Not going to work today allowed me to read the Wall Street Journal in a relaxed manner. I found some interesting tidbits on the state of the Tea Party's mind set,
1st, there was an article on how the Tea Party wants to oust GOP senators who have voted in various ways to keep the government running in a coherent manner. The South Carolina tea parties are upset that Senator Lindsay Graham voted to confirm President Obama's Supreme Court nominees. Would they rather the seats were still open because of filibusters and then when the next GOP President tried to fill them, the Democrats filibustered everyone and you would end up with a Supreme Court that had nobody on it? That is not a functioning government and people want a functioning government. That is the reason so many Tea Party candidates were defeated, not because they failed to be ideological pure.
2nd, Kimberley Strassel opined that the main problem with the GOP effort was a failure to get out their people to vote. Since the only reason the House is controlled by the GOP is gerrymandering (nationwide, the Democrat House Candidates got more total votes than the GOP House Candidates), might not the real problem be the comprehensive set of policies that the GOP represent are not reflective of a majority of the country's voters and they need to be brought back towards the middle so that a sufficient number of people decide voting for the GOP is not a mistake and that swings the election?
3rd, some brilliant minds in the GOP Tax staff decided that the way not to raise tax rates is to apply your marginal tax rate to 100% of your income. That would be the actualization of the exact policy that Romney accused Obama of advocating: using tax policy to disincentivize working harder for marginal income. Say the 35% tax rate starts at Gross Income of $300,000. Below that everyone pays an average rate of say 25%. Under current tax policy, you pay an average of 25% on the 1st $300,000 and 35% on everything over $300,000. If this "brilliant" plan went into effect, people who make between $300,000 and $330,000 would have no incentive to earn the last $30,000. And who would win on this, no one who is not a high income person. There would be a tax hike on everyone earning any money to the last $ marginal rate and the only winners would be wealthy who do not see their marginal rate increase from 35% to 39% which is what the President wants to do.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
This is how F**K'd up the Middle East is!!
Alawites in Turkey are saying the Syrian Free Army is a USA led uprising while Assad is saying the Syrian Free Army is an Al Qaeda Terrorist organization.
Then somehow components of the GOP which supported the Bush II desire to introduce democracy in Iraq now say Obama has committed a mistake by not protecting the dictators, who prevented democracy, so that the new governments, who support Hamas would have been prevented from taking control.
I know that last sentence is a run-on but this is why I think the only answer is for Israel to grant the Palestinians a state so they can demand that the leadership create a vibrant economy that is built on peace, not an impoverished state that ferments terrorism.
I could continue my rant on any number of the idiocies in this part of the world but the bottom line is rationality is not a leading characteristic of any of these countries and Israel's only choice is to find the moral high ground and then defend themselves from people who think that the development of a way of life stopped in 700 AD (christian years).
I must finish by pointing out that each of the early leaders for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016 will not state whether they believe in evolution and some say intelligent design that created the world 6000 years ago is correct. Maybe some aspects of the U.S. are not far behind Saudi Arabia, although these same people who do not believe in evolution love Saudi Arabia until they produce terrorists that attack the U.S.A.
Maybe the whole F***ing world is insane.
Then somehow components of the GOP which supported the Bush II desire to introduce democracy in Iraq now say Obama has committed a mistake by not protecting the dictators, who prevented democracy, so that the new governments, who support Hamas would have been prevented from taking control.
I know that last sentence is a run-on but this is why I think the only answer is for Israel to grant the Palestinians a state so they can demand that the leadership create a vibrant economy that is built on peace, not an impoverished state that ferments terrorism.
I could continue my rant on any number of the idiocies in this part of the world but the bottom line is rationality is not a leading characteristic of any of these countries and Israel's only choice is to find the moral high ground and then defend themselves from people who think that the development of a way of life stopped in 700 AD (christian years).
I must finish by pointing out that each of the early leaders for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016 will not state whether they believe in evolution and some say intelligent design that created the world 6000 years ago is correct. Maybe some aspects of the U.S. are not far behind Saudi Arabia, although these same people who do not believe in evolution love Saudi Arabia until they produce terrorists that attack the U.S.A.
