Monday, August 08, 2011
Obama, 8 Aug 2011
Last Friday the United States was downgraded by a rating agency for the first time in history. Markets world-wide reacted negatively. This morning, about 20 min. ago, Obama spoke in public for the first time on the event. His reaction: more of the same.
He gave his #@&*! campaign speech! Blame S&P, blame the Repubs and Tea Party, blame Europe, blame tsunamis. He said he'd lay out his plan for recovery "in the coming weeks" and would work with the supercommittee on crafting legislation to deal with the debt. The only ideas he set out with any specificity were to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend unemployment, "invest" in infrastructure. The man hasn't had a new idea since February 2009!
I hate to say it but our President is a useless piece of baggage and is doing more to exacerbate the problem than to solve it. November 2012 can't come soon enough.
(0) comments
He gave his #@&*! campaign speech! Blame S&P, blame the Repubs and Tea Party, blame Europe, blame tsunamis. He said he'd lay out his plan for recovery "in the coming weeks" and would work with the supercommittee on crafting legislation to deal with the debt. The only ideas he set out with any specificity were to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend unemployment, "invest" in infrastructure. The man hasn't had a new idea since February 2009!
I hate to say it but our President is a useless piece of baggage and is doing more to exacerbate the problem than to solve it. November 2012 can't come soon enough.
Labels: Debt, Deficit, Downgrade, Economy, Europe, Federal budget, Obama, Recession, Recovery, Republicans, Tax policy, Tea Party, Unemployment
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Budget Battles
In the face of all kinds of forecasts that predict fiscal disaster for the United States if current spending levels are allowed to continue, the Democrats in Congress, especially the Pelosi-Reid bloc, together with the President, are adamantly opposing any serious spending cuts. Apparently they believe that they can raise taxes to balance the budget, but at the rate we're borrowing, it will be impossible to balance the budget by raising taxes, because unless something is done, spending will exceed the GDP before too long.
This leads me to the regrettable conclusion that Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their followers either have the goal of bringing this country down, or they are imbeciles. I don't think they're imbeciles. Historically, when democracies have self-destructed they are inevitably replaced by dictatorships, going all the way back to ancient Rome. This sequence of events typically occurs during a crisis, and it appears that the aforementioned Democrats have created and are bent on perpetuating a fiscal crisis of epic proportions. This cannot be allowed to continue because it constitutes an existential threat to the United States of America that is at least the equal of anything that the Axis powers of WWII or the Soviet Union could have mounted.
Wake up! In the words of Thomas Paine, "These are times that try mens souls ...." Americans of all political persuasions need to acquaint themselves with the facts--ALL the facts, not just the ones they want to hear, then think hard about what future they wish for the United States and vote accordingly.
(0) comments
This leads me to the regrettable conclusion that Obama, Pelosi and Reid and their followers either have the goal of bringing this country down, or they are imbeciles. I don't think they're imbeciles. Historically, when democracies have self-destructed they are inevitably replaced by dictatorships, going all the way back to ancient Rome. This sequence of events typically occurs during a crisis, and it appears that the aforementioned Democrats have created and are bent on perpetuating a fiscal crisis of epic proportions. This cannot be allowed to continue because it constitutes an existential threat to the United States of America that is at least the equal of anything that the Axis powers of WWII or the Soviet Union could have mounted.
Wake up! In the words of Thomas Paine, "These are times that try mens souls ...." Americans of all political persuasions need to acquaint themselves with the facts--ALL the facts, not just the ones they want to hear, then think hard about what future they wish for the United States and vote accordingly.
Labels: Congress, Constitution, Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Economy, Federal budget, Financial crisis, History, Obama, Pelosi, politics, Reid, Republicans
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Throw the President Under The Bus
Let's face it, friends, we've elected as our President a narcissistic incompetent boob who makes Hamlet look decisive, and who's giving socialism a bad name. The man couldn't lead himself into a mens room, and his foreign policy consists of emboldening our enemies while simultaneously alienating our allies. He has made himself a national liability, and as Glenn Reynolds has repeatedly said, a reprise of the Carter years is now the best case scenario for the Obama administration.
