"Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all."
The President wants us to buy into what I label the "NPR fallacy." If you listen to NPR in the mornings you know that NPR tells an inordinate amount of stories. We hear pieces about the plight of Guatemalan bean farmers struggling to deal with pollution, rice farmers in the Yellow River valley in China who are taking advantage of China's new economic liberalization, and a mother of a teenager joining Sadr's popular freedom fighters in Iraq. In short: NPR tells you stories that adhere to the progressive narrative and, in doing so, want you to think that those individual stories reflect or represent the lives of people generally. Applying this principle to the President, he wants you to think that there are tens of thousands of businesses just like the window maker who benefited from receiving direct stimulus money (or indirect money from people who received tax credits) for installing more energy efficient windows. The successful window maker is a result that you can see. What you can't see is the reduction in disposable income experienced by EVERY TAXPAYER whose tax dollars went to subsidize that particular company's operations. We also don't see the employees who worked for Obama's window maker's competitors who lost their jobs because their competitor had an unfair advantage - in essence, a government-created monopoly. We don't see the effects on the people whose taxpayer money went to tax credits for those of certain income levels who used those credits (i.e. other people's money) to purchase those energy efficient windows nor the effect that the tax credit had on the recipient of the credit who should have saved his money (since the tax credit probably didn't cover the entire purchase) for a rainy day or for his retirement or for his child's education. We also don't see the effect on the other companies who would have been the recipient of the tax credit recipient's dollars had that recipient not spent the money on windows. The less revenue paid to those other companies not engaged in the business of window making also leads to higher unemployment in those areas of business.
Also, the direct stimulus and tax credit money created an artificial demand for a product that people didn't think they needed prior to the government's payout for those windows. If the product was desirable, then people would have purchased it prior to the government's subsidization. Because people purchased more energy efficient windows than what they needed, just to access the government subsidy, they had less money to spend on toasters, tires, and calculators.
Moreover, Obama's speech doesn't show the impact that diverting resources (ex. glass, steel, plastic) to the manufacture of energy efficient windows had on the manufacturers of other products that require glass, steel, or plastic for their components. The government subsidies would have increased the demand for those raw materials and that increase in demand, in turn, would have increased the cost of manufacturing all products utilizing those raw materials. Because of the increase in the cost of production, the manufacturers would have to increase the price of their products to compensate. The result is that, not only are taxpayers subsidizing the windows with their tax money, they also have to pay higher prices for everything else they want to buy.
Unintended and often harmful consequences are the inevitable result of progressive economic policies.
Thomas Paine
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
My thoughts on the SOTU Address - pt. 2
"Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)
But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost."
Why did this Administration have to shore up the banks when that was what TARP was supposed to accomplish? But, wait, some of the banks and Wall Street firms that supported hadn't yet received their spot at the government teat, so I guess Obama did have to "shore them up." As for "if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today," from what source did he receive his figures? [Note: for the record double the unemployment would be 18.8%]. It must be nice to live in a world in which no one can call you on what you do or have said in the past. If your ideas stink on ice and show the opposite of the results you promise, then simply say: "oh, but if I hadn't have done what I did, then things would have been so much worse." I expect that to be the Obama line when healthcare costs skyrocket under Obamacare and he says "but if Congress hadn't have passed healthcare reform then [pick as many as apply:] a. healthcare costs would be even higher; b. people would be dying in the streets; or c. our deficit would have skyrocketed and the economy would have tanked.
"So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all."
How, exactly, has the financial rescue program been more transparent and more accountable? When was the President going to let us know that the Federal Reserve had loaned money to large corporations and foreign banks? If we've recovered most of the money back from the banks, then when can I expect to receive my share of the return, with interest? Or is the President going to surprise us and say that he took all of the money and applied it to reduce our $14 trillion deficit?
"To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)"
First, why the biggest banks? What have they ever done to you Mr. President but give you humongous campaign contributions via their various PACs and individiual donors, helped write the financial reform bill you signed into law, and tacitly gave you a big fat target to demonize for political points? Why the biggest and not the smallest banks? What is the President's definition of "biggest" and "smallest?" Is he going to impose the fee via some executive order or regulation or is he actually going to encourage Democractic leaders in Congress to pass legislation aka follow the democratic process, unlike his recent environmental and internet regulations? If they have already paid back the money that we loaned them, then why should the federal government have any say in the amount of bonuses they pay and to whom they pay them? I can understand saying that TARP money comes with strings, but if we don't have that to hold over their heads, then why is the President engaging in the executive compensation regulation business? By the way, those fees that the government intends to pass on to the banks will simply be converted into fees that the banks pass on to their customers. In short, the banks can sit back and say: "fine us and demonize us all you want - we are still going to get paid."
"Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed."
"That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)"
Only a fool would proudly trumpet the fact that the government extended benefits for 18 million unemployed Americans. Those people are unemployed, in part, because of horrendous government policies that stifle innovation, create uncertainty, and discourage investment. They are no longer unemployment benefits if they continue for 3 years: those payments are WELFARE.