Maybe the whole F***ing world is insane.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
What Conservatism Needs to Explain to Me
in terms of philosophy.
I read a book review this a.m. of a biography of William Rehnquist, the long serving Supreme Court Justice and the start of what is likely to be at least a 40 year run of Conservatives at Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Rehnquist served. as Chief Justice for 19 years and his clerk, John Roberts, is very likely to serve at least 21 years given his youth.
Rehnquist devoted his professional life to opposing federal government imposition of any controls over discrimination. He wrote opinions rejecting integration and upholding "separate but equal". He upheld the right of state legislatures to prevent poor people from voting and actively worked to do so in elections before he became a judge. While he did vote for certain cases that upheld Congress's right to impose rules on states; overall, he generally came down on the side of state's rights and the application of political thought to legal decisions.
Chief Justice Robert's, with the notable exception, of the Affordable Health Care Act, and the remainder of the conservative majority on the current Supreme Court are from the same school. I personally do not have a problem with the slicing and dicing of the line between the rights of the Federal Government and the rights of the States. What I do have a problem with is the inconsistent legal lines that occur with the application of political thought.
Thus, we have the situation where gun control laws cannot be created by Congress even though there is interstate commerce in guns and state gun control laws are essentially eviscerated by reality.
We have the situation where neither the Federal Government nor the States can control campaign finance spending despite there being ample evidence of money corrupting politicians almost since the founding of the United States of America.
I am sure there are other examples but you get my point. Individual rights should be subservient to good of the population when violence or corruption is the result of the exercise of these individual rights. Such a belief does not impinge on an individual's right to free speech, right to own a gun (just certain types of guns with certain requirements), right to freedom of religion or the right to privacy.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits regulation of interstate commerce, protection of the environment and the right to inhibit corruption.
Only when Conservatism can explain to my satisfaction that they will protect and manage efficiently these responsibilities will I consider voting for a Conservative.
I read a book review this a.m. of a biography of William Rehnquist, the long serving Supreme Court Justice and the start of what is likely to be at least a 40 year run of Conservatives at Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Rehnquist served. as Chief Justice for 19 years and his clerk, John Roberts, is very likely to serve at least 21 years given his youth.
Rehnquist devoted his professional life to opposing federal government imposition of any controls over discrimination. He wrote opinions rejecting integration and upholding "separate but equal". He upheld the right of state legislatures to prevent poor people from voting and actively worked to do so in elections before he became a judge. While he did vote for certain cases that upheld Congress's right to impose rules on states; overall, he generally came down on the side of state's rights and the application of political thought to legal decisions.
Chief Justice Robert's, with the notable exception, of the Affordable Health Care Act, and the remainder of the conservative majority on the current Supreme Court are from the same school. I personally do not have a problem with the slicing and dicing of the line between the rights of the Federal Government and the rights of the States. What I do have a problem with is the inconsistent legal lines that occur with the application of political thought.
Thus, we have the situation where gun control laws cannot be created by Congress even though there is interstate commerce in guns and state gun control laws are essentially eviscerated by reality.
We have the situation where neither the Federal Government nor the States can control campaign finance spending despite there being ample evidence of money corrupting politicians almost since the founding of the United States of America.
I am sure there are other examples but you get my point. Individual rights should be subservient to good of the population when violence or corruption is the result of the exercise of these individual rights. Such a belief does not impinge on an individual's right to free speech, right to own a gun (just certain types of guns with certain requirements), right to freedom of religion or the right to privacy.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits regulation of interstate commerce, protection of the environment and the right to inhibit corruption.
Only when Conservatism can explain to my satisfaction that they will protect and manage efficiently these responsibilities will I consider voting for a Conservative.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
The World is a Complicated Place II
This is something the conservatives should remember when they are contemplating their belief that it is their way or the highway.