If the Democrats in Congress are smart, they'll throw him under the bus and start working with the Repubs to solve the budget, debt and policy problems that are rapidly heading toward becoming an existential threat to our Republic. (Not that I have any hope for the likes of Reid and Pelosi.) This process has to be bipartisan, because if it's not, neither side will have the political courage to push what needs to be done to bring spending under control and allow the economy to reenergize itself. A cheap way to start would be to kill Cap 'n' Tax once and for all, get rid of Elizabeth Warren and her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and generally get out of the business of regulating everything at the Federal level. States need to have more power to manage their own affairs, because most of them are on the verge of going broke.
In order to have a zero-debt national budget, spending would have to be cut by at least 30 percent, and if you believe the Wikipedia article, more like 40 percent in FY 2012. That's on the order of a $1.5 trillion reduction in spending, yet Congress is wasting time and perfectly good oxygen arguing over whether to cut $6 billion (Dems) or $60 billion (Repubs) from spending in the current fiscal year. Let's use $50 billion as a compromise--let's see, that's 5 followed by 10 zeros divided by 15 followed by 11 zeros--canceling zeros ... 5 over 150 equals 3 and 1/3 percent, or .0333 of what needs to be cut in order to stop the national debt from growing. And Harry Reid and his buddies talk about "draconian" cuts proposed by the Repubs. Idiots! We need to get rid of whole departments!
Not that there's a shortage of idiocy floating around. The MSM won't report this because they're ideologically in bed with the Reids and Pelosis of the world, so voters, who have a vague idea that we have too much debt and are adding to it at the rate of some $4 billion a day, still don't grasp either the magnitude of the problem or how close we are to crashing. I know austerity is painful, but not as painful as a total fiscal collapse of the country.
All I can say is that our political class better start growing some cojones or we'll all be dumpster diving for dinner before we know it, because the crash will make the Great Depression seem like a kindergarten picnic.
(0) comments
If the Democrats in Congress are smart, they'll throw him under the bus and start working with the Repubs to solve the budget, debt and policy problems that are rapidly heading toward becoming an existential threat to our Republic. (Not that I have any hope for the likes of Reid and Pelosi.) This process has to be bipartisan, because if it's not, neither side will have the political courage to push what needs to be done to bring spending under control and allow the economy to reenergize itself. A cheap way to start would be to kill Cap 'n' Tax once and for all, get rid of Elizabeth Warren and her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and generally get out of the business of regulating everything at the Federal level. States need to have more power to manage their own affairs, because most of them are on the verge of going broke.
In order to have a zero-debt national budget, spending would have to be cut by at least 30 percent, and if you believe the Wikipedia article, more like 40 percent in FY 2012. That's on the order of a $1.5 trillion reduction in spending, yet Congress is wasting time and perfectly good oxygen arguing over whether to cut $6 billion (Dems) or $60 billion (Repubs) from spending in the current fiscal year. Let's use $50 billion as a compromise--let's see, that's 5 followed by 10 zeros divided by 15 followed by 11 zeros--canceling zeros ... 5 over 150 equals 3 and 1/3 percent, or .0333 of what needs to be cut in order to stop the national debt from growing. And Harry Reid and his buddies talk about "draconian" cuts proposed by the Repubs. Idiots! We need to get rid of whole departments!
Not that there's a shortage of idiocy floating around. The MSM won't report this because they're ideologically in bed with the Reids and Pelosis of the world, so voters, who have a vague idea that we have too much debt and are adding to it at the rate of some $4 billion a day, still don't grasp either the magnitude of the problem or how close we are to crashing. I know austerity is painful, but not as painful as a total fiscal collapse of the country.
All I can say is that our political class better start growing some cojones or we'll all be dumpster diving for dinner before we know it, because the crash will make the Great Depression seem like a kindergarten picnic.
