Michelle in her own words:
“My piece of the American Dream is a blessing hard won by those who came before me driven by the same conviction that drove my dad to get up an hour early each day to painstakingly dress himself for work — the same conviction that drives the men and women I’ve met all across this country…That’s why I love this country.” August 2008.
“We’re still living in a time and in a nation where the bar is set, right?…You start working hard and sacrificing and you think you’re getting close to that bar, you’re working and you’re struggling, and then what happens? They raise the bar…keep it just out of reach.”May 2008.
“For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” February 2008.
Remarkable transformation eh? Do you have any doubt which is the real Michelle? I didn't think so.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Obama the Diplomat
When Dubya was running in 2000 some reporter asked him the name of the President of Somewhere or Other. He mangled it, if he guessed at all. I don't remember. What I do remember are the ramifications. "Obviously", all the lefties said "this guy isn't ready to be President". They may have been right.
Yesterday Obama suggested, among other things, that the UN Security Council should convene immediately to discuss and pass resolutions to stop the war in Georgia.
This Columbia and Harvard educated lawyer is apparently not aware that Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council and there will be no resolutions passed until the Bear (note to Obama: Russia has been known as the Bear for a couple of hundred years, at least) achieves its goals in Georgia.
Unremarkably, one of our former Ambassadors to the UN, Governor Richardson of New Mexico, a wannabee VP for Obama, is also unaware of Russia's veto, having suggested the same prescription as Obama for stopping the war.
The well of these peoples' ignorance apparently has no bottom. Is it really possible that the dems would elect someone without even the most basic understanding of the most important (if utterly useless) international institution in the world?
Of course it is. They do not appear to care about anything but beating Republicans, no matter what the cost to the country and the world.
Update 8/27/08: Apparently nobody mentioned the Russian Security Council Veto in the last few weeks. He again called for the Council to convene on the subject. Wow. What a bubble this guy and his advisers live in. It is so hard to fathom that I find myself making excuses for him: What if he actually knows about the veto power but figures Americans are so stupid they don't know about it so he says it anyway. Let's hope so. It would certainly be the lesser of two evils.
Yesterday Obama suggested, among other things, that the UN Security Council should convene immediately to discuss and pass resolutions to stop the war in Georgia.
This Columbia and Harvard educated lawyer is apparently not aware that Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council and there will be no resolutions passed until the Bear (note to Obama: Russia has been known as the Bear for a couple of hundred years, at least) achieves its goals in Georgia.
Unremarkably, one of our former Ambassadors to the UN, Governor Richardson of New Mexico, a wannabee VP for Obama, is also unaware of Russia's veto, having suggested the same prescription as Obama for stopping the war.
The well of these peoples' ignorance apparently has no bottom. Is it really possible that the dems would elect someone without even the most basic understanding of the most important (if utterly useless) international institution in the world?
Of course it is. They do not appear to care about anything but beating Republicans, no matter what the cost to the country and the world.
Update 8/27/08: Apparently nobody mentioned the Russian Security Council Veto in the last few weeks. He again called for the Council to convene on the subject. Wow. What a bubble this guy and his advisers live in. It is so hard to fathom that I find myself making excuses for him: What if he actually knows about the veto power but figures Americans are so stupid they don't know about it so he says it anyway. Let's hope so. It would certainly be the lesser of two evils.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Obama's AmeriKa
"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.” Obama answering a question from a 7 year old girl. The question? "Why do you want to be president" on August 7, 2008.
Mr. Obama your negativity really doesn't have to be used to depress children. You might have considered an answer that shows that you recognize where you are and who you are talking to. How about, "I want to be President because I am sure that this, the greatest country in the history of the world, can be even greater. I intend to help make it so. That is why I want to be President".
By the way, when was it "what it once was"? Could it have been in the age of American slavery? How about the Depression? No wait, how about in the 40's when we were fighting all over the world. Or maybe it was during the Jim Crow 50's. Oh, I know, it was the pre-Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act 60's. No? Ok, how about the mid-60's to mid 70's when we were involved in Vietnam, sending conscripts to their deaths by the thousands and enduring the Arab Oil Boycott. Hm, no good either. Well how about the Jimmy Carter 70's. You remember those right? 20% interest rates, double digit inflation. The "Misery Index" and our folks held hostage in Iran? Not then either..hm.
Well I know 1980-88 is out of the question. Can't have been any good going on then. After all, we were being protested all over the world for stationing nukes in England and Europe and pointing them at the Russians.
The 90's? Didn't sound so great in your books. Bunch of greedy white people running the world, you know how it was. We also know with great certainty that it cannot possibly have been during the 2000's what with Bush and Cheney running roughshod over the Constitution.
Looks like, on balance, it must have been the 90's so why not let Mrs. Clinton run the show again since she and hubby were in charge for almost the entire decade?
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Obama on the day he became the presumptive nominee.
In an earlier post I commented on Eugene Robinson's assertion that white people calling Obama arrogant or presumptuous were really saying he was an uppity black man. Anyone who could utter a statement like Obama's above is such a complete narcissist that the words arrogant and presumptuous do not properly describe his hubris.
Mr. Obama your negativity really doesn't have to be used to depress children. You might have considered an answer that shows that you recognize where you are and who you are talking to. How about, "I want to be President because I am sure that this, the greatest country in the history of the world, can be even greater. I intend to help make it so. That is why I want to be President".
By the way, when was it "what it once was"? Could it have been in the age of American slavery? How about the Depression? No wait, how about in the 40's when we were fighting all over the world. Or maybe it was during the Jim Crow 50's. Oh, I know, it was the pre-Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act 60's. No? Ok, how about the mid-60's to mid 70's when we were involved in Vietnam, sending conscripts to their deaths by the thousands and enduring the Arab Oil Boycott. Hm, no good either. Well how about the Jimmy Carter 70's. You remember those right? 20% interest rates, double digit inflation. The "Misery Index" and our folks held hostage in Iran? Not then either..hm.
Well I know 1980-88 is out of the question. Can't have been any good going on then. After all, we were being protested all over the world for stationing nukes in England and Europe and pointing them at the Russians.
The 90's? Didn't sound so great in your books. Bunch of greedy white people running the world, you know how it was. We also know with great certainty that it cannot possibly have been during the 2000's what with Bush and Cheney running roughshod over the Constitution.
Looks like, on balance, it must have been the 90's so why not let Mrs. Clinton run the show again since she and hubby were in charge for almost the entire decade?
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Obama on the day he became the presumptive nominee.
In an earlier post I commented on Eugene Robinson's assertion that white people calling Obama arrogant or presumptuous were really saying he was an uppity black man. Anyone who could utter a statement like Obama's above is such a complete narcissist that the words arrogant and presumptuous do not properly describe his hubris.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Obama, Stupendously Stupid
I don't know how much more of this I can take.
Now Obama tells us that we are going to eliminate all the oil we import from the Middle East and Venezuela in 10 years. How? Well, we are going to invest $150 billion of your money in research and development and have the private sector go full out to develop alternative energy. Senator, you can't make the private sector do anything. Typical democrat. As I wrote earlier about John Edwards and Hillary, they all seem to think that the presidency is a dictatorship.
