It's called moral hazard folks; along with an implicit government guarantee that allows these financial firms to raise capital more cheaply than their competitors. All the more reason to never have bailed them out in the first place, or barring that, nationalizing them.
in reference to: Newsvine - Watchdog: Bailouts created more risk in system (view on Google Sidewiki)Sunday, January 31, 2010
Torture Lawyers avoid punishment
As much as I hate these guys, I think it's best to just let 'em go and fade into obscurity. Yoo in particular is a slimy little twat, but we have larger fish to fry and reviving this at this time is pointless.
in reference to: Newsvine - Report: No sanctions for lawyers who OK'd torture (view on Google Sidewiki)Amazon - Macmillan kerfluffle...
Over the past 15 years, I've probably spent $15k at Amazon. I love everything about it. The staggering choices that are offered, the Prime shipping model, everything. It's the first place I go when I'm looking for something - anything.
This time, they're wrong. Like any company that becomes too big, they risk losing a little bit of what makes them great. They almost lost me when they removed the ability to call support and talk to a human being (I still hate them for that), and they've continued a quite illogical policy of not allowing me to read stuff I purchased from their own Mobipocket site on my Kindle.
Now, they're responding to Apple's announcement of the iPad with predictable ham-handedness. In my opinion, the Kindle is now dead. The minute I get an iPad, I'll be offering my Kindle for sale to the highest bidder. Thing is, it should never have been about the Kindle for Amazon; it should have been about the content. They're already providing software versions of the Kindle reader - which is awesome because you can read Kindle books anywhere. This is the key people, it's Gilette 101.
Alienating the publishers (and by extension the authors) isn't going to help Amazon. Yanking Macmillan's books from the website smacks of a truculent child and makes me angry. Amazing to see such a technologically sophisticated company make such stupid moves. This is how Sony fucked up in the 80's and 90's. Amazon (and Apple) would take care to remember this.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
What next, a tax on air?
And the Democrats wonder why people are fed up with them. At what point do you just stop spending? And yes, it will mean cutbacks in the form of layoffs, but guess what? That's what companies all over the country are doing. You hunker down in bad times. Trying to tax your way out of the enormous hole you've allowed to exist by growing government at several times the rate of inflation is asinine. Keep it up and watch the GOP sodomize you in the 2010 midterms. And, as much as I hate 'em, they're a hundred times better than these assholes.
in reference to: Why the Soda Tax May Drive Some to Drink - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Thursday, January 28, 2010
Article on obstructionist teachers unions
I'm somewhat speechless; clearly we're no longer thinking about the kids, just union votes. Truly amazing, selfish, and irresponsible.
in reference to: Why We're Failing Our Schools - TIME (view on Google Sidewiki)NYT Opinionator on Alito/Obama
And if someone from the "right" had spoken as, shall we say it, disingenuously as Obama did on the Supreme Court Citizens United opinion, the "left" would be apoplectic.
Let's face it, whether through ignorance or political calculation, Obama lied.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
NYT's Bob Herbert on Obama
Normally I find Bob Herbert's column to be as enjoyable as walking into my house after a long day at work and finding that my dog has defecated on the floor.
That said, when Bobby's right, he's right. He calls Obama out for broken campaign promises and ineffectual rhetoric. Nobody's had the guts (other than some renegade senator from South Carolina) to say what a lot of are thinking - Obama lied. Plain and simple. Human rights? Fuggedaboudit!!! Civil Liberties? Please! Health Care reform? I'll hand that off to my "moderate" buddies in the House to figure out.
Herbert's got it right - Obama is, so far at least - all hat and no cattle, if you'll kindly pardon the Bushism!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Krugman's "endorsement" of Bernanke
Funny, I went to the federal reserve website after searching for their mission - found it, right out there in front of God and everyone. Funny thing - it doesn’t, in any of the points proffered, indicate that the Fed’s job is to monitor and smooth unemployment - to wit:
Today, the Federal Reserve’s duties fall into four general areas:
* conducting the nation’s monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
* supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation’s banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
* maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
* providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation’s payments system
Doesn’t explicitly call for protecting consumers either for that matter, other than indirectly by ensuring that financial institutions are regulated and that price stability is maintained…
I'm just sayin'...
in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The Bernanke Conundrum - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
Sunday, January 24, 2010
WSJ article on California Unions
When Willie Brown indicates the unions are outta control - you know you got a problem folks. I hope they start the layoffs if they don't accept cuts.
in reference to:"My hope is that these and other reforms find support in unlikely places. Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, a well-known liberal voice, recently wrote this in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But we politicians—pushed by our friends in labor—gradually expanded pay and benefits . . . while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages. . . . [A]t some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact.""
- Steven Greenhut: Public Employee Unions Are Sinking California - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
Sense of Entitlement?
Actually, the banks are entitled to maximize profits for their shareholders as agreed to by their respective corporate boards. They've repaid the bailout monies (some were forced to participate you know), and should no longer be persecuted.
If you want to propose new bank regulations, that's fine, see if you've got the votes and and if you do ram it through. That's the prerogative of the Congress, but let's quit this talk of fees and windfall bonuses.
And while we're at it, what about some fees levied against GM and Chrysler and add some extra taxes against UAW workers so that they can repay their "entitlements"?
Frank Rich - clearly delusional...
Not a referendum on Obama
Not a rejection of health care reform
Not a harbinger of resurgent GOP
Clearly Rich is dining with his elite Leftist friends on a heaping portion of denial.
Obama and Dems are in beaucoup trouble, and all the wishful thinking in the world won't change the fact that Americans have completely repudiated the policy initiatives of the last year.
