WARNING: VERY ADULT LANGUAGE, Listen at your own risk.
Here's a guy with a simple, non-partisan message regarding our budget issues as a nation. He basically says to hell with social decorum and playing nice here. I think he says what a lot of people are thinking in their minds while talking with a lot less expletive language. Enjoy:
Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republicans. Show all posts
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Friday, March 19, 2010
Yet Another Clueless Congress
It's always something with these clowns we elect to represent us in government. They hold their power due to a mandate of the people. This mandate is not unconditional. It is also not limited merely by the election process. They govern by our consent and by the spirit of that consent, they should be shaping things according to our consent. Not by the consent they grant themselves, or by a mandate from those senior to them, or by the President of The United States, who also is granted power only to see to it that he manage the country according to our will, not his alone.
They govern by our consent alone. However, members of congress have managed through the last couple centuries to further corrupt the system they operate in order to benefit themselves first, and the people second.
Many of our current representatives, including the President, were not elected solely on their platforms but by mere shifting of the political winds when voters felt disenfranchised by the opposing party who previously held control. Many voters are not total platform voters, but often make their decision on who to vote for based on one or two issues, by party affiliation alone, or merely because the candidate of their choice is simply "not the guy we have now".
However, to hear our elected leaders speak, the people voted them in to enact every single aspect of the leaders' platforms and thought processes. I hate to be the bearer of news from the universe of Mr Obvious, but it isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it. The approval rating of Congress is not the fault of one party or the other, but in its entirety. It isn't just about what legislation they are trying to shove down our throats, or just who's constantly filibustering the ideas of the other side. Although these are very valid ideas of why congressional approval has remained in the tank for quite some time. It seems the problem that these people just don't understand is this: IT ISN'T ABOUT YOUR SIDE OR MINE, IT'S ABOUT AMERICA AS A WHOLE!
Those who make the decision to vote for or support only the ideas from a singular party affiliation are point blank, MORONS.
Its funny how we see ideas bantied about in the halls of congress. Ten years ago the republicans came up with an idea, and democrats blustered about how horrible it was. Now, the same idea comes out of the mouth of a democrat, and republicans bluster about the disgustingness that it represents. Or vice verse. And all too often, when the latter party trying the idea defends themselves they use such a ludicrous defense of "well, the so-n-so party tried it first!"
I mean c'mon. Haven't we all grown up with the lesson of of jumping off the bridge or cliff because our friends did it? If you have to defend your idea, why not try to use the skills you learned in the halls of academia that you bragged about so much. Please don't use such a juvenile mindset of "they did it first."
Yesterday it was about war and terrorism, this week its about health care, and it will be something else again down the road after that.
But today I address just a few of the finer points of health care reform, since that's the big topic, and supposedly coming up for a final vote this weekend. (Conveniently scheduled for when everyone will be at home watching the NCAA basketball tournament and worrying about how they do in their office pools)
One one side you have the Democrats pushing hard to pass a monstrous health care bill through, read or not read, debated or not debated, passed or not passed through both houses on an identical passage. And the big argument: We have to do SOMETHING to reform our system of health care in America.
Here are my points on this
1. Yes, you are correct- you do have to do SOMEthing
2. No you do not have to have a zillion pages of complicated legislation that 3/4 of the lawmakers couldn't understand if left to look over it themselves.
3. You do NOT have to do EVERYthing all at once
4. Quit distorting facts, and quit using emotional laden stories as your main basis. Once you forget about logic, your ideas fall flat. No matter how many people you convince of your righteousness, a stupid idea, really is a stupid idea.
On the other side, you have the seeming "Party of No" that has been branded on to the Republicans. They have been deemed as the party that wants to keep the status quo, and keep the special interest insurance companies flush with control and cash from the hard working American population.
Here are my points on this
1. You really are idiots for making a huge deal out of anything that Obama supports. I suspect that if Obama fully supported your very mother, a good legion of you would immediately look for ways to vilify your mother. So quit being idiots.
2. Get focused, and craft an entire bill yourselves. Look to address some problems beyond the most very obvious, and be fair about it. Don't merely countermand that anything the democrats do is stupid and anti-American. Again, this only serves to make you look like idiots.
3. Don't assume you can use fear as a main tactic forever. Sooner or later your words get played out, and no one cares. Remember the little fable about the boy who cried wolf? Yeah, you guys are him.
4. Quit distorting the facts. Inventing ghosts and using end-times equivalent stories to make your point only work so well. Get your facts, check your facts, and be really specific on your points and exactly how things are working. Don't cherry pick your facts, so the people who oppose you can say "hey look he forgot to mention the second half of the statement that shows us to be right". If you fail to use logic, and your idea falls flat when applied to a litmus test, well like I said of the democrats, a stupid idea is a stupid idea, no matter how many people believe in it.
But lets look now at a few specific ideas within the health care bill and the concepts it brings to the table.
1. Individual mandates. In other words, you buy adequate health insurance (as deemed most likely by a government bureaucrat), or you pay a fine. If you won't pay the fine, spend some time in jail. the enforcement of this idea is under the jurisdiction of the IRS. You know, the tax guys.
First of all, even if the health care reform bill is passed, if this clause is in it, the fight has only just begun. It will go to the Supreme Court, and will most likely be struck down. You will have wasted a crap load of money dealing with the legislation, then the court case, and in the meantime while that's being decided, it may well affect a lot of people who will in fact be active dissenters to this clause. Never mind the fact that Congress, according to their position have to consider the constitutionality of their actions even before trying to see how it will go down in a Supreme Court decision. That's their responsibility, which more often than not, they shirk away from on their way to cash that check with their new taxpayer-funded raises they gave themselves.
Secondly, if this is not a tax, as it has been argued...then why are the tax guys in charge of compliance? These are the same guys who will arrest you and jail you for the mere act of following the very letter of the law when it comes time to filing and paying taxes. There's a couple key words in the tax code as it was written that says "voluntary compliance". Interestingly enough, it isn't so voluntary once you get down to the bottom of it all. And with this mandate, as it is worded, there will be nothing voluntary about it, so be prepared to pay a price if you choose not to buy a pre-approved plan.
Thirdly, they say that the argument against health care reform is headed by insurance companies as they are wanting to keep the status quo. Well, in one sense I can see it. However, the mandate specifically adds millions to these companies rolls of paying customers. the very clause says, individuals will buy insurance from private insurance companies. Never mind the unconstitutionality of this, just think about who profits from having millions of new people paying into them. Yeah, so much for "eliminating special interests" from the argument. You can tell with this one clause that those special interests have bought and paid for our elected officials who go along with this plan.
You really want to look at some options to go with? And no these are not merely my GOP provided talking points here.
Take your time. Decide what the problems are with the system. Then divide them up into smaller groups and legislate in a few fixes at a time. Then move on to the next group of problems. If some of the new legislation isn't working, try a different angle that goes into effect and repeals the previous legislation, so as not to keep clogging up our law books with antiquated and irrelevant crap. Any costs associated with the first idea, transfer to the replacement.
In other words, lets solve the problems one or two issues at a time. You don't need 2000 pages and an immediate and complete changeover to get things accomplished.
You want competition against the collusion and monopoly of health insurers??? Try using your power to replace some your predecessors idiotic measures. You know, way back when, our leaders were expected to protect us from trusts and monopolies of companies so that they couldn't take unfair advantage of us Americans. And yet, guess who specifically made an exemption so that health insurance companies could create their own monopolies and leave us to their mercy, god forbid they had any to begin with? Yep..that's right the Congress of the United States of America, and signed into law by our President at that time. Seems to me if you allow interstate commerce, you will see an increase in competition, and you will see premium costs go down, reductions in co pays and deductibles as perks to attract more customers away from the competition.
Allow interstate commerce within the health insurance industry.
Tort reform. Look I'm not talking about ludicrous ideas like capping rewards at a mere $250,000 per case. I'm saying give it a rational look and make monetary awards with a little discretion. If you want to mandate something here is where you do it. Whatever it takes money-wise to take care of a person who is injured or debilitated due to medical malpractice, give them that to start with. Say a free ride to whatever medical facility they have in their area or that treats such things if their isn't a local provider of such services. Just issue them a card that says, I get free treatment. As far as other monetary damages being awarded, look at their salary and years left to retirement, and give them that, maybe with a slight bonus to make up for any inflation. No more $10 million "pain and suffering" awards t someone who makes $20,000 a year and is only going to be working another 10 years before retiring anyways. I understand its their life we're talking about, but 9 out 10 people will never make $10 million in their life total, so lets be realistic here. If the malpractice results in a death, then figure out an amicable financial settlement for the family of the deceased. And again, it shouldn't be $10 million. It should take care of things, but not turn them into instant Forbes 500 kind of people. With a little tort reform, you will see an expansion of some medical services to certain areas that are lacking, geographically speaking. You will also see a lot less wasting of the unnecessary testing that doctors go through knowing full well their patient is not suffering from "hyper-idiomoronic syndrome". Many people will retort that tort reform will only make it harder to sue doctors who screw up, and that defensive medicine costs and malpractice insurance costs are only a sliver of a percentage of why health care is so costly. First off, lets not change the wording that makes it harder to sue, just change the monetary awards to a more common sense level. Secondly, so what about percentages of cost. Isn't every little bit saved that much better for everybody all around? After all, we keep voting in guys who just want me to put in fractions of a penny on the dollars I earn to pay for this program or that program, and everyone seems to be fine with that.