Senator, billions in subsidies have gone to wind and solar power undertakings over the years. They are inefficient and uneconomic in their current states. Billions are being invested by the private sector to improve the technology for both. This is being done because PROFITS are forecast. That is the reason most things get done. Not by presidential fiat.
Now Obama tells us that we are going to eliminate all the oil we import from the Middle East and Venezuela in 10 years. How? Well, we are going to invest $150 billion of your money in research and development and have the private sector go full out to develop alternative energy. Senator, you can't make the private sector do anything. Typical democrat. As I wrote earlier about John Edwards and Hillary, they all seem to think that the presidency is a dictatorship.
Senator, billions in subsidies have gone to wind and solar power undertakings over the years. They are inefficient and uneconomic in their current states. Billions are being invested by the private sector to improve the technology for both. This is being done because PROFITS are forecast. That is the reason most things get done. Not by presidential fiat.
Racism
Eugene Robinson had a column published in our local rag, The Arizona Republic, yesterday. In it he makes the usual assertions that people who call Obama arrogant or presumptuous are racists.
His piece got me to thinking about stereotypes. He doesn't realize that he is dealing not in white racist stereotypes but in black stereotypes. White people, in my experience, don't think much about race. There is no reason they should. Their race or color doesn't adversely affect their lives, generally speaking. Its a non-issue.
Black people, it seems to me on the other hand, are constantly aware of their color. It is an essential element of their self image. Unfortunately they seem not to understand that racial identity does not motivate white people, particularly not conservative white people.
We refer to Obama as arrogant and presumptuous because he is, independent of his skin color. He lectures us about things that we are all well aware of. For example, inflating tires. Are you driving around on half-inflated tires? Of course not, you aren't an idiot. He believes you are. Arrogant.
Has any other presidential candidate had his own seal? No. Arrogant. Presumptuous.
Has any other presidential candidate replaced the American Flag on the tail of his airplane with his own campaign logo? No. Arrogant.
Has any other presidential candidate ever gone on a world tour giving campaign speeches in foreign countries? No. Arrogant.
What being arrogant and presumptuous has to do with race is precisely nothing. Those who believe it does are projecting their own race based self-identification on white people. Its misplaced.
The syndrome is no different than many of my fellow Jews blaming any set-back and/or insult on anti-Semitism; homosexuals blaming any set-back and/or insult on homophobia; fat people blaming any set-back and/or insult on fatophobia. You get the picture.
His piece got me to thinking about stereotypes. He doesn't realize that he is dealing not in white racist stereotypes but in black stereotypes. White people, in my experience, don't think much about race. There is no reason they should. Their race or color doesn't adversely affect their lives, generally speaking. Its a non-issue.
Black people, it seems to me on the other hand, are constantly aware of their color. It is an essential element of their self image. Unfortunately they seem not to understand that racial identity does not motivate white people, particularly not conservative white people.
We refer to Obama as arrogant and presumptuous because he is, independent of his skin color. He lectures us about things that we are all well aware of. For example, inflating tires. Are you driving around on half-inflated tires? Of course not, you aren't an idiot. He believes you are. Arrogant.
Has any other presidential candidate had his own seal? No. Arrogant. Presumptuous.
Has any other presidential candidate replaced the American Flag on the tail of his airplane with his own campaign logo? No. Arrogant.
Has any other presidential candidate ever gone on a world tour giving campaign speeches in foreign countries? No. Arrogant.
What being arrogant and presumptuous has to do with race is precisely nothing. Those who believe it does are projecting their own race based self-identification on white people. Its misplaced.
The syndrome is no different than many of my fellow Jews blaming any set-back and/or insult on anti-Semitism; homosexuals blaming any set-back and/or insult on homophobia; fat people blaming any set-back and/or insult on fatophobia. You get the picture.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Barack and the Truth Revisited
In an earlier post I had declared that he is a liar. I am more convinced than ever he is one of the most cynical and devious politicians to run for national office in my adult lifetime.
In recent correspondence with a Dem acquaintance I mentioned that it appears Obama, although a lecturer in Constitutional Law, is unfamiliar with the opening words of the Declaration of Independence.
I wrote, "On June 30, 2008 Obama gave a silly "patriotism" speech. This was a prepared speech. I assume his regular speechwriters wrote it, with or without his help. Obama is a Columbia and Harvard educated Constitutional Law lecturer. Apparently he doesn't know that his statement regarding the Declaration of Independence is wrong:
"I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines (emphasis added) of the Declaration of Independence--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Reproduced below is the actual language of the Declaration.
"The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen ColoniesIn CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve..."
Obama's "first lines" are actually the first lines of the second paragraph. In the ordinary course of things this wouldn't be very important. Here it is and I will tell you why.
In the first place he is supposed to be a Constitutional Law scholar. Lack of familiarity with the DofI makes one wonder what he doesn't know about things he has not spent years studying.
There is a more important aspect to this. Imagine your mother had read you something when you were 10 years old or so that was so important that you remembered it 36 years later at 46 years old. Likely you would also have remembered it when you were 25 years old and studying Constitutional Law or 14 years old studying High School Civics.
As with all of us, regarding memories so important, when you read the DofI for yourself you would have said to yourself, "Gee, Mom got it wrong". You would never forget that would you? No, you wouldn't.
What all this means is that Obama made the story up. He is a liar of the first order.
In recent correspondence with a Dem acquaintance I mentioned that it appears Obama, although a lecturer in Constitutional Law, is unfamiliar with the opening words of the Declaration of Independence.
I wrote, "On June 30, 2008 Obama gave a silly "patriotism" speech. This was a prepared speech. I assume his regular speechwriters wrote it, with or without his help. Obama is a Columbia and Harvard educated Constitutional Law lecturer. Apparently he doesn't know that his statement regarding the Declaration of Independence is wrong:
"I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines (emphasis added) of the Declaration of Independence--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Reproduced below is the actual language of the Declaration.
"The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen ColoniesIn CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve..."
Obama's "first lines" are actually the first lines of the second paragraph. In the ordinary course of things this wouldn't be very important. Here it is and I will tell you why.
In the first place he is supposed to be a Constitutional Law scholar. Lack of familiarity with the DofI makes one wonder what he doesn't know about things he has not spent years studying.
There is a more important aspect to this. Imagine your mother had read you something when you were 10 years old or so that was so important that you remembered it 36 years later at 46 years old. Likely you would also have remembered it when you were 25 years old and studying Constitutional Law or 14 years old studying High School Civics.
As with all of us, regarding memories so important, when you read the DofI for yourself you would have said to yourself, "Gee, Mom got it wrong". You would never forget that would you? No, you wouldn't.
What all this means is that Obama made the story up. He is a liar of the first order.
We Have Won
The AP has confirmed today that the war in Iraq is being won. Their headline:
"Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost"
Yes, it seemed lost to those willing to lose and those who hoped to lose. Not to those determined to win.
Not surprisingly the article mentions President Bush only to criticize his "Mission Accomplished" speech and never uses the word "surge". Apparently neither had much to do with the outcome.
Its nice to see the enemy, AP, finally surrender. They have been doing so much for so long to try to win the war for the bad guys.
It will be amusing to watch the reactions of the surrender caucus.
When will Hillary apologize for calling Petraeus a liar. Right, never.