It's also enlightening to see that every Progressive columnist will whine, rend their garments, and gnash their teeth at the Bank/AIG bailouts, not a damn one of them rail against the giveaways to the slimy UAW.
As much as the Republicans suck (and they do), I'd feel a helluva lot better with them running the government than these assholes. They'll spend their time working about things like Terry Schiavo, not taxing and spending the country into the poor house.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Flight Diverted over prayer?
This sort of behavior just illustrates what a lot of us have long suspected - the "Terrorists" have already won. At some point during the disastrous Bush administration, we abdicated all common sense and civil liberties in favor of a parochial government that would protect us.
I would ask one question - is this making us safer?
NYT on mortgage mods...
Pretty much like clockwork, here comes the Times again asking for a bailout of irresponsible mortgage holders. The moron alarm clock just went off again - here's your editorial folks!
Seriously, the Times runs some version of this editorial about every 30 days. When will people realize this isn't gonna happen? Here's how you get me to support it - get my mortgage modified too! Long as it's across the board, I'm down with it, and it beats the hell out of the other forms of stimulus/porkulous that Team Obama has tried!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Sports Guy on this weekend's playoffs...
Love the way he captures the ongoing, soul-crushing existence that is being a Browns fan.
in reference to:"JETS-VIKINGSVegas odds: 9-1.Enjoyable/poignant/fascinating subplots in play: Favre, Allen, Childress/"Hoarders," Ryan/Fat Curse, Sanchez/Plunkett, J-E-T-S Jets Jets JETS!!!!!!!! ... Former Jets teammates being unable to resist taking shots at Favre. ... Darrelle Revis versus Sidney Rice. ... The greatest matchup of uniform colors in Super Bowl history. ... Seeing blast-from-the-past throwback jerseys all week in South Beach (good ones like Al Toon, Sammy White, Joe Klecko, Tommy Kramer and the like) ... And, obviously, can Minnesota win its first Super Bowl?Potentially horrifying media day subplot that hasn't been mentioned yet: Someone making a "Have you ever walked into a kitchen holding a 12-pack and been ambushed by Chris Hansen?"-type joke to Brad Childress, followed by Childress vaulting his podium and pummeling him.Annoying subplots in play: Brett Favre backlash, "Pants on the Ground," Spygate, Lopez (see above).Funniest subplot: Let's say someone out there likes the Jets and Vikings. I know, random. But this person might exist. Let's say he bought a Favre/Jets jersey last season. And let's say he plans on attending Super Bowl XLIV while wearing that jersey. Wouldn't that be the greatest moment in sports bigamy history?Saddest subplot: That same sports bigamist getting pummeled to death by Jets fans after a gut-wrenching 24-20 loss.U.S. rooting breakdown: Dead even. With passion both ways. Gotta love the anti-Favre demo on one side and the anti-New York demo on the other.Possibility of a memorable game: Off the charts. Can't be calibrated. Only a Bills-Vikings or Browns-Vikings Super Bowl would have more significant "Whatever happens, one of these two effed-up fan bases is coming away as a Super Bowl champion and there's nothing we can do to stop it" potential. The Jets, Bills, Vikings and Browns are the Mount Rushmore of effed-up NFL fan bases: 50-plus years of history, lots of losing and misery, generations of fans and some particularly soul-crushing heartbreaks (in my Levels of Losing 2.0 column, those three franchises probably nailed every level combined). You can't root for any of these teams without having them infect your DNA in some way. Being a Saints fan hasn't exactly been a barrel of laughs, but there's a spiritual optimism about them -- something tied to the festiveness of Bourbon Street, Mardi Gras and the city in general -- that was beaten out of the Jets/Bills/Vikes/Browns fans a long time ago. Saints fans roll with the punches. Jets/Bills/Vikes/Browns fans expect to get punched, contort their faces into a giant wince, wait for a punch that never comes, say to themselves, "Cool, I'm not gonna get punched, it's gonna be OK!" ... and then they get clocked.So having two of the Effed-Up Mount Rushmore teams as our Super Bowl matchup could potentially end the world as we know it. CBS should promote it, "Super Bowl XLIV: We Know It's Improbable, But Trust Us, Somebody Has To Win."Of course, if you flip to Page 281 of your Sports Can Never Be Quite As Fun As We Want It To Be Manual, you'll notice Rule IV: "Any time there's an incredible matchup looming, forces will usually conspire to make it NOT happen." Just in the past six years, we were robbed of a Red Sox-Cubs World Series in 2003, a LeBron-Kobe finals in 2009, the Nadal-Federer rematch at Wimbledon 2009, Pacquiao-Mayweather I and Pats-Colts for the 2007 AFC title (when the Pats were 17-0). Throw in the 9-1 odds and a Jets-Vikes Super Bowl doesn't look so hot. Whatever. For once, the NFL final four doesn't have a potential lemon. Savor this weekend."
- Bill Simmons: NFL picks for conference championships - ESPN (view on Google Sidewiki)
More on Supreme Court ruling...
He conveniently did not call out the Unions that he's consistently catered to since taking office - guess they're doing God's work...
in reference to:"President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”"
- Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
GOP - party of No?
As I understand it, Gregg's proposal is a Congressional commission that would do exactly what the Chosen One's committee would do, the difference being that whatever came out of it:
Could not be amended
Would require a simple up/down vote requiring 2/3 majority to pass
In fact, it would reduce the potential for parliamentary shenanigans from either party. Unfortunately, this is Pravda, whoops, I mean the Times, and if Obama wants it, it must be good for everyone right?
