World must be ending...

Maureen Dowd asked for "W" to show Obama the right way to handle the whole ground zero mosque fiasco!!!

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Our Mosque Madness - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Funny...

I expected Al Franken to be an asshole. I was right.

in reference to: The Mirthless Senate - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

As if I couldn't despise Dodd-Frank more!!!

The Congressmen as well as the bill...

Now we find that Dodd-Frank protects the flawed GSE mortgage giants, Fannie and Freddie from the capital requirements in imposes on private mortgage originators.

I don't know why I should be surprised. Barney Frank has been so far up their ass for the last decade, protected them from serious reform time and again, that you'd be forgiven if you thought he had a seat on the board!

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Too Big Not to Fail - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

You're doin' a heckuva job Barry...

By all means, let's stick around another decade. We're obviously doing the Afghans a huge fuckin' favor. Congress needs to ignore the fucking neocons and get the hell outta Afghanistan. If nuclear arms leak out of Pakistan, too bad, we live with it. M.A.D. is still an effective deterrent.

in reference to: Afghan Civilian Deaths Up 21% - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Unintended consequences...

How can you write a law that's this ambiguous? What utter bullshit. Seems completely ripe for abuse "from time to time" by the people running the CFTC.

Here's sort of a rule to live by - if you can't specify it clearly in a simple English paragraph, it probably shouldn't be written as a "law".

Obamacare (we have to pass the bill to known what's in the bill) @ 2000+ pages

FinReg (nobody effin' knows what it all means) @ 2000+ pages

At what point do we stop passing bills that we cannot understand? Dems are already backpedaling on the silly-assed financial reporting regulation of Obamacare which stands to cripple small business with really unnecessary paperwork - sort of the Congressional equivalent of searching the sofa cushions for spare change - because of the tremendous outcries against this unnoticed rule.

What other time bombs are ticking in these behemoths?

in reference to:

"According to the language of the law, sometime later this year it will become unlawful to enter into swaps “in excess of such amount as shall be fixed from time to time” by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. But what will that amount be, and when will we find out? What is meant by “from time to time”?"
- Op-Ed Contributor - Reap What You Swap - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Imagine the outrage...

If this were a Republican Senator...

in reference to:

"One piece of footage features a nameplate being placed outside an office or cubicle, and it appears the person named does not exist--not in voter databases, nothing on Lexus-Nexus [sic], no such person on Facebook or other social media. In fact, the only Elizabeth Ackland that could be found in Wisconsin died in 1877."
- God Save This Partisan Court - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Help Morons vote!

So, I realize I'll be in the minority on this. But, do we really want people to have the right (that's correct, it's a right) to vote if they're too stupid to fill out the registration forms without help? At what point does being informed become important? I know, I know, you can't take away someone's right to vote, but you could make it mandatory that they exercise said right and be able to fill out the damn forms.

Certainly know why Obama wants this to be enforced - these morons ain't gonna be voting Republican in the fall...

in reference to:

"The guidelines make it clear that people applying for benefits must not only be offered the chance to register but must be given help in filling out the forms if they ask. If states do not comply voluntarily, lawsuits are likely to follow."
- Editorial - A Welfare Check and a Voting Card - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Sounds like we're doing God's work...

Maybe if we continue to starve the beast, we'll rightsize this monstrosity that government has become. We bring the troops home and cut our military spending in half, roll back some that toxic Obama/Pelosi/Reid garbage, cut the corporate tax rate to be somewhere in line with the rest of the wold and voila, you've got a real stimulus.

in reference to:

"Government workers were walking the plank from coast to coast. About 143,000 temporary Census workers were let go, and another 48,000 government employees at the budget-strapped state and local levels lost their jobs."
- Op-Ed Columnist - The Horror Show - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Still an apologist...

While she gets in some shots, Maureen is still apologizing for the first Lady's tone-deaf behavior over the last few weeks. Amazing that the Times will let the Obamas get away with just about anything. Notice how Dowd can't help but take a parting shot at GWB as well? Sad that Dems are still blaming Bush for all of their troubles...

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Feliz Cumpleaños, and Adiós - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

I always loved Colorado...

Here's one more reason why. Taking on outrageous pension liabilities and saying - NO.

Look, both of my parents were teachers. I understand more than most the sacrifices they made from a career perspective. But guys, it's still a pretty good gig - 2-3 months a year off, and pay over the entire year. A rabid union that defends indefensible tenure practices, so once you hit it you're set for life, and reasonably good middle class pay.

You will not get rich going into teaching, but you will have a pretty nice job with a decent salary, great vacation plan, and excellent benefits. That said, go look at the costs of Immediate Annuities that would be needed to generate the same income streams promised these retirees. For a man, you'd need to plunk down $860,000 for that same income stream and 3.5% COLA.

Now, I got some great friends who are teachers - really good with their money and all that, but I can pretty much guarantee that unless they're inheriting it, they ain't saving that much ($860,000) money on their teacher salary, even if their salary over their working career had been $10K a year higher (which is wholly unrealistic) and every dime of that increase had gone into a decent fund earning a nice conservative 3-4% after inflation, they might, just might, get close to that $860,000 figure - much would depend on when they chose to retire.

As the Colorado governor (a Democrat) so eloquently stated:

“The New Deal is demographically obsolete. You can’t fund the dream of the 1960s on the economy of 2010.”