Tort reform should be fair to both sides.
Look, in the end, I don't have all the answers. I don't think there is a single member, much less the collective body, of congress that does. I don't think the President does. I don't think consumer advocates do, nor do the health care industry's many entities. But I think we need to slow down, get off the ideological train wreck we are all on, and figure out a few things a time to see what works, rather than changing up the system entirely in one fell swoop, with hardly a clue of the consequences. No plan goes perfectly in general, but in two areas it really shows its imperfection: battlefields and government.
We don't have to do things like other countries do them. We're America. We have created more wealth than almost every other country in the world combined, in fact some of those countries made a good chunk of money through our system or because of it. The reason we can give so much financial support in pure dollars to other countries to aid them in defense, or in the event of a natural disaster, is because we made the money in the first place. One may say there is something wrong with American exceptionalism. And maybe to a point there is, but it was our exceptionalism that led the world into modern times. You look around the world, and a lot of items were either created here in the U.S. (see: cars, airplanes) or we vastly improved upon items invented elsewhere (see: gunpowder, space travel). We can create our version of health care, improved upon what we have now, and make it unique and better than anyone else's if we step back and put our logical minds instead of our emotional minds to it.
We built our country on the idea of free market, with some government to reign in the players from hurting each other. Let us not just take all the players out and have the government draft only its own players to play the game. You'll never win with that kind of plan. Unless you're already one of the power players or well connected to them. Lets use the framework fo what got us here in the first place, re-tweak it, and use it to propel us ahead to where we need to go.
Let us be that Shining Beacon on the Hill, not just to Americans already here, but be the example for the rest of the world.
They govern by our consent alone. However, members of congress have managed through the last couple centuries to further corrupt the system they operate in order to benefit themselves first, and the people second.
Many of our current representatives, including the President, were not elected solely on their platforms but by mere shifting of the political winds when voters felt disenfranchised by the opposing party who previously held control. Many voters are not total platform voters, but often make their decision on who to vote for based on one or two issues, by party affiliation alone, or merely because the candidate of their choice is simply "not the guy we have now".
However, to hear our elected leaders speak, the people voted them in to enact every single aspect of the leaders' platforms and thought processes. I hate to be the bearer of news from the universe of Mr Obvious, but it isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it. The approval rating of Congress is not the fault of one party or the other, but in its entirety. It isn't just about what legislation they are trying to shove down our throats, or just who's constantly filibustering the ideas of the other side. Although these are very valid ideas of why congressional approval has remained in the tank for quite some time. It seems the problem that these people just don't understand is this: IT ISN'T ABOUT YOUR SIDE OR MINE, IT'S ABOUT AMERICA AS A WHOLE!
Those who make the decision to vote for or support only the ideas from a singular party affiliation are point blank, MORONS.
Its funny how we see ideas bantied about in the halls of congress. Ten years ago the republicans came up with an idea, and democrats blustered about how horrible it was. Now, the same idea comes out of the mouth of a democrat, and republicans bluster about the disgustingness that it represents. Or vice verse. And all too often, when the latter party trying the idea defends themselves they use such a ludicrous defense of "well, the so-n-so party tried it first!"
I mean c'mon. Haven't we all grown up with the lesson of of jumping off the bridge or cliff because our friends did it? If you have to defend your idea, why not try to use the skills you learned in the halls of academia that you bragged about so much. Please don't use such a juvenile mindset of "they did it first."
Yesterday it was about war and terrorism, this week its about health care, and it will be something else again down the road after that.
But today I address just a few of the finer points of health care reform, since that's the big topic, and supposedly coming up for a final vote this weekend. (Conveniently scheduled for when everyone will be at home watching the NCAA basketball tournament and worrying about how they do in their office pools)
One one side you have the Democrats pushing hard to pass a monstrous health care bill through, read or not read, debated or not debated, passed or not passed through both houses on an identical passage. And the big argument: We have to do SOMETHING to reform our system of health care in America.
Here are my points on this
1. Yes, you are correct- you do have to do SOMEthing
2. No you do not have to have a zillion pages of complicated legislation that 3/4 of the lawmakers couldn't understand if left to look over it themselves.
3. You do NOT have to do EVERYthing all at once
4. Quit distorting facts, and quit using emotional laden stories as your main basis. Once you forget about logic, your ideas fall flat. No matter how many people you convince of your righteousness, a stupid idea, really is a stupid idea.
On the other side, you have the seeming "Party of No" that has been branded on to the Republicans. They have been deemed as the party that wants to keep the status quo, and keep the special interest insurance companies flush with control and cash from the hard working American population.
Here are my points on this
1. You really are idiots for making a huge deal out of anything that Obama supports. I suspect that if Obama fully supported your very mother, a good legion of you would immediately look for ways to vilify your mother. So quit being idiots.
2. Get focused, and craft an entire bill yourselves. Look to address some problems beyond the most very obvious, and be fair about it. Don't merely countermand that anything the democrats do is stupid and anti-American. Again, this only serves to make you look like idiots.
3. Don't assume you can use fear as a main tactic forever. Sooner or later your words get played out, and no one cares. Remember the little fable about the boy who cried wolf? Yeah, you guys are him.
4. Quit distorting the facts. Inventing ghosts and using end-times equivalent stories to make your point only work so well. Get your facts, check your facts, and be really specific on your points and exactly how things are working. Don't cherry pick your facts, so the people who oppose you can say "hey look he forgot to mention the second half of the statement that shows us to be right". If you fail to use logic, and your idea falls flat when applied to a litmus test, well like I said of the democrats, a stupid idea is a stupid idea, no matter how many people believe in it.
But lets look now at a few specific ideas within the health care bill and the concepts it brings to the table.
1. Individual mandates. In other words, you buy adequate health insurance (as deemed most likely by a government bureaucrat), or you pay a fine. If you won't pay the fine, spend some time in jail. the enforcement of this idea is under the jurisdiction of the IRS. You know, the tax guys.
First of all, even if the health care reform bill is passed, if this clause is in it, the fight has only just begun. It will go to the Supreme Court, and will most likely be struck down. You will have wasted a crap load of money dealing with the legislation, then the court case, and in the meantime while that's being decided, it may well affect a lot of people who will in fact be active dissenters to this clause. Never mind the fact that Congress, according to their position have to consider the constitutionality of their actions even before trying to see how it will go down in a Supreme Court decision. That's their responsibility, which more often than not, they shirk away from on their way to cash that check with their new taxpayer-funded raises they gave themselves.
Secondly, if this is not a tax, as it has been argued...then why are the tax guys in charge of compliance? These are the same guys who will arrest you and jail you for the mere act of following the very letter of the law when it comes time to filing and paying taxes. There's a couple key words in the tax code as it was written that says "voluntary compliance". Interestingly enough, it isn't so voluntary once you get down to the bottom of it all. And with this mandate, as it is worded, there will be nothing voluntary about it, so be prepared to pay a price if you choose not to buy a pre-approved plan.
Thirdly, they say that the argument against health care reform is headed by insurance companies as they are wanting to keep the status quo. Well, in one sense I can see it. However, the mandate specifically adds millions to these companies rolls of paying customers. the very clause says, individuals will buy insurance from private insurance companies. Never mind the unconstitutionality of this, just think about who profits from having millions of new people paying into them. Yeah, so much for "eliminating special interests" from the argument. You can tell with this one clause that those special interests have bought and paid for our elected officials who go along with this plan.
You really want to look at some options to go with? And no these are not merely my GOP provided talking points here.
Take your time. Decide what the problems are with the system. Then divide them up into smaller groups and legislate in a few fixes at a time. Then move on to the next group of problems. If some of the new legislation isn't working, try a different angle that goes into effect and repeals the previous legislation, so as not to keep clogging up our law books with antiquated and irrelevant crap. Any costs associated with the first idea, transfer to the replacement.
In other words, lets solve the problems one or two issues at a time. You don't need 2000 pages and an immediate and complete changeover to get things accomplished.
You want competition against the collusion and monopoly of health insurers??? Try using your power to replace some your predecessors idiotic measures. You know, way back when, our leaders were expected to protect us from trusts and monopolies of companies so that they couldn't take unfair advantage of us Americans. And yet, guess who specifically made an exemption so that health insurance companies could create their own monopolies and leave us to their mercy, god forbid they had any to begin with? Yep..that's right the Congress of the United States of America, and signed into law by our President at that time. Seems to me if you allow interstate commerce, you will see an increase in competition, and you will see premium costs go down, reductions in co pays and deductibles as perks to attract more customers away from the competition.
Allow interstate commerce within the health insurance industry.