Supreme Court ruling on corporate political spending
Is this the same Obama that said he'd avail himself of Public financing only to reverse that when he realized how much it'd cost him? There are some people I know who would say he lied.
in reference to:"Congress and members of the public who care about fair elections and clean government need to mobilize right away, a cause President Obama has said he would join. Congress should repair the presidential public finance system and create another one for Congressional elections to help ordinary Americans contribute to campaigns. It should also enact a law requiring publicly traded corporations to get the approval of their shareholders before spending on political campaigns. These would be important steps, but they would not be enough. The real solution lies in getting the court’s ruling overturned. The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy."
- Editorial - The Court’s Blow to Democracy - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
Krugman's Paean to Healthcare reform
Paul's gone around the bend here. He's actually urging House Democrats to commit political suicide in the name of serving their countries. People as a general rule don't vote against their own interests. As Sinclair Lewis said (paraphrase) it's hard to convince someone that something's wrong when their livelihood depends that something.
More importantly, Krugman continues to represent what I hate most about the Liberal/Progressive agenda and Democrats in particular. Namely, that he and his elitist "comrades" seem to think that they know what's best for me and the country, even when we've told him/them time and again that we don't want what they're pushing. Krugman and other representatives of the "Nanny" state (Bloomberg and salt), want to take care of us, regulating what we do, how we drive, what we eat, where we get healthcare, how we raise and educate our children, whatever, from cradle-to-grave. This makes Americans annoyed at best, and mind-numbingly, teeth-rattling angry (Tea Parties anyone) at worst.
Exit interviews from this week's special election showed that a majority of Massachusetts residents do NOT want the current healthcare bill. At the fringes (strongly for/against), those opposed to healthcare far outnumber those who support it. And yet, Krugman seems to think that even though the (majority of the) country thinks this whole thing is a piece of garbage that should be abandoned, he stubbornly clings to the idea that we should just trust him and his ilk to take care of us. This is hubris of the highest order.
I think what's really in play here is that rabid Liberals like Krugman see their last best hope of completing their Socialist trifecta, Social Security, Medicare, Universal Coverage, slipping away from them and they're terrified that it won't be revisited in their lifetimes. It's gotta be galling to someone like Krugman, to have watched a moron like George Bush (mis)manage slimmer congressional majorities than Obama currently has into accomplishing all his first-term policy goals, while Obama struggles along against a determined Republican senate minority that can effectively dictate policy via the threat of a filibuster.
All the while, he rails against this same obstructionist Republican opposition. The invective is tired. At some point Krugman needs to realize that perhaps what might be happening is exactly what he's asking for, namely, that the elected representatives of the people are on the verge of listening to those they were elected to represent. A vocal majority of their constituents do not want this healthcare bill to pass. If the will of the people is King, why wouldn't Paul be happy about this? Again, this can only be explained by the fact that Paul feels that the majority is either:
- Wrong
- Stupid
- Misled by the vast right-wing media
In any case, his argument is specious, and falls back into the same Socialist trope that we've heard for years, namely that it's unseemly for a majority to impose rule over a minority. Guess what, Paul - that's how the world (and Democracy) works. To think otherwise is flawed, naive, and childish. It took a while, but our elected officials are finally hearing what we're saying. They may not agree with it, but they gotta listen. And, as was shown this week in Massachusetts (and earlier in New Jersey and Virginia), they will be held accountable. Paul must feel it's noble to sacrifice your livelihood to upholding your personal principles, but again, as he's shown, our representatives aren't there to vote their personal feelings, they're supposed to represent those who voted them into power. If they aren't listening to their constituents, we've shown them their future.
If Paul really wants to break this cycle, he should be crying out for term limits. I know a lot of people don't like them, but I have to feel it's a better alternative to the career politicians we have now. For Chrissakes, Teddy (the Lion) Kennedy served for 42 years! That's obscene. How long has Barney Frank or John McCain been around? Too long if you ask me.
You've lost this round, deal with it
in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Do the Right Thing - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewik
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Critique of Obama
So basically, for all his campaign rhetoric of hope, post-partisanship, and transparency, Obama has turned into the same corrupt, power-hungry, secretive piece-of-garbage that Bush was, right?
in reference to:
"Instead of saying he would let others give him a health plan, any health plan, he should have said that the health plan he needed and wanted was the public option, and then sold it unceasingly as the only means of bringing down costs—which proved to be the central issue in rejecting less effective compromises. He should have used the stick, not endless carrots, on the blue dogs. He should have recognized that he must get results fast, while he was riding high in the polls. Lyndon Johnson said that if a man comes into office with one thing he wants, he should get it in his first six months. Obama frittered away his striking time. On foreign policy, though he came to national prominence as a critic of the Iraq war he appointed a secretary of state who had voted for it, a vice president who had voted for it, a secretary of defense who had supported it, and top echelon generals who had waged it. As if to placate them, he substituted a new dumb war for the old dumb one. He has tied down our troops, money, and resources to one government (not really a government) when terrorism has metastasized across many governments and nations—limiting our response to it by the feckless hope of building a viable nation in Afghanistan. He choreographed a great series of listening sessions, where every general had his say in the White House before he tried to please them all. On one of George Bush’s worst excesses, his signing statements nullifying congressional legislation, Obama has substituted a worse recourse, secret signing reservations—allowing him to bypass certain provisions of a bill—that are hard to trace. He has put off decisions on rendition, on Guantanamo, on CIA interrogation. As if he felt restrained by his own blackness, he will not fight, though the American people love a fighter—Teddy Roosevelt going after the trusts, Franklin Roosevelt mocking the “malefactors of great wealth,” Harry Truman for “giving ‘em hell,” attacking the Do-Nothing Congress and his media foes. Whatever their other faults, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush were applauded when they proved to be fighters. Bush was never apologetic about playing to his base, while Obama has acted as if he were ashamed of his. They are repaying him in kind. During his campaign, Obama’s critics called him a hope-addict, all rosy scenarios and Let’s-get-along and Kumbaya. It is sad to realize, at last, that they were right. Hope did him in."