When will Harry Reid take to the Senate floor and declare his 2007 and 2008 declarations of our loss to have been mistakes? Never.
When will John Kerry take to the Senate floor to declare his gas bag speeches of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 to have been wrong? Never.
When will MoveOn.org take out a full page ad in the NYT to declare that their "General Betray Us" ad of 2007 was a mistake? Never.
These are the same people who demanded that President Bush own up to his mistakes. Hypocrites of the first order all.
Several commentators have pointed out that the AP story seems to coincide with Obama's trip to Iraq. Are they preparing the ground for a narrative that has Obama's visit turning the tide? I guess we'll see.
"Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost"
Yes, it seemed lost to those willing to lose and those who hoped to lose. Not to those determined to win.
Not surprisingly the article mentions President Bush only to criticize his "Mission Accomplished" speech and never uses the word "surge". Apparently neither had much to do with the outcome.
Its nice to see the enemy, AP, finally surrender. They have been doing so much for so long to try to win the war for the bad guys.
It will be amusing to watch the reactions of the surrender caucus.
When will Hillary apologize for calling Petraeus a liar. Right, never.
When will Harry Reid take to the Senate floor and declare his 2007 and 2008 declarations of our loss to have been mistakes? Never.
When will John Kerry take to the Senate floor to declare his gas bag speeches of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 to have been wrong? Never.
When will MoveOn.org take out a full page ad in the NYT to declare that their "General Betray Us" ad of 2007 was a mistake? Never.
These are the same people who demanded that President Bush own up to his mistakes. Hypocrites of the first order all.
Several commentators have pointed out that the AP story seems to coincide with Obama's trip to Iraq. Are they preparing the ground for a narrative that has Obama's visit turning the tide? I guess we'll see.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
An examination of gas prices
I am told that a year ago gas was $2.00/gallon. Today it is $4.00/gallon.
My expectation was that as prices rose the economy would grind to a halt and I have been surprised that it hasn't happened.
Looking at the figures, I think I can see why.
If you drive a car that gets 15mpg and commute 20 miles to work each day you have to drive 200 miles a week. The cost difference to you with gas at $5.00/gallon is $8.40 per day if $2.00 per gallon is your base line.
Is it likely that most drivers have discretionary income of $8.40 per day. Do you?
There was a story in the AZ Republic yesterday reporting on the increase in public transit ridership. The reporter described it as having "soared" 18% in recent months.
She went on to describe the two types of service offered, express and traditional stating that you could ride the express for "a small amount more". Traditional is $1.25, express is $1.75. So in this case a 40% increase is a "small amount" but increase ridership 18% and it has "soared".
My expectation was that as prices rose the economy would grind to a halt and I have been surprised that it hasn't happened.
Looking at the figures, I think I can see why.
If you drive a car that gets 15mpg and commute 20 miles to work each day you have to drive 200 miles a week. The cost difference to you with gas at $5.00/gallon is $8.40 per day if $2.00 per gallon is your base line.
Is it likely that most drivers have discretionary income of $8.40 per day. Do you?
There was a story in the AZ Republic yesterday reporting on the increase in public transit ridership. The reporter described it as having "soared" 18% in recent months.
She went on to describe the two types of service offered, express and traditional stating that you could ride the express for "a small amount more". Traditional is $1.25, express is $1.75. So in this case a 40% increase is a "small amount" but increase ridership 18% and it has "soared".
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Barack and the Truth
I have written before about Barack's problems with the truth.
Today he has set a new standard for himself and truthfulness. He is a liar.
Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that some recent events have caused Wright to go off his rocker? Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that sermons from 2001 and 2003 were aberrant departures from his usual form and content?
Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that the very first sermon that so impressed him, which he used a line from for the title of his first book, which described a miserable world run by greedy white people, was a departure from his normal sermon?
What a bunch of nonsense.
At best, he was deceived by a vicious racist for 20 years. Says a lot for his judgement.
At worst, he couldn't care less what Wright says or said. He joined Wright's church for his "street cred". A cold, calculating opportunist.
On another subject, Michelle Obama gave a speech this past Friday night, somewhere in Indiana I think. Her usual litany of complaints about this crummy country of ours. One was particularly amusing. She spoke about the crushing load of student loans which makes it impossible for the people who worked hard for those degrees to use them in the careers they had hoped to pursue.
Among those she listed as impossible to pursue because it doesn't pay enough to enable you to pay off your student loans; Community Organizer. What was her husband's profession? Community Organizer. How can anyone be that stupid? I don't know.
What is even more curious is that there are actually people who don't notice how dishonest this pair of ungrateful beneficiaries of the greatest country on earth are.
Today he has set a new standard for himself and truthfulness. He is a liar.
Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that some recent events have caused Wright to go off his rocker? Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that sermons from 2001 and 2003 were aberrant departures from his usual form and content?
Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that the very first sermon that so impressed him, which he used a line from for the title of his first book, which described a miserable world run by greedy white people, was a departure from his normal sermon?
What a bunch of nonsense.
At best, he was deceived by a vicious racist for 20 years. Says a lot for his judgement.
At worst, he couldn't care less what Wright says or said. He joined Wright's church for his "street cred". A cold, calculating opportunist.
On another subject, Michelle Obama gave a speech this past Friday night, somewhere in Indiana I think. Her usual litany of complaints about this crummy country of ours. One was particularly amusing. She spoke about the crushing load of student loans which makes it impossible for the people who worked hard for those degrees to use them in the careers they had hoped to pursue.
Among those she listed as impossible to pursue because it doesn't pay enough to enable you to pay off your student loans; Community Organizer. What was her husband's profession? Community Organizer. How can anyone be that stupid? I don't know.
What is even more curious is that there are actually people who don't notice how dishonest this pair of ungrateful beneficiaries of the greatest country on earth are.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Hillary and the Truth
Those of us on the right are amused and puzzled at the left's recent discovery that Bill and Hill are world class dissemblers. They are, as we have long known, embodiments of the old joke
"Q: How do you know when a salesman is lying?"
"A: His lips are moving".
I wrote in an earlier post about Bill's craveness in this regard. A few months ago he loudly proclaimed that among Hill's first acts as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 around the world on a mission to repair our reputation, torn asunder by the execrable W. Of course, Bush 41 hadn't been consulted on his new mission and issued a prompt statement supportive of 43. Bill never even considered that in the Internet age his assertion wouldn't stand up for 5 minutes. He just didn't care.
Over the last few months Hill has been talking about her harrowing arrival in Bosnia in 1996 amid sniper fire. She described being hurried across the tarmac to her car and the cancellation of the scheduled greeting ceremony because of the danger presented by the snipers.
For reasons best known to the MSMers who accompanied her on that trip, filmed and reported on it, they waited months to contradict her. But contradict her they have. Showing her, once again (but perhaps for the first time to her loyalists) to be the craven liar she is. No snipers, no rush across the tarmac, no cancelled greeting ceremony.
As one commentator mentioned today, to her it likely isn't a lie. She may well have convinced herself it happened (think John Kerry and the Cambodian memory "seared, seared into my brain" that never happened). That is suggested as the only reason she would, in this age of instant verification, have described a version of an event witnessed in full by TV cameras, that never happened.
