"Ernie" has some thoughts of the demise of American culture.
"Ernie" has some thoughts of the demise of American culture.
Posted at 05:28 PM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Music, Politics, Racial, Religion, Science, Sports, Taxes, Television | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 12:01 AM in Abortion, Books, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Talk Radio, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: Adam Lanza bullying, Anders Breivik, Barak Obama, Columbine High School, DC Comics, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Gangster Squad, Gun control, gun violence, Hollywood, James Eagan Holmes, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg
Posted at 10:34 PM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Suggested questioning of John Kerry at his Senate hearing to confirm Obama's appointment of him as Secretary of State:
Senator, your life story is a long and storied one...well known throughout the world. And the Chair has praised your integrity and diplomatic experience.
I'd like to start by asking you to once again describe your famous Christmas Eve, secret mission into Cambodia, which I find most interesting since you weren't even in SE Asia during the Christmas time of year?
Is consorting with our nations enemies part of your "Diplomatic Experience"... Like North Vietnam while we were at war? The Sandinistas while we were engaged in conflict in Central America? The butcher Assad and Saddam Hussein in the Middle East... And the Russians and Chinese when we were engaged in the Cold War?
And would you explain to us how you recruited your fellow "Winter Soldiers" to come and testify before Congress about atrocities committed by our American Soldiers and Marines, when most of the so called witnesses you recruited were never even in the military, or had ever gone to Vietnam?
Remind us of your eye witness accounts of our Vietnam Veterans being as ruthless as the hordes of Gangues Khan? Tell us when and where you observed that first hand, Senator Kerry?
And then I'd like to know why your citations for your Silver Stars were signed by a Secretary of the Navy many years after the war was over?
Is it true, as charged by eye witnesses, that your Purple Hearts were as a result of your own incompetence? Friendly fire by your own hand?
Why couldn't you pass the Bar Exam, if you are so brilliant?
Why did you park your boat in Rhode Island? Was it to avoid taxes on it in your home state?
Is it true that your wealth was derived by marrying homely rich heiresses and widows?
And why do the men who served with you in Vietnam universally hate your guts, along with 99.9% of all Vietnam Veterans?
Is it true that of all the men and women in the U.S. Senate, you are known to be the most egotistical of them all?
Is yours the face America wants to present to the rest of the world, a man who has made a career of lies and deceit, while smiling broadly?
Is there anyone who symbolizes the term; "Ugly American" more than you?
Can any foreign leader ever trust a single word out of your mouth?
Are you the best that Democrats have to offer?
Aren't you an insult to all who have served?
"Peter" has some thoughts on the Presidential Election.
My mind is made up, don't bother me with facts. It is Bush's fault. Everything is Bush's fault.
Indeed, even though the e-mail below is absolutely correct, IT IS STILL BUSH'S FAULT. Why? Did he VETO any of the garbage that Pelosi and Reid pushed through Congress? Even if Congress were to override his vetoes, at the very least he would have been on record and made political points. But Bush the "compassionate conservative" was/is too nice a guy to stand up for principles and values.
The forwarded e-mail fails to point out that the original source of the problem traces back to the Community Redevelopment Act signed by Carter, the "redlining" campaigns against banks by Clinton, and the stupid new financial laws and regulations imposed in response to the Enron mess -- itself created by infernally stupid regulations imposed on the energy generation and distribution industries in the Clinton and earlier years both at the state and federal levels. Enron did not create the brownouts in CA, it was stupid state regulations that did. Bush did not create then burst the housing bubble, the Democrats did. Bush did not create the financial collapse, the Democrats and their cronies did. Bush was not in cahoots with Wall Street, the Democrats and later Obama were. It was Pelosi, Reid and Obama who did not "let a good crisis go to waste," especially after having worked so hard to create it.
And just in the past couple of months the news was that Obama is reimposing the same lax lending rules that had created the mortgage lending crisis in the first place, and this week it Obama had the gall of actually suing the Bank of America for ... having followed the federal lending rules...!
But hey, this is HISTORY, and if anyone is good at erasing and rewriting history, it is the Democrats. Take a look at this stupid letter to an editor:
Let me just present some facts regarding Democratic vs. Republican governance to add some perspective. Personal income grew six times more under Democrats than Republicans; gross domestic product grew seven times more under Democrats than Republicans; corporate profits were 16 percent more under Democrats, minus 4.53 percent under Republicans; average compound returns on the stock market were 18 times greater under Democrats than Republicans; $100,000 invested over 40 years of Republican control yielded $126,000, $100,000 invested over 40 years of Democrat control yielded $3.9 million and Republicans added 2.5 times as much debt as Democrats. Source: Forbes Magazine, not exactly your average liberal source.