Tort reform. Look I'm not talking about ludicrous ideas like capping rewards at a mere $250,000 per case. I'm saying give it a rational look and make monetary awards with a little discretion. If you want to mandate something here is where you do it. Whatever it takes money-wise to take care of a person who is injured or debilitated due to medical malpractice, give them that to start with. Say a free ride to whatever medical facility they have in their area or that treats such things if their isn't a local provider of such services. Just issue them a card that says, I get free treatment. As far as other monetary damages being awarded, look at their salary and years left to retirement, and give them that, maybe with a slight bonus to make up for any inflation. No more $10 million "pain and suffering" awards t someone who makes $20,000 a year and is only going to be working another 10 years before retiring anyways. I understand its their life we're talking about, but 9 out 10 people will never make $10 million in their life total, so lets be realistic here. If the malpractice results in a death, then figure out an amicable financial settlement for the family of the deceased. And again, it shouldn't be $10 million. It should take care of things, but not turn them into instant Forbes 500 kind of people. With a little tort reform, you will see an expansion of some medical services to certain areas that are lacking, geographically speaking. You will also see a lot less wasting of the unnecessary testing that doctors go through knowing full well their patient is not suffering from "hyper-idiomoronic syndrome". Many people will retort that tort reform will only make it harder to sue doctors who screw up, and that defensive medicine costs and malpractice insurance costs are only a sliver of a percentage of why health care is so costly. First off, lets not change the wording that makes it harder to sue, just change the monetary awards to a more common sense level. Secondly, so what about percentages of cost. Isn't every little bit saved that much better for everybody all around? After all, we keep voting in guys who just want me to put in fractions of a penny on the dollars I earn to pay for this program or that program, and everyone seems to be fine with that.
Tort reform should be fair to both sides.
Look, in the end, I don't have all the answers. I don't think there is a single member, much less the collective body, of congress that does. I don't think the President does. I don't think consumer advocates do, nor do the health care industry's many entities. But I think we need to slow down, get off the ideological train wreck we are all on, and figure out a few things a time to see what works, rather than changing up the system entirely in one fell swoop, with hardly a clue of the consequences. No plan goes perfectly in general, but in two areas it really shows its imperfection: battlefields and government.
We don't have to do things like other countries do them. We're America. We have created more wealth than almost every other country in the world combined, in fact some of those countries made a good chunk of money through our system or because of it. The reason we can give so much financial support in pure dollars to other countries to aid them in defense, or in the event of a natural disaster, is because we made the money in the first place. One may say there is something wrong with American exceptionalism. And maybe to a point there is, but it was our exceptionalism that led the world into modern times. You look around the world, and a lot of items were either created here in the U.S. (see: cars, airplanes) or we vastly improved upon items invented elsewhere (see: gunpowder, space travel). We can create our version of health care, improved upon what we have now, and make it unique and better than anyone else's if we step back and put our logical minds instead of our emotional minds to it.
We built our country on the idea of free market, with some government to reign in the players from hurting each other. Let us not just take all the players out and have the government draft only its own players to play the game. You'll never win with that kind of plan. Unless you're already one of the power players or well connected to them. Lets use the framework fo what got us here in the first place, re-tweak it, and use it to propel us ahead to where we need to go.
Let us be that Shining Beacon on the Hill, not just to Americans already here, but be the example for the rest of the world.
Friday, October 30, 2009
My Buddy Jay- ENEMY #98273482
My buddy, Jay, is the reason I came to blog here. It gave me a slightly more mature forum than say, Myspace, as well as a way that we could sort of keep up with each others' busy lives, without having to do that thing women who want to keep in touch do: use the phone.
Well, my buddy Jay and his wife are currently in the process of adopting a couple of little girls from Ethiopia. For more information on that, and how you can help out go HERE. No REALLY, go there and check it out. If you don't go, you can't read the rest of this blog. I mean it. Go now and come back when you're done.
Okay, now that you've done what you were told to do (you better hope you did, I am a rent-a-cop after all and I will hit you with my flashlight if you lied and skipped right to here), we'll get to the meat of the issue.
Recently, part of the process of this adoption is for Jay and his wife to get their passports so they can go overseas. Jay posted the stories Part 1 and Part 2.
To summarize part 1, providing the exact same documents, Jay's wife received her passport, however Jay himself did not. Jay has gone to great lengths to get his passport, which are explained in part 2, making some statements which I have decided to take issue with.
Instance #1: Jay says, "As you may know, I am completely reasonable and patient person when dealing with inept government agencies."
For those of you who don't know Jay, let me assure you, I've known him since he was in diapers, which was approximately right after I got out of diapers. And not getting out of them by merely ripping them off, but by actually being a big boy and wearing pull-ups. Soon, I fear, I may be back in diapers again as I have a teeny tiny bladder. ANYWAYS....Jay is the furthest from being a reasonable and patient person in general, never mind dealing with inept government agencies.
Example 1- (generalities) Growing up Jay persistently stole Christmas lights off a retired teacher's tree on a nightly basis around Christmastime. This is entirely unreasonable to begin with. The timeline also shows how impatient he really was to get back to doing it again...every night those lights were up, for years, he engaged in such juvenile criminal activity. Now, he will tell you that I did this stuff, which (for full disclosure reasons) I did, but only because he was doing it first, and as his boy, I was required by the Bro Code, not only to have his back, but to engage in guilty acts so as to prove my trustworthiness to him.
Example 2- (dealing with authority figures) When I was 16, I decided to take an unauthorized trip (read: runaway) to the Twin Cities. I did not take my buddy Jay with me, nor did I inform him of my plans. This was for his physical well-being, and to avoid rumors that we were off to engage ourselves with gay-marriage somewhere that it might be legal. For the record, we're both hetero, and happily married, to women. But the people in our small town could get pretty imaginative when it comes to cooking up the next set of rumors to spread. Well, after it was determined by my parents that I was in fact "missing" (this is untrue, I knew where I was at all times- even if I was unsure how to get out of a particular Minneapolis neighborhood at one point), the search parties were sent out, and my dad and his dad grilled Jay as to my whereabouts. When asked, Jay stated he had no idea where I was (which was true, and a reasonable response), but then for added artistic style points (which failed miserably..the judges from Belarus totally ripped him off and only gave him a 6.3 out of 10) made mention to the effect that "even if I did know, I probably wouldn't tell you." While sticking with the Bro Code here (which was honorable), given the child abuse history of our dads (they must've beaten us within an inch of our lives a million times!), this was probably an unreasonable elaboration that should have been omitted from his reply.
Example 3- (dealing with government institutions) There was the infamous DMV incident of 1997. Jay decided not to study for his written driver's test to get his license. He failed...miserably. Before the station attendant was able to tell him he'd have an opportunity to retake the test, Jay stormed out of the station letting fly with some unsavory words and something about a holocaust, or genocide, or dead baby seal pups...I don't fully remember the exact words, but it was filthier than roadside motel that rents by the hour if you know what I mean. After having gone back home, we watched a re-run episode of Macguyver (which by the way, my kids are addicted to!), and then went back down to the DMV in the middle of the night (after stealing Christmas lights from that retired teacher's house...for the 2nd time that night). I of course had to go because Jay called the Bro Code on me, plus it was too cold to walk, and I had a car to drive him there. Well we thought we had the whole Macguyver thing figured out, but Jay tried to substitute a strip of aluminum foil for a piece of wax paper (our moms had used all our wax paper up for Christmas cookies and hadn't bought anymore), and we somehow ended up almost 3 towns away with my car landing almost right on top of us. We had to walk back to another town and call his mom for a ride back home. I told my dad a rod went out in my car. He was pissed because he specifically told me NOT to go out of town with that car, but I'm sure he would've been even more pissed had we succeeded with the DMV.
Okay, so that last thing wasn't entirely true...we did steal lights and my car did throw a rod out of town, but the rest...total baloney. But it sounded good, right? (would someone keep an eye out to see if that story gets Jay and I on the Terror Watch List please, and let us know?)
Instance #2: Jay says, "I was worried there for a bit, but as it turns out, I am not a terrorist. This according to the United States government who has now seen fit to give me a passport. Or at least that is what the passport confirmation website tells me. It should be in the mail now."
The way I see it, the government may have decided to give him a passport afterall. However, the whole part about him not being a terrorist...don't buy that for a minute, because I don't. I'm sure someone in the GOP put the pressure on some passport issuer to give it to him anyways. After all, Jay has been a very loyal gun-toting, bible-thumping, hatemonger for years now, so whether or not he's a terrorist is just a moot point in their eyes, at least as long as he continues to vote a straight Republican ticket every election anyways.
Well, my buddy Jay and his wife are currently in the process of adopting a couple of little girls from Ethiopia. For more information on that, and how you can help out go HERE. No REALLY, go there and check it out. If you don't go, you can't read the rest of this blog. I mean it. Go now and come back when you're done.
Okay, now that you've done what you were told to do (you better hope you did, I am a rent-a-cop after all and I will hit you with my flashlight if you lied and skipped right to here), we'll get to the meat of the issue.
Recently, part of the process of this adoption is for Jay and his wife to get their passports so they can go overseas. Jay posted the stories Part 1 and Part 2.
To summarize part 1, providing the exact same documents, Jay's wife received her passport, however Jay himself did not. Jay has gone to great lengths to get his passport, which are explained in part 2, making some statements which I have decided to take issue with.
Instance #1: Jay says, "As you may know, I am completely reasonable and patient person when dealing with inept government agencies."
For those of you who don't know Jay, let me assure you, I've known him since he was in diapers, which was approximately right after I got out of diapers. And not getting out of them by merely ripping them off, but by actually being a big boy and wearing pull-ups. Soon, I fear, I may be back in diapers again as I have a teeny tiny bladder. ANYWAYS....Jay is the furthest from being a reasonable and patient person in general, never mind dealing with inept government agencies.