- NYRblog - After Massachusetts: His Hopes Did Him In - The New York Review of Books (view on Google Sidewiki)
Politico's Craig Shirley on Democrat setbacks
Just a friggin' great article - spot on.
in reference to: Common sense and insensibility - Craig Shirley - POLITICO.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Harvard symposium on Healthcare
Uh - no shit?
And yet team Obama stubbornly clings to a fallacious CBO report that states that the current "reform" plan will slightly reduce the deficit over 10 years. Yeah right...
in reference to:
"The congressional health care plans are “not on the right track,” don’t acknowledge the need for trade-offs, and leave difficult decisions about how to contain costs to future generations, said Daniel Kessler, a professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. “The current bill confuses access with insurance, which is going to lead us to a world of unsustainable deficits, very high implicit marginal tax rates, and increased government controls of people’s personal decisions in exchange for health benefits that are at best uncertain. It has the seeds of some successful cost-containment policies, which is good, but unfortunately it pushes the hard choices on that front off to the future.”"
Time's Editor in Chief to Joe Klein...
Hey Joe, I need to see you when you're finished humping Obama's leg...
in reference to:"Does this matter? In a high-minded, policy-driven world, it wouldn't. But we don't live there. The presidency exists in a show-biz maelstrom — especially now, with an opposition party that simply refuses to participate in governing the country, barnacled special interests that detour and distend any attempts at major legislation, and noxious, shortsighted media that convey heat more accurately than they do light. In such an atmosphere, the President has to convey a little heat too. He has to be as concerned with stagecraft, political appearances, feel-your-pain empathy as he is with substance. That seems like an effort for Obama. In his first meeting with aides on his Nobel morning, he skipped past the political question — How could they react to the perception that the prize was premature? — to the heart of the matter: What was the rationale for a war President to receive a peace prize? This led directly to the most memorable passage of his Nobel lecture, about the need to combat the evil that exists in the world, a passage celebrated by his domestic friends and foes alike. But his eloquence will be remembered fondly in history only if Obama himself is — and not just as the first of his race but as one who led the nation through a difficult time. "To lead successfully," an Administration official told me, "you have to convince people that you're with them, that you get their problems right down to your gut." Two days after we spoke in the Oval Office, the President gave a lovely speech — the kind he does so well — at the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church in Washington. He even lifted the mask a bit. "You know, folks ask me sometimes why I look so calm." The audience laughed, and he continued, "They say, All this stuff coming at you, how come you just seem calm? And I have a confession to make here. There are times where I'm not so calm ... There are times when progress seems too slow. There are times when the words that are spoken about me hurt. There are times when the barbs sting. There are times when it feels like all these efforts are for naught, and change is so painfully slow in coming, and I have to confront my own doubts. But let me tell you — during those times, it's faith that keeps me calm.""
- Starting Over: Can Obama Revive His Agenda? - TIME (view on Google Sidewiki)
One other thing...
And to continue the Bush policies of stealing individual freedoms and liberties from his own citizens
in reference to:"Overseas, he quickly restored diplomacy to its rightful place at the center of U.S. foreign policy while moving aggressively to combat al-Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan"
- Starting Over: Can Obama Revive His Agenda? - TIME (view on Google Sidewiki)
Civil Liberties...
Fuckin' great - the only thing that the Dems have going for them and they're scared shitless of the backlash from an electorate that's willing to allow the government to steal their liberties and rights, one little bit at a time. This is scary shit people; forget about healthcare and the economy - wake up and fix this now.
Repeal the Patriot Act!
in reference to:
"The report comes at a sensitive time for the Justice Department and the Administration. Both the House and the Senate have passed bills reauthorizing the Patriot Act, which created some of the authority to scan phone records that the report alleges was abused by the FBI. The House version contains some new restrictions; the Senate version gives the FBI freer rein. The Administration has been inclined toward the tougher version of the bill. And as the political environment has become more hostile to Democrats, they are less likely to prioritize civil liberties concerns over national security ones."
FBI broke privacy laws...
I'll make this short.
- At the FBI, somebody (bodies) need to go to jail
- At the "unnamed telecom companies", serious financial and legal sanctions need to be imposed, but not upon the poor schmucks who were helping the FBI, I'm talkin' about the corner office
- The Patriot Act needs to be repealed. Grow a pair why doncha?
I've said a thousand times - I don't care if Osama bin Laden is calling me correct, you better by God have a FISA warrant in hand before you monitor my phone.
At what point are we willing to tell the government NO??? This doesn't make us safer people, just smaller and more afraid. At this point I'm a helluva lot more frightened of the Feds (although it's not quite as scary under Obama as it was under the feckless GWB) than I am of any retarded terrorist trying to blow me up with a fucking underwear bomb.
Hear, hear
If Congress wants to raise taxes, let the Democrats do it alone - you do NOT wanna come down on the wrong side of this argument...
in reference to:
"Republicans committed their share of spending sins when they ran Congress, but in the last year Democrats have run everything. Republicans have no obligation now to become tax collectors for Democrats. We'd argue the GOP's real obligation is to do the opposite, so that voters get the chance to render a November verdict on these Democratic priorities. If Republicans are dumb enough to sign up to a bipartisan commission to raise taxes, they deserve to stay in the minority, and they no doubt will."
Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard ...
And a dumb bitch...
in reference to:
"Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel."
See...
vanden Heuvel, Katrina
in reference to:"Ms. Huffington is co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post."
- The Meaning of Massachusetts - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
File this one under...
"Duh"
I expect more from Barone - he mailed this one in...
in reference to:
"The Republican victory in the current Democratic heartland of Massachusetts sends the message that Americans are repelled by Barack Obama's big-government programs, backroom deals and oversolicitude for those who want to destroy us."
Ms. vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of "The Nation"
And a dumb bitch...
in reference to:
"Ms. vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of The Nation."
Bart Stupak WSJ Editorial
And yet, nobody voted to allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines. So retarded places like Massachusetts, New York, California, that have driven premiums through the rough with mandated coverage minimums add to the masses of the uninsured by pricing them out of the market. But, thank God the insurers (have to) cover acupuncture!
in reference to:
"Right now, health-care reform is the best example. Sweetheart deals and backroom negotiations may have secured 60 votes in the Senate, but it has left the American public disillusioned. This reform is a national policy that affects every single American. Living in Michigan, New York or Nebraska should not determine the quality or cost of your coverage."
Karl Rove on Spending in WSJ
Now, I detest Karl Rove - I think he's one of the reasons (besides Cheney and Rumsfeld) that the Bush administration went off the rails, but when he's right, he's right.
This section highlights how much more spending Obama/Pelosi/Reid have done compared with the relatively modest spending spree under Republican rule. They saw the Republicans bet (of '01-08) and without blinking an eye, raised 'em 3 trillion dollars - in about a years time!
Neither is correct, and if the Republicans think that any gains they make this fall will last if they revert to form and don't control spending and earmarks, we'll be having this same conversation again, only this time the moron Democrats will be wresting control from hapless spendthrift Republicans.
in reference to:
"That argument won't fly for two reasons. First, at some point this administration has to take responsibility for itself. It's also not even close to accurate. Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well. Related OpinionJournal Stories: Boston Tea Party Lanny Davis: Blame the Left for Massachusetts Reflections on Scott Brown's Senate Victory By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years."
WSJ - Obama backing off health reform
Good article, but continues to illustrate the fantasy that some Dems are living under. Hello, McFly - wake up. That sound you're hearing is the moving van backing up to help you get your shit packed and out of the way of the person elected to replace in the 2010 midterms.
One quick aside, isn't the picture of the Chosen one hysterical? So contrite!!! Looks good on him - certainly better than the cool swagger he's adopted while riding the economy into the ground. And, before you start yelling that this is Bush's economy, just stop, it ain't, it's all his after the porkulus bill last year.
And I'm sick of hearing about inheriting the problem of 8 years of Bush. Congress certainly has a role in policy (as Obama is learning, much to his chagrin), and if I'm not mistaken, the Dems won control of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms didn't they? They could have blocked funding for unpopular programs if they'd shown any spine (remember the Surge), yet they repeatedly cowed lest they be labeled unpatriotic. In any case, you can really only say 6 years of Republican control, not 8.
Finally someone gets it right at the Times
Despite the Times editorial staff's apparent ignorance (or wishful thinking?), Egan nails it, in direct (almost word-for-word) repudiation of the other submissions today. Until Egan, the Times seems to be suggesting that the Massachusetts special election had nothing to do with Obama or his agenda!
in reference to:"But make no mistake. Scott Brown’s win was a rout, a repudiation of Democrats and Obama. In famously well-educated Massachusetts, it cannot be said that the voters were stupid. But those Red Sox also offer a way out for Democrats — they can cowboy up, to use the rallying cry of the 2003 team, back when they were still loveable underdogs and not entitled favorites."
- Time to Cowboy Up - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
Times Editorial on Massachusetts Election
Clearly delusional, although I expect no less from the morons at the Times. This is absolutely a referendum on Healthcare "reform" and, if not Obama personally, his agenda in particular.
in reference to:"There are many theories about the import of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for Edward Kennedy’s former Senate seat. To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year."
- Editorial - The Massachusetts Election - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
Gail Collins' opinion on MA special election
I've said that Gail doesn't do snarky very well (should leave that to Maureen Dowd, who does it so well) - I can't really tell what she's talking about here. Clearly, since she's a raging Liberal, she's bitter about the results of Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts. If she's truly serious in her analysis that the reason for Brown's victory is that Massachusetts voters are fed up with the state governments performance, then she's not only bitter, she's either delusional or a dumb bitch. I live up here, and if this wasn't a repudiation of the Obamacrats' agenda, then she's completely outta touch.
in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Democratic Silver Linings - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Wednesday, January 20, 2010
More on the tax...
I believe it's absolutely appropriate to debate (and litigate) the constitutionality of team Obama's bank tax.
Somewhere, Milton Friedman is turning over in his grave at this UofC sellout.
As long as we're talking about punitive responses to "bailouts", shall we also look at recouping the taxpayer investment in GM (Government Motors) and Chrysler? Perhaps a tax on every GM/Chrysler vehicle sold going back to the taxpayer?
YAO on Obama's Bank Tax
This is the only portion of the article I agreed with, although other than using the term "whining" early on, it's surprisingly non-partisan and well-written.
in reference to:"To be sure, the most direct way to cure the banking system’s ills would be to return to a rational monetary policy based on sensible interest rates, an end to frantic monetization of federal debt and a stable exchange value for the dollar. But Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, and his posse are not likely to go there, believing as they do that central banking is about micromanaging aggregate demand — asset bubbles and a flagging dollar be damned. Still, there can be no doubt that taxing big bank liabilities will cause there to be less of them. And that’s a start."