Also, notice that he says "save as many jobs as possible" and not "create jobs." He knows that all of the experts working outside of his Administration will gladly admit: no jobs have been created and the economy has suffered a net job loss in the millions since President Obama took office.
Now we come to a particular peeve of mine: THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT CUT TAXES. Instead, he has given tax credits to a large number of people. Often those tax credits came in the form of an extra $250.00 in the mail. Tax credits are not tax cuts. Tax credits take tax money from one group of people, the wealthy and those who pay taxes, and redistribute them to another group of people who have less income or fall into a certain demographic or socio-economic category. Tax cuts occur when a person pays fewer taxes to the government. They don't occur when the government takes your money then gives back a portion of it to you.
But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost."
Why did this Administration have to shore up the banks when that was what TARP was supposed to accomplish? But, wait, some of the banks and Wall Street firms that supported hadn't yet received their spot at the government teat, so I guess Obama did have to "shore them up." As for "if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today," from what source did he receive his figures? [Note: for the record double the unemployment would be 18.8%]. It must be nice to live in a world in which no one can call you on what you do or have said in the past. If your ideas stink on ice and show the opposite of the results you promise, then simply say: "oh, but if I hadn't have done what I did, then things would have been so much worse." I expect that to be the Obama line when healthcare costs skyrocket under Obamacare and he says "but if Congress hadn't have passed healthcare reform then [pick as many as apply:] a. healthcare costs would be even higher; b. people would be dying in the streets; or c. our deficit would have skyrocketed and the economy would have tanked.
"So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all."
How, exactly, has the financial rescue program been more transparent and more accountable? When was the President going to let us know that the Federal Reserve had loaned money to large corporations and foreign banks? If we've recovered most of the money back from the banks, then when can I expect to receive my share of the return, with interest? Or is the President going to surprise us and say that he took all of the money and applied it to reduce our $14 trillion deficit?
"To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)"
First, why the biggest banks? What have they ever done to you Mr. President but give you humongous campaign contributions via their various PACs and individiual donors, helped write the financial reform bill you signed into law, and tacitly gave you a big fat target to demonize for political points? Why the biggest and not the smallest banks? What is the President's definition of "biggest" and "smallest?" Is he going to impose the fee via some executive order or regulation or is he actually going to encourage Democractic leaders in Congress to pass legislation aka follow the democratic process, unlike his recent environmental and internet regulations? If they have already paid back the money that we loaned them, then why should the federal government have any say in the amount of bonuses they pay and to whom they pay them? I can understand saying that TARP money comes with strings, but if we don't have that to hold over their heads, then why is the President engaging in the executive compensation regulation business? By the way, those fees that the government intends to pass on to the banks will simply be converted into fees that the banks pass on to their customers. In short, the banks can sit back and say: "fine us and demonize us all you want - we are still going to get paid."
"Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed."
"That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)"
Only a fool would proudly trumpet the fact that the government extended benefits for 18 million unemployed Americans. Those people are unemployed, in part, because of horrendous government policies that stifle innovation, create uncertainty, and discourage investment. They are no longer unemployment benefits if they continue for 3 years: those payments are WELFARE.
Also, notice that he says "save as many jobs as possible" and not "create jobs." He knows that all of the experts working outside of his Administration will gladly admit: no jobs have been created and the economy has suffered a net job loss in the millions since President Obama took office.
Now we come to a particular peeve of mine: THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT CUT TAXES. Instead, he has given tax credits to a large number of people. Often those tax credits came in the form of an extra $250.00 in the mail. Tax credits are not tax cuts. Tax credits take tax money from one group of people, the wealthy and those who pay taxes, and redistribute them to another group of people who have less income or fall into a certain demographic or socio-economic category. Tax cuts occur when a person pays fewer taxes to the government. They don't occur when the government takes your money then gives back a portion of it to you.
Quotes of the day - Thomas Jefferson
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Thursday, January 27, 2011
My thoughts on the 2011 State of the Union Address - pt. 1
Last night's State of the Union address was fairly uninspiring even, I presume, for the President's fans. Don't get me wrong: it will provide a temporary boost in his approval ratings, mainly because it was designed to allow the President do what he does best - CAMPAIGN. That said, I want to break down the President's remarks and give my take on what he said:
"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -- immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."
One year later, and our country is still amid two wars, albeit one is winding down, primarily because of Obama's adherence to Pres. Bush's previous withdrawal timeline. Hey - with a presidency that has offered such few reasons to cheer, can you blame Obama for wanting to steal Bush's thunder? A-stan is much worse off than when Obama took office: the direct result of a failure to grant the general on the ground (McChrystal) what he requested (instead, sending a paltry "surge" of only 40% of the original troop increase request), the lack of a clear mission (one that has vacillated from hunting down Bin Laden and defeating the Taliban to eliminating all Al Qaeda elements to transforming A-stan into a democracy to whatever it is currently), and implementing rules of engagement which tie our troops' hands behind their backs. The withdrawal of our troops is scheduled to begin in July, yet considering the instability of current A-stan leadership and the mounting death toll, I don't see that happening.