Example 1- (generalities) Growing up Jay persistently stole Christmas lights off a retired teacher's tree on a nightly basis around Christmastime. This is entirely unreasonable to begin with. The timeline also shows how impatient he really was to get back to doing it again...every night those lights were up, for years, he engaged in such juvenile criminal activity. Now, he will tell you that I did this stuff, which (for full disclosure reasons) I did, but only because he was doing it first, and as his boy, I was required by the Bro Code, not only to have his back, but to engage in guilty acts so as to prove my trustworthiness to him.
Example 2- (dealing with authority figures) When I was 16, I decided to take an unauthorized trip (read: runaway) to the Twin Cities. I did not take my buddy Jay with me, nor did I inform him of my plans. This was for his physical well-being, and to avoid rumors that we were off to engage ourselves with gay-marriage somewhere that it might be legal. For the record, we're both hetero, and happily married, to women. But the people in our small town could get pretty imaginative when it comes to cooking up the next set of rumors to spread. Well, after it was determined by my parents that I was in fact "missing" (this is untrue, I knew where I was at all times- even if I was unsure how to get out of a particular Minneapolis neighborhood at one point), the search parties were sent out, and my dad and his dad grilled Jay as to my whereabouts. When asked, Jay stated he had no idea where I was (which was true, and a reasonable response), but then for added artistic style points (which failed miserably..the judges from Belarus totally ripped him off and only gave him a 6.3 out of 10) made mention to the effect that "even if I did know, I probably wouldn't tell you." While sticking with the Bro Code here (which was honorable), given the child abuse history of our dads (they must've beaten us within an inch of our lives a million times!), this was probably an unreasonable elaboration that should have been omitted from his reply.
Example 3- (dealing with government institutions) There was the infamous DMV incident of 1997. Jay decided not to study for his written driver's test to get his license. He failed...miserably. Before the station attendant was able to tell him he'd have an opportunity to retake the test, Jay stormed out of the station letting fly with some unsavory words and something about a holocaust, or genocide, or dead baby seal pups...I don't fully remember the exact words, but it was filthier than roadside motel that rents by the hour if you know what I mean. After having gone back home, we watched a re-run episode of Macguyver (which by the way, my kids are addicted to!), and then went back down to the DMV in the middle of the night (after stealing Christmas lights from that retired teacher's house...for the 2nd time that night). I of course had to go because Jay called the Bro Code on me, plus it was too cold to walk, and I had a car to drive him there. Well we thought we had the whole Macguyver thing figured out, but Jay tried to substitute a strip of aluminum foil for a piece of wax paper (our moms had used all our wax paper up for Christmas cookies and hadn't bought anymore), and we somehow ended up almost 3 towns away with my car landing almost right on top of us. We had to walk back to another town and call his mom for a ride back home. I told my dad a rod went out in my car. He was pissed because he specifically told me NOT to go out of town with that car, but I'm sure he would've been even more pissed had we succeeded with the DMV.
Okay, so that last thing wasn't entirely true...we did steal lights and my car did throw a rod out of town, but the rest...total baloney. But it sounded good, right? (would someone keep an eye out to see if that story gets Jay and I on the Terror Watch List please, and let us know?)
Instance #2: Jay says, "I was worried there for a bit, but as it turns out, I am not a terrorist. This according to the United States government who has now seen fit to give me a passport. Or at least that is what the passport confirmation website tells me. It should be in the mail now."
The way I see it, the government may have decided to give him a passport afterall. However, the whole part about him not being a terrorist...don't buy that for a minute, because I don't. I'm sure someone in the GOP put the pressure on some passport issuer to give it to him anyways. After all, Jay has been a very loyal gun-toting, bible-thumping, hatemonger for years now, so whether or not he's a terrorist is just a moot point in their eyes, at least as long as he continues to vote a straight Republican ticket every election anyways.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
No Monopoly On Adultery
It used to be a lot simpler for the conservatives who lived moral values to see the Republican party as an ally. It was always the Democratic members of the polity that were hedonistic and immoral. Afterall, you had JFK, known to be a bit of a playboy, albeit strictly rumors, not to mention another President, Bill Clinton who was caught and admitted extramarital sexually-related activities. Throw in former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, and a few others.
Nowadays, we have the Distinguished Bathroom Toe-tapper from Idaho, Larry Craig, and that other forgotten fellow from Florida who messed with interns....to not only disgrace their families with extramarital affairs, but call into question their participation in the very sexual orientated ways they claimed to be an abomination.
Now in the last two weeks, we have two new philanderers: Senator Ensign from Nevada and Governor Sanford from South Carolina. Both were looking to be the ones we shouldered the hope of the GOP on. Well, so much for those ideas.
Maybe I'm a bit biased here, but when certain democrats were getting caught with their proverbial pants down, it only served to bolster the conservative argument of family values and the like, and we could always say, "Look! Look at those guys over there. You dont see that kind of stuff happening with OUR guys!"
And while these new revelations of conservative "christian" men falling prey to the same temptation in life would normally just cancel it out and make things even, it seems to me to be an even bigger blow, as the hypocrisy of it all makes a much bigger splash on the Republican side of the aisle, at least with the public perception of such transgressions. Who knows, maybe it's just me that this bugs.
Nowadays, we have the Distinguished Bathroom Toe-tapper from Idaho, Larry Craig, and that other forgotten fellow from Florida who messed with interns....to not only disgrace their families with extramarital affairs, but call into question their participation in the very sexual orientated ways they claimed to be an abomination.
Now in the last two weeks, we have two new philanderers: Senator Ensign from Nevada and Governor Sanford from South Carolina. Both were looking to be the ones we shouldered the hope of the GOP on. Well, so much for those ideas.
Maybe I'm a bit biased here, but when certain democrats were getting caught with their proverbial pants down, it only served to bolster the conservative argument of family values and the like, and we could always say, "Look! Look at those guys over there. You dont see that kind of stuff happening with OUR guys!"
And while these new revelations of conservative "christian" men falling prey to the same temptation in life would normally just cancel it out and make things even, it seems to me to be an even bigger blow, as the hypocrisy of it all makes a much bigger splash on the Republican side of the aisle, at least with the public perception of such transgressions. Who knows, maybe it's just me that this bugs.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Republicans Are Wall Street is a..Myth??
How did Republicans get saddled with Wall Street? Obama just got the biggest campaign haul from Wall Street in world history, and Republicans still can't shake the public perception that they are tied at the hip to Wall Street bankers who hate them.
It's as if National Rifle Association members conspired with Republicans to bankrupt the country and everyone blamed the Democrats for being shills of the NRA.
Maybe if the financial capital of the nation were located in Salt Lake City, rather than Manhattan, the financial community would support Republicans. But Wall Street is a street located in New York City.
No one in the top echelons of the financial industry who has a weekend place in the Hamptons is a Republican.
No, there is one. Teddy Forstmann. He has to throw his own parties and fly guests in. Otherwise, if they want to go to any half-decent parties, bankers must be Democrats. At their income bracket, multimillionaires will trade a little extra tax money for good cocktail parties.
Even the "Republicans" on Wall Street don't care about national defense or social issues. They just want to trade with China and hire illegal aliens.
Last September, The New York Times reported that individuals associated with the securities and investment industry had given $9.9 million to the Obama campaign, $7.4 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign and only $6.9 million to the McCain campaign. Either they're all Democrats or some commodity named "hope" was going through the roof last year.
Employees of Lehman Bros. alone gave Obama $370,000, compared to about $117,000 to McCain. (No wonder Bush let them go under.)
According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records by the Center for Responsive Politics, the top three corporate employers of donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan. Six other financial giants were in the top 30 donors to the White House Dream Team: UBS AG, Lehman Bros., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse Group.
Since 1998, the financial sector has given a total of $37.6 million to Obama, compared to $32.1 million to McCain. But Obama ran for his first national office only in 2004. So McCain got less from the financial industry in a decade that included two runs for president than Obama did in four years.
As we've seen in recent weeks, Wall Street gets what it pays for. Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd included language in the stimulus bill allowing executives of the bailed-out banks to collect million-dollar bonuses.
And yet the Democrats' endless favors for their Wall Street friends never sticks to them because everyone treats Democrats' shilling for their own contributors as if it's a Nixon-goes-to-China moment.
On the March 23 edition of MSNBC's "Hardball," The Nation's David Corn said: "Remember -- What was it? A year or two back when there was talk about taxing hedge fund managers at the rate that the rest of us pay? Who intervened in that? Chuck Schumer."
But Corn then quickly added that this "got a lot of Democrats really mad. Here was a Democrat, you know, getting in the way of a populist issue at a time when the economy was already heading in the wrong direction."
Which Democrats got "really mad"? Chris Dodd? George Soros? Warren Buffett? Jon Corzine? Tim Geithner? Roger Altman? Bob Rubin? Jamie Dimon? Lloyd Blankfein?
Corn's formulation was wonderfully subtle: Admit that a Democrat preserved a sweetheart deal for hedge fund managers -- but then claim that his fellow Democrats were furious with him.
People are more likely to believe something if they think they came to it themselves. Hearing a liberal muse on TV that it was an aberration for Chuck Schumer to intervene to protect hedge fund managers -- risking the wrath of other Democrats -- the average person thinks: So Democrats must be the party of the people. I always thought George Soros was a Democrat, but he must be a Republican.
Democrats take care of the financial industry -- and the financial industry takes care of Democrats. After honing his financial skills as the bagman for Bill Clinton's White House, Rahm Emanuel was hired by the investment bank Wasserstein Perella, where he worked for 2 1/2 years.