It's great that the government and taxpayers of Colorado yanked their heads out of the sand and said they had to address this now, before they bankrupted the state. Unions will want to sue - let 'em. You can't pay unrealistic obligations on the backs of the few workers who remain. The best of them will vote with their feet, and a shrinking tax base is a surefire way into bankruptcy - and guess what? Once there, a judge just sets aside obligations and current contracts in favor of far more Draconian cuts. It's better for the Unions to be an active part of the solution now, or passive participants in bankruptcy court.

in reference to: Your Money - The Coming Class War Over Public Pensions - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Oh yeah, almost forgot about that...

Nice of the Times to remind us that Obama was a liar before he assumed the throne...

in reference to:

"It was Mr. Obama who enjoyed such a rich windfall in small Internet donations as a candidate that he rejected the public option with its spending limits. He did so despite earlier promises to continue with a system that had served presidential politics well for a generation after the big-money corruption of Watergate."
- Editorial - A Campaign Vow Come Due - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

There you go again Paul!!!

One great thing about the Ryan plan is that it first focuses on spending cuts. It's the fact that it embraces the conservative theme of personal responsibility (vouchers, etc.) that drives Progressive morons like Krugman crazy.

Here's the thing. Nobody doing serious thinking about deficit reduction thinks we can get away without increasing the revenue side. That fight is over, and whether or not people like Ryan want to admit it, we're gonna have to have some changes in tax policy.

Some of Ryan's proposals on that front make sense, including the gross simplification of the tax code. I prefer something like the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer) but in any case, whatever tax code emerges, it MUST include all workers and income levels. The days of 47% of the country paying no income tax have to be gone.

But, as I said, the beauty of Ryan's proposal is that he starts by cutting spending. That's the key. It's like immigration; first you seal the border, then you address the "structural problem" of the 12 million illegals who are already here. The thing is, you stop digging the hole.

Then, once we've cut right to the frickin' marrow - across the board too, defense, everything - we see what we absolutely can't live with and find a FAIR revenue plan to address those shortcomings. Said revenue plan must be shared across all sections of the economic spectrum, not just those in the top 5% either.

I love the idea. Krugman and other idiots on the left want to start from the other side. They say, let's raise taxes and cover a higher level of spending, then stop the spending - at the higher level. Doesn't work, and they know it - once these programs are in place they never, ever go away - the only solution will be to keep increasing taxes as the programs grow organically to consume ever larger percentages of GDP. But, as long as we're paying people not to work, and subsidizing money-losing green-energy industries, people like Krugman will be happy.

We won't have many more opportunities to address our deficit problems on our terms. We have a populist wave of anger at the Democrats for spending, and a real enlightenment and mobilization around the deficit. As a new Republican Congress (I hope) takes over after the midterm elections, we could do worse than start embracing Ryan's ideas - they make a helluva lotta sense.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The Flimflam Man - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Sad? Absolutely...

Still doesn't mean we should be there. Unless we're willing to raise this to a level of death and destruction that will make the Israeli disproportionate responses look tame, we ain't gonna win this one.

This is not our problem - although it's sad that we've probably made things worse for these women by occupying their country for the past decade and in doing so, helped step up the recruiting of more and more radical Islam pieces of garbage.

This is not a reason to stay folks, it's yet another reason for us to leave.

in reference to: Afghan Women Fear Their Fate Amid Taliban Negotiations - TIME (view on Google Sidewiki)

On a par with the Civil Rights struggle?

Is it just me that gets pissed as all hell when bleeding hearts (like the Times' editorial staff) liken the protests against "stepped up" immigration enforcement to the 1960s civil rights movements of African Americans?

Go back and read that last sentence. What's the last word there? Lemme help you out - it's "American". The people struggling for Civil Rights in the 60s were American citizens.

Nobody is suggesting that the rights of Mexican (or Honduran, or Costa Rican, or Ecuadoran) Americans be curtailed. But folks, let's get this straight - illegal immigrants are criminals. Nonviolent? Sure. Willing to do work that many Americans won't? Absolutely! Doesn't change the fact that by being here without official permission, they are breaking the law.

You don't like the law? Fine - elect people to Congress who will change the law to make you happy. But do NOT come down on Arizona for seeking to enforce the laws that the Federal government has ignored. And don't give me that bullshit about enforcement actions and deportations increasing under Obama's watch - that dog won't hunt.

We have a problem on our border - we need to seal it. Some would say that we should make it very, very difficult to get across and I'm sort of OK with that - why shouldn't we treat illegals like invaders? But if that's too Draconian for you, fine - either way you gotta seal the border.

Secondly, we need a way to ensure that only legal American citizens can work in this country. As a Libertarian, my stomach turns at the thought of a national ID card, but as much as I hate it, it's probably the only way to ensure that there are no jobs for criminals period. And, we need to make the penalties for those who hire illegals particularly onerous. They need to be so bad that nobody will want to run afoul of the law.

I also see no earthly reason why criminals should be allowed to consume emergency health care. If someone shows up who cannot prove his/her citizenship you don't turn 'em away - you treat 'em and you alert the authorities. Said criminal is then on the next deportation cruise to Guadalajara. They show up again? They go to American Federal prison where they do hard labor - maybe building roads or whatever - welcome to the land of opportunity!

You do this right, and voila - immigration problems are a thing of the past.

in reference to: Editorial Observer - The Hunt for American Decency in the Arizona Quicksand - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)