--h---.
OH! and by the way this brave American asked for and got an extension on his secret service protection after office, the only Vice President in History to do so.
Are you Afraid Dick? Oh I forgot 5 deferment Cheney your not afraid of anything. Torture, lying, and blaming everyone else is your legacy Dickie boy.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Scandal! (or how I bankrupted our country with a multiplier)
The current administration has set a relative record for the absence of a scandal, until now, due primarily to the....Republicans! Usually the opposition party finds something to puff about, but the American people figure it, and it's irrelevance out (White water and Iran Contra come to mind).
This time, the opposition has focused laser like on the issue of our day, debt and the size and scope of government, and clearly drawn a distinction. We want reduced government, reduced government spending, self reliance, self responsibility, and low taxes.
They want, and their is no real controversy about our respective differences, government control, central planning, an ever enlarging safety net increased debt and higher taxes, mostly on the higher earners.
We want Capitalism, they want Socialism.
Which brings us to Solyndra, the $500,000,000 boondoggle. When we arrived at our economic peril, this administration, supported by a "progressive" Congress, decided to spend a vast amount of money to stimulate the economy. The opposition argued that the money would be better spent on broad based tax cuts, however this was dismissed because of the supposed "multiplier" effect of government spending.
The theory was that to resolve our economic mess, we needed a huge infusion of money (money we did and do not have) spent at the direction of our central government, which would be done so efficiently, it would (it is hard to write this without giggling) multiply its efficiency. "Studies" were cited showing its effectiveness. (funny, "studies" are used as a reason to propose reorganization of our life to prevent global warming...I mean climate change...(it never did warm, darn it).
Well how is that hope and change and multiplier effect working so far?
Our glorious leader decides to revive our country via...green energy jobs and taxes on the high earners. He/They are just so smart, they know what needs to be done, put money into bridges and clean energy jobs, except...there have been a minuscule number or green jobs created and....we still have "145" dangerous bridges which need to be fixed (according to our President) and if we love him we will pass his jobs bill.
However one might ask, um....Mr. President, why didn't we fix these bridges with the first stimulus bill? (and why do you so need to be loved?, but that is for another post.) Could it be, because central planning never works and it always leads to corruption? Wonder how many bridges we could have fixed for $500,000,000?
***********************
The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s Big Idea. It was the president’s intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.
To what end? Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.
No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance. Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. This is what crony capitalism is really all about: politicians enriching favored businesses, who then return the favor. Or maybe it’s the other way around, Who cares, really. It’s an endless, profitable loop for both.
And Obama almost pulled it off. The Great Recession conveniently allowed the president to start the spendathon under the guise of economic stimulus. As it turns out, the $38.6 billion loan program for clean energy firms that Solyndra benefited from has created just 3,545 permanent new jobs after parceling out half its dough. That works out to around $5 million a job.
It’s very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars. Those numbers don’t generally work. You don’t want to lose three dollars for every unit you make.
Unless, of course, American taxpayers make up the difference — though in the case of Solyndra, even government’s thumb on the scale wasn’t enough to save it. And it often isn’t enough when an investment’s goals are a fat political reward rather than a financial one.
“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”
That’s not how the private sector makes investment decision. But it’s routine for government where the stakeholders are politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and favored constituencies. The takers, not the makers. That’s whose side Obamanomics is on.
This time, the opposition has focused laser like on the issue of our day, debt and the size and scope of government, and clearly drawn a distinction. We want reduced government, reduced government spending, self reliance, self responsibility, and low taxes.
They want, and their is no real controversy about our respective differences, government control, central planning, an ever enlarging safety net increased debt and higher taxes, mostly on the higher earners.
We want Capitalism, they want Socialism.
Which brings us to Solyndra, the $500,000,000 boondoggle. When we arrived at our economic peril, this administration, supported by a "progressive" Congress, decided to spend a vast amount of money to stimulate the economy. The opposition argued that the money would be better spent on broad based tax cuts, however this was dismissed because of the supposed "multiplier" effect of government spending.
The theory was that to resolve our economic mess, we needed a huge infusion of money (money we did and do not have) spent at the direction of our central government, which would be done so efficiently, it would (it is hard to write this without giggling) multiply its efficiency. "Studies" were cited showing its effectiveness. (funny, "studies" are used as a reason to propose reorganization of our life to prevent global warming...I mean climate change...(it never did warm, darn it).
Well how is that hope and change and multiplier effect working so far?
Our glorious leader decides to revive our country via...green energy jobs and taxes on the high earners. He/They are just so smart, they know what needs to be done, put money into bridges and clean energy jobs, except...there have been a minuscule number or green jobs created and....we still have "145" dangerous bridges which need to be fixed (according to our President) and if we love him we will pass his jobs bill.
However one might ask, um....Mr. President, why didn't we fix these bridges with the first stimulus bill? (and why do you so need to be loved?, but that is for another post.) Could it be, because central planning never works and it always leads to corruption? Wonder how many bridges we could have fixed for $500,000,000?
***********************
The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama’s Big Idea. It was the president’s intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.
To what end? Well, Obama claimed his election would mark “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” But that was just the cover story. At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.
No wonder many Democratic strategists predicted their party’s 2008 landslide win would usher in a generation of political dominance. Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby – and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. This is what crony capitalism is really all about: politicians enriching favored businesses, who then return the favor. Or maybe it’s the other way around, Who cares, really. It’s an endless, profitable loop for both.
And Obama almost pulled it off. The Great Recession conveniently allowed the president to start the spendathon under the guise of economic stimulus. As it turns out, the $38.6 billion loan program for clean energy firms that Solyndra benefited from has created just 3,545 permanent new jobs after parceling out half its dough. That works out to around $5 million a job.
It’s very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars. Those numbers don’t generally work. You don’t want to lose three dollars for every unit you make.
Unless, of course, American taxpayers make up the difference — though in the case of Solyndra, even government’s thumb on the scale wasn’t enough to save it. And it often isn’t enough when an investment’s goals are a fat political reward rather than a financial one.
“The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad,” the Office of Management and Budget staff member wrote Jan. 31 in an e-mail to a co-worker. “If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will be arguably worse later than they would be today. . . . In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up.”
That’s not how the private sector makes investment decision. But it’s routine for government where the stakeholders are politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and favored constituencies. The takers, not the makers. That’s whose side Obamanomics is on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)