- Op-Ed Contributor - Taxing Wall Street Down to Size - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
Opinion - FCC policing "indecency"
Here's a thought, short of child pornography, one man's "indecency" is another's free speech. Let's do away with the censorship entirely. Slap a warning on the content, then let parents decide what's indecent. Let's think about freedom of speech for a change.
in reference to: Editorial - Policing Indecency - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)NY Budget fun
Or, how 'bout this - no new taxes (a soda tax is laughable, and aren't cigarette smokers already f*cked enough) and instead, how 'bout cutting some of those "government workers" which always seem to be off limits. That'd be a start!
in reference to: Editorial - A Leaner Budget for Lean Times - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Opinion - swearing in Scott Brown
Wouldn't this be a delicious irony? It'll never happen in a Democratic (hack) stronghold like Massachusetts, but after the flip-flop on allowing Paul Kirk to be installed in Kennedy's seat, and the obvious public sentiment, anything's possible!
in reference to:"TPM’s Brian Beutler and Eric Kleefeld have the early word on what they see as a nefarious Republican plot: “In preparation for what they expect to be Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate special election tonight, conservatives and Republicans have unearthed a novel and ironic precedent, which they’re using to argue that, if he wins, Brown should be seated right away as the 41st vote against health care reform. Senate rules require that all newly-elected Senators be certified as winners by their home states before they can be sworn in.” Shifty stuff, but as Beutler and Kleefeld admit, there is precedent: “On November 6, 1962, none other than Ted Kennedy himself won a special election to fill his own brother’s Senate seat in Massachusetts, and was sworn in the very next day–two full weeks before his victory was certified, and three weeks before that certification arrived in Washington.”"
- Just Another Massachusetts Miracle - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Opinion on Special Bank Taxes
God I do hope they challenge this in court. What's next - I don't like software companies, they make too much money - let's levy a special "fee" on them. Actually, it'll probably be big Oil, but the theory is the same. Singling out an industry or group seems very wrong to me.
in reference to: Wall St. Weighs Legal Challenge to Proposed Bank Tax - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)WSJ Opinion on civil commitment
Couldn't agree more with the journal here. Yes child predators are loathsome creatures, yet having served their sentences, the Federal Government should not arbitrarily be allowed to extend their prison stays.
Under this theory, what's to stop a Progressive administration like Obama's from extending the sentences of financial fraudsters? You might argue that this is hyperbole, but it's not - the offense against "society", is exactly what some official says it is.
This is scary shit people. And Obama has drunk from the "Power corrupts" Kool-aid every bit as deeply as Bush ever did. He's become a partisan hack who views the Unitary Executive Branch theory as Holy writ.
Article on Body Scanning at airports...
Classify this one under the "Duh - No Shit!" category. And yet, like sheep, we continue to allow our liberties and freedoms to be whisked away, more and more every year. And, Obama is just as feckless as Bush was regarding this.
You wanna make things safer? Expand the air marshals corp. Arm the pilots and reinforce the cabin doors. Done and done.
Homeless in Long Island...
Sure it was cruel, and a bit callow. But correct me if I'm wrong here - weren't these people criminals? I mean, hadn't they broken Federal law by sneaking into the country in a blatant disregard of US immigration policy?
Just because they're not violent, and somewhat pathetic, doesn't mean they ain't criminal.
Opinion - Murkowski and Global Warming
Sounds to me like a shrewd play, and certainly no politically less palatable than the recent travesty providing union relief from the "Cadilac" health-plan tax.
EPA has probably over-stepped, and this is an opportunity to reign them in. If the Dems wanna keep borrowing (and taxing) and spending, they'll need to perennially raise the debt ceiling. Let's see how much they want it.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Unbelievable - another union handout!
C'mon folks. Even you diehard liberals have to feel like this is overreaching in the extreme? Unbelievable hubris in the Democratic party. And you can now kiss goodbye the last tiny fig-leaf that once passed for cost-control in the so-called Healthcare reform bill.
in reference to: Unions Get Exempt from Cadillac Tax - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Life might get a whole lot happier!!!
Let's hope the "grass" roots movement sweeps across the country! Seriously, about the only thing I can agree with the Obama administration on is their quite laid-back approach to legalization of a harmless drug.
in reference to: Marijuana-Legalization Efforts Gain Steam - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Sunday, January 17, 2010
They always want more money...
Is it me, or is this clusterf*ck of a "health-care" reform bill becoming an even bigger disaster? Wait till they piss off big pharma, who has (quite illogically) remained supportive, even hostage, to the Chosen One's moronic plan to screw up the economy and country even more. Waiting in the wings are some highly effective, inflammatory ads aimed at seniors who will hold these idiots responsible in the 2010 mid-terms.
Nobody wants to piss off seniors, for the simple reason that they vote. I don't like it - I think they're given a disproportionately large impact on policy (and it's normally quite liberal), but that's the way it is. And this time, Republicans can use it to their advantage - cause the dirty little secret about seniors is that not only do they vote, they're very easy to frighten and manipulate. The right should revive the ghosts of "Harry and Louise" if that's what it takes to kill this horrible legislation.
Opinion on Coakley-Brown
So, I can't ask for any more miracles - I used my entire year's allotment - some would say foolishly - when I prayed for a Patriots loss. In hindsight, that was probably somewhat petty, the Pats really weren't that good and were heading for an ass-stompin' somewhere down the line, but you'll never go broke overestimating my hatred of the Patriots so here we are.