Labels: Congress, Debt, Deficit, Democrats, Federal budget, government, Media inanity, Obama, Pelosi, politicians, politics, Reid, Republicans
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Suspicions Confirmed
For quite some time now, I have noted that the Democrats and Republicans have different definitions for the same terms. For example, to a Dem, "special interests" is more or less synonymous with "greedy corporations" and "Wall Street bankers" and "the rich", while to a Repub, the term means something like "big labor" and "welfare rights organizations" and "illegal immigration proponents."
The word "compromise" likewise has different meanings. Webster's first definition is "a settlement of differences by mutual adjustment or modification of opposing claims, principles, demands, etc.; agreement by mutual concession." By and large that's pretty much what a Repub means when he uses the word. It's my perception, however, that when a Dem calls for "compromise," what he really means is "you do it my way."
And so we come to an article in The Hill (online edition, 6 Nov 2010), headlined, "Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts."
Well, there you go.
(0) comments
The word "compromise" likewise has different meanings. Webster's first definition is "a settlement of differences by mutual adjustment or modification of opposing claims, principles, demands, etc.; agreement by mutual concession." By and large that's pretty much what a Repub means when he uses the word. It's my perception, however, that when a Dem calls for "compromise," what he really means is "you do it my way."
And so we come to an article in The Hill (online edition, 6 Nov 2010), headlined, "Obama calls for compromise, won't budge on tax cuts."
Well, there you go.
Labels: Democrats, Humor, Obama, politicians, Republicans
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Election Day!
First of all, GO VOTE! if you haven't already.
Second, I'm looking forward to a very interesting evening of return-watching. Might even be more entertaining than Jon Stewart's rally last weekend. All the pundits have been exhibiting a herd mentality in stating that "the folks" won't be voting for Republicans, but rather they'll be voting against Democrats. Some Dem pundits are spinning it a bit differently, saying the voters are revolting "against Washington," but I don't buy that because there are too many open seats that are going to the Repubs.
I generally agree with the pundits that the voters are down on the Dems, and that the Repubs better respond to the public mood or there'll be hell to pay in two years. It would not surprise me to see a center-right third party emerge if the Repubs don't toe the mark. A centrist third party would be a natural home for both the disenfranchised Dems who can't abide the Obama-Pelosi style statism and those Repubs who aren't big on social issues but want a return to fiscal responsibility and a coherent set of policies, both domestic and international.
(0) comments
Second, I'm looking forward to a very interesting evening of return-watching. Might even be more entertaining than Jon Stewart's rally last weekend. All the pundits have been exhibiting a herd mentality in stating that "the folks" won't be voting for Republicans, but rather they'll be voting against Democrats. Some Dem pundits are spinning it a bit differently, saying the voters are revolting "against Washington," but I don't buy that because there are too many open seats that are going to the Repubs.
I generally agree with the pundits that the voters are down on the Dems, and that the Repubs better respond to the public mood or there'll be hell to pay in two years. It would not surprise me to see a center-right third party emerge if the Repubs don't toe the mark. A centrist third party would be a natural home for both the disenfranchised Dems who can't abide the Obama-Pelosi style statism and those Repubs who aren't big on social issues but want a return to fiscal responsibility and a coherent set of policies, both domestic and international.
Labels: Democrats, Election, politicians, politics, Republicans
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Open Letter to Senator Lisa Murkowski
Dear Senator Murkowski,
BOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
Why do you think we have elections?
Last I looked, Senate seats aren't hereditary. The people have spoken--LISTEN TO THEM!!!
I hope you come in a distant third, with an embarrassingly low number of votes, like, maybe, you and your immediate family (with perhaps a couple of those voting for one of the other candidates).
Most sincerely,
ExRat
(0) comments
BOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
Why do you think we have elections?
Last I looked, Senate seats aren't hereditary. The people have spoken--LISTEN TO THEM!!!
I hope you come in a distant third, with an embarrassingly low number of votes, like, maybe, you and your immediate family (with perhaps a couple of those voting for one of the other candidates).