That said, the more important part of this paragraph is the phrase "the worst of the storm has passed." Really. Is that what you believe, Mr. President? I ask because the Congressional Budget Office wholeheartedly disagrees:
"The United States faces daunting economic and budgetary challenges. The economy has struggled to recover from the recent recession: The pace of growth in output has been anemic compared with that during most other recoveries and the unemployment rate has remained quite high. Federal budget deficits and debt have surged in the past two years, owing to a combination of the severe drop in economic activity, the costs of policies implemented in response to the financial and economic problems, and an imbalance between revenues and spending that predated the recession. Unfortunately, it is likely that a return to normal economic conditions will take years, and even after the economy has fully recovered, a return to sustainable budget conditions will require significant changes in tax and spending policies." Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 Through 2021, http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039.
That doesn't sound like the storm has passed. The President may point to that whopping .4% drop in unemployment to its current 9.4% as indication of a turnaround in our nation's jobless rate misfortunes, yet the experts contend that this small drop is attributable to discouraged job seekers' decisions to give up the hunt (since people who are unemployed and not actively seeking emplyment are not included in the official unemployment numbers).
"For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now."
Here the President reopens the old "Hope and Change" toolbox. He also returns to his familiar expressions of empathy for average Americans. What I find most interesting is that the President's myopia prevents him from seeing what's right under his nose: in fact, he mentions it in his speech. "[Americans] don't understand...why Washington has been unable...to solve any of our problems." The answer to this question, one that increasingly larger numbers of Americans are discovering, is that Washington is unable to solve our problems PERIOD.
"You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, 'We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.
It's because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise."
This is Obama's halftime speech. He envisions himself as a progressive Knute Rockne standing on a stool in the locker room, rallying the Irish, who sit there - bruised, beaten, discouraged, heads hung low - for a tremendous second-half comeback. The problem, though, is that the President's game plan isn't up to the task. As I will explain in tomorrow's post, instead of making those eponymous "second-half adjustments" that we hear about from football commentators, Obama decides to stick with the same halfback dives that have been woefully unsuccessful and, in fact, are what have undermined any hope of a real recovery.
"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -- immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."
One year later, and our country is still amid two wars, albeit one is winding down, primarily because of Obama's adherence to Pres. Bush's previous withdrawal timeline. Hey - with a presidency that has offered such few reasons to cheer, can you blame Obama for wanting to steal Bush's thunder? A-stan is much worse off than when Obama took office: the direct result of a failure to grant the general on the ground (McChrystal) what he requested (instead, sending a paltry "surge" of only 40% of the original troop increase request), the lack of a clear mission (one that has vacillated from hunting down Bin Laden and defeating the Taliban to eliminating all Al Qaeda elements to transforming A-stan into a democracy to whatever it is currently), and implementing rules of engagement which tie our troops' hands behind their backs. The withdrawal of our troops is scheduled to begin in July, yet considering the instability of current A-stan leadership and the mounting death toll, I don't see that happening.
That said, the more important part of this paragraph is the phrase "the worst of the storm has passed." Really. Is that what you believe, Mr. President? I ask because the Congressional Budget Office wholeheartedly disagrees:
"The United States faces daunting economic and budgetary challenges. The economy has struggled to recover from the recent recession: The pace of growth in output has been anemic compared with that during most other recoveries and the unemployment rate has remained quite high. Federal budget deficits and debt have surged in the past two years, owing to a combination of the severe drop in economic activity, the costs of policies implemented in response to the financial and economic problems, and an imbalance between revenues and spending that predated the recession. Unfortunately, it is likely that a return to normal economic conditions will take years, and even after the economy has fully recovered, a return to sustainable budget conditions will require significant changes in tax and spending policies." Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 Through 2021, http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039.
That doesn't sound like the storm has passed. The President may point to that whopping .4% drop in unemployment to its current 9.4% as indication of a turnaround in our nation's jobless rate misfortunes, yet the experts contend that this small drop is attributable to discouraged job seekers' decisions to give up the hunt (since people who are unemployed and not actively seeking emplyment are not included in the official unemployment numbers).
"For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now."
Here the President reopens the old "Hope and Change" toolbox. He also returns to his familiar expressions of empathy for average Americans. What I find most interesting is that the President's myopia prevents him from seeing what's right under his nose: in fact, he mentions it in his speech. "[Americans] don't understand...why Washington has been unable...to solve any of our problems." The answer to this question, one that increasingly larger numbers of Americans are discovering, is that Washington is unable to solve our problems PERIOD.
"You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, 'We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.
It's because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise."
This is Obama's halftime speech. He envisions himself as a progressive Knute Rockne standing on a stool in the locker room, rallying the Irish, who sit there - bruised, beaten, discouraged, heads hung low - for a tremendous second-half comeback. The problem, though, is that the President's game plan isn't up to the task. As I will explain in tomorrow's post, instead of making those eponymous "second-half adjustments" that we hear about from football commentators, Obama decides to stick with the same halfback dives that have been woefully unsuccessful and, in fact, are what have undermined any hope of a real recovery.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Reminder: John Holdren is still a crazy eugenicist
Click on this link and read about John Holdren's admiration of a scientist who said this: "Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs."