For that, Emanuel was paid more than $18 million. (Maybe Rahm Emanuel was the Democrat livid at Schumer for preserving a sweet tax deal for hedge fund managers!)
Democrats have a beautiful system: They're showered with Wall Street money, but they also get to pillory Republicans for being the party of "Wall Street." The bankers don't care if Democrats attack them. They still get their bailout money.
It's as if National Rifle Association members conspired with Republicans to bankrupt the country and everyone blamed the Democrats for being shills of the NRA.
Maybe if the financial capital of the nation were located in Salt Lake City, rather than Manhattan, the financial community would support Republicans. But Wall Street is a street located in New York City.
No one in the top echelons of the financial industry who has a weekend place in the Hamptons is a Republican.
No, there is one. Teddy Forstmann. He has to throw his own parties and fly guests in. Otherwise, if they want to go to any half-decent parties, bankers must be Democrats. At their income bracket, multimillionaires will trade a little extra tax money for good cocktail parties.
Even the "Republicans" on Wall Street don't care about national defense or social issues. They just want to trade with China and hire illegal aliens.
Last September, The New York Times reported that individuals associated with the securities and investment industry had given $9.9 million to the Obama campaign, $7.4 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign and only $6.9 million to the McCain campaign. Either they're all Democrats or some commodity named "hope" was going through the roof last year.
Employees of Lehman Bros. alone gave Obama $370,000, compared to about $117,000 to McCain. (No wonder Bush let them go under.)
According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records by the Center for Responsive Politics, the top three corporate employers of donors to Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan. Six other financial giants were in the top 30 donors to the White House Dream Team: UBS AG, Lehman Bros., Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse Group.
Since 1998, the financial sector has given a total of $37.6 million to Obama, compared to $32.1 million to McCain. But Obama ran for his first national office only in 2004. So McCain got less from the financial industry in a decade that included two runs for president than Obama did in four years.
As we've seen in recent weeks, Wall Street gets what it pays for. Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd included language in the stimulus bill allowing executives of the bailed-out banks to collect million-dollar bonuses.
And yet the Democrats' endless favors for their Wall Street friends never sticks to them because everyone treats Democrats' shilling for their own contributors as if it's a Nixon-goes-to-China moment.
On the March 23 edition of MSNBC's "Hardball," The Nation's David Corn said: "Remember -- What was it? A year or two back when there was talk about taxing hedge fund managers at the rate that the rest of us pay? Who intervened in that? Chuck Schumer."
But Corn then quickly added that this "got a lot of Democrats really mad. Here was a Democrat, you know, getting in the way of a populist issue at a time when the economy was already heading in the wrong direction."
Which Democrats got "really mad"? Chris Dodd? George Soros? Warren Buffett? Jon Corzine? Tim Geithner? Roger Altman? Bob Rubin? Jamie Dimon? Lloyd Blankfein?
Corn's formulation was wonderfully subtle: Admit that a Democrat preserved a sweetheart deal for hedge fund managers -- but then claim that his fellow Democrats were furious with him.
People are more likely to believe something if they think they came to it themselves. Hearing a liberal muse on TV that it was an aberration for Chuck Schumer to intervene to protect hedge fund managers -- risking the wrath of other Democrats -- the average person thinks: So Democrats must be the party of the people. I always thought George Soros was a Democrat, but he must be a Republican.
Democrats take care of the financial industry -- and the financial industry takes care of Democrats. After honing his financial skills as the bagman for Bill Clinton's White House, Rahm Emanuel was hired by the investment bank Wasserstein Perella, where he worked for 2 1/2 years.
For that, Emanuel was paid more than $18 million. (Maybe Rahm Emanuel was the Democrat livid at Schumer for preserving a sweet tax deal for hedge fund managers!)
Democrats have a beautiful system: They're showered with Wall Street money, but they also get to pillory Republicans for being the party of "Wall Street." The bankers don't care if Democrats attack them. They still get their bailout money.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
A Consensus On Government Intervention In Our Economy? Depends On Who You Talk To.
First there was TARP, the initial bailout plan. The government approved and distributed hundreds of billions of dollars, taxpayer monies either printed out of thin air or borrowed from other countries with a nice interest rate attached to our new and growing debt, piled onto an already enormous amount of debt that we seem so fond of building upon. As recent history has noted, we basically wasted that money on a whole lot of nothing. We stuck money into the hands of already rich people, who basically decided to hold onto the money for themselves. Instead of loosening the credit markets and rebooting the economy, we added a big pile of debt that we'll be paying on for decades, despite having seen any real benefit. So, government intervention is good? Not in this case, but chalk the government up for a score. Government: 1 The People: 0
Now we have TARP 2....the new stimulus package that is being hammered out into an agreeable plan between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The whole plan is being engineered by the same guys who engineered the first one. And like the first one, there is little to no accountability for any of the numbers. Who gets the money? How much do they get? What will these monies produce in the end? And to all three questions, I'll bet less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the populace in general, if not the same percentage of those voting on it, could give you a reliable answer. We're just set, regardless of public support, to start throwing money out at random ideas in hopes that something sticks and works. And while the government is supposed to work for us people, it is us people who are having the wool pulled over our eyes. The President has and does want this package passed as quickly as possible, with little to no debate, so that the money can start flowing into the hands of those the administration deems worthy. Now Our President and many "esteemed" members of congress, mainly democrats, are convinced that we as individuals, and businesses cannot solve our problems. Only the great and powerful U.S. Government, in all its inifinite wisdom (remember they already fleeced us for hundreds of billions once, and if your anti-war, Bush-hating people, the government was the ones behind confirming the intelligence and sending us to Iraq..pure geniuses on both counts, eh?), is the only entity capable of solving our problems. Nevermind the fact that some of our problems, economically speaking were forced on us, via government policy, as well as by example. How can the government tell us how to be fiscally responsible when they are in fact the greatest creators of debt and deficit the world has ever known. In fact, the majority of the major players involved in "solving our collective problems" were partly responsible for helping create some of these problems to begin with. Now maybe that last point can be a point of contention for some, but regardless of politics, it is those certain people of influence who helped shape policy in the past that got us to this point. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in the addage "You made the mess, clean it up", but spending outrageous amounts of money (especially on quite a few programs that do nothing for the economy other than throwing money around at nonproductive measures..uh, bike trails anyone? hellooooo?)
Many people voted President Obama into office, not over John McCain, but in response to George W Bush's 8 years of office. They called for the hope and change that Obama touted so greatly. And yet, here is Obama, doing the exact same things we tried under Bush, hiring the exact same people who have been running around Washington for years, some longer than Obama has even lived life on this planet. So, the change is nowhere to be seen, as of yet...other than the fact that our president has a different name than the one we had just a month ago. Oh wait, I'm mistaken..I just saw some loose change on the floor. As for the Hope issue...well here's to hoping we as a nation, or at least our powers that be, don't royally screw us up for an indefinite and unforeseeable future. I now plan to keep a jar of vaseline with me everytime I go to get my paycheck, because sooner or later the piper is going to want to be paid, and guess who he is gonna come to for the money..you and me, that's who. All because our wonderful "leaders" in Washington have the most brilliant of ideas that always end up costing us money, while they attend their cocktail parties and laugh at the rest of us poor folks who think we really have any power to stick it to them. Because afterall, its the special interest guru who's tending bar that night, and he's mixing up their drinks real special....they just gave his cause a tax break plus a few hundren million bucks. Lucky us!
Below is a quote from President Barack Obama, made in January, followed by an open letter from some economists who have some slightly different ideas than he does.