So my question is: Why would anyone, especially someone as learned and worldly as Mr. Farmer, choose to support a Republican and the return to the failed policies of the last administration in the face of such demonstrable evidence that Republican control is so negative for the country?
I have no illusions about Obama, I strongly disagree with his policies regarding drone warfare, assassinations, secrecy, national security and domestic surveillance, etc., and none of that would change with Romney. But economically and particularly considering the Supreme Court of the United States, I have to support the Democrats.
The Tea Party Republicans claim Obama has not repaired the Bush and Republican mistakes fast enough. Pelosi passed several job bills out of the House. McConnell filibustered and stopped those job bills.
In 2010, the Tea Party Republicans ran on jobs, jobs, and, oh yes, hate Obama. Please note, not one job bill was offered by Boehner and the Tea Party Republicans. Further, they killed all of Obama's job bills.
McConnell and Boehner proclaimed we must stop Obama from doing his job, just what you want from real American leadership. So be it, if 50 million Americans suffer. Their nay-saying has hurt our economy ad made things harder for the rest of us. Can you justify what they are doing? The Tea Party Republicans have the brass to ask us to vote for them and their hurtful policies.
Before you vote, think about what Bush did to us and what Romney and Ryan have in store for us. Ask yourself how you stand on outsourcing American jobs? More tax cuts for the very rich? You can see all the jobs that were created in 12 years. Do you care about our social safety net? Does our infrastructure need repair and would that work create jobs? Romney, Heller and Amodei support the Ryan budget and Norquist anti-tax pledge. Was this action taken for our benefit or the Tea Party?
Clinton is given credit for achievements of the Gingrich Congress and the Contract With America... Bush is maligned because he recognized the threat to "entitlements" and the "safety net." The TEA Party is condemned for knowing the difference between public and private jobs, spending vs. investing, growing vs. destroying the economy. Bush is blamed for doubling the national debt -- actually done by Pelosi, Reid and Obama since January 3, 2007.
This is not just plain ignorance or stupidity. This is a full blown mental disease. These people live in an alternate universe, like in a bad science fiction flick. And the rest of us are victims of their delusions, having no choice but to live in THIS reality, not in some "progressive" fantasy land.
Begin forwarded message:
PLEASE READ AND THINK ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED...............
Please note carefully!!!
Some people have short memories...
DO YOU REMEMBER JANUARY 3, 2007?
I've been saying this for years, but this email probably explains it
better and more clearly. This is NOT a political message, but rather
a clarification to remind us all of the correct facts.
Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our "economic
crisis" occurred (that was actually created), the Dow hit its highest
point ever, closing at 14,164.53 and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day
level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%. But things were
already being put in place to create the havoc
we've all been experiencing since then. And it all started, as this email explains,
on January 3, 2007. --LFL
I'm sending this to each of you regardless of your party preferences
because I believe it is something you may not have considered.
This tells the story, why Bush was so "bad" at the end of his term.
Don't just skim over this, it's not very long, read it slowly and let
it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was
actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over
the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the
first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy
that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007
was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.
At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House
Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate
Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months
later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping
5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in
2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie
Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA
and the Democrat Congress.
So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....
THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and
the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 &
2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused
them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough
on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush
entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running
until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a
massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that
very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he
signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the
last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five
years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After
that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that
includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a
nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted
for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! PLEASE DO YOUR PART!
Posted at 12:01 AM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Science, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 12:01 AM in Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Science, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
I am sorry folks, but Biden+Raddatz won. Ryan laid down with dogs and got up with flea bites.
Ryan had a "deer in the headlights" look, while Biden was rude, crude, arrogant, disrespectful, snide, ... He was the village idiot, smirking even before Ryan said anything, smirking at everything Ryan said, cackling as if Ryan was cracking the funniest jokes of the century. He reinforced the Democrat base by exhibiting all the qualities that appeal to their natural low-class hormone-crazed constituency.
Style completely overwhelmed substance in this debate. Sure, all Biden did was repeat the stupidest Democrat talking points, but he did it with conviction and energy. Ryan let Biden andRaddatz interrupt him in the middle of his arguments and cut him off before he got to the main point at the end.
I could not have resisted the urge and the necessity to put Biden in his place, to tell him to shut up while an adult is talking. I could not have resisted telling Raddatz to do her job as a moderator, not as an obviously partisan advocate. As I recall, even the deliberate tactic of hypersensitivity to media bias worked well in the primaries. It would have been HIGHLY appropriate in this "debate."
Let's not overlook some basic facts.
The Democrats keep pushing that $5T lie, because it works. They keep pushing that lie about a tax cut for the rich, because it works. They keep pushing that lie about the Ryan tax hike on the middle class, because it works. They keep pushing that lie about holding the middle class tax cuts hostage to lower taxes on the rich, because it works.