And this: "First, man can discourage unfit persons from breeding. Second, he can encourage breeding by those persons who are judged fit on the basis of physical and mental testing and examinations of the records of their ancestors."
And this: "Priorities for artificial insemination could be given to healthy women of high intelligence whose ancestors possessed no dangerous genetic defects. Conversely, priorities for abortions could be given to less intelligent persons of biologically unsound stock.
Such steps would undoubtedly contribute substantially to a slowing down of species deterioration. But it is clear that they would by no means be sufficient. A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."
And to think that this nut may have had some input into the President's healthcare reform bill or healthcare policy. I shudder at the thought...
And this: "First, man can discourage unfit persons from breeding. Second, he can encourage breeding by those persons who are judged fit on the basis of physical and mental testing and examinations of the records of their ancestors."
And this: "Priorities for artificial insemination could be given to healthy women of high intelligence whose ancestors possessed no dangerous genetic defects. Conversely, priorities for abortions could be given to less intelligent persons of biologically unsound stock.
Such steps would undoubtedly contribute substantially to a slowing down of species deterioration. But it is clear that they would by no means be sufficient. A broad eugenics program would have to be formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."
And to think that this nut may have had some input into the President's healthcare reform bill or healthcare policy. I shudder at the thought...
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Oh, BTW, Fidel Castro agrees with the Left: The AZ Shooting is the conservatives' fault.
I'm sure that this knowledge will thrill those in the Sean Penn crowd, but how does it make the Leftists that consider themselves merely liberal or progressive and who have blamed the same target?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Loughner and the Right and/or Loughner and anything remotely political: 9 days and still no connection has been made
As a slew of weekly publications prepare to unleash a fusillade of snuff pieces on the country, nine days after the tragic events in Arizona, no one has come forth with any evidence that Jared Loughner's murder of 6 innocents was even remotely connected to anything political. There is no evidence that he listened to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, or any other conservative talk radio host. There is no evidence that Loughner saw Sarah Palin's crosshaired map or its Democratic counterpart. There is no evidence that he heard the slew of the bellicose or violence-themed metaphors utilized by the President of the United States. On the other hand, we have seen the eyewitness accounts of Loughner's madness, the apolitical nature of his rantings, and the dearth of political-based influences in his thinking. Only one source has been produced: an Internet movie called Zeitgeist which is replete with groundless and schizophrenic conspiracy theories about everything from Christianity to the New World Order. In the meantime, the Leftist media either a) contorts itself, using a priori justifications and causational fallacies, in a pathetic attempt to create non-existent links between Loughner and the Right; or b) it calls for a universal introspection and self-flagellation arising out of all of the "vitriolic rhetoric," - a term that has been repeated ad nauseam this week - implying that such speech indirectly contributed to the shooting deaths. In short, Loughner didn't kill those people: it was the thrice-damned right wingers and their hate speech or it is the general ambience of hate created by those same conservative pundits that did it.
Do not be fooled: the Left is not including its own hotheaded, invective-spewing journalists in that group. How many times in the last week has the press mentioned anyone other than the 4 people listed above, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin? If the environment created by confrontational political speech fueled Loughner's decision to take lives, then how can you not include the Keith Olbermanns and the Ed Schultzes of the world in the mix?
Moreover, there are a number of underpinning accusations that Loughner was anti-government and, hence, has a connection to the Tea Party. Gabrielle Giffords' father, God bless his soul, blamed the Tea Partiers. The fact that Giffords was "targeted" by Sarah Palin on the now infamous crosshairs map and that she is a Congresswoman are frequently used to make that feeble link. Such arguments show a fundamental misunderstanding and, in fact, a willful ignorance of post-2008 politics. The Tea Party has never been violent and has never called for the overthrow of the government. Leftist anarchists - like Loughner - have. Speaking of anarchy, why hasn't anyone tried to make a connnection to Wikileaks? After all, Julian Assange is an admitted anarchist who wants nothing more than to throw the world into political chaos - something that sounds like it was birthed in the darkest depths of Loughner's madness.
Lastly, when the media calls for everyone to question the type and quality of their political speech, it's being disingenuous and coy. It doesn't mean everyone: it means the Right. Why? The voices of the Right and the Administration are the only voices being heard right now. The mainstream media, including those at MSNBC, walk in lock step with the Administration and serve as its propaganda wing. Certainly, the MSM is not calling for its members to engage in self-censorship nor does it want the President and his minions to tone down their efforts to advocate on behalf of their Leftist agenda and policies. If anything the MSM will continue fomenting the Administration's arguments and commentary, including its attacks on the opposition. Oh, but if it is able to silence the opposition or, at least, get the small-government, lower-taxes crowd to worry about the consequences of their speech or that they will be condemned for causing the death of a 9 year old girl - in short, if it is able to impose a chilling effect on the only voices not in agreement with the Messiah - then they will have achieved their goal.