"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
Douglas Adie, Ohio University
Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
James Bennett, George Mason University
Bruce Benson, Florida State University
Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
Alberto Bisin, New York University
Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
Donald Booth, Chapman University
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
George Brower, Moravian College
James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Henry Butler, Northwestern University
William Butos, Trinity College
Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
Art Carden, Rhodes College
James Cardon, Brigham Young University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
John Coleman, Duke University
Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
John Dawson, Appalachian State University
Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
James Dorn, Towson University
Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Francis Egan, Trinity College
John Egger, Towson University
Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
Peter Frank, Wingate University
Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
Rick Geddes, Cornell University
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
William Gerdes, Clarke College
Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Richard Gordon, Penn State University
Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
Ernie Goss, Creighton University
Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville
Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
Gailen Hite, Columbia University
Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
Daniel Klein, George Mason University
Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
Marek Kolar, Delta College
Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Deepak Lal, UCLA
George Langelett, South Dakota State University
James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
Robert Lawson, Auburn University
John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Dean Lillard, Cornell University
Zheng Liu, Emory University
Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
John Lunn, Hope College
Glenn MacDonald, Washington
University in St. Louis
Michael Marlow, California
Polytechnic State University
Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
James Miller III, George Mason University
Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Munger, Duke University
Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
Richard Muth, Emory University
Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
Seth Norton, Wheaton College
Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Evan Osborne, Wright State University
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Donald Parsons, George Washington University
Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College
Adriano Rampini, Duke University
Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
Mario Rizzo, New York University
Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
James Smith, Western Carolina University
Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
Shirley Svorny, California State
University, Northridge
John Tatom, Indiana State University
Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
Henry Thompson, Auburn University
Alex Tokarev, The King's College
Edward Tower, Duke University
Leo Troy, Rutgers University
David Tuerck, Suffolk University
Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
Charles Upton, Kent State University
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard Vedder, Ohio University
Richard Wagner, George Mason University
Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
Walter Williams, George Mason University
Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University
Additional economists who have signed the statement
Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University
William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa
Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University
Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College
Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
George Averitt, Purdue North Central University
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Timothy Bastian, Creighton University
John Bethune, Barton College
Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University
Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
Edwin Burton, Univ. of Virginia
Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware
Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami
Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama
Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware
Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont
Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
William Dewald, Ohio State University
Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia
Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho
Jack Estill, San Jose State University
Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Arthur Fleisher, Metropolitan State College of Denver
William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton
Joseph Giacalone, St. John's University
Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge
Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University
Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
Richard Hart, Miami University
James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University
Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
John Hoehn, Michigan State University
Daniel Houser, George Mason University
Thomas Howard, University of Denver
Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver
Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa
Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
Carrie Kerekes, Florida Gulf Coast University
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
James Kurre, Penn State Erie
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama
Henry Manne, George Mason University
Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston
W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University
Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie
James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida
Tim Muris, George Mason University
John Murray, Univ. of Toledo
David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia
Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron
Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami
Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota
Allen Parkman, Univ. of New Mexico
Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University
Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
Robert Prati, East Carolina University
Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage
Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University
Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast
John Seater, North Carolina University
Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Simmons, Greenfield Community College
Frank Spreng, McKendree University
Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University
John E. Stapleford, Eastern University
Courtenay Stone, Ball State University
Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA
Scott Sumner, Bentley University
Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University
William Trumbull, West Virginia University
A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University
Randall Valentine, Georgia Southwestern State University
Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa
Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
Gene Wunder, Washburn University
John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Now we have TARP 2....the new stimulus package that is being hammered out into an agreeable plan between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The whole plan is being engineered by the same guys who engineered the first one. And like the first one, there is little to no accountability for any of the numbers. Who gets the money? How much do they get? What will these monies produce in the end? And to all three questions, I'll bet less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the populace in general, if not the same percentage of those voting on it, could give you a reliable answer. We're just set, regardless of public support, to start throwing money out at random ideas in hopes that something sticks and works. And while the government is supposed to work for us people, it is us people who are having the wool pulled over our eyes. The President has and does want this package passed as quickly as possible, with little to no debate, so that the money can start flowing into the hands of those the administration deems worthy. Now Our President and many "esteemed" members of congress, mainly democrats, are convinced that we as individuals, and businesses cannot solve our problems. Only the great and powerful U.S. Government, in all its inifinite wisdom (remember they already fleeced us for hundreds of billions once, and if your anti-war, Bush-hating people, the government was the ones behind confirming the intelligence and sending us to Iraq..pure geniuses on both counts, eh?), is the only entity capable of solving our problems. Nevermind the fact that some of our problems, economically speaking were forced on us, via government policy, as well as by example. How can the government tell us how to be fiscally responsible when they are in fact the greatest creators of debt and deficit the world has ever known. In fact, the majority of the major players involved in "solving our collective problems" were partly responsible for helping create some of these problems to begin with. Now maybe that last point can be a point of contention for some, but regardless of politics, it is those certain people of influence who helped shape policy in the past that got us to this point. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in the addage "You made the mess, clean it up", but spending outrageous amounts of money (especially on quite a few programs that do nothing for the economy other than throwing money around at nonproductive measures..uh, bike trails anyone? hellooooo?)
Many people voted President Obama into office, not over John McCain, but in response to George W Bush's 8 years of office. They called for the hope and change that Obama touted so greatly. And yet, here is Obama, doing the exact same things we tried under Bush, hiring the exact same people who have been running around Washington for years, some longer than Obama has even lived life on this planet. So, the change is nowhere to be seen, as of yet...other than the fact that our president has a different name than the one we had just a month ago. Oh wait, I'm mistaken..I just saw some loose change on the floor. As for the Hope issue...well here's to hoping we as a nation, or at least our powers that be, don't royally screw us up for an indefinite and unforeseeable future. I now plan to keep a jar of vaseline with me everytime I go to get my paycheck, because sooner or later the piper is going to want to be paid, and guess who he is gonna come to for the money..you and me, that's who. All because our wonderful "leaders" in Washington have the most brilliant of ideas that always end up costing us money, while they attend their cocktail parties and laugh at the rest of us poor folks who think we really have any power to stick it to them. Because afterall, its the special interest guru who's tending bar that night, and he's mixing up their drinks real special....they just gave his cause a tax break plus a few hundren million bucks. Lucky us!
Below is a quote from President Barack Obama, made in January, followed by an open letter from some economists who have some slightly different ideas than he does.
"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
Douglas Adie, Ohio University
Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
James Bennett, George Mason University
Bruce Benson, Florida State University
Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
Alberto Bisin, New York University
Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
Donald Booth, Chapman University
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
George Brower, Moravian College
James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Henry Butler, Northwestern University
William Butos, Trinity College
Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
Art Carden, Rhodes College
James Cardon, Brigham Young University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
John Coleman, Duke University
Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
John Dawson, Appalachian State University
Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
James Dorn, Towson University
Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Francis Egan, Trinity College
John Egger, Towson University
Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
Peter Frank, Wingate University
Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
Rick Geddes, Cornell University
Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
William Gerdes, Clarke College
Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Richard Gordon, Penn State University
Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
Ernie Goss, Creighton University
Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
University, Edwardsville
Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
Gailen Hite, Columbia University
Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
Daniel Klein, George Mason University
Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
Marek Kolar, Delta College
Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Deepak Lal, UCLA
George Langelett, South Dakota State University
James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
Robert Lawson, Auburn University
John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Dean Lillard, Cornell University
Zheng Liu, Emory University
Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
John Lunn, Hope College
Glenn MacDonald, Washington
University in St. Louis
Michael Marlow, California
Polytechnic State University
Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
James Miller III, George Mason University
Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Munger, Duke University
Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
Richard Muth, Emory University
Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
Seth Norton, Wheaton College
Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Evan Osborne, Wright State University
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Donald Parsons, George Washington University
Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College
Adriano Rampini, Duke University
Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
Mario Rizzo, New York University
Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
James Smith, Western Carolina University
Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
Shirley Svorny, California State
University, Northridge
John Tatom, Indiana State University
Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
Henry Thompson, Auburn University
Alex Tokarev, The King's College
Edward Tower, Duke University
Leo Troy, Rutgers University
David Tuerck, Suffolk University
Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
Charles Upton, Kent State University
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard Vedder, Ohio University
Richard Wagner, George Mason University
Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
Walter Williams, George Mason University
Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University
Additional economists who have signed the statement
Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University
William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa
Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University
Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College
Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
George Averitt, Purdue North Central University
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Timothy Bastian, Creighton University
John Bethune, Barton College
Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University
Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
Edwin Burton, Univ. of Virginia
Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware
Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas
Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami
Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama
Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware
Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont
Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
William Dewald, Ohio State University
Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia
Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho
Jack Estill, San Jose State University
Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Arthur Fleisher, Metropolitan State College of Denver
William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton
Joseph Giacalone, St. John's University
Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge
Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University
Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
Richard Hart, Miami University
James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University
Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
John Hoehn, Michigan State University
Daniel Houser, George Mason University
Thomas Howard, University of Denver
Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver
Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa
Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
Carrie Kerekes, Florida Gulf Coast University
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
James Kurre, Penn State Erie
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama
Henry Manne, George Mason University
Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston
W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University
Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie
James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida
Tim Muris, George Mason University
John Murray, Univ. of Toledo
David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia
Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron
Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami
Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota
Allen Parkman, Univ. of New Mexico
Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University
Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
Robert Prati, East Carolina University
Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage
Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University
Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast
John Seater, North Carolina University
Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California
Thomas Simmons, Greenfield Community College
Frank Spreng, McKendree University
Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University
John E. Stapleford, Eastern University
Courtenay Stone, Ball State University
Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA
Scott Sumner, Bentley University
Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University
William Trumbull, West Virginia University
A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University
Randall Valentine, Georgia Southwestern State University
Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa
Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
Gene Wunder, Washburn University
John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A New Day In America
After so many years, so many trials and tribulations we as a country have faced, America again has conquered another historic moment.
I went to bed last night at about 6:30, and was awakened by my alarm clock at 11:00pm to begin my night of work. My wife was just coming in to make sure I got up, so she could go to bed without being interrupted by my alarm clock. She looked me dead in the eye and with a hint of resignation combined with her being tired, said, "We just elected Obama as our next President." So we have now placed a clearly visible minority in the highest executive office in the land.
Both of us had cast our votes for McCain. Well, I did anyways, and assume she did as well, as she was not most vocally not puling for Obama. I admit a slight sense of disappointment when I heard the results, but was not really surprised.
While I do not agree with Senator Obama's politics, it appears an overwhelming majority of Americans did, and voiced their opinion through their vote yesterday. So from here on out, I guess we pray for a good solid leadership from an Obama administration, as well as our legislature. I pray that all the talk of Hope and Change weren't just the normal political rhetoric used to get elected. I'd like to hope that some of his politics were just that, and he becomes a little more moderate than his reputation, in an effort to unite a clearly and definitely divided country (in the political sense). I hope that he makes honest efforts to reach across the aisle, and not use a strong democratic majority across the board to shove all his programs down our throat, without regard to our wants or needs as a country.
So I'll keep a little hope of my own, that he does the job well.
Most of all, I'm just glad that my phone won't be blown up with robocalls, and my mailbox filled with a million political fliers every day (yes I exaggerated- it was only 1/2 million per day). At least not until January, when the batch of politicians vying for the 2010 midterm elections start their campaigning. God help us all. So to the Obama's, their supporters, and those who worked hard to take the campaign from 0 to the Presidency...Congratulations.