If I could ask for one more miracle, I'd absolutely use it by asking for a Scott Brown upset of that pompous, mindless, hack of a Democratic senate candidate, Martha Coakley. It's hard to imagine anyone running a more hapless campaign - it's almost as if she wants to lose.
This article does a nice job of calling out all of the potential angles. And Harshaw, to his credit, clearly does not have a heavily partisan agenda. Does it occur to anyone that if Obama does attend and Coakley still loses, that it's potentially even more damaging for the moronic Liberal agenda? Doesn't that really rub off on Obama some? Wouldn't they be better off just taking a chance on Coakley on her own, MA is, after all about as reliably Democratic as it gets? I'm very puzzled by this - clearly it means team-Obama is scared shitless of the political backlash if Brown wins.
Lastly, if you haven't heard it yet, the latest Coakley (dumb bitch, there I've said it) gaffe came (I believe yesterday) when she responded to Curt Schilling's commentary by calling him a Yankees fan - I mean, this is the hero of the bloody sock and arguably the reason the Sox one the 2003 world series - how tone deaf can she be.
She might as well have taken a dump on the statue of Paul Revere. I can't ask for it, but I can damn sure hope for it...
Friday, January 15, 2010
More on Doomberg and Salt
All I can say is:
Is this really the biggest problem New York city (and state for that matter) needs to solve? Bloomberg is a piece of shit who wants to run his own parochial nanny state, a utopian paradise, like that in Wilder's "Our Town", where everyone is exceptional, and nobody, ever, ever smokes, eats trans fats, or God forbid, salt.
David Brooks on Haiti
Brooks has his fastball working today. Great article. Talks about the limits of aid as we conventionally recognize it. Goes on to say that sometimes, you have to force change upon a culture, even if it means that certain (debilitating) aspects of the culture are deprecated and lost. Not the happiest of thoughts for some, I'm sure, and yet, I can't imagine that 50-60K deaths were welcome either.
in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The Underlying Tragedy - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Thursday, January 14, 2010
Obama and the bank tax plan
Again, I'm speechless at the mendacity and hubris of the Obama administration. This guy is a true piece of shit. To rationalize the handouts he made to GM and Chrysler (read, UAW) by saying the financial crisis made it necessary? As if the mortgage meltdown was responsible for 50 years of shitty management and product decisions along with a power-drunk UAW that couldn't see the righting on the wall?
"The taxed firms are expected to pay the cost of bailout money that went to General Motors and Chrysler, which are exempt from the tax. The administration official defended the omission by contending that U.S. automakers collapsed in part because of a financial crisis of the banks' making."
You know I'm desperate when I'm praying for the Republicans to regain control of Congress, at least enough of a solid minority to stop really, really stupid shit like this from happening. Frankly, all evidence to the contrary not withstanding - I'm speechless.
Opinion on broadcasting the Prop 8 trial
What unbelievable horseshit! The Times actually states that the fears of Prop 8 supporters of being targeted for retaliation are unfounded.
Here's the thing - you can't cherry-pick what gets televised and what doesn't. Either every sordid little case does, or none of 'em do. This whole thing was clearly a play by the opponents of Prop 8 to create an environment of fear for those supporters who might have testify.
If there's value in televising this, there's value in televising every other trial that comes before the court.
Personally, as I've said many times before, I couldn't care less if gays are allowed to marry, I guess I'm personally in favor of it. However as a strong federalist, I'm also in favor of allowing states a lot of latitude in governing themselves.
None of this matters; this is going to the Supreme court eventually, and the gay marriage supporters are gonna be very unhappy with the outcome of that given the current makeup of the court. They'd have been better off waiting a few more years then using the same ballot initiative process to repeal Prop 8 when the inevitable shift in public opinion turns pro-gay marriage.
Opinion on Arnold's twilight as governor
I never cared too much for Schwarzenegger as governor; I felt he ran too far to the center and abandoned a lot of fiscally responsible ideas. That said, this is a pretty good article that highlights exactly what he was up against.
California remains the most dysfunctional state I've had the displeasure of knowing (followed closely by New York, but thankfully I never lived there). The referendum process, which I respect a great deal, is clearly out of control. The unions are unrepentant, entrenched, and politically powerful, and the right is able to block anything they don't like from a position of extreme weakness (although God only knows where the state income taxes would be if they couldn't).
I do hope the convene a constitutional convention, and I do hope they change things. The "white flight" Egan refers to is real; outmigration from CA has been on the rise for years, and the people (and businesses) that are leaving are the ones who are getting crushed by the already sky-high taxes. When the Dems/Progressives are finally able to push through the revenue (tax-grab) bills that they wan to finance their Utopian la-la land initiatives, the people fleeing the newly founded Socialist Republic of California will escalate quickly.
Let's see where they are when there's nobody left to tax - except immigrants (illegal and otherwise), and teachers and prison guards.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Opinion - NYT Article on Transaction/Bonus taxes
Cause the Times never met a friggin' tax it didn't like. Last time I looked, the banks did absolutely nothing illegal. Government failed to nationalize them when they should have, then everyone gets their collective panties in a bunch when they do exactly what they're supposed to do which is - wait for it...it's coming...
Make money!!!
And why wouldn't they pay the bonuses out? However you might feel about it, there's not a goddamn thing that's illegal about paying bonuses and salaries, unless we suddenly woke up in Putin's Russia?
And, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'm betting it ain't quite kosher to single out group (like bankers) for special "treatment" in the form of a tax.
Stop spending people!!!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Opinion - MA Senate Debate zinger
Wish I'd watched it now...
in reference to: "It's The People's Seat" - The Atlantic Politics Channel (view on Google Sidewiki)Opinion - Banking fees...