I found some interesting blurbs on the internet. Apparently, the Tea Party is fed up with the GOP establishment (which to my amazement includes Karl Rove) for throwing Todd Akin under the bus. For those who don't recall Todd Akin, he is the Missouri Senate candidate who said women's bodies shut down when they are raped and they can't get pregnant. Of course, this was just a rationalization for his (and many others in the GOP) for their belief that abortion should not be available in any case, including rape, incest and mother's health. So my advice to the Tea Party, is you just lost many elections in part because of this stance, think about what it takes to gain a working majority of votes.
The NY Times yesterday had a really thoughtful column by Timothy Egan on the complexity of American Society and what it takes to get a majority of voters to agree with you. Although aimed at Republican's and complementary about how America maintains itself, I would use it to remind Democrats that although they won, balance is needed in stabilizing government finances and that includes Entitlement Reform. There are good Republican ideas and there are good core Democratic ideals, but no ideal can be delivered if it is not affordable. Look to Simpson-Bowles for the answer notwithstanding Paul Krugman.
Link to Excellent Thought Column
The most solid form of economic growth occurs when the budget is balanced, the economy is near full employment, the government's spending is roughly 21% of GDP and there is no inflation. George Bush II ruined us by forgetting that and going all in on supply side economics. Deficits should shift to surpluses when the economy is still progressing toward full employment, not just at full employment.
The Economist this week did a piece on the complexity of poverty. It made me sad because I know how fortunate I am to have been able to use education to escape from that part of the economy that has been decimated by globalization and automation. My intellectual interest always has at its core a thought process of what does this mean for economic development and improving the lives of the underclass. Poverty is as complex as finding nationwide voting majorities. Each poor person has an individual story and in the end, only they through their hard work, can escape poverty.
But at the same time, there are government policies that can help. The Economist focused on a working woman in South Carolina who holds 2 jobs what provide her with 57.5 hours of work a week. She makes roughly $32,000 a year but neither job provides health insurance, even though she works in a medical clinic for 37.5 of those hours. She is not unusual, while 15% of the people are below the poverty line of $23,000 for a family of four, a much bigger percentage of the population earns something between the poverty level and $40,000. Depending how big their family is and whether there are 2 incomes or not, these people are on the edge of dropping back into poverty if they lose a job.
Fortunately, the government policies that help these people will be protected. ObamaCare should provided access to health insurance for those without beginning January 2014. The Earned Income Tax Credit was enacted in the Ford Administration and the Child Tax Credit was passed by the GOP led Congress under Clinton. Combined, these 3 programs encourage people to work and not stay on welfare. It is critical that they be protected for those earning less than $40,000.
What made me sad about the article was it brought home to me something that I intuitively understand. Globalization and automation have created an underclass in the United States. I don't know what beyond excellent education and health insurance we can do for these people. Eventually, wages in China, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and India will rise to the point where transportation costs motivate employers to bring low skill manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. and pay a wage level that makes life affordable. But this will not happen for another 10, 20 or 30 years. 30 years is almost an entire working career and this process really hit home when the construction real estate boom ended in 2008. I hate to think there is no government policy that can help these people but I can't think of anything beyond education, health insurance and targeted tax policy. Supply side economics doesn't work because those who benefit reinvest are in the global economy and either save their money or reinvest it lower wage places.
Of course, the people who are suffering through their lot in life are a diverse group of people. They fuel the anger of the Tea Party, they fuel the anger of the anti-Wall Street crowd, they fuel the strident belief on the left that all social programs should be maintained and expanded. This diversity is why Mitt Romney lost. Romney preached a return to the policies that created the crisis and did not address the needs of the underclass. While Mitt had the support of the angry Tea Party, he scared many others who care about the underclass but understand we need to restore fiscal sanity in a balanced manner.
The world is a complicated place.
I found some interesting blurbs on the internet. Apparently, the Tea Party is fed up with the GOP establishment (which to my amazement includes Karl Rove) for throwing Todd Akin under the bus. For those who don't recall Todd Akin, he is the Missouri Senate candidate who said women's bodies shut down when they are raped and they can't get pregnant. Of course, this was just a rationalization for his (and many others in the GOP) for their belief that abortion should not be available in any case, including rape, incest and mother's health. So my advice to the Tea Party, is you just lost many elections in part because of this stance, think about what it takes to gain a working majority of votes.
