Screw Timothy Geithner

Apparently, the only prescription the Times is capable of touting is more spending. Let's get this straight - Germany managed it's financial situation better than the rest of the EURO idiots (Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc.), but now it's Germany's fault - for not making them stop earlier?

How exactly was that supposed to happen. The enforcement arm of the European union was toothless, and that's not Germany's fault. Why should Germany have to bail out the profligate nations who allowed public unions to build a totally unrealistic wage/benefit structure?

Of course, the same could be said for US bailouts. The answer, as always is that Germany, and the U.S., are run by morons.

in reference to: Editorial - Germany vs. Europe - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Consider the source...

Couple things:

First, John Yoo is a piece of shit. A lawyer who helped advance the worst of the Bush administrations assault on human rights (torture and indefinite detention) and citizen liberties (warrant less wiretapping anyone), I'm actually kinda shocked that the hyper-Liberal Times acknowledges his existence. I guess a Berkley pedigree opens certain doors - but I digress...

If Kagan actually does believe in limiting Presidential authority, then by all means, we need to get her seated on the court as quickly as possible. First Bush (moron) and now Obama (liar, spendthrift) embraced the theory of a unitary (omnipotent if you like) executive branch which resulted in the demolition of our rights (some of which are listed above). Anyone who seeks to rein these assholes in deserves some credit and leeway; I don't care how Liberal she is.
Even turning these types of decisions over to a feckless (and almost certainly gridlocked) Congress is trading up from Bush/Obama.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - An Executive Without Much Privilege - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

More Obama Chicanery...

Another great Times editorial. Skip to the bottom - you already know that our real budget problems lie with mandatory programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) although I absolutely think we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and slash the defense budget to pre-2001 levels.

The great thing about the Times, is that the only sacrifice you see them calling for is in the form of tax increases - although at least they seem to realize that Obama's gonna have to break yet another campaign promise and hit the middle class as well as the "rich".

Never once do they suggest that the mandatory spending programs be reformed. Typical Progressive/Liberal garbage. Note also that the bill itself does nothing but allow the Executive to use rescissions as a political club to advance the White House agenda.

Also, since the bill targets only discretionary spending, which if you exclude the military (which nobody will ever vote to cut - it's unpatriotic you know, no matter how wasteful it is), doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to the mandatory stuff.

The downside is that it will be difficult for lawmakers to oppose this bill. Legislators of both parties should strongly consider a united bipartisan rejection of this ill-conceived bill before they cede even more power to an executive branch that is already out of control.

in reference to:

"rescission"
- Editorial - Waste, Fraud and the Truth in Government Spending - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

What utter morons...

At what point do we tell these dipshits that enough is enough? Like a cigarette tax or the lottery, this will be highly regressive, and worse, a naked grab for more revenue to avoid the common sense reckoning that spending cuts represent. Show me a study that shows a tax on soda reduces obesity - betting you can't, cause it hasn't been done.

When times were good - governments spent like there was no tomorrow, creating and supporting a permanent underclass that has known no patronage beyond the local, state, and federal governments that support them. There was no thought to putting money away for the inevitable bad times, and now that they're here, rather than starve leviathan, they are desperately looking for new ways to keep the party rolling.

Come November, the music stops. I'm hoping none of these idiots finds a chair...

in reference to: Merkel Loses Political Clout in Germany Over Handling of Crisis - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Bring it on...

Can't wait for this to be litigated, and it will go all the way to SCOTUS.

My guess is that if team Obama really thought this assault on state and individual rights was constitutionally sound, we wouldn't be hearing so much pooh-poohing of the lawsuits.

A conservative-leaning court that has been publicly 'dissed by the Chosen One, might tend to set some limits on the heretofore untouchable "Commerce Clause". Let's hope they do. The real beauty of such a decision would be that because the individual points being litigated aren't severable from the overall bill, invaliding one (or both) would invalidate the entire reform bill!

It's the audacity of hope I tell you...

in reference to: Editorial - Health Care Reform and the Courts - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

SCOTUS Dynamic will change...

