in a world of hurt

Stimulus Isn't a Dirty Word - Alan Blinder, Wall Street Journal

 

Yes it is.  The problem is, governments has an irrational confidence that they can control events.  A smart drunk, when he gets on his hourse, drop the rains and lets him find his way home.

 

“A debate now rages in Europe over whether fiscal austerity—that is, higher taxes and less spending—helps or hinders growth. That's progress of sorts. Not long ago, European policy makers seemed stuck on the notion that austerity promotes growth. Yes, we were supposed to believe that countries grow faster when their governments spend less and tax more. “

What they haven’t tried is spending less and not taxing more.  (but that is not fair, say the progressives). Leave taxes alone.  Fairness is a religious concept.  Everyone knows nature is not fair.  Only the reality deniers demand fairness.

 

How about instead of fairness, creating a level playing field.  Everyone treated equally.  Everyone has an equal opportunity.  (no attempting to compensate for unequal ability).  No picking winners. Allow winners to win.

 

“Events in Europe seem to have dashed that idea.” (only if you have a distorted perception of reality) ” But a similar debate rages here in the U.S.—with the lone exception that our pro-austerity crowd abhors tax increases. “ (maybe cause that works, that is lower spending without a tax increase)  ”It's a highly partisan debate, too, the sort that an election should decide.”

 

“Many Democrats, including President Obama, want to help state and local governments maintain their spending, which has now dropped 6.4% since its 2008 peak—and is still falling. Most Republicans reject that idea, even when it saves the jobs of teachers, fire fighters and police officers.” This republican rejects that idea.

 

 

The politics of the grand deception

Holder Has Been "Stopped & Frisked" - Al Sharpton, Huffington Post

 

“The politics of politics. Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, has just pressed ahead with contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder. Attempting to argue that AG Holder somehow withheld information with regards to the Fast and Furious case, Issa has engaged in a political witch hunt that proves only one thing: the hypocrisy of GOP members for personal and Party benefit. ” Except Eric Holder is provide adequate evidence that he has in fact committed perjury.  Freely lying under oath must expect to elicit a response, even if no political partisanship were involved.

Note that Al Sharpton is not saying that Eric Holder is not guilty, as charged, only reporting the charges.  And when only 10% of what was asked is produced, is that not obviously withholding.  It would be smarter to deliver the 90% and hold back the critical 10%.

And where is the hypocrisy?  Is this a “your mother wares combat boots” kind of general purpose slander?  The republicans gave Holder over a year to get his act together. Where is the history that would show hypocrisy? They got after Clinton for perjury, and they defended Scooter Libby, but Liddy’s was a trumped up charge.

Everyday, people go to jail for perjury.  AG Holder went out of his way to endanger himself. Ever since Watergate, it is common knowledge that the cover-up is worse than the crime. Is the AG to get affirmative action consideration?

“The highest officer of law and order in this nation has been ridiculed, scapegoated and handled as some sort of criminal throughout this 'investigation.” Scapegoated- did Obama do that?

“First things first, let's remember that Fast and Furious was created under the Bush Administration.” Well, no.  That was another program. Even if it had been, wouldn’t Obama have reviewed it?.  He had the option of not continuing it.

“Not only did Issa and his counterparts never go after previous attorneys general or the Bush Administration itself,” – There it is, the supposed hypocrisy.  I don’t believe the previous AG was dumb enough to tell self contradictory accounts. I believe when the democrats were in control they did do everything to go after the administration.

 

 

 

I have a problem with pro Obama "journalists"

Fast & Furious Inanity Reaches New Heights - Kevin Drum, Mother Jones

 

“Republicans care about only because (a) it involves guns, and (b) it involves the Obama administration.” ?? How about (c) it was illegal, and (d) it got a lot of people killed, including one of our own.

“Conclusion: this whole thing is completely ridiculous, just a pointless piece of political theater. I shall now try to return to my previous policy of ignoring it. Anybody got a problem with that?”

Conclusion: I shall now try to return to my policy of ignoring anything written in Mother Jones.  Anybody got a problem with that?

 

 

 

The Progressive Vision is Scary

 

Romney's Vision Really Is That Scary - Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic

“Obama would preserve the safety net and most other federal programs, including the expansions of health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, then impose a combination of (relatively) moderate cuts to some federal programs and (relatively) moderate tax increases on the wealthy. Romney would dramatically reduce government, including the safety net, and dramatically reduce taxes, mostly to benefit the wealthy.”

President Obama would try but fail. If he wins anew term it will be with one or both houses opposed to his vision. We will have two parties struggling for control as we head for the fiscal cliff. Governor Romney, on the other hand would have the House (which controls spending with a veto power), and possibly both houses.  He would have the Republican approach which has recently fiscal success in Wisconsin, Mississippi, New Jersey, He would reduce government, and lower taxes, the formula to revive the economy.