The NY Times yesterday had a really thoughtful column by Timothy Egan on the complexity of American Society and what it takes to get a majority of voters to agree with you. Although aimed at Republican's and complementary about how America maintains itself, I would use it to remind Democrats that although they won, balance is needed in stabilizing government finances and that includes Entitlement Reform. There are good Republican ideas and there are good core Democratic ideals, but no ideal can be delivered if it is not affordable. Look to Simpson-Bowles for the answer notwithstanding Paul Krugman.
Link to Excellent Thought Column
The most solid form of economic growth occurs when the budget is balanced, the economy is near full employment, the government's spending is roughly 21% of GDP and there is no inflation. George Bush II ruined us by forgetting that and going all in on supply side economics. Deficits should shift to surpluses when the economy is still progressing toward full employment, not just at full employment.
The Economist this week did a piece on the complexity of poverty. It made me sad because I know how fortunate I am to have been able to use education to escape from that part of the economy that has been decimated by globalization and automation. My intellectual interest always has at its core a thought process of what does this mean for economic development and improving the lives of the underclass. Poverty is as complex as finding nationwide voting majorities. Each poor person has an individual story and in the end, only they through their hard work, can escape poverty.
But at the same time, there are government policies that can help. The Economist focused on a working woman in South Carolina who holds 2 jobs what provide her with 57.5 hours of work a week. She makes roughly $32,000 a year but neither job provides health insurance, even though she works in a medical clinic for 37.5 of those hours. She is not unusual, while 15% of the people are below the poverty line of $23,000 for a family of four, a much bigger percentage of the population earns something between the poverty level and $40,000. Depending how big their family is and whether there are 2 incomes or not, these people are on the edge of dropping back into poverty if they lose a job.
Fortunately, the government policies that help these people will be protected. ObamaCare should provided access to health insurance for those without beginning January 2014. The Earned Income Tax Credit was enacted in the Ford Administration and the Child Tax Credit was passed by the GOP led Congress under Clinton. Combined, these 3 programs encourage people to work and not stay on welfare. It is critical that they be protected for those earning less than $40,000.
What made me sad about the article was it brought home to me something that I intuitively understand. Globalization and automation have created an underclass in the United States. I don't know what beyond excellent education and health insurance we can do for these people. Eventually, wages in China, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and India will rise to the point where transportation costs motivate employers to bring low skill manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. and pay a wage level that makes life affordable. But this will not happen for another 10, 20 or 30 years. 30 years is almost an entire working career and this process really hit home when the construction real estate boom ended in 2008. I hate to think there is no government policy that can help these people but I can't think of anything beyond education, health insurance and targeted tax policy. Supply side economics doesn't work because those who benefit reinvest are in the global economy and either save their money or reinvest it lower wage places.
Of course, the people who are suffering through their lot in life are a diverse group of people. They fuel the anger of the Tea Party, they fuel the anger of the anti-Wall Street crowd, they fuel the strident belief on the left that all social programs should be maintained and expanded. This diversity is why Mitt Romney lost. Romney preached a return to the policies that created the crisis and did not address the needs of the underclass. While Mitt had the support of the angry Tea Party, he scared many others who care about the underclass but understand we need to restore fiscal sanity in a balanced manner.
The world is a complicated place.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Veterans Day, Government Policy and Israel
On this Veterans Day, we should all take a moment to contemplate the sacrifice our soldiers accept to protect us from people and countries that would do us harm. We should contemplate what the proper role and range of American Defense Policy should be. We should contemplate how we pay for that Defense Department and remember the costs are not simply the current costs, but also the cost of helping those warriors who come home damaged in some manner. Defense costs are current expenses and should be paid for out of current revenue, not borrowed money as the Bush II administration decided we should. In conservative economic policy, funds are borrowed to pay for investment which will produce the revenues to repay the debt.