Whether or not you agree with the decision, it underscores the importance of the Stevens/Kennedy dynamic. The court's split rulings always come down to how Kennedy will vote. In the cases where Liberal jurisprudence has carried the day, it has usually been because Stevens was able to persuade Kennedy to come over.

'Twill be interesting to see if Kagan wields the same type of clout - although I'm guessing not. I don't think by any means that Kennedy is a strict constructionist/conservative, although I think he leans that way. I think he loves the attention that the deciding vote - which he almost always casts - brings him and is looking for someone to help him see a way to rationalize what he's inclined to do anyway. There are plenty of carrots offered as well, the most obvious of which is getting to write the majority opinion.

I'm guessing that even if Kaga turns out to be a flaming Liberal, that the overall makeup of the court will tilt further right in the absence of Stevens as Kennedy aligns more often with Roberts and Scalia.

in reference to: Editorial - A New Standard of Decency for Juvenile Criminals - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Krugman's at it again...

When the Democratic party is really in the shitter, and there's not one damn good thing Paul can say about the economy, he turns to baiting conservatives, it's his comfort zone.

Bob Bennett lost in Utah because he voted for TARP, period. Wyden-Bennett was a good piece of legislation (minus the mandate) - certainly better than the abomination that passed for healthcare reform. But there's a good number of people who feel that TARP was wrong and unnecessary and Bennett paid the price.

Krugman is right in saying that Obamacare looks a lot like Romneycare. Romneycare was wrong, and is quietly consuming the budget of the state of Massachusetts. Deval Patrick (Barack Obama's mini-me) has already resorted to price controls for insurance premiums, and is poised to go after doctor and hospital fees as well.

Even Obama isn't stupid enough to go after the providers (yet), cause the minute the doctors stop seeing medicare and medicaid patients the game is over. I hope this happens soon by the way.

Calling for an end to the Department of Education seems like a true act of moderation and necessity to me. I'm less convinced about the Fed, but in general, doing away with large swaths of government bureaucracy wouldn't sadden me in the least.

Finally, he's unfortunately right about the right-wing media ideologues. Limbaugh and Beck make me physically ill. But, there are those of us - intelligent, fiscally conservative, Libertarian, individualists who are not racist in the slightest and think that the direction Obama and the Democratic party are taking us is unsustainable and wrong.

Giving voice to such opinions isn't wrong - it's patriotic.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The G.O.P. - Going to Extreme - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

WSJ again calls for us to surrender our liberties...

I've said this before (some of you probably hate hearing it), but it bears repeating.

"I don't care of Osama Bin Laden is calling me collect at home, you better by God have a FISA warrant before you tap my phone."

At what point do we realize that by surrendering our liberties to oppressive Bush and Obama administrations, we have allowed the terrorists to win? There is no such thing as perfect safety folks, and to think that it exists is both delusional and dangerous.

Extremists over the world wish to do us harm. Sadly, some will succeed. When this happens, we should focus on identifying those who are culpable, and killing them. Not a long-term military operation against peoples who have know idea why they're being invaded (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq), but surgical incursions against terrorist organizations resulting in their utter eradication.

What we should not do is blame our government for failing to protect us. We have to make a choice about how much we're willing to give up for this protection. I for one prefer to live in a country where my rights are preserved. If that means I'm a bit less safe then so be it. Giving Obama (or God help us, Bush) the ability to suppress or suspend our constitutional rights does not make us safer, just diminished.

We would do well to remember to ask the question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

in reference to: Surveillance and Shahzad - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewik

It's a good first step...

I'm a little concerned about what that remaining 60 points that is "locally determined" would look like, and what the scale would be for identifying ineffective teachers. For example, if you need to get 5 points or less (out of 100) to be ranked "ineffective" nobody's ever getting fired.

Again, I'm sure the local school administrations will still find ways to protect the morons, but, at least it starts to loosen the grip of the unions and their idiot seniority rules, and it provides a way for parents to force out the most egregious of the bad ones. All-in-all, it's positive.

in reference to: Editorial - A Deal for Better Schools - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

So, only Greece is bad?