I went to bed last night at about 6:30, and was awakened by my alarm clock at 11:00pm to begin my night of work. My wife was just coming in to make sure I got up, so she could go to bed without being interrupted by my alarm clock. She looked me dead in the eye and with a hint of resignation combined with her being tired, said, "We just elected Obama as our next President." So we have now placed a clearly visible minority in the highest executive office in the land.
Both of us had cast our votes for McCain. Well, I did anyways, and assume she did as well, as she was not most vocally not puling for Obama. I admit a slight sense of disappointment when I heard the results, but was not really surprised.
While I do not agree with Senator Obama's politics, it appears an overwhelming majority of Americans did, and voiced their opinion through their vote yesterday. So from here on out, I guess we pray for a good solid leadership from an Obama administration, as well as our legislature. I pray that all the talk of Hope and Change weren't just the normal political rhetoric used to get elected. I'd like to hope that some of his politics were just that, and he becomes a little more moderate than his reputation, in an effort to unite a clearly and definitely divided country (in the political sense). I hope that he makes honest efforts to reach across the aisle, and not use a strong democratic majority across the board to shove all his programs down our throat, without regard to our wants or needs as a country.
So I'll keep a little hope of my own, that he does the job well.
Most of all, I'm just glad that my phone won't be blown up with robocalls, and my mailbox filled with a million political fliers every day (yes I exaggerated- it was only 1/2 million per day). At least not until January, when the batch of politicians vying for the 2010 midterm elections start their campaigning. God help us all. So to the Obama's, their supporters, and those who worked hard to take the campaign from 0 to the Presidency...Congratulations.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
To Steal The Title From Shirley: I Voted Today
So today, I voted. And this time, I was actually ON the ist of area registered voters, unlike the 2006 midterm elections, which somehow found my records nonexistent, despite previously voting in '04, and having changed nothing about any of my statuses (Statii??) I don't know with how much knowledge or a clear conscience I voted.
As far as the clear conscience goes, neither major party presidential candidate really got me too fired up. So I voted for the one who would keep government's infringement on me to a lesser level. For those of you who don't know who that is, it would be one Senator John McCain.
Other than that we had a slew of representatives for state and federal congressional seats. With those people, I at least knew something about them (with a little additional help from robocalls). With a local representative for my district, I voted the republican side, only because the democratic candidate had 2 mailers in my mailbox, EVERY-motherloving-DAY! Every day, 2 separate mailers...are you friggin kidding me??? He was mayor of a neighboring suburb, and boasted a balanced budget, and I found out one reason was by consistently and successfully raising property taxes without fail for his small suburban empire. Apparently, spending money is something he didn't have too many qualms about. The other guy sent out some, and yes, they did almost reach the ridiculous level in the last 2 weeks, but nowhere in the same universe for the entire campaign. The republican's fliers always stated statistics. The democrat's fliers spouted some statistics, usually related to the great things he did (like keep a balanced budget), and the 2nd flier usually spouted how evil the republican candidates ideas were.
There was one state representative running for office, somewhere here in Iowa, as a democrat, which I had seen advertised on our local tv stations. I liked his positions, however, upon looking over my ballot, he must've been representing another district altogether.
Anyways, the rest of the ballot consisted of judges we voted on to retain or not, some hospital trustee positions, county commisioner, and a few other oddball offices. I have to say, I have yet to have even heard of a single one of these people. So pretty much all the judges got retained on my ballot, and the other offices, if I could only pick so many was a big fat case of "eeny-meeny-miny-mo". Yes, I know, scientific analyses of the candidates at the polling place, right? I had contemplated writing myself in on some of these, but I figured my popularity off-line isn't nearly as high as it is on the internet...
SO yeah, it was pretty easy, as there wasn't exactly a line, and I got myself and my youngest in-and-out of that place pretty quickly. So let me know how your experience went, if you care to share.
As far as the clear conscience goes, neither major party presidential candidate really got me too fired up. So I voted for the one who would keep government's infringement on me to a lesser level. For those of you who don't know who that is, it would be one Senator John McCain.
Other than that we had a slew of representatives for state and federal congressional seats. With those people, I at least knew something about them (with a little additional help from robocalls). With a local representative for my district, I voted the republican side, only because the democratic candidate had 2 mailers in my mailbox, EVERY-motherloving-DAY! Every day, 2 separate mailers...are you friggin kidding me??? He was mayor of a neighboring suburb, and boasted a balanced budget, and I found out one reason was by consistently and successfully raising property taxes without fail for his small suburban empire. Apparently, spending money is something he didn't have too many qualms about. The other guy sent out some, and yes, they did almost reach the ridiculous level in the last 2 weeks, but nowhere in the same universe for the entire campaign. The republican's fliers always stated statistics. The democrat's fliers spouted some statistics, usually related to the great things he did (like keep a balanced budget), and the 2nd flier usually spouted how evil the republican candidates ideas were.
There was one state representative running for office, somewhere here in Iowa, as a democrat, which I had seen advertised on our local tv stations. I liked his positions, however, upon looking over my ballot, he must've been representing another district altogether.
Anyways, the rest of the ballot consisted of judges we voted on to retain or not, some hospital trustee positions, county commisioner, and a few other oddball offices. I have to say, I have yet to have even heard of a single one of these people. So pretty much all the judges got retained on my ballot, and the other offices, if I could only pick so many was a big fat case of "eeny-meeny-miny-mo". Yes, I know, scientific analyses of the candidates at the polling place, right? I had contemplated writing myself in on some of these, but I figured my popularity off-line isn't nearly as high as it is on the internet...
SO yeah, it was pretty easy, as there wasn't exactly a line, and I got myself and my youngest in-and-out of that place pretty quickly. So let me know how your experience went, if you care to share.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Debate Analysis- 3 Days Later
This last Wednesday night I saw the first 2/3 of the presidential debate (the first one I've actually watched, and more geared toward doemstic policy) before my wife distracted me with what she likes to call better action than politics, which she hates.
(3 points for the wife)
First off, IF this was my first exposure to the whole campaign, and I came in totally ignorant of everything, Obama won the debate, and I would definitely be voting for him over McCain.
(1 point Obama)
My take on the negative campaigning question, I had issue with both of them. Neither really answered. Obama tip-toed around the question, while McCain expressed disgust with negativity while simultaneously throwing in a few negative sounding jabs at the democrats.
(0 points)
On the economy, Obama sounded really great. McCain's plan was pretty sound on the surface. However its amazing to me that the moderator showed results of both plans adding about $200 billion to the deficit annually. Obama later retorted something to the effect of all independent organizations showed his plan to be perfectly sound and on target (I dont have the exact words, so don't quote me). McCain wasn't exactly on target either, but I think he had a greater grasp on the simple math...added to the fact that he supports line-item vetos, which would greatly help to reduce useless expenditures. Obama said programs would need to be cut in order to make room for some of his programs. I get that, however, his plan still leaves way too much taxation on the group that will provide more tax money either directly, or through new jobs that provide for more taxes through those people. Everytime in history has shown unfair taxation on the producers has resulted in less overall tax rolls.
So just what is Obama going to cut???
I do agree with Obama on working the tax code to encourage American companies to bring their production back home, while discouraging further outsourcing of manufacturing jobs.
(draw- 1 point each)
On energy policy, both had great ideas. Obama is still pondering the whole drilling issue, while McCain is ready to act. I score McCain that point. No matter what we do, we have to utilize all options, not just drilling, and not just anti drilling. As cheap as it makes gas in Iowa, the ethanol mandate needs to go, along with their subsidies. Obama made a point about the oil cmpanies having 68million undrilled acres of land they have leased,where they COULD get oil. The problem with that is, IS THERE ACTUALLY ANY OIL THERE? I'm in favor of them "using it or losing it", but I think we ought to concentrate efforts of drilling where we KNOW its at. I think Obama is, while not saying it, against going that direction. (1 point McCain.
)
On healthcare, I think both candidates have great ideas, and some not so great ideas, but both fall short.
(0 points)
So tallying it up, Obama and McCain score 2 points in my book each. My wife gets her 3 points...so she wins....but I'm biased and she's not running or elegible for the office. Pure scoring would show Obama as the winner of this debate. So given the draw, in my books, the debate goes to McCain for not totally flubbing this one up. Noone expected him to be anywhere near close, at least not according to main stream media outlets, and even a lot of conservative media outlets. He held his own, despite poor coaching from the leadership of the GOP.
Both candidates stuck almost squarely to their side of the aisles arguments. Obama talks about reaching across the aisle, but his words arent as loud as his voting history. He's going to have to adopt a few conservative perspectives to get all those things done he says he will, unless of course the DNC achieves filibuster proof control of Congress. McCain talks about issues, but his words give way in favor of hard-right perspectives on what should be said and done. While associations with certain people can come into question and are important, along with judgement calls on things, the issues based solely on provable facts are the only real strength of a republican platform. Unfortunately the republicans always fall short on following a real gameplan.
(3 points for the wife)
First off, IF this was my first exposure to the whole campaign, and I came in totally ignorant of everything, Obama won the debate, and I would definitely be voting for him over McCain.
(1 point Obama)
My take on the negative campaigning question, I had issue with both of them. Neither really answered. Obama tip-toed around the question, while McCain expressed disgust with negativity while simultaneously throwing in a few negative sounding jabs at the democrats.