In a similar theme, Thomas Friedman today urges the Israeli government to contemplate the changing electorate in the U.S. and think about the implications for an Israel that does not encourage a separate Palestinian State. My point about Israel has never been a question of its right to self-defense. They will need a strong proverbial sword for a long time into the future.
Link to Freidman
However, Israel, like the U.S., excludes a significant percentage of its population from the reality of defending the State. In the U.S., we have an all volunteer military that few children of wealth volunteer for. In Israel, the conservative, most hard-lined religious sects who want all of Jerusalem and the West Bank for Israeli settlement are not required to serve in the military and thus bear none of the burden of the defense their beliefs require. The hard-lined sects prevent the compromises on land that are needed to provide Palestinian leaders with the legitimacy they need to govern.
Israel governs land that has an ever increasing population of Palestinians. There will be no drop in Palestinian birth rates until there is economic growth. There will be no economic growth in Palestine until there is peace. Without a drop in Palestinian birth rates, Israel will not be sufficiently Jewish to be a Jewish State. Israel needs a 2 State solution. Israel must foster a way to establish a Palestinian State or it faces an ever increasing risk of committing genocide against Palestinians. That is not only too horrifically ironic to contemplate, but also something that the world will never accept.
I know some of my friends will say what about Iran and similar promises to wipe Israel off the map. Well, such thoughts would be much more difficult if there were a Palestinian State and Israel already has the full support of the U.S. and most E.U. countries to defend themselves against that.
The political world is changing and the newly enfranchised citizens of the Arab World are not accepting of the current status of Palestine. There is nothing in that progression of change that Israel can stop, and Israel's path to influence of that change will come about only if there is a Palestinian State.
Israel, like the Republican Party, must recognize that the population of today is not the population of even 30 years ago. The world changes and policies must change too, while maintaining a strong well funded military for defense purposes.
In a similar theme, Thomas Friedman today urges the Israeli government to contemplate the changing electorate in the U.S. and think about the implications for an Israel that does not encourage a separate Palestinian State. My point about Israel has never been a question of its right to self-defense. They will need a strong proverbial sword for a long time into the future.
Link to Freidman
However, Israel, like the U.S., excludes a significant percentage of its population from the reality of defending the State. In the U.S., we have an all volunteer military that few children of wealth volunteer for. In Israel, the conservative, most hard-lined religious sects who want all of Jerusalem and the West Bank for Israeli settlement are not required to serve in the military and thus bear none of the burden of the defense their beliefs require. The hard-lined sects prevent the compromises on land that are needed to provide Palestinian leaders with the legitimacy they need to govern.
Israel governs land that has an ever increasing population of Palestinians. There will be no drop in Palestinian birth rates until there is economic growth. There will be no economic growth in Palestine until there is peace. Without a drop in Palestinian birth rates, Israel will not be sufficiently Jewish to be a Jewish State. Israel needs a 2 State solution. Israel must foster a way to establish a Palestinian State or it faces an ever increasing risk of committing genocide against Palestinians. That is not only too horrifically ironic to contemplate, but also something that the world will never accept.
I know some of my friends will say what about Iran and similar promises to wipe Israel off the map. Well, such thoughts would be much more difficult if there were a Palestinian State and Israel already has the full support of the U.S. and most E.U. countries to defend themselves against that.
The political world is changing and the newly enfranchised citizens of the Arab World are not accepting of the current status of Palestine. There is nothing in that progression of change that Israel can stop, and Israel's path to influence of that change will come about only if there is a Palestinian State.
Israel, like the Republican Party, must recognize that the population of today is not the population of even 30 years ago. The world changes and policies must change too, while maintaining a strong well funded military for defense purposes.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Thoughtful Writing
David Brooks has good advice for both Democrats and Republicans.
Link to David Brooks
Tom Egan on the wonder of American Democracy and the crassness of some who don't like Barack Obama
Tom Egan Link
Link to David Brooks
Tom Egan on the wonder of American Democracy and the crassness of some who don't like Barack Obama
Tom Egan Link
Drones are Bad?