Do not be fooled: the Left is not including its own hotheaded, invective-spewing journalists in that group. How many times in the last week has the press mentioned anyone other than the 4 people listed above, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin? If the environment created by confrontational political speech fueled Loughner's decision to take lives, then how can you not include the Keith Olbermanns and the Ed Schultzes of the world in the mix?
Moreover, there are a number of underpinning accusations that Loughner was anti-government and, hence, has a connection to the Tea Party. Gabrielle Giffords' father, God bless his soul, blamed the Tea Partiers. The fact that Giffords was "targeted" by Sarah Palin on the now infamous crosshairs map and that she is a Congresswoman are frequently used to make that feeble link. Such arguments show a fundamental misunderstanding and, in fact, a willful ignorance of post-2008 politics. The Tea Party has never been violent and has never called for the overthrow of the government. Leftist anarchists - like Loughner - have. Speaking of anarchy, why hasn't anyone tried to make a connnection to Wikileaks? After all, Julian Assange is an admitted anarchist who wants nothing more than to throw the world into political chaos - something that sounds like it was birthed in the darkest depths of Loughner's madness.
Lastly, when the media calls for everyone to question the type and quality of their political speech, it's being disingenuous and coy. It doesn't mean everyone: it means the Right. Why? The voices of the Right and the Administration are the only voices being heard right now. The mainstream media, including those at MSNBC, walk in lock step with the Administration and serve as its propaganda wing. Certainly, the MSM is not calling for its members to engage in self-censorship nor does it want the President and his minions to tone down their efforts to advocate on behalf of their Leftist agenda and policies. If anything the MSM will continue fomenting the Administration's arguments and commentary, including its attacks on the opposition. Oh, but if it is able to silence the opposition or, at least, get the small-government, lower-taxes crowd to worry about the consequences of their speech or that they will be condemned for causing the death of a 9 year old girl - in short, if it is able to impose a chilling effect on the only voices not in agreement with the Messiah - then they will have achieved their goal.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Obama Administration is using taxpayer $ to manipulate Google searches regarding healthcare
The Democrats have been guilty of doing this in the past: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/us/politics/26googlebomb.html?_r=1
This was also a tactic that was employed by BP in an effort to manipulate public opinion concerning the oil spill:http://www.examiner.com/political-spin-in-national/bp-buys-google-yahoo-search-words-is-it-to-keep-people-from-real-news-on-gulf-oil-spill-disaster
This was also a tactic that was employed by BP in an effort to manipulate public opinion concerning the oil spill:http://www.examiner.com/political-spin-in-national/bp-buys-google-yahoo-search-words-is-it-to-keep-people-from-real-news-on-gulf-oil-spill-disaster
Why our nation never learns from the mistakes of the past: Case Study One - Government-backed home mortgages
From Henry Hazlitt, Economic in One Lesson:
"The case against government-guaranteed loans and mortgages to private businesses and persons is almost as strong as, though less obvious than, the case against direct government loans and mortgages. The advocates of government-guarantee mortgages also forget that what is being lent is ultimately real capital, which is limited in supply, and that they are helping identified B at the expense of some unidentified A. Government-guarantee home mortgages, especially when a neglible down payment or no down payment or no down payment, whatever is required, inevitably means more bad loans than otherwise. They force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. They encourage people to "buy" houses that they cannot really afford. They tend eventually to bring about an oversupply of houses as compared with other things. They temporarily overstimulate building, raise the cost of building for everybody (including the buyers of the homes with the guaranteed mortgages), and may mislead the building industry into an eventually costly overexpansion. In brief, in the long run they do not increase overall national production but encourage malinvestment."
Sounds like a nice and consise summary of the subprime meltdown/housing market crisis right, right? You would think that until you learn that this was written IN 1946..
The role of government subsidies in the recent housing crisis is fully detailed in Thomas Sowell's Housing Boom and Bust. However, suffice it to say that the government, through the Federal Reserve, artificially reduced interest rates to all time lows instead of letting those interest rates be determined by market forces which lean toward the most efficient distribution of capital (capital, in this case, being the money that is invested by banks in the form of mortgage loans); expanded the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in purchasing risky loans which encouraged banks to make more of them; gave incentives to banks to give home loans to low-income applicants who, otherwise, would not have been able to afford those loans (the results of which are apparent in the obscene amount of foreclosures) and, in fact, threatened them with litigation should they fail to gave a certain proportion of loans to minorities; and, indirectly, created a market for investment products that betted against mortgagors' abilities to make their payments on those risky loans.