This article starts off on a promising note, castigating Greece for profligate policies and calling on her to accept harsh budget cuts (apparently, only the United States should just spend, baby, spend).

But, towards the end, the article seems to indicate that other European countries that are currently in trouble (Spain, Ireland) suffer not from over-spending, but from a global economic crisis! I'm amazed that the Times doesn't call for more spending in Greece! Krugman and the times editorial staff seem to be in lockstep with the idea that only good old-fashioned Keynesian spending will bring these guys (including the U.S.) back from the brink.

Utter rubbish. The solution, as always is to live within your means - if the money ain't there, don't spend it.

in reference to: Editorial - Europe’s Bailout - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Kagan may be the best we can hope for...

At worst, she's another Stevens or even to his left. At best, she becomes for Obama what Stevens was to Ford - not what he thinks he's getting - a justice who's more conservative than Liberal.

Perhaps the middle ground is best, we have someone of Kennedy's demeanor, perhaps just to his Left, who needs to be led. She could be the deciding vote in several cases.

On the surface, I don't like the pick, I'd have preferred someone not from the Ivy League, but I guess it's hard for the Chosen one to see beyond those gilded halls. Given his background, I'd have a hard time opposing this nomination if I were a sitting senator.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - What It Takes - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

There's an easy fix...

Rather than the Progressive/Liberal knee-jerk response of price controls, there's a much easier solution. Just revoke the insurance companies' antitrust exemption and let the competition help drive down the costs.

Love the fact that the reason the needed to increase prices was due to:

"it lost heavily on policies issued to participants in two state programs that required Anthem to cover people with pre-existing conditions and capped the premiums it could charge"

Sounds a lot like what's mandated by Obamacare doesn't it? Means that without significant price increases it's not affordable. And don't kid yourselves about the "mandate". Assuming it isn't struck down as unconstitutional (which I pray for every day), nobody in their right mind would buy insurance if they're relatively healthy - they'll just pay the modest penalty and when they get sick, they'll buy insurance.

Meanwhile, team Obama (although God willing, he won't be around in 2013), will be forced to start setting prices for services, etc. And folks, that's the first step towards single-payer and rationing. As health insurers flee markets in which they can no longer earn profits, and doctors stop seeing certain classes of patients, you'll end up with the Liberals' wet dream of European healthcare.

Stupid, stupid, stupid...

in reference to: Editorial - The Anthem Saga - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Makes me sick...

She's ANGRY that the bank wouldn't do more to reduce her debt load? Who held a friggin' gun to her head and told her to bury herself? You can't afford it, you lose it. Good sweet Christ at what point do people stop asking for others to clean up their messes and take responsibility for their actions?

in reference to: When Mortgage Relief Is a Band-Aid - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Delicious Irony

To think that the Obama administration and his Progressive caucus have rent their garments and gnashed their teeth lo these past 5 years - railing against the injustice of foreclosures and asking that Bankruptcy courts modify legally binding contracts.

Come to find out that after all is said and done, and the foreclosures or discharges happen, the poor saps are also potentially liable for a big tax bill! Read the attached story if you can. I don't feel sorry at all for these people; the one in the lead took cash out 3 times! Why shouldn't she pay income taxes on this if the bank writes it off?

in reference to: A Surprise Tax Hit on Foreclosures - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Maybe more T-Shirt vendors?

While I feel that NYC needs to layoff teachers (and bunches of other public-sector workers) - if I were a teacher, I'd be livid that police officers are seemingly protected from Bloomberg's (asshole that he is) cuts. All because of this past weekend's bomb scare.

Near as I can tell, we probably need more T-Shirt vendors than police officers, as the police didn't seem to do squat to prevent the bomb entering the city but a vendor certainly identified the problem. And, the actual suspect was seized after the feds got involved. What exactly did the NYC Police Department do?

in reference to: Editorial - Blame Albany - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)