Rush has a better explanation and it is consistent with reality. The MSM rarely challenges Dems and they have become complacent in the knowledge that they can say almost anything and those who get their info from the MSM will never know that they have made it all up.
For some reason, after almost 4 months of sitting on it, the MSM finally got up the nerve to call Hill what she is: a liar.
"Q: How do you know when a salesman is lying?"
"A: His lips are moving".
I wrote in an earlier post about Bill's craveness in this regard. A few months ago he loudly proclaimed that among Hill's first acts as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 around the world on a mission to repair our reputation, torn asunder by the execrable W. Of course, Bush 41 hadn't been consulted on his new mission and issued a prompt statement supportive of 43. Bill never even considered that in the Internet age his assertion wouldn't stand up for 5 minutes. He just didn't care.
Over the last few months Hill has been talking about her harrowing arrival in Bosnia in 1996 amid sniper fire. She described being hurried across the tarmac to her car and the cancellation of the scheduled greeting ceremony because of the danger presented by the snipers.
For reasons best known to the MSMers who accompanied her on that trip, filmed and reported on it, they waited months to contradict her. But contradict her they have. Showing her, once again (but perhaps for the first time to her loyalists) to be the craven liar she is. No snipers, no rush across the tarmac, no cancelled greeting ceremony.
As one commentator mentioned today, to her it likely isn't a lie. She may well have convinced herself it happened (think John Kerry and the Cambodian memory "seared, seared into my brain" that never happened). That is suggested as the only reason she would, in this age of instant verification, have described a version of an event witnessed in full by TV cameras, that never happened.
Rush has a better explanation and it is consistent with reality. The MSM rarely challenges Dems and they have become complacent in the knowledge that they can say almost anything and those who get their info from the MSM will never know that they have made it all up.
For some reason, after almost 4 months of sitting on it, the MSM finally got up the nerve to call Hill what she is: a liar.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama and the Truth
Barak Obama has demonstrated repeatedly throughout his campaign that he is among the most cynical politicians we have seen in a long time. His message is Hope and Change. The only thing he really Hopes is that we are all too stupid to listen to what he is saying. The only thing he wants to Change is his status, from Senator to President.
His most recent demonstration of Hope is that he Hopes we will not notice that when confronted about his pastor's outrageous anti-americanism he claimed it was news to him. The reason he Hopes we won't notice is that a few days later when his original explanation became completely untenable he confessed to being aware of it, but said that he didn't agree with it.
His most recent manifestation of Change is the changing description of his grandmother's comments about being afraid of black men on the street. The recent Change differs in very important ways from his description of the same event in his autobiography. In that telling she was afraid of one black man who she felt threatened by because of his particular actions. Which is the truth? Who knows and it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that Obama is a liar with Clinton-like loyalty (see earlier posts) who is perfectly happy to try and further his political career by trashing his still living grandmother's reputation branding her as a racist. The grandmother, by the way, who was his primary parent and support, according to his autobiography, in his growing up years. Disgusting.
His most recent demonstration of Hope is that he Hopes we will not notice that when confronted about his pastor's outrageous anti-americanism he claimed it was news to him. The reason he Hopes we won't notice is that a few days later when his original explanation became completely untenable he confessed to being aware of it, but said that he didn't agree with it.
His most recent manifestation of Change is the changing description of his grandmother's comments about being afraid of black men on the street. The recent Change differs in very important ways from his description of the same event in his autobiography. In that telling she was afraid of one black man who she felt threatened by because of his particular actions. Which is the truth? Who knows and it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that Obama is a liar with Clinton-like loyalty (see earlier posts) who is perfectly happy to try and further his political career by trashing his still living grandmother's reputation branding her as a racist. The grandmother, by the way, who was his primary parent and support, according to his autobiography, in his growing up years. Disgusting.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Hillary's Democracy
I never fail to be amazed by Democrats' seemingly instinctive authoritarianism. I described in an earlier post John Edwards' apparent belief that as President he would have the authority to cancel the health insurance coverage of members of Congress and his Cabinet. It is possible that Dem's never waning assertion that Republicans favor an "Imperial" presidency is merely another case of projection.
In promoting her Universal Health Care Plan recently Hillary informed us that she would consider garnishing the wages of those who refuse to purchase health insurance in order to ensure the universality of the plan.
So here we have a proposal supposedly initiated to "help" the less fortunate. If they have the audacity to refuse to accept and pay for the "help" they will be forced to participate against their will. Oh, wait, she would only garnish the wages of those who could "afford" to pay for the coverage. Great, thanks Hill. So, you 18 million 18 - 30's who see that paying health insurance premiums is a waste of money for you, we're going to "help" you. Reminds me of Reagan's 10 words you never want to hear: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".
Of course she also wants to confiscate some or all of the profits of those nasty oil companies. You know, the ones who have vast investment programs to find and drill more of the stuff so we can keep driving. Its odd, but I don't remember any dems offering to give money to the oil companies when they were struggling and oil was $10 barrel.
She wants to prohibit medical insurance companies from screening for pre-existing conditions and she claimed last week in a speech at a GM Plant in Lordstown, OH that the companies spend $50 billion a year "trying to figure out how not to cover people".
She went on to say that, "I'm going to save them a fortune and a whole lot of time, because here's the new policy: No more discrimination period. So even if you have a pre-existing condition you can get the health insurance you need no questions asked".
Now there's an example of the rhetoric and mind set of a truly democratic person. Beyond the appalling spectre of authoritarianism raised by such dictats is the much worse and much more practical result of such stupidity.
If you are buying your insurance from an insurer that doesn't accept subscribers with pre-existing conditions (group insurance policy issuers have long since stopped screening for pre-existing conditions) and that company is now forced to accept them, your premium will simply be raised to pay for the inevitable rise in claims the company will have to pay. That is how insurance works. The risk is spread among the policy holders. More risk = more expense = higher premiums for all policy holders. So, what Hillary is telling all you individual policy holders is that you are about to be forced to subsidize your neighbors.
Not surprisingly, she didn't give any support or meaningful explanation for that $50 billion statement. Let's assume the figure, wherever it came from is accurate. What does it mean? It means that the combined budgets of insurance companies' claims departments is $50 billion a year.
Every claim has to be evaluated and some will be turned down. So what she could just as easily have said, although it probably wouldn't enter her mind to do so since the evil insurance companies must be vilified, is insurance companies spend $50 billion a year processing claims.
She leaves the impression, purposely, I'm sure, that the companies are spending $50 billion a year to ferret out claims for pre-existing conditions, nonsense obviously. To get an idea of just how preposterous this notion is consider that it would cost less than 50 billion annually to pay $100,000 in claims for 499,000 people. Most people accumulate less than $100,000 for medical care in a lifetime, never mind a year.
In promoting her Universal Health Care Plan recently Hillary informed us that she would consider garnishing the wages of those who refuse to purchase health insurance in order to ensure the universality of the plan.
So here we have a proposal supposedly initiated to "help" the less fortunate. If they have the audacity to refuse to accept and pay for the "help" they will be forced to participate against their will. Oh, wait, she would only garnish the wages of those who could "afford" to pay for the coverage. Great, thanks Hill. So, you 18 million 18 - 30's who see that paying health insurance premiums is a waste of money for you, we're going to "help" you. Reminds me of Reagan's 10 words you never want to hear: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".