Both political parties bear some of the blame. The mistakes of the Clinton administration are well-documented, but President George W. Bush also pushed the idea of home ownership for all and Sen. Mitch McConnell suggested "providing government-backed, 4% fixed mortgage to any creditworthy borrower." Sen. Barbara Boxer advocated on behalf of, Sen. Harry Reid endorces, and Congressmen John Conyers and Dick Durbin introduced legislation, to allow bankruptcy judges to modify loans on principal residences. As Sowell notes and as Hazlitt points out repeatedly in his discussion of the fallacy of failing to look at long-term consequences, "how empowering judges to void legally-binding contracts would affect the future willingness of lenders to lend to millions of other people was a subject not addressed." Warnings were given by a number of credible sources. The Economist warned in 2003 that US house prices would fall 10% within the next four years and, in 2005, warned again that US house prices had reached "dangerous levels" and that the whole world economy was at risk. In 2003, then U.S. Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow asked Congress to "enact legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise" Fannie and Freddie. Snow was prophetic: in 2005, he testified before the same Congressional committee that securities issued by Fannie and Freddie were "out there in the marketplace, held by all sorts of financial institutions - insurance companies, pension plans, community banks, thrifts [and] commercial banks" and that "if something unravels, it could cause systemic risk to the whole financial system." In 2003, Robert J. Samuelson, a Newsweek columnist wrote that about 3000 banks held Fannie and Freddie "debt equal to all their capital." There were many more warnings, all of which went unheeded as homeowners basked in the warm glow of first-time home ownership or having bought their dream home. Congress didn't get it until the crash had occurred. Then, suddenly, every one of them that was involved in the problem, became a bunch of know-nothings or sought ways to blame their political opponents.
"The case against government-guaranteed loans and mortgages to private businesses and persons is almost as strong as, though less obvious than, the case against direct government loans and mortgages. The advocates of government-guarantee mortgages also forget that what is being lent is ultimately real capital, which is limited in supply, and that they are helping identified B at the expense of some unidentified A. Government-guarantee home mortgages, especially when a neglible down payment or no down payment or no down payment, whatever is required, inevitably means more bad loans than otherwise. They force the general taxpayer to subsidize the bad risks and to defray the losses. They encourage people to "buy" houses that they cannot really afford. They tend eventually to bring about an oversupply of houses as compared with other things. They temporarily overstimulate building, raise the cost of building for everybody (including the buyers of the homes with the guaranteed mortgages), and may mislead the building industry into an eventually costly overexpansion. In brief, in the long run they do not increase overall national production but encourage malinvestment."
Sounds like a nice and consise summary of the subprime meltdown/housing market crisis right, right? You would think that until you learn that this was written IN 1946..
The role of government subsidies in the recent housing crisis is fully detailed in Thomas Sowell's Housing Boom and Bust. However, suffice it to say that the government, through the Federal Reserve, artificially reduced interest rates to all time lows instead of letting those interest rates be determined by market forces which lean toward the most efficient distribution of capital (capital, in this case, being the money that is invested by banks in the form of mortgage loans); expanded the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in purchasing risky loans which encouraged banks to make more of them; gave incentives to banks to give home loans to low-income applicants who, otherwise, would not have been able to afford those loans (the results of which are apparent in the obscene amount of foreclosures) and, in fact, threatened them with litigation should they fail to gave a certain proportion of loans to minorities; and, indirectly, created a market for investment products that betted against mortgagors' abilities to make their payments on those risky loans.
Both political parties bear some of the blame. The mistakes of the Clinton administration are well-documented, but President George W. Bush also pushed the idea of home ownership for all and Sen. Mitch McConnell suggested "providing government-backed, 4% fixed mortgage to any creditworthy borrower." Sen. Barbara Boxer advocated on behalf of, Sen. Harry Reid endorces, and Congressmen John Conyers and Dick Durbin introduced legislation, to allow bankruptcy judges to modify loans on principal residences. As Sowell notes and as Hazlitt points out repeatedly in his discussion of the fallacy of failing to look at long-term consequences, "how empowering judges to void legally-binding contracts would affect the future willingness of lenders to lend to millions of other people was a subject not addressed." Warnings were given by a number of credible sources. The Economist warned in 2003 that US house prices would fall 10% within the next four years and, in 2005, warned again that US house prices had reached "dangerous levels" and that the whole world economy was at risk. In 2003, then U.S. Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow asked Congress to "enact legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise" Fannie and Freddie. Snow was prophetic: in 2005, he testified before the same Congressional committee that securities issued by Fannie and Freddie were "out there in the marketplace, held by all sorts of financial institutions - insurance companies, pension plans, community banks, thrifts [and] commercial banks" and that "if something unravels, it could cause systemic risk to the whole financial system." In 2003, Robert J. Samuelson, a Newsweek columnist wrote that about 3000 banks held Fannie and Freddie "debt equal to all their capital." There were many more warnings, all of which went unheeded as homeowners basked in the warm glow of first-time home ownership or having bought their dream home. Congress didn't get it until the crash had occurred. Then, suddenly, every one of them that was involved in the problem, became a bunch of know-nothings or sought ways to blame their political opponents.
Sarah Palin is wrong for using the term "blood libel"
For the record, Sarah Palin exercised very poor judgment in choosing use such an emotionally charged term like "blood libel" to describe how she was being blamed by the Left for the recent Arizona shooting deaths. The media has, indeed, been slanderous and libelous, but why inject a term that offends so many Jews? For a definition of why the term is so offensive to Jews, click this link which gives an exhaustive history of the term, including its origins and instances of blood libel claims over the centuries: http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/blood_libel.htm. The only possible reasoning I can see behind it is that Palin is trying to identify herself (and other conservatives) with the conditions and suffering of Jews who, over the years, were blamed for murders they didn't commit. It certainly is hyperbole on her part and I wonder who was the staff member or speech writer that suggested she use the term or included it in the speech she read.