Most sincerely,
ExRat
Labels: Election, Murkowski, politicians, Republicans
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Republican Unity?
Yesterday the House passed the stimulus bill by a vote of 244-188, with all Repubs voting no, and as noted by Michelle Malkin, they "peeled off" 11 Dems to join them. I'm frankly surprised by this show of unity among the Repubs, partly because some of them are definitely more left-leaning than many Dems, and partly because Pres. Obama spent a bit of political capital wooing them, and being regarded well by any President is generally thought to be a good thing by House Members.
I suspect that the vote went the way it did not so much as a dis of Pres. O., but rather as a protest against the heavy-handedness of Speaker Pelosi, whose idea of bipartisanship is very close to "my way or the highway." It was probably talking points, but I heard several Repub Members on TV yesterday making the point that Republican input to the bill was absolutely nil. Frankly, I hope we see more of this kind of thing. Why should Repubs vote for any Dem-sponsored legislation when they are totally frozen out of the legislative process?
If they haven't already done so, Repub leadership should tell Pres. O that if he wants to have any hope whatsoever of Repub support for legislation he wants, he'd better prevail upon Pelosi and Sen. Majority Leader Reid to let the Repubs have an honest (as opposed to just for show) role in crafting the bills. The downside of this tack, of course, is lack of will among Repub Members and Senators who think "go along to get along" is more important than standing up for core beliefs.
I think this is a good political tactic if the Repubs believe that the stimulus package won't work, as they'll be able to say in 2010 and 2012 that however bad things might have been in January 2009, following the Dems' prescription only made the patient worse. If they're wrong about that ... well, people seem to think that "The 300" were heroes, even as they were massacred by the Persians.
(0) comments
I suspect that the vote went the way it did not so much as a dis of Pres. O., but rather as a protest against the heavy-handedness of Speaker Pelosi, whose idea of bipartisanship is very close to "my way or the highway." It was probably talking points, but I heard several Repub Members on TV yesterday making the point that Republican input to the bill was absolutely nil. Frankly, I hope we see more of this kind of thing. Why should Repubs vote for any Dem-sponsored legislation when they are totally frozen out of the legislative process?
If they haven't already done so, Repub leadership should tell Pres. O that if he wants to have any hope whatsoever of Repub support for legislation he wants, he'd better prevail upon Pelosi and Sen. Majority Leader Reid to let the Repubs have an honest (as opposed to just for show) role in crafting the bills. The downside of this tack, of course, is lack of will among Repub Members and Senators who think "go along to get along" is more important than standing up for core beliefs.
I think this is a good political tactic if the Repubs believe that the stimulus package won't work, as they'll be able to say in 2010 and 2012 that however bad things might have been in January 2009, following the Dems' prescription only made the patient worse. If they're wrong about that ... well, people seem to think that "The 300" were heroes, even as they were massacred by the Persians.
Labels: Congress, Democrats, Economy, Financial crisis, government, politics, Republicans, Stimulus
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Our 10% Congress
In the title I'm referring to the approximate percentage of people who, according to the polls, view Congress favorably. Even in the face of such abysmal approval ratings--I'd wager that lawyers, used car salesmen and meter maids score higher--the chances are that there will be no material change in the makeup of Congress after the upcoming election.
I believe there are several reasons for this, the most important being rampant gerrymandering of Congressional districts to make them as uncompetitive as possible. Another reason is that even though people rate Congress as an institution unfavorably, most voters like their own Representatives and Senators (duh! they get elected by majorities, usually) and it takes a major scandal or some other seismic event to unseat an incumbent. A third reason is that (I believe) people tend to vote for names that they recognize if they really don't know much about the candidates. For example, a Kennedy in Massachusetts or a Bayh in Indiana will win because many voters associate the name with a predecessor whose policies or personality they liked. This must be true to a significant degree because every challenger worries about getting name recognition, and every incumbent sends out mailers to make sure the voters remember their names.