Of course she also wants to confiscate some or all of the profits of those nasty oil companies. You know, the ones who have vast investment programs to find and drill more of the stuff so we can keep driving. Its odd, but I don't remember any dems offering to give money to the oil companies when they were struggling and oil was $10 barrel.
She wants to prohibit medical insurance companies from screening for pre-existing conditions and she claimed last week in a speech at a GM Plant in Lordstown, OH that the companies spend $50 billion a year "trying to figure out how not to cover people".
She went on to say that, "I'm going to save them a fortune and a whole lot of time, because here's the new policy: No more discrimination period. So even if you have a pre-existing condition you can get the health insurance you need no questions asked".
Now there's an example of the rhetoric and mind set of a truly democratic person. Beyond the appalling spectre of authoritarianism raised by such dictats is the much worse and much more practical result of such stupidity.
If you are buying your insurance from an insurer that doesn't accept subscribers with pre-existing conditions (group insurance policy issuers have long since stopped screening for pre-existing conditions) and that company is now forced to accept them, your premium will simply be raised to pay for the inevitable rise in claims the company will have to pay. That is how insurance works. The risk is spread among the policy holders. More risk = more expense = higher premiums for all policy holders. So, what Hillary is telling all you individual policy holders is that you are about to be forced to subsidize your neighbors.
Not surprisingly, she didn't give any support or meaningful explanation for that $50 billion statement. Let's assume the figure, wherever it came from is accurate. What does it mean? It means that the combined budgets of insurance companies' claims departments is $50 billion a year.
Every claim has to be evaluated and some will be turned down. So what she could just as easily have said, although it probably wouldn't enter her mind to do so since the evil insurance companies must be vilified, is insurance companies spend $50 billion a year processing claims.
She leaves the impression, purposely, I'm sure, that the companies are spending $50 billion a year to ferret out claims for pre-existing conditions, nonsense obviously. To get an idea of just how preposterous this notion is consider that it would cost less than 50 billion annually to pay $100,000 in claims for 499,000 people. Most people accumulate less than $100,000 for medical care in a lifetime, never mind a year.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Why Shouldn't We Buy into the Global Warming Hoax?
Because the UN is telling us it is so.
The UN, the promoter of the worldwide Aids epidemic will shortly be reporting that their numbers are wildly wrong, according to the Washington Post today.
One of the reasons the numbers are so far off is:
"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way." (emphasis added).
The same money driven agenda will be shown to be at work in the Global Warming Industry. It won't be long now. As Radar used to say in M.A.S.H. "Wait for it".
The UN, the promoter of the worldwide Aids epidemic will shortly be reporting that their numbers are wildly wrong, according to the Washington Post today.
One of the reasons the numbers are so far off is:
"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way." (emphasis added).
The same money driven agenda will be shown to be at work in the Global Warming Industry. It won't be long now. As Radar used to say in M.A.S.H. "Wait for it".
The Trouble with "Liberals" Part 98
Dear old Senator Ted Kennedy put his prodigious writing and reasoning skills on display for us today in a piece published in The American Prospect. His subject is those nasty right wingers, Roberts and Alito. His thesis is that they jobbed the system and somehow got onto the Court without having to share with the public what their views and intentions really were.
His example is a job discrimination case, Ledbetter. I won't go into the facts here. They are boring and Ted finds them irrelevant anyway. His critique:
"And for two judges who repeatedly proclaimed a concern for the real-world impact of their decisions, Alito and Roberts have turned out to be remarkably blinded to the plight of America's most vulnerable. "
It is neither the job nor the function of the SCOTUS to match outcomes to policy. It is both its job and function to apply the law as it exists. The outcome will be whatever the best legal, not policy, minds in America determine it to be. Whatever the "plight of America's most vulnerable" might be, it is up to Teddy and his friends to fix it. Not SCOTUS.
One of the commenters at The American Prospect suggests that in Kennedy's view the best outcome would be determined by examining the net worth of the parties to the suit and giving judgement to the less wealthy of them. A logical conclusion to a customarily stupid Kennedy/Liberal argument.
His example is a job discrimination case, Ledbetter. I won't go into the facts here. They are boring and Ted finds them irrelevant anyway. His critique:
"And for two judges who repeatedly proclaimed a concern for the real-world impact of their decisions, Alito and Roberts have turned out to be remarkably blinded to the plight of America's most vulnerable. "
It is neither the job nor the function of the SCOTUS to match outcomes to policy. It is both its job and function to apply the law as it exists. The outcome will be whatever the best legal, not policy, minds in America determine it to be. Whatever the "plight of America's most vulnerable" might be, it is up to Teddy and his friends to fix it. Not SCOTUS.
One of the commenters at The American Prospect suggests that in Kennedy's view the best outcome would be determined by examining the net worth of the parties to the suit and giving judgement to the less wealthy of them. A logical conclusion to a customarily stupid Kennedy/Liberal argument.
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Trouble with "Liberals" Part 97
Of course, it should read the "Troubles" with liberals, there are so many of them. When you preach the doctrine of "diversity" and opine that we should be non-judgmental contradictions flow so fast and hard that incoherence quickly results. If diversity is good why prevent conservatives from speaking on college campi? Non-judgmental? Not if it concerns vilifying conservatives for the sin of being conservative.
An NFL pre-game show was polluted with a bunch of PETA nonsense yesterday. It was so preposterous that I couldn't stop watching. The subject was PETA/Michael Vick. The story was about PETA's re-education of Michael Vick. A striking, although not unexpected aspect, was the PETA spokesman's (I don't recall his name) condescending attitude toward a repentant Vick.
Most striking, also not unexpected, was a line in a letter PETA sent to Vick's judge. I haven't been able to find a copy of the letter on PETA's web site (http://blog.peta.org/archives/vick/).
A sentence from the letter was shown, highlighted, during the show. As best I can remember it said something like Michael Vick should never have any contact with animals (that is on the web site) and that he should never (emphasis added) be allowed to own an animal. Imagine that. Never. What kind of mind conjures up a lifetime penalty for harming animals and finds no difficulty promoting the notion that a judge could/should order such an outcome.
Is this the product of a non-judgemental attitude? Of course not. What they mean by non-judgmental is that we ought not to judge anything they do nor criticize them for judging us.
An NFL pre-game show was polluted with a bunch of PETA nonsense yesterday. It was so preposterous that I couldn't stop watching. The subject was PETA/Michael Vick. The story was about PETA's re-education of Michael Vick. A striking, although not unexpected aspect, was the PETA spokesman's (I don't recall his name) condescending attitude toward a repentant Vick.
Most striking, also not unexpected, was a line in a letter PETA sent to Vick's judge. I haven't been able to find a copy of the letter on PETA's web site (http://blog.peta.org/archives/vick/).
A sentence from the letter was shown, highlighted, during the show. As best I can remember it said something like Michael Vick should never have any contact with animals (that is on the web site) and that he should never (emphasis added) be allowed to own an animal. Imagine that. Never. What kind of mind conjures up a lifetime penalty for harming animals and finds no difficulty promoting the notion that a judge could/should order such an outcome.