With Obama, we go the way of Greece; with Romney we return the prosperity of the past.

Will you be hurt?  Probably, we are in the “new normal”, everyone suffers.  With Romney, you have a chance that we return to the “old normal”, maybe fewer freebies, but a opportunity to do as well as you can imagine.

 

 

Obama hates business, unless he can roll them.

Bobby Jindal Should Know Better - Ezra Klein, Washington Post

He said: Which is why it’s so disappointing when he says things like this: “I suspect that many in the Obama administration really don’t believe in private enterprise. At best, they see business as something to be endured so that that it can provide tax money for government programs.”

He didn’t say:

“Consider what it would mean for Jindal to believe what he’s saying. It would mean he thinks there are real, living, breathing humans in the Obama administration who unhappily endure Apple’s existence because it leads to tax revenue, or who walk into their local hardware stores and can stomach the experience of buying a hammer only because they know deep down that some percentage of that purchase is headed to Medicare’s coffers. No one in the Obama administration thinks like that. These days, no one in China even thinks like that. To find anyone who actually thinks like that, you need a Hot Tub Time Machine set for the Soviet Union in 1973.”

This is obviously a straw man argument.  But if Bobby Jindal did believe this, what is so wrong?  You can’t know what they are thinking but the actions are consistent with the statement. In every instance the progressive leaning want government to do whatever needs doing. Are you sure, Obama doesn’t have an apple guideline, and a organization to enforce it?  Who would have thought GM would become government motors.

I believe no one in China thinks this way, but Obama? Castro thinks this way and Castro likes the way Obama works.

and finally: "If these policies have caused serious distress, it’s hard to detect in corporate bottom lines. After taxes, corporate profits amounted to 6.9 percent of GDP in 2010 — the highest level since 1966." This is just the crony capitalists.  The honest business men were in a hurt.

Is the constitution Legitimate?

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Crisis - Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic

 

“Given that reality, Chief Justice Roberts may have been too quick to conclude that 5-4 partisan divisions would decrease the Court’s legitimacy over time: The decrease in confidence among Democrats may be offset by the increase in confidence among Republicans. But Roberts was certainly correct that the Court should be held to different standards. As Roberts suggested, in an age when the White House and Congress are increasingly viewed as partisan institutions, avoiding polarization on the Supreme Court is a “special opportunity.” It is also a defining test of his leadership.” 

 

I think the court, if it applies the constitution to its judgments, is legitimate even if the majority doesn’t agree. The title doesn’t correspond to the text, there is no crisis but it is up to every to support the court if they seem to be applying the correct standard, not only if we agree with the court decisions. Not even the  revolutionary war was  supported by the majority.

 

The brainless 99% has no consistency, so why be concerned about their opinions.

 

Shut her down

Shut her down
The myth of the presidential mandate
Posted by Ezra Klein at 08:52 AM ET, 06/08/2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-myth-of-the-presidential-mandate/2012/06/08/gJQA0HvVNV_blog.html

"If voters don't like that state of affairs -- if we want elections to produce leaders who can govern effectively -- then the question, really, is what our theory of change is. Because simply turning Democrats and Republicans in and out of office doesn't seem to be working."

Maybe the Progressives have had their share of getting things done, and now everyone effected is ready for a pause. They won't get it though because the government machine grinds on.

I propose a little creative distinction as we have seen in Wisconsin. The house has the power, it should turn off the money, don't pass appropriations for the coming year. If the presidency is taken, remove the executive approval of federal worker unions.

If the Federal government is paused, the states have the capability to take up the slack.


Sent from my iPad

American Rasputin

American Rasputin

Valerie Jarrett



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-jarrett/low-income-poor-families_b_1560416.html

Prioritizing Low-Income Families and Creating Pathways to Opportunity for All Americans
Posted: 05/31/2012 6:18 pm

"Almost every Republican lawmaker voted to reduce funding for the SNAP program by nearly 20 percent, and cut Medicaid by one-third. Representative Paul Ryan, who authored the Republican budget, has said our social safety net is in danger of becoming a "hammock," and argues it must be radically scaled back. As President Obama has publicly pointed out, this vision of America would hurt poor children, kids with disabilities, and students.

There is more work to do, but President Obama is moving our country forward. He believes that your success should not be determined by your background or your zip code; that everyone should get a fair shot, everyone should do their fair share, and everyone should play by the same set of rules. Republicans in Congress believe that everyone should be left to fend for themselves. "

Instead of hammock, the trap the democrats have created is the "have a heart" variety, which isn't comfortable, and leaves you helpless. when you feed wild animals until they forget how to fend for themselves. Then you have a zoo, or a bunch of dead animals.






Sent from my iPad