Hezbollah withdraws from Lebanese government
I just read an AP piece from last Wednesday that reported that Hezbollah representatives withdrew from the Lebanese government over a U.S.-backed faction's insistence on initiating tribunals over the 2005 car bombing death of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. The opposing faction is led by Hariri's son, Saad. The move is expected to cause the Lebanese government to devolve into a state of chaos.
3 points:
1. Is chaos worse than having members of a terrorist organization controlling your government?
2. The AP reporters that authored this piece made an interesting observation: "The U.S. classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organization." Although that statement is true, it also presumes that there are people who do NOT consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. If the authors weren't making that presumption, then why not just say "Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed terrorist organization?" Similarly, it implies (or, rather, I infer) that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization because of our country's system of classification and not because Hezbollah sets of car bombs, engages in hijacking and kidnapping, and otherwise performs the functions of a terrorist organization.
3. One sentence contained in the piece is particularly telling: "France, Lebanon's former colonial power, is a major player in Lebanese politics."
This short sentence explains so much...
3 points:
1. Is chaos worse than having members of a terrorist organization controlling your government?
2. The AP reporters that authored this piece made an interesting observation: "The U.S. classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organization." Although that statement is true, it also presumes that there are people who do NOT consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. If the authors weren't making that presumption, then why not just say "Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed terrorist organization?" Similarly, it implies (or, rather, I infer) that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization because of our country's system of classification and not because Hezbollah sets of car bombs, engages in hijacking and kidnapping, and otherwise performs the functions of a terrorist organization.
3. One sentence contained in the piece is particularly telling: "France, Lebanon's former colonial power, is a major player in Lebanese politics."
This short sentence explains so much...
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thom Hartmann Compares Beck and O'Reilly to Bin Laden - Says their intentions are to activate lone wolf terrorists
I've heard of this guy, but never listened to his show. Now I see why. I'm trying to find the origin of this term or, at least, who was the first to apply it to conservative talk radio hosts. Hartmann probably got it from the DailyKos where G2Geek used it in a January 10, 2001: "Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:Triggering-the-shooters. I could spend my time addressing the Left's lunacy, but I found this post FROM HARTMANN'S OWN BLOG, that does the topic justice:
(from rickrack)
"I've searched the internet for Thom's claim that the FBI has used the term "stochastic terrorism." Please find a reference for that claim. I couldn't. The FBI has used stochastic processes for DNA analysis and risk assessment. Both may be related to terrorism but do not mean what Thom means: broadcasting a message that incites bin Laden's minions or the crazies to violent acts.
It's a wonderful meme but I think you should leave the FBI out of it. I watched the ex-FBI chief of the behavioral sciences unit on the Charlie Rose show. He is much more inclined to the mental illness theory Thom advocated yesterday without linking it to the catalyst of hate speech. Although liberal negative speech (Thom doesn't want to call it hate speech but it often appears to be such) hasn't been linked to violence lately, it would take just one crazy person who has a book by Thom Hartmann or Noam Chomsky in his library and then goes out to shoot up a bank or a former job office or school to make it a moot point. You can't depend on schizophrenics to restrict their violence to the right-wing point of view. That's crazy!
Stochastic terrorism is an excellent talk show talking point but meaningless or even dangerous in the long run. If 1 out of a million people acts on the message being broadcast, that's pretty low odds for advertising. It wouldn't sell many products. If we held those who write books accountable for the thoughts of those who then act violently, we might find that even the most innocuous children's books should be banned.
Even what I'm writing now might embolden some pure leftist to write a political tract advocating violence against some authority figure or institution. Should I then be held responsible for what I've written. Should I have self-consored this comment and not written it?"
In short, hey Lefties: stop inventing terms in a woefully inadequate attempt to sound intelligent when you libel those on the Right. Will anyone call them on their stupidity? Aren't these the same people that defend to the death a rapper's right to use the n-word in every sentence of every lyric, call all women b!tches and hoes, advocate the murder of policemen, and commit a number of other atrocities to women, homosexuals, white people, and President Bush? Talking about hypocrisy...
(from rickrack)
"I've searched the internet for Thom's claim that the FBI has used the term "stochastic terrorism." Please find a reference for that claim. I couldn't. The FBI has used stochastic processes for DNA analysis and risk assessment. Both may be related to terrorism but do not mean what Thom means: broadcasting a message that incites bin Laden's minions or the crazies to violent acts.
It's a wonderful meme but I think you should leave the FBI out of it. I watched the ex-FBI chief of the behavioral sciences unit on the Charlie Rose show. He is much more inclined to the mental illness theory Thom advocated yesterday without linking it to the catalyst of hate speech. Although liberal negative speech (Thom doesn't want to call it hate speech but it often appears to be such) hasn't been linked to violence lately, it would take just one crazy person who has a book by Thom Hartmann or Noam Chomsky in his library and then goes out to shoot up a bank or a former job office or school to make it a moot point. You can't depend on schizophrenics to restrict their violence to the right-wing point of view. That's crazy!