Is this the product of a non-judgemental attitude? Of course not. What they mean by non-judgmental is that we ought not to judge anything they do nor criticize them for judging us.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Rush Limbaugh, a Small Fault
I am a big Rush fan and have been for years. I even bought some of his "Club Gitmo" T-Shirts. I don't subscribe to his newsletter or Rush 24/7. Both strike me as manifestations of greed. Maybe its just me.
Like so many others I am always amused when some dem starts talking about what a rotten, racist, homophobic, misogynist etc etc person Rush is. The amusement stems of course from the obvious fact that anyone who would make such comments has never listened to Rush.
Like most of the rest of us, he does have some faults. There are two in particular that have annoyed me over the years.
When we went into Bosnia Rush (and I) were demanding an "exit strategy". The fact that we didn't have one was an anathema. Any idiot knows you have to have one. On Iraq, no exit strategy required. To quote Rush, "Winning is the exit strategy". Why the double standard? Well, because we are human I guess. Doesn't make it right though.
Rush also talks a lot about leadership. About politicians and people who do what they think is right regardless of what the polls say. How many times did we nod in agreement as he scoffed at the Clintons whose every move was preceded by "wetting a finger and lifting it into the breeze"?
Now, however, on the issue of Driver's Licenses for illegals and immigration in general, the fact that 70% of the country oppose the licenses and the comprehensive approach to immigration reform is supposed to mean that politicians who oppose the will of the majority are out of touch elitists, not leaders. They may indeed be elitists but that doesn't mean they are not leaders. They are leaders who will live and die (figuratively) promoting the approaches to these issues they believe to be right.
What Rush really means is that, like most of us, someone with whom we agree is a leader and someone with whom we disagree is not. The majority does rule. It doesn't mean we are always right.
Like so many others I am always amused when some dem starts talking about what a rotten, racist, homophobic, misogynist etc etc person Rush is. The amusement stems of course from the obvious fact that anyone who would make such comments has never listened to Rush.
Like most of the rest of us, he does have some faults. There are two in particular that have annoyed me over the years.
When we went into Bosnia Rush (and I) were demanding an "exit strategy". The fact that we didn't have one was an anathema. Any idiot knows you have to have one. On Iraq, no exit strategy required. To quote Rush, "Winning is the exit strategy". Why the double standard? Well, because we are human I guess. Doesn't make it right though.
Rush also talks a lot about leadership. About politicians and people who do what they think is right regardless of what the polls say. How many times did we nod in agreement as he scoffed at the Clintons whose every move was preceded by "wetting a finger and lifting it into the breeze"?
Now, however, on the issue of Driver's Licenses for illegals and immigration in general, the fact that 70% of the country oppose the licenses and the comprehensive approach to immigration reform is supposed to mean that politicians who oppose the will of the majority are out of touch elitists, not leaders. They may indeed be elitists but that doesn't mean they are not leaders. They are leaders who will live and die (figuratively) promoting the approaches to these issues they believe to be right.
What Rush really means is that, like most of us, someone with whom we agree is a leader and someone with whom we disagree is not. The majority does rule. It doesn't mean we are always right.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
John Edwards, Constitutional Monarch Wanabee
I saw an hilarious video of John Edwards yesterday (if I could figure out how to link things I would). I know, they are all hilarious.
Here is what he had to say:
"When I'm president, I'm going to say to members of Congress, and members of my administration, including my Cabinet, I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."
It is possible, even likely, that Johnnie thinks a President could do that. It is possible, even likely, that he doesn't care whether a President could do that.
It is interesting to consider the mind of a person who would say such a spectacularly stupid thing.
Equally stupid are the two women seated behind him nodding their approval of his stupidity, not to mention the unseen audience applauding heartily.
For all of you, here are some facts:
1) Every American has "Health Care".
2) Every American does not have Health Insurance.
3) All but a very few of us have the free will to choose to live a healthy or unhealthy life.
4) There are said to be 47 million uninsured in this country.
5) Of those, about 18 million choose to be uninsured. Mostly young people who see no
reason to spend good money on insurance they are unlikely to need anytime soon.
6) Of the remaining 31 million there is an unknown number eligible for Medicaid or
Medicare who will not apply for it until they need it.
7) There are also an unknown number eligible for S-CHIPS who will not apply for it
until they need it.
8) The population of the group described in #4 above is constantly changing.
9) There is no reason, as in NO REASON, to dismantle the world's best (yes, I know,
its not perfect) medical care delivery system to accommodate the
needs of less than 10% of the population of this country. If we feel compelled to supplement the county medical system in place across the country to accommodate them we can do that without removing the profit motive from, and thereby wrecking, the existing system.
Can you think of any other situation in which otherwise rational people would
consider such a thing? Of course not. The real problems here are demagoguery
and a hopelessly misinformed political class.
Among the model systems these misinformed demagogues praise is Canada's. I grew up there and know quite a few people who still live there. The system is great of you aren't sick. There is now objective proof for that notion: private clinics are being opened. Cleveland Clinic is now open in Toronto providing American style health care and charging for it. They are doing great. Can't imagine why.
Here is what he had to say:
"When I'm president, I'm going to say to members of Congress, and members of my administration, including my Cabinet, I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."
It is possible, even likely, that Johnnie thinks a President could do that. It is possible, even likely, that he doesn't care whether a President could do that.
It is interesting to consider the mind of a person who would say such a spectacularly stupid thing.
Equally stupid are the two women seated behind him nodding their approval of his stupidity, not to mention the unseen audience applauding heartily.
For all of you, here are some facts:
1) Every American has "Health Care".
2) Every American does not have Health Insurance.
3) All but a very few of us have the free will to choose to live a healthy or unhealthy life.
4) There are said to be 47 million uninsured in this country.
5) Of those, about 18 million choose to be uninsured. Mostly young people who see no
reason to spend good money on insurance they are unlikely to need anytime soon.
6) Of the remaining 31 million there is an unknown number eligible for Medicaid or
Medicare who will not apply for it until they need it.
7) There are also an unknown number eligible for S-CHIPS who will not apply for it
until they need it.
8) The population of the group described in #4 above is constantly changing.
9) There is no reason, as in NO REASON, to dismantle the world's best (yes, I know,
its not perfect) medical care delivery system to accommodate the
needs of less than 10% of the population of this country. If we feel compelled to supplement the county medical system in place across the country to accommodate them we can do that without removing the profit motive from, and thereby wrecking, the existing system.
Can you think of any other situation in which otherwise rational people would
consider such a thing? Of course not. The real problems here are demagoguery
and a hopelessly misinformed political class.
Among the model systems these misinformed demagogues praise is Canada's. I grew up there and know quite a few people who still live there. The system is great of you aren't sick. There is now objective proof for that notion: private clinics are being opened. Cleveland Clinic is now open in Toronto providing American style health care and charging for it. They are doing great. Can't imagine why.
With Friends like these...
Way back when, in 2001, W came to Washington expressing his determination to bring about bipartisan co-operation there as he had in Austin, Texas. I don't think much of bipartisanship. In my experience it is usually shorthand for republicans abandoning their principles.