I quote something I found in this weeks Economist.
"But Kurt Volker, a former American official close to John McCain, sees a bigger problem: drones have made killing too easy. In a recent article he asked: "What do we want to be as a nation? A country with a permanent kill list? A country where people go to the office, launch a few kill shots and get home in time for dinner? A country that instructs workers in high-tech operations centers to humans on the far side of the planet because some government agency determined that those individuals are terrorists?""
My answer to that is YES. We are in War on Terror. The enemy is committed to inflicting harm on Americans and Judaean-Christian Culture where ever it exists. It is also committed to inflicting harm on Muslims who do not agree with them. They are anarchist and they are dispersed operating in cells located in remote places.
We cannot put boots on the ground everywhere they exist, but we must combat them.
The article discusses the care taken to not kill innocent people although that does happen.
Drones are the most effective way to fight this War on Terror. It is also the most cost effective way to do this and the least taxing on the troops we ask to defend us.
I am surprised that a John McCain advisor would question this.
"But Kurt Volker, a former American official close to John McCain, sees a bigger problem: drones have made killing too easy. In a recent article he asked: "What do we want to be as a nation? A country with a permanent kill list? A country where people go to the office, launch a few kill shots and get home in time for dinner? A country that instructs workers in high-tech operations centers to humans on the far side of the planet because some government agency determined that those individuals are terrorists?""
My answer to that is YES. We are in War on Terror. The enemy is committed to inflicting harm on Americans and Judaean-Christian Culture where ever it exists. It is also committed to inflicting harm on Muslims who do not agree with them. They are anarchist and they are dispersed operating in cells located in remote places.
We cannot put boots on the ground everywhere they exist, but we must combat them.
The article discusses the care taken to not kill innocent people although that does happen.
Drones are the most effective way to fight this War on Terror. It is also the most cost effective way to do this and the least taxing on the troops we ask to defend us.
I am surprised that a John McCain advisor would question this.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Post Election Thoughts
The resident GOP supporters in my work setting are blaming the minority voters for voting overwhelmingly for President Obama. I pointed out to them that there are middle of the road conservative Democrats and formerly liberal Republican's who cannot bring themselves to vote for a politician or a political party that does not believe in compromise and policies that live and breath in the middle of the extremes. After all, that is why I started this blog and why I could not vote for any GOP candidates at this time.
Now, let's say my GOP co-workers are correct. Well the answer is not to berate these voters but either to (i) try and convince them that they do not see their best interests correctly (but that is what Romney tried and many losing GOP senators tried) or (ii) develop policies that help achieve the goals of Government that centrist Democrats can support with centrist Republicans. I realize this part of the political spectrum is thinly populated, but calling such people "RINO's" or whatever is not productive.
As for Mitch McConnell's #1 goal "to make President Obama a one term President" irrespective of the fact that that is a bad way for the government to conduct itself, I hope he reassesses this #1 goal and makes solving problems with Democrats his goal.
Anyway the unequivocal good news is that the Affordable Health Care Act will be implemented and that no additional Constructionist Judges will be appointed to the Supreme Court in the next 4 years.
Now, if only a Grand Compromise along the lines of Simpson Bowles can be agreed to and avoid the fiscal cliff.
Now, let's say my GOP co-workers are correct. Well the answer is not to berate these voters but either to (i) try and convince them that they do not see their best interests correctly (but that is what Romney tried and many losing GOP senators tried) or (ii) develop policies that help achieve the goals of Government that centrist Democrats can support with centrist Republicans. I realize this part of the political spectrum is thinly populated, but calling such people "RINO's" or whatever is not productive.
As for Mitch McConnell's #1 goal "to make President Obama a one term President" irrespective of the fact that that is a bad way for the government to conduct itself, I hope he reassesses this #1 goal and makes solving problems with Democrats his goal.
Anyway the unequivocal good news is that the Affordable Health Care Act will be implemented and that no additional Constructionist Judges will be appointed to the Supreme Court in the next 4 years.