Or better yet, no taxes at all; perhaps instead, a reduction in spending?
in reference to: U.S. bank tax should embrace policy not populism | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters (view on Google Sidewiki)Opinion - Article about the competence of government
And people wonder why Libertarians back small-government policies. And, why we're horribly opposed to giant bureaucratic solutions to what ails us at the moment. Ever been to the DMV? 'Nuff said.
in reference to: Paul C. Light - The real crisis in government - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Opinion - need for a broad-based federal shield law
Long overdue in my book. Let's hope this much-needed law does indeed pass!
in reference to: A broad 'shield' for journalists - latimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Politics - Review of Game Changes & Clintons
In the biggest "DUH" since Mark McGwire confirmed steroid use, this just in - Hillary Clinton is a bit of a bitch. Who knew?
in reference to: Game over: The Clintons stand alone - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Politics - hoping for an upset on 1/19 in MA!!!
Let's hope - some might say beyond all hope - that hell does indeed get chilly and that Republican challenger Scott Brown does indeed defeat Ms. Martha "We gotta get taxes up" Coakley. If you're voting in MA next Tuesday, I implore you to consider the ramifications of your vote.
in reference to: Massachusetts Senate Mystery: Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Sports - Venting about the Joshua Cribbs situation
You know, this drives me frickin' nuts. The Browns suck! The only positive story they had going all year was this kid Cribbs (if you haven't seen him, I can't do him justice) and they're dickin' around with him like he's got the clap or something.
Kid made something like 650K last year. Not chicken-feed by any means, but here's the thing:
He's absolutely, hands down, the best player at that position (kick return) in the league. These guys don't come around often. He's lightning in a bottle, and the feel-good story of a downtrodden franchise that has consistently disenfranchised its fan-base. This is a no-brainer. Give the kid $30 million over 6 years with about $10 guaranteed.
I know he's still got time left on his current contract, but Christ, do you wanna run the risk of him quitting on you? You need players like this to keep beleaguered fans interested while you undertake yet another rebuilding year or two (or God forbid, three). If I'm Cribbs, and I don't get what I want, I wouldn't sit out - I'd do better than that. I'd show up for all team workouts, report to camp on time, and then, every game I'm in next year, I'd fair-catch every punt, and down every kickoff.
I think the fans would get behind him. Can't say he ain't doin' the job he was paid to do either.
This is ridiculous. Pay him the damned money and lock him down for the next decade in Cleveland where he belongs.
"Holmgren also expressed optimism the team could settle its differences with Cribbs, who said he was insulted by the team's last offer, and along with agents, went public with their beef with the Browns. Cribbs has threatened to sit out next season if the Browns don't reward him. He has three years left on a six-year, $6.77 million deal."We would like Josh here," Holmgren said. "He's a part of the Browns and a wonderful player for us. He's got three years left on his current contract. It's almost unprecedented to change that in this business. Everybody, I think, wants this to work out. We're looking at ways to change what's going on with Josh and the offer.""
- Cleveland Browns announce Philadelphia Eagles' Tom Heckert as new GM - ESPN (view on Google Sidewiki)
Opinion - on CA gay-rights legal battle
Personally, I couldn't care less about gay marriage. As a Libertarian, I'm a live-and-let-live kinda guy. If two people love each other and want to publicly commit to themselves via an anachronistic institution like marriage, then who am I to stand in their way.
But, there's a larger issue here. The people of California, rightly or wrongly - doesn't matter - have spoken by ratifying Proposition 8. You can talk all you want about the indignity of the majority imposing rule over a minority class, but Democracy can get messy like that.
Tricky subject. But the California referendum system allows for wacky stuff like this. Until the citizens convene a constitutional convention to change the process, they're gonna keep seeing things like this come up.
Opinion - Democrats, more tax and spending coming your way!!!
You know, you see this desperate flailing about by the Dems and you just know that 2010 is gonna be a bad, bad year.
Read a great article yesterday that said it would be a mistake for Republicans to sit back and let the Dems self-destruct. Went on to say they needed their own agenda. At the time, I agreed with the author; I've said on multiple occasions recently that the Republicans need to offer an alternative, not just united opposition to the Left's proposals.
And then, I see stupid sh*t like this and say, "Stay the hell outta the way". When you see a major car accident up ahead, sometimes the smart thing to do is just pull over and let the carnage get cleaned off the highway.
The hubris of the Democratic party is staggering. Class warfare doesn't work - never has, never will. Lotta people say that doing nothing is the only thing worse than passing this abomination of a health-care bill. I respectfully disagree if this is what they're driven to.
Opinion on Democratic hostility towards the filibuster
And yet, nobody from the NYT called for an end to the filibuster when it was being used to stop things like, say, Social Security Reform during the Bush administration. Only when procedural rules deny the left their grand social experiments do the constitutional scholars come out of the closet asking for someone to intervene.
in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - Mr. Smith Rewrites the Constitution - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)Opinion - Bloomberg vs. Salt!!!
My God I hate Bloomberg. This is the most important thing NYC should be focusing on? It's said the people get the government they deserve - we'll NYC certainly deserves that pompous, imperial ass Bloomberg. They let him get away with tossing aside term limits, and then have to deal with more of his nanny-state intrusions. Well done guys.
in reference to:"On Monday, the Bloomberg administration plans to unveil a broad new health initiative aimed at encouraging food manufacturers and restaurant chains across the country to curtail the amount of salt in their products. The plan, for which the city claims support from health agencies in other cities and states, sets a goal of reducing the amount of salt in packaged and restaurant food by 25 percent over the next five years."
- Citing Hazard, New York Says Hold the Salt - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