These idiotic lies work, not because they are based on fact but because they appeal to emotions. It's all for the better, for Democrats, that the elicited emotion is the basest of them all, envy. It fits very well into the Marxist Democrat ideology of class envy and class warfare.
Romney, Ryan and every other Republican candidate for any office at any level fall short on explaining some important points.
1. They have to explain the simple math that is the basis for the Democrat claim, that a 20% tax cut will result in a $5T deficit and addition to the national debt. Yes. If the government takes in $2.5T per year, and you cut that by 20%, you reduce that take by $0.5T. Over ten years, which is the customary projection used nowadays, that comes to $5T.
2. They have to realize that "soak the rich" is a poor argument -- and it is nothing new. The top income tax rate was, at least on the books if rarely in practice, 90% under Eisenhower, somewhere in the 70's or 60's under Kennedy / Johnson / Nixon / Carter, and cut to 28% under Reagan. What is new now is the resistance to hiking it back up from 35 to 39 to 43 per cent under Obama. Therefore the public sees this as greed and class envy in reverse; the rich not wanting to pay "their fair share" even though they did use to, just a generation or two ago. "Soak the rich" did work, just a generation or two ago. Or so the Democrats see it.
3. They have to debunk all that Democrat blabbering about having to "pay for" tax cuts. Well, yes, if you insist on cutting your income in one area, and refuse to cut expenses, then you have to find new income in some other area. So, if you give or preserve a tax cut to the rich, then you have to raise taxes on the middle class. Or so the simpleminded Democrats talking at their simpleminded constituency would like to convince them with simpleminded arithmetic.
4. They have to explain, above all else, that the Democrats are ignoring the interplay between the level of taxation and the level of economic activity, between tax rates and growth rates. If you raise taxes, you choke the economy. If you reduce taxes, you grow the economy. The historical record proves this beyond any doubt - in everybody's mind, that is, except the Democrats. The tax rate reductions during the administrations of Harding / Coolidge, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush had resulted in immediate recovery and robust growth. The high tax policies of Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Carter have resulted in recessions or depressions, and the threat or certainty of tax hikes under Obama prolongs a depression and threatens to push it into a depression.
The piece that is missing, and which the candidates' campaign organizations with their access to the experts must still provide, is the economic model -- the mathematical calculation and the graphical illustrations -- to show the relationship between tax rates, economic activity / GDP growth and actual tax revenues. Sure, we can repeat till the cows come home that under Reagan tax revenues doubled, but until we show the numbers and the graphs, all that talk about creating 12 million new jobs in four years is just so much empty and rather unbelievable rhetoric, especially after all these years of the "Bush tax cuts."
It frustrates the hell out of me that in debate after debate our candidates are hammered on this point and THEY DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS AT HAND to show up the Democrats for the stupidity of the arguments they are making.
5. They have to explain that you do NOT create jobs by increasing government employee head count. Government is an overhead function. As you can see from your own pay stubs, it takes one or two DOZEN private employees to pay enough taxes to cover the paycheck of just ONE public employee (teacher, civil servant, whatever) plus the other expenditures of government. That means, if you want to add just one employee to the government head count, first you have to grow the PRIVATE sector by at least a dozen productive employees.
6. They need to present the same analysis and explanations with regard to entitlements. At the risk of lecturing Ryan in his field of expertise, he has to show one set of graphs and charts that explain the inevitable and imminent bankruptcy of these programs, and another set to demonstrate how his selectively, partially privatized plan would save and preserve them with no loss of benefits.
We have to keep referring to the experience of countries such as Chile which did privatize their retirement programs with greater, not lesser payouts to the beneficiaries. We have to contrast the benefits of the Ryan reforms with the Democrat claim, repeated in the debate with Biden, that the system is solvent till 2030 something, when in fact all they have been doing for decades now is simply kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with. The great irony in all this is that for all the emphasis that Democrats put on "sustainable" this and "sustainable" that, but the only things that are not "sustainable" are their precious entitlement programs!
Posted at 12:01 AM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Did you notice how Lehrer so desperately, repeatedly tried to help Obama? How Romney wiped to floor with both of them and was able to do so with gentlemanly grace and at times childish enthusiasm? But hey, everything that could be said, was said last night. The news sites on the web are hilarious, too.
There is just one point that Romney and all other Republican candidates MUST hammer on endlessly, to clear up one weakness in our argument. It takes three simple steps to clear up this weakness.
1. Romney and all other Republican candidates need to explain Obama's assertions that reductions in tax rates will lead to a $5T loss in revenue, $2000 tax hikes per person, etc., along with all his other stupid talking points.