Stochastic terrorism is an excellent talk show talking point but meaningless or even dangerous in the long run. If 1 out of a million people acts on the message being broadcast, that's pretty low odds for advertising. It wouldn't sell many products. If we held those who write books accountable for the thoughts of those who then act violently, we might find that even the most innocuous children's books should be banned.
Even what I'm writing now might embolden some pure leftist to write a political tract advocating violence against some authority figure or institution. Should I then be held responsible for what I've written. Should I have self-consored this comment and not written it?"
In short, hey Lefties: stop inventing terms in a woefully inadequate attempt to sound intelligent when you libel those on the Right. Will anyone call them on their stupidity? Aren't these the same people that defend to the death a rapper's right to use the n-word in every sentence of every lyric, call all women b!tches and hoes, advocate the murder of policemen, and commit a number of other atrocities to women, homosexuals, white people, and President Bush? Talking about hypocrisy...
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Pima County Sheriff Department knew that Loughner made previous death threats
Could it be that Pima County Sheriff Dupnik's putting the blame on Rush Limbaugh and call to end the violent rhetoric was a ploy to cover up his own department's failure to act?
I'M BACK!
After spending too much time blogging/commenting on other websites, I realized a few things: 1) I was spending too much blogging on other websites; 2) the format on many of those sites is very similar to a chat room in that you have very limited space to make a meaningful post, you spend much of your time trying to limit the amount of characters you use via abbreviations, acronyms, etc., and the temptation is to just take potshots at the post to which you are responding because of the limitations on size; and 3) people on the Left are not willing to set aside their ideologies and listen to facts. This fact is no better displayed then in the reactions of the Left to the horrific events in Arizona this past weekend. The immediate response of the Leftist media was to blame the Right, even though there were absolutely no facts to support a finding that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was motivated by anything he heard, saw, or read from the Right. Others took a different tact: instead of directly blaming the Right and conservative media, they attributed it to vitriolic rhetoric. "Vitriolic rhetoric" is the Left's way of saying: "the Right" or "conservative media." A nine year old girl and 5 other people died, for God's sake. 12 other people were wounded. Show some respect. Don't try to capitalize on their misery for political gain, especially when you have to grope blindly in the dark to find something worthwhile to include in your idiotic screeds.
Speaking of being opportunistic, it took less than a day for the Progressives to give their typical response: guns and certain words and symbols (not people, mind you, but guns and free speech) kill people, so we have to ban them. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy said that she was going to introduce a bill this past Monday (she made this comment on Sunday) that would impose stricter bans on handguns. Do you think she might have already drafted that bill and kept it tucked away somewhere waiting for the right opportunity? Do you think that her staff was able to, during the weekend and after the shooting (basically on a Sunday), just pull that bill out of thin air? As "Dead Fish" Rahm Emanuel would say: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) thought that it was a good idea to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress. Now, no one wants anyone to threaten or incite violence against a federal official, but Congressman Brady seems to not understand that he is trampling on the First Amendment when he suggests that. By the way, Congressman, who is going to be the person that makes the decision? A Commerce Department bureaucrat? Someone who will be part of a new agency called, perhaps, the Federal Bureau of Dangerous Language and Symbols? A little too Orwellian for me, thank you.
I realized very quickly after this weekend that I had had enough of endless arguing with liberals who fail to set aside their scripts and talking points long enough to survey the evidence. It was time to make a change. In short, it is very, VERY good to be back and I look forward to being able to rant with abandon and achieve a modicum of catharsis by posting again on this blog. Come join me!
Speaking of being opportunistic, it took less than a day for the Progressives to give their typical response: guns and certain words and symbols (not people, mind you, but guns and free speech) kill people, so we have to ban them. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy said that she was going to introduce a bill this past Monday (she made this comment on Sunday) that would impose stricter bans on handguns. Do you think she might have already drafted that bill and kept it tucked away somewhere waiting for the right opportunity? Do you think that her staff was able to, during the weekend and after the shooting (basically on a Sunday), just pull that bill out of thin air? As "Dead Fish" Rahm Emanuel would say: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) thought that it was a good idea to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress. Now, no one wants anyone to threaten or incite violence against a federal official, but Congressman Brady seems to not understand that he is trampling on the First Amendment when he suggests that. By the way, Congressman, who is going to be the person that makes the decision? A Commerce Department bureaucrat? Someone who will be part of a new agency called, perhaps, the Federal Bureau of Dangerous Language and Symbols? A little too Orwellian for me, thank you.
I realized very quickly after this weekend that I had had enough of endless arguing with liberals who fail to set aside their scripts and talking points long enough to survey the evidence. It was time to make a change. In short, it is very, VERY good to be back and I look forward to being able to rant with abandon and achieve a modicum of catharsis by posting again on this blog. Come join me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)