It wasn't long before W embraced Ted Kennedy and "No Child Left Behind" became the unfortunate law of the land. It wasn't long before Ted Kennedy was calling W a liar and making his usual bombastic, insulting remarks about W and everything he said or did. Declaring Abu Ghraib to have been re-opened under American sponsorship. What a sickening piece of garbage he is. It is astonishing that he is so shameless as to open his mouth on the subject of waterboarding. Mary JoKopechne was not available for comment.
A year or two later Hill and Bill were invited to the WH for the unveiling of their portraits. I listened to W's incredibly gracious speech. It wasn't long before Bill was travelling the world taking pot shots at W.
Fast forward to May 2007. The "Comprehensive Immigration Act" (or whatever that putrid piece of legislation was called) is cooked up in private among the Senators. McCain tells us it will be passed without debate in 48 hours because he's happy with it. Hill is a supporter. W is a supporter. The bill gets beaten to death by an informed public. McCain and W are both big losers with the republican base.
Fast forward to November 2007. The dem presidential candidates are having a "debate". Russert is moderating. He asks Hill about NY Governor Spitzer's licenses for illegals plan. She gives a typical Clinton answer but is eventually pushed to say whether she supports Spitzer's plan or not. What does she do? Blame the Bush administration for failing to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan thus forcing governors to try to do something.
W spent enormous political capital trying to push the Senate's legislation through. Its failure had nothing to do with the administration. Does Hill give W an ounce of credit for his effort? Of course not. These people have not a shred of loyalty or decency.
UPDATE 12/26/07. The Clintons are nothing if not consistent. A few days ago Bill proclaimed that the first thing Hill would do as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 on a world tour to repair the damage Bush 43 had done to our reputation.
Puts me in mind of a phrase credited to Benjamin Disraeli, speaking about William Gladstone:
"Nothing delights me more than the sight of an unsophisticated rhetorician intoxicated by the exuberance of his own natural verbosity".
Bill, in the instant info world of 2007, actually believes that he can pretend to have the co-operation of 41 in trashing 43! Amazing, but consistent. No fallout of course. 41 issued a statement supportive of 43 and no doubt will go back to calling Bill his "other"son. Just because the Bushes are too nice to hold a grudge.
Readers of the NYTimes probably didn't hear about 41's statement and are no doubt doubled over laughing at their dinner parties: "Even his own father thinks he's an idiot!"
It wasn't long before W embraced Ted Kennedy and "No Child Left Behind" became the unfortunate law of the land. It wasn't long before Ted Kennedy was calling W a liar and making his usual bombastic, insulting remarks about W and everything he said or did. Declaring Abu Ghraib to have been re-opened under American sponsorship. What a sickening piece of garbage he is. It is astonishing that he is so shameless as to open his mouth on the subject of waterboarding. Mary JoKopechne was not available for comment.
A year or two later Hill and Bill were invited to the WH for the unveiling of their portraits. I listened to W's incredibly gracious speech. It wasn't long before Bill was travelling the world taking pot shots at W.
Fast forward to May 2007. The "Comprehensive Immigration Act" (or whatever that putrid piece of legislation was called) is cooked up in private among the Senators. McCain tells us it will be passed without debate in 48 hours because he's happy with it. Hill is a supporter. W is a supporter. The bill gets beaten to death by an informed public. McCain and W are both big losers with the republican base.
Fast forward to November 2007. The dem presidential candidates are having a "debate". Russert is moderating. He asks Hill about NY Governor Spitzer's licenses for illegals plan. She gives a typical Clinton answer but is eventually pushed to say whether she supports Spitzer's plan or not. What does she do? Blame the Bush administration for failing to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan thus forcing governors to try to do something.
W spent enormous political capital trying to push the Senate's legislation through. Its failure had nothing to do with the administration. Does Hill give W an ounce of credit for his effort? Of course not. These people have not a shred of loyalty or decency.
UPDATE 12/26/07. The Clintons are nothing if not consistent. A few days ago Bill proclaimed that the first thing Hill would do as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 on a world tour to repair the damage Bush 43 had done to our reputation.
Puts me in mind of a phrase credited to Benjamin Disraeli, speaking about William Gladstone:
"Nothing delights me more than the sight of an unsophisticated rhetorician intoxicated by the exuberance of his own natural verbosity".
Bill, in the instant info world of 2007, actually believes that he can pretend to have the co-operation of 41 in trashing 43! Amazing, but consistent. No fallout of course. 41 issued a statement supportive of 43 and no doubt will go back to calling Bill his "other"son. Just because the Bushes are too nice to hold a grudge.
Readers of the NYTimes probably didn't hear about 41's statement and are no doubt doubled over laughing at their dinner parties: "Even his own father thinks he's an idiot!"
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Your Money as Viewed from the Left
Jonah Goldberg in today's NRO quotes Gene Sperling, Hillary Clinton's chief economic adviser, as saying "The question is, should we be giving an extra $120 billion to the top 1%?"
Sperling's reference is to tax cuts. His perspective is instructive. Apparently everything we earn belongs to the government. The only question, in his view, is how much of it the government will let us keep.
It is difficult to quantify how far removed from basic American principles this view pushes the left. Sentiments like this dredge up images of Soviet Commissars concocting five year plans that were the laughing stock of the world while dooming millions to lives of desperation and never ending queing up for food.
What sort of egotism results in the view that a bureaucrat should take from a producer as much as he sees fit in order to spend it differently than would the producer of all this wealth? If I am so smart, lucky, rapacious or energetic as to place myself within the top 1% of all earners in the biggest, wealthiest economy in all of human history it is quite possible that I would spend it well. In fact, it is arguable that whatever I choose to spend it on would be spending it well and spending it more effectively than government would.
I took an economics course long ago about which I remember very little except the color of the text book cover, blue, and one nugget of information. The nugget is that spending by the private sector creates more wealth than spending by government. I don't remember the explanation for that bit of information. I do know that I have seen it repeated in real life twice. The tax cuts of the 80's produced a huge boom and dramatically increased tax revenues. The tax cuts of the 2000's produced a huge boom and dramatically increased tax revenues.
That the Congress, state, county and local governments have chosen to use most if not all of it to fund new programs and produce budget problems doesn't change the facts: Less taxation = more economic activity = more tax revenue.
The fruits of my labor do not belong to the government. They belong to me. I am willing to contribute a portion of what I earn to the government for the common good. I think that is the sentiment this country was founded on.
Sperling's reference is to tax cuts. His perspective is instructive. Apparently everything we earn belongs to the government. The only question, in his view, is how much of it the government will let us keep.
It is difficult to quantify how far removed from basic American principles this view pushes the left. Sentiments like this dredge up images of Soviet Commissars concocting five year plans that were the laughing stock of the world while dooming millions to lives of desperation and never ending queing up for food.
What sort of egotism results in the view that a bureaucrat should take from a producer as much as he sees fit in order to spend it differently than would the producer of all this wealth? If I am so smart, lucky, rapacious or energetic as to place myself within the top 1% of all earners in the biggest, wealthiest economy in all of human history it is quite possible that I would spend it well. In fact, it is arguable that whatever I choose to spend it on would be spending it well and spending it more effectively than government would.
I took an economics course long ago about which I remember very little except the color of the text book cover, blue, and one nugget of information. The nugget is that spending by the private sector creates more wealth than spending by government. I don't remember the explanation for that bit of information. I do know that I have seen it repeated in real life twice. The tax cuts of the 80's produced a huge boom and dramatically increased tax revenues. The tax cuts of the 2000's produced a huge boom and dramatically increased tax revenues.