This is the time to take a page from Ross Perot and break out the charts. Which charts? The Laffer Curve that President Reagan used to show the relationship between tax rates, economic growth, and total tax collections (revenue). This is the time to hammer home the concept that Obama is so totally unable to grasp, that reductions in tax rates lead to INCREASED REVENUE.
The arithmetic effect is static, meaning that if rates are lowered, the tax revenues per dollar of tax base will be lowered by the amount of the decrease in the rate, and vice versa for increasing tax rates.
IF you assume that the economy is a zero-sum game -- that the only reason I win is because you lose, because I take something from you -- and
IF you assume that the economy stays flat, and
IF you assume that the government's expenses stay flat,
THEN any reduction in tax RATES will result in loss of total REVENUE.
This makes sense to Obama -- and seems plausible to the average Joe who does not know anything about the economy anyway -- because you can show it with simple arithmetic; a 20% cut in a tax rate results in a 20% cut in revenue. BUT, in fact history shows that the economy is NOT a zero-sum game. People do not rob each other of existing goods; they work, they produce more goods, and thereby enrich each other. This is the second part in the Laffer analysis that Obama and the Democrats don't understand.
The economic effect recognizes the positive impact that lower tax rates have on work, output, and employment, which provide incentives to increase these activities. By contrast, raising tax rates penalizes people for engaging in these activities. The Laffer Curve demonstrates what happens when the economic and arithmetic effects collide, explaining why a tax increase may reduce taxed activity and raise less revenue than otherwise predicted, just as a tax cut may increase taxed activity and raise more revenue than otherwise predicted.
2. The second point that Romney and all other Republican candidates need to quantify is the expected growth in the economy if we (1) lower the tax rates, (2) repeal obamacare and all its horrific tax increases, (3) simplify the tax code and make deductions means-tested. A good starting reference I found is
The tax cuts in the early 1920s, late 1940s, early 1960s, 1980s, mid-1990s each have resulted in huge economic growth. Other historic data also shows that the tax policy under Hoover, FDR, Johnson, Carter and Obama directly resulted in long term depressions.
I am not an economist, so I don't know where to look for a model that could be used to predict the magnitude of growth or recession as a result of tax reductions or hikes, but I am sure such models exist and that people in the profession know how to generate the charts we need.
3. The final point that Romney and all other Republican candidates need to explain is that all these claims are based on computerized MODELS. They ALL depend on starting assumptions, such as tax rates, growth rate, demographics, changes in government expenditures, etc., and you can generate ANY prediction you wish simply by manipulating the starting assumptions. GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. NOBODY. not even the CBO is immune to this effect; and just like in the polls, the gurus end up arguing over the "internals." But just like the projections of the national debt, shooting exponentially out of sight in just a handful of years if we don't curb spending and fix the entitlements, the economic models can be made to show the effects of different other assumptions. Someone with access to one of the more reliable models should be able to generate a few charts simple enough so even Obama could understand it.
The fact remains that Obama and the Democrats do not know anything about economics, whether keynesian, marxist or free market. The fact is that Obama and the Democrats have put us on a path to disaster with their totally unsustainable levels of debt and deficits, out of control spending, unfunded liabilities for entitlements, continuing losses in employment, increases in dependency on government programs, huge imminent tax hikes, stifling regulations, ...The fact remains that THIS is what we have to put an end to, and the fact remains that this election in our last chance to do so.
Posted at 12:01 AM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
"Peter" has some thoughts on this year's Presidential Campaign.
I am trying to be as optimistic about this as I can, but even in this GOP convention we just concluded I have not heard a single call for, let alone a proudly proclaimed commitment to, repealing EVERYTHING that Obama has ever signed, including Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, all the executive orders, and all the regulations that the Departments and agencies under his administration have issued. Yet, without such a total erasure of his administration's misdeeds and record, we will NEVER repair the damage that has been inflicted on this Republic and the Constitution by the Pelosi-Reid Congress since 2007 and by the Obama administration since 2009.
And it does not help my tenuous optimism that the election of 2012 is similar to the election of 1860. That one directly and almost immediately lead to the Civil War. As it was true then, it is true now - a house divided cannot stand.
As it was true then, it is true now - we cannot be half free and half slave. But this time we are talking about the freedom or slavery of ALL Americans.
This week we saw on display an America of its founding values, a nation of self-starters and entrepreneurs dedicated to individual freedom and opportunity for all. Next week we will see on display an America warped by an alien Marxist ideology of class envy, class hatred and class warfare, an America executing a war on success, a war on families, a war on women, a war on racial and ideological diversity, an America of utterly helpless dependence on government, of totalitarian control over the minutest details of our entire lives.
How long will THIS divided house stand?
Posted at 12:01 AM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Ecology, Economy, Education, Employment, Energy, Gay - Lesbian, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Science, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)