Now, if only a Grand Compromise along the lines of Simpson Bowles can be agreed to and avoid the fiscal cliff.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Outrageous TV Political Ad
Until this weekend, we in NYC have been spared the absolute shit being put on the air by the GOP advocates sanctioned by Citizens United. I don't know why this weekend they have been wasting their dollars in NYC but they have.
Tonight, I saw the most outrageous ad and must comment. It was paid for by Citizens Against Government Waste. I know this organization has a somewhat respectable founding, but this was beyond the pale.
It showed Chinese of the PRC chortling about owning US debt and saying the US is working for them because of Obama's fiscal stimulus.
I would like to point out that Chinese financing of the US budget deficit began in 2001 under the Bush administration which had no qualms about cutting taxes and financing the WAR on TERROR with money borrowed from the Chinese because they would neither put the cost of the WAR on Terror in the budget nor raise the revenues to pay for it. Nor would the Bush II administration contemplate enforcing regulation of the mortgage industry preferring to let the market work it out.
The result was the Great Recession which we are still working through and millions of innocent people who lost their jobs because of unregulated capitalism.
The ad impies that Obama should be voted out of office so those same policies can be implemented.
It is outrageous and I hope Obama wins and he gets to appoint 2 more Supreme Court justices who will vote to overturn Citizens United.
Tonight, I saw the most outrageous ad and must comment. It was paid for by Citizens Against Government Waste. I know this organization has a somewhat respectable founding, but this was beyond the pale.
It showed Chinese of the PRC chortling about owning US debt and saying the US is working for them because of Obama's fiscal stimulus.
I would like to point out that Chinese financing of the US budget deficit began in 2001 under the Bush administration which had no qualms about cutting taxes and financing the WAR on TERROR with money borrowed from the Chinese because they would neither put the cost of the WAR on Terror in the budget nor raise the revenues to pay for it. Nor would the Bush II administration contemplate enforcing regulation of the mortgage industry preferring to let the market work it out.
The result was the Great Recession which we are still working through and millions of innocent people who lost their jobs because of unregulated capitalism.
The ad impies that Obama should be voted out of office so those same policies can be implemented.
It is outrageous and I hope Obama wins and he gets to appoint 2 more Supreme Court justices who will vote to overturn Citizens United.
Post Sandy (Hurricane) Pre Election Musings
People are really suffering along the coast line and I know it must be difficult to get them everything they need. I feel for the public servants and utility workers who are struggling to put things back together.
Longer term, I think we have to reconsider how government encourages waterfront development and plan for some gradual changes. Nature produces storms and humans need to allow tolerances in the system to mitigate the damage. An ocean waterfront is not a place to invest money you cannot afford to loose. An ocean waterfront is a place for parks and public access to beaches. Landscapes that can absorb storm surges.
Now as for the gasoline lines. My own planning for this storm involved filling the cars with gas, getting cash from the bank, purchasing water and preservable food, building an ice supply for the cooler and filling the tub with water to flush the toilets. But we would not have lasted the 5 days some have been without electricity now. We would have had to leave the region using our cars and that is why the gasoline purchase was so critical.
I don't understand why everyone did not do this and I have been pretty angry with the drivers of the cars waiting in the gas lines in front of our house. I have sympathy for the workers who use their vehicles daily and understand they might have burned through their full gas tank in 3 days, but not the others in the first lines.
Now we are so far along, that even prudent people might be running out of gas. I will note that many in the gas lines are cars with smaller gas tanks. So fuel efficiency has its place but not when there is a shortage of gasoline.
As for the election, what will be, will be. I am distancing myself from this emotionally although I believe the choice is very stark between what will happen in regards to a woman's right to choose. And I cannot believe Ross Douthat's comment:
President Obama did not single-handedly put us on this path. But he has kept us on it, accelerated our progress down it, and campaigned for re-election as though taking this course had no downsides whatsoever. He’s the candidate of the Medicare status quo in a country facing an entitlement crunch, of government bailouts in an economy with a crony capitalism problem, and of contraceptive mandates in a society with a birth dearth.