So, although the Reps may recover some seats, perhaps even regain the majority in one or both houses (not bloody likely) and the Dems may increase their majorities, the overall performance of Congress is not likely to change much, unless the Dems achieve a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
If that should occur, you can expect Katy-bar-the-door enactment of all the pet Dem projects that they've been dreaming of since Clinton's first term, and given the Dem leadership you can expect them to ride roughshod over any Repub objections. The one silver lining in that situation will be that the Dems will not be able to blame the Repubs for anything that results, and that cold hard fact might cause some of them (the ones that actually care what happens to the country) to reign in some of their more ambitious impulses.
(0) comments
I believe there are several reasons for this, the most important being rampant gerrymandering of Congressional districts to make them as uncompetitive as possible. Another reason is that even though people rate Congress as an institution unfavorably, most voters like their own Representatives and Senators (duh! they get elected by majorities, usually) and it takes a major scandal or some other seismic event to unseat an incumbent. A third reason is that (I believe) people tend to vote for names that they recognize if they really don't know much about the candidates. For example, a Kennedy in Massachusetts or a Bayh in Indiana will win because many voters associate the name with a predecessor whose policies or personality they liked. This must be true to a significant degree because every challenger worries about getting name recognition, and every incumbent sends out mailers to make sure the voters remember their names.
So, although the Reps may recover some seats, perhaps even regain the majority in one or both houses (not bloody likely) and the Dems may increase their majorities, the overall performance of Congress is not likely to change much, unless the Dems achieve a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
If that should occur, you can expect Katy-bar-the-door enactment of all the pet Dem projects that they've been dreaming of since Clinton's first term, and given the Dem leadership you can expect them to ride roughshod over any Repub objections. The one silver lining in that situation will be that the Dems will not be able to blame the Repubs for anything that results, and that cold hard fact might cause some of them (the ones that actually care what happens to the country) to reign in some of their more ambitious impulses.
Labels: Congress, Democrats, Election, politics, polls, Republicans
Friday, September 26, 2008
Burnin' Down the House: How We Got Here
A friend emailed me a link to this video. It goes pretty fast, so use the pause button freely.
Whether or not you agree, it is consistent with stories that I have read in the Wall Street Journal. Remember, people tend to get the government they deserve.
Vote wisely!
(0) comments
Whether or not you agree, it is consistent with stories that I have read in the Wall Street Journal. Remember, people tend to get the government they deserve.
Vote wisely!
Labels: Banking, Democrats, Economy, Election, Financial crisis, Obama, politics, Regulation, Republicans, video
Saturday, September 13, 2008
What The 10 US Cities With The Highest Poverty Rates Have In Common
A friend of mine sent me an email with the following information. He didn't say where it came from so I dug around on the Web a bit and found it here. Read, and draw your own conclusions.
(0) comments
What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rates all have in common?
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;
Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;
Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;
El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;
Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;
Newark, NJ(10th)...since 1907.
Labels: Cities, Democrats, Election, politics, Republicans
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Bill Whittle's Proud of the GOP
Bill Whittle, of Eject! Eject! Eject! has an excellent essay at National Review Online about his renewed faith in the GOP. I enthusiastically commend it to you.
Whittle has been one of my favorite essayists over the years I've been reading blogs. His site isn't so much a blog as an online magazine. His writings are insightful, informative, easy to read and even inspiring. If you've never visited his site before please do so--you'll be glad you did.
BTW, the site's motto, "Ad astra volemus sella tonanti" means, "To the stars in a thundering chair."
You'll get it when you visit.
(0) comments
Whittle has been one of my favorite essayists over the years I've been reading blogs. His site isn't so much a blog as an online magazine. His writings are insightful, informative, easy to read and even inspiring. If you've never visited his site before please do so--you'll be glad you did.
BTW, the site's motto, "Ad astra volemus sella tonanti" means, "To the stars in a thundering chair."
You'll get it when you visit.
Labels: Election, McCain, politics, Republicans