That the Congress, state, county and local governments have chosen to use most if not all of it to fund new programs and produce budget problems doesn't change the facts: Less taxation = more economic activity = more tax revenue.
The fruits of my labor do not belong to the government. They belong to me. I am willing to contribute a portion of what I earn to the government for the common good. I think that is the sentiment this country was founded on.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Buffet Continued
In my previous post I wrote about Warren Buffet's dubious determination to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. In my opinion, he really wants us, not him, to pay more taxes.
As I thought more about the issue I realized that he is right in one respect. People in the middle-income bracket pay too much in taxes. That is not because the rich pay too little. It is the result of misguided policies put in place by incompetent, corrupt politicians.
I have heard, countless times, of the dismal savings rate of Americans. Small wonder. The government confiscates 6.2% of our income, regardless of our income level, and forces us to "save" it in Social Security. How much do people really have left to "save"? Do you earn 6.2% more than you wish to use for living expenses? Few of us are so fortunate. As has been well documented, the Social Security Trust Fund earns nothing so the confiscated assets of every working American earn nothing. My theory on why it earns nothing is that it is invested exclusively in US Treasury Bonds that have to be repaid with tax money, the money we pay the Federal Government in income tax, for the most part.
If that is not bad enough, Social Security confiscations end at $92,500 of annual income. This is simply neither fair, nor right. It clearly places the heaviest burden for funding Social Security on those least able to afford it, although arguably those to whom it is most important in terms of retirement planning. According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2007 , Table 673 about 17% of households earned more than $100,000 in 2004 (the latest year reported) and so had an advantage over those earning less in terms of the impact of SS confiscations on them. (Household income is not the perfect measure here but all I could find for now.)
So about 17% of households are less burdened by the current system than the other 83%. Should the misery be shared equally? No.
In my view Social Security and Medicare should both be means tested. For those of us in the top 5%, the idea that we "need" SS is ridiculous. If SS is going to continue as it is (a bad idea) then we should continue to pay to the $92,500 cap but not be eligible to receive any benefits.
What would be the impact on the system of removing me, Bill Gates, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy (oops, probably not in it since he has done nothing but "work" for the federal gov't his whole life), John Kerry (oops, same problem) and Warren Buffet from it?
Even though my skills are lacking, please consider the following:
If I received $14,400 annually ( $1200/month) and live to age 80 I would have received $216,000.
As of 2001 (Table 700, 2001 is the latest data available) there were 3,510,000 millionaires in the USA. If we were all removed from SS eligibility (how could any of us object in any meaningful way) and lived only to age 70 the system would save $252.7 billion dollars(based on the figures I used for my case and generalising them). If half of us lived to 70 and the rest to 75, $379.1 billion would be saved and so on and so forth.
The SSA site indicates that SS payments will be reduced, probably to zero, although it is hard to tell, by withholding SS benefits for all earned income over $34,400 (there are other numbers but this is the most common in my opinion). If I understand it correctly, $1 is withheld for every $3 earned.
Not surprisingly only ordinary income is included in the calculation. By 65, most, if not all of the income earned by the vast majority of the millionaires will be dividends, interest , capital gains or pensions. None of this income would reduce our SS payments. We get a break again. We don't need it in the first place. A retiree who has to work to make ends meet has his benefits reduced, but I don't? Ridiculous.
Please do not leap to the conclusion that I am a bleeding heart. I'm not. I realize that, for the most part, we end up where we end up through a series of choices. Generally speaking, those who end up with bad outcomes have made bad choices. That doesn't mean that I should be living off their misfortunes, earned or serendipitous. Nor does it mean that they should live off the fruits of my better choices. Given a choice between the two, however, I would rather contribute meaningfully to their well-being rather than force them to contribute meaninglessly to mine.
This post is long enough. I'll leave medicare to another day.
As I thought more about the issue I realized that he is right in one respect. People in the middle-income bracket pay too much in taxes. That is not because the rich pay too little. It is the result of misguided policies put in place by incompetent, corrupt politicians.
I have heard, countless times, of the dismal savings rate of Americans. Small wonder. The government confiscates 6.2% of our income, regardless of our income level, and forces us to "save" it in Social Security. How much do people really have left to "save"? Do you earn 6.2% more than you wish to use for living expenses? Few of us are so fortunate. As has been well documented, the Social Security Trust Fund earns nothing so the confiscated assets of every working American earn nothing. My theory on why it earns nothing is that it is invested exclusively in US Treasury Bonds that have to be repaid with tax money, the money we pay the Federal Government in income tax, for the most part.
If that is not bad enough, Social Security confiscations end at $92,500 of annual income. This is simply neither fair, nor right. It clearly places the heaviest burden for funding Social Security on those least able to afford it, although arguably those to whom it is most important in terms of retirement planning. According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2007 , Table 673 about 17% of households earned more than $100,000 in 2004 (the latest year reported) and so had an advantage over those earning less in terms of the impact of SS confiscations on them. (Household income is not the perfect measure here but all I could find for now.)
So about 17% of households are less burdened by the current system than the other 83%. Should the misery be shared equally? No.
In my view Social Security and Medicare should both be means tested. For those of us in the top 5%, the idea that we "need" SS is ridiculous. If SS is going to continue as it is (a bad idea) then we should continue to pay to the $92,500 cap but not be eligible to receive any benefits.
What would be the impact on the system of removing me, Bill Gates, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy (oops, probably not in it since he has done nothing but "work" for the federal gov't his whole life), John Kerry (oops, same problem) and Warren Buffet from it?
Even though my skills are lacking, please consider the following:
If I received $14,400 annually ( $1200/month) and live to age 80 I would have received $216,000.
As of 2001 (Table 700, 2001 is the latest data available) there were 3,510,000 millionaires in the USA. If we were all removed from SS eligibility (how could any of us object in any meaningful way) and lived only to age 70 the system would save $252.7 billion dollars(based on the figures I used for my case and generalising them). If half of us lived to 70 and the rest to 75, $379.1 billion would be saved and so on and so forth.
The SSA site indicates that SS payments will be reduced, probably to zero, although it is hard to tell, by withholding SS benefits for all earned income over $34,400 (there are other numbers but this is the most common in my opinion). If I understand it correctly, $1 is withheld for every $3 earned.
Not surprisingly only ordinary income is included in the calculation. By 65, most, if not all of the income earned by the vast majority of the millionaires will be dividends, interest , capital gains or pensions. None of this income would reduce our SS payments. We get a break again. We don't need it in the first place. A retiree who has to work to make ends meet has his benefits reduced, but I don't? Ridiculous.
Please do not leap to the conclusion that I am a bleeding heart. I'm not. I realize that, for the most part, we end up where we end up through a series of choices. Generally speaking, those who end up with bad outcomes have made bad choices. That doesn't mean that I should be living off their misfortunes, earned or serendipitous. Nor does it mean that they should live off the fruits of my better choices. Given a choice between the two, however, I would rather contribute meaningfully to their well-being rather than force them to contribute meaninglessly to mine.
This post is long enough. I'll leave medicare to another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)