Longer term, I think we have to reconsider how government encourages waterfront development and plan for some gradual changes. Nature produces storms and humans need to allow tolerances in the system to mitigate the damage. An ocean waterfront is not a place to invest money you cannot afford to loose. An ocean waterfront is a place for parks and public access to beaches. Landscapes that can absorb storm surges.
Now as for the gasoline lines. My own planning for this storm involved filling the cars with gas, getting cash from the bank, purchasing water and preservable food, building an ice supply for the cooler and filling the tub with water to flush the toilets. But we would not have lasted the 5 days some have been without electricity now. We would have had to leave the region using our cars and that is why the gasoline purchase was so critical.
I don't understand why everyone did not do this and I have been pretty angry with the drivers of the cars waiting in the gas lines in front of our house. I have sympathy for the workers who use their vehicles daily and understand they might have burned through their full gas tank in 3 days, but not the others in the first lines.
Now we are so far along, that even prudent people might be running out of gas. I will note that many in the gas lines are cars with smaller gas tanks. So fuel efficiency has its place but not when there is a shortage of gasoline.
As for the election, what will be, will be. I am distancing myself from this emotionally although I believe the choice is very stark between what will happen in regards to a woman's right to choose. And I cannot believe Ross Douthat's comment:
President Obama did not single-handedly put us on this path. But he has kept us on it, accelerated our progress down it, and campaigned for re-election as though taking this course had no downsides whatsoever. He’s the candidate of the Medicare status quo in a country facing an entitlement crunch, of government bailouts in an economy with a crony capitalism problem, and of contraceptive mandates in a society with a birth dearth.
Let me get this straight. We should limit contraception availability for people who cannot afford it without health insurance coverage, so that such women of limited income will have more babies, so our population will increase? And then under the GOP plans , we will cut the access of many of those new children to health care and higher quality education thereby creating a larger underclass, higher crime rate and more spending on law & order. That is a great way to reduce government spending! I hope he clarifies his thoughts some day.
Friday, November 2, 2012
For my Readers who know John Dwight
I quote from a book I am reading on Prohibition, Last Call by Daniel Okrent
"But by mid-decade the value of goods afloat on American coastal waters had bought a vicious element into the rum-running business: nautical auxiliaries of violent urban gangs. For crewman on the mother ships, the days when your customers would bring you groceries or carry your mail ashore had given way to fear-filled nights. The sanguinary chill that settled over Rum Row had been signaled by the scuttling, in 1923, of the John Dwight, a 107-foot steam trawler hauling a Canadian cargo of Frontenac Export Ale through Rum Lane, near Martha's Vineyard. The bodies of eight Dwight crewmen were later found in the surf off the Vineyard hamlet of Menemsha. Three had had the skin stripped from their faces. Others had had their eyes burned out, their finger-prints scarred beyond recognition by acid. The sone of Dwight's captain was found adrift in a dinghy, his skull fractured, his body wedged beneath a seat. One of the dead men was known to have been carrying $100,000 in cash for an impending purchase."
Readers wanting choice quips about this can contact me.
"But by mid-decade the value of goods afloat on American coastal waters had bought a vicious element into the rum-running business: nautical auxiliaries of violent urban gangs. For crewman on the mother ships, the days when your customers would bring you groceries or carry your mail ashore had given way to fear-filled nights. The sanguinary chill that settled over Rum Row had been signaled by the scuttling, in 1923, of the John Dwight, a 107-foot steam trawler hauling a Canadian cargo of Frontenac Export Ale through Rum Lane, near Martha's Vineyard. The bodies of eight Dwight crewmen were later found in the surf off the Vineyard hamlet of Menemsha. Three had had the skin stripped from their faces. Others had had their eyes burned out, their finger-prints scarred beyond recognition by acid. The sone of Dwight's captain was found adrift in a dinghy, his skull fractured, his body wedged beneath a seat. One of the dead men was known to have been carrying $100,000 in cash for an impending purchase."
Readers wanting choice quips about this can contact me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)