(0 points)
On the economy, Obama sounded really great. McCain's plan was pretty sound on the surface. However its amazing to me that the moderator showed results of both plans adding about $200 billion to the deficit annually. Obama later retorted something to the effect of all independent organizations showed his plan to be perfectly sound and on target (I dont have the exact words, so don't quote me). McCain wasn't exactly on target either, but I think he had a greater grasp on the simple math...added to the fact that he supports line-item vetos, which would greatly help to reduce useless expenditures. Obama said programs would need to be cut in order to make room for some of his programs. I get that, however, his plan still leaves way too much taxation on the group that will provide more tax money either directly, or through new jobs that provide for more taxes through those people. Everytime in history has shown unfair taxation on the producers has resulted in less overall tax rolls.
So just what is Obama going to cut???
I do agree with Obama on working the tax code to encourage American companies to bring their production back home, while discouraging further outsourcing of manufacturing jobs.
(draw- 1 point each)
On energy policy, both had great ideas. Obama is still pondering the whole drilling issue, while McCain is ready to act. I score McCain that point. No matter what we do, we have to utilize all options, not just drilling, and not just anti drilling. As cheap as it makes gas in Iowa, the ethanol mandate needs to go, along with their subsidies. Obama made a point about the oil cmpanies having 68million undrilled acres of land they have leased,where they COULD get oil. The problem with that is, IS THERE ACTUALLY ANY OIL THERE? I'm in favor of them "using it or losing it", but I think we ought to concentrate efforts of drilling where we KNOW its at. I think Obama is, while not saying it, against going that direction. (1 point McCain.
)
On healthcare, I think both candidates have great ideas, and some not so great ideas, but both fall short.
(0 points)
So tallying it up, Obama and McCain score 2 points in my book each. My wife gets her 3 points...so she wins....but I'm biased and she's not running or elegible for the office. Pure scoring would show Obama as the winner of this debate. So given the draw, in my books, the debate goes to McCain for not totally flubbing this one up. Noone expected him to be anywhere near close, at least not according to main stream media outlets, and even a lot of conservative media outlets. He held his own, despite poor coaching from the leadership of the GOP.
Both candidates stuck almost squarely to their side of the aisles arguments. Obama talks about reaching across the aisle, but his words arent as loud as his voting history. He's going to have to adopt a few conservative perspectives to get all those things done he says he will, unless of course the DNC achieves filibuster proof control of Congress. McCain talks about issues, but his words give way in favor of hard-right perspectives on what should be said and done. While associations with certain people can come into question and are important, along with judgement calls on things, the issues based solely on provable facts are the only real strength of a republican platform. Unfortunately the republicans always fall short on following a real gameplan.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Candidate Popularity, or Lack Thereof
THIS IS A REPRINT FROM MY JUVENILE MYSPACE BLOG:
Okay, so this 2nd and final entry for Open Forum this week again comes from Stoner.
For any who may have followed his blog since the beginning of the campaign season know he was a pretty big Joe Biden fan. Joe Biden received little support in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race to avid wasting money elsewhere. Who knows how he would've done elsewhere. Biden, despite his reputation as a longwinded blowhard, has smalltown working class roots that should identify with Iowans, but apparently this go around, it failed to garner much attention.
So he wants to know: How come hardly anyone gave two hoots about Joe Biden until he became Obama's running mate? If it's not just because he's joined forces with Obama, as I suspect, then what is it that changed? And what if the ticket positions were flipped?
My take is not so much that they are caring so much about Joe himself, but rather the fact that he is on the Obama ticket. Generally speaking, a vice presidential candidate will always garner more popularity and support because they are with the overall popular candidate of that party. Take for instance, Sarah Palin. Until she was announced as McCain's running mate, 90% (a low estimate, I'm sure) of Americans, nevermind conservatives, even knew who she was, nevermind care.
If the ticket positions were flipped, well Joe would obviously have popular support of the party and its voter base. How Obama did previously, his popularity would soar as the new VP pick. Plus, when it comes to garnering minority support, Obama would be the obvious choice...even though 90% of minorities vote for the democrat anyways. But with the choice of Biden by Obama, it is helping to gain some of the older more traditionalist white voters to support the Obama ticket. Had Obama picked someone like say Jesse Jackson, or his friend Deval Patrick, he would have lost a lot of support he enjoys today over McCain, by demographics alone.
READERS.....Your thoughts???
Okay, so this 2nd and final entry for Open Forum this week again comes from Stoner.
For any who may have followed his blog since the beginning of the campaign season know he was a pretty big Joe Biden fan. Joe Biden received little support in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race to avid wasting money elsewhere. Who knows how he would've done elsewhere. Biden, despite his reputation as a longwinded blowhard, has smalltown working class roots that should identify with Iowans, but apparently this go around, it failed to garner much attention.
So he wants to know: How come hardly anyone gave two hoots about Joe Biden until he became Obama's running mate? If it's not just because he's joined forces with Obama, as I suspect, then what is it that changed? And what if the ticket positions were flipped?
My take is not so much that they are caring so much about Joe himself, but rather the fact that he is on the Obama ticket. Generally speaking, a vice presidential candidate will always garner more popularity and support because they are with the overall popular candidate of that party. Take for instance, Sarah Palin. Until she was announced as McCain's running mate, 90% (a low estimate, I'm sure) of Americans, nevermind conservatives, even knew who she was, nevermind care.
If the ticket positions were flipped, well Joe would obviously have popular support of the party and its voter base. How Obama did previously, his popularity would soar as the new VP pick. Plus, when it comes to garnering minority support, Obama would be the obvious choice...even though 90% of minorities vote for the democrat anyways. But with the choice of Biden by Obama, it is helping to gain some of the older more traditionalist white voters to support the Obama ticket. Had Obama picked someone like say Jesse Jackson, or his friend Deval Patrick, he would have lost a lot of support he enjoys today over McCain, by demographics alone.
READERS.....Your thoughts???
Friday, September 26, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Rrrrreessst of the Story
This is from an article out of National Review Online sent to me by a blogger from a different forum.
Six Points to Consider When Reading About Wasilla's Policy on Rape Kits
A few points to consider when you hear about the town of Wasilla, and its egregious former policy of charging rape victims for rape kits, a topic USA Today examined today.
1. It is indeed a terrible policy to charge a rape victim for the cost of collecting evidence to prosecute. But these charges occur, even in places where the law theoretically bans it. According to a 2008 U.S. News and World Report article, some Illinois rape victims are still being charged for the rape kits.
The state seemed to address this in a 2001 law, but it would seem that as usual, passing a law and getting a bureaucracy to comply are two different things.
2. Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella told USA Today in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." Her critics can legitimately ask why, as mayor, she didn’t overrule her police chief. But they cannot charge that she supported the policy. In fact, there is not yet any evidence that Palin was aware of this policy.
3. The Police Chief of Wasilla who oversaw this policy may have been wrong to argue that the government should not cover the cost of the tests, but note that he did not want the victim to pay; he wanted to charge the perpetrators the cost.
Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.
The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.
Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.
4. An aide to a Democratic state legislator tells USA Today that women in Wasilla did pay out of pocket for their rape kits. According to available FBI statistics, there were five rapes in Wasilla during the three years that they have online records for. The newspaper does the town a disservice by citing the statewide numbers and saying the state has the highest rate of rapes per person.
5. Starting next year, federal law will ban the practice of refusing "to cover the estimated $800 cost of a forensic rape exam unless the victim files a police report." That is the policy in "many" jurisdictions, according to the AP.
6. Let’s concede the worst, which was that this was an unforgivably stupid policy, and that Palin should have overturned it during her tenure. I’ll let Obama fans explain why that error in judgment is superior to voting "present" when dealing with "a bill permitting the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to report suspected child abuse while protecting the identity of the facility or person providing the information."
Six Points to Consider When Reading About Wasilla's Policy on Rape Kits
A few points to consider when you hear about the town of Wasilla, and its egregious former policy of charging rape victims for rape kits, a topic USA Today examined today.
1. It is indeed a terrible policy to charge a rape victim for the cost of collecting evidence to prosecute. But these charges occur, even in places where the law theoretically bans it. According to a 2008 U.S. News and World Report article, some Illinois rape victims are still being charged for the rape kits.
The state seemed to address this in a 2001 law, but it would seem that as usual, passing a law and getting a bureaucracy to comply are two different things.
2. Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella told USA Today in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." Her critics can legitimately ask why, as mayor, she didn’t overrule her police chief. But they cannot charge that she supported the policy. In fact, there is not yet any evidence that Palin was aware of this policy.
3. The Police Chief of Wasilla who oversaw this policy may have been wrong to argue that the government should not cover the cost of the tests, but note that he did not want the victim to pay; he wanted to charge the perpetrators the cost.
Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.
The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.
Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.
4. An aide to a Democratic state legislator tells USA Today that women in Wasilla did pay out of pocket for their rape kits. According to available FBI statistics, there were five rapes in Wasilla during the three years that they have online records for. The newspaper does the town a disservice by citing the statewide numbers and saying the state has the highest rate of rapes per person.
5. Starting next year, federal law will ban the practice of refusing "to cover the estimated $800 cost of a forensic rape exam unless the victim files a police report." That is the policy in "many" jurisdictions, according to the AP.
6. Let’s concede the worst, which was that this was an unforgivably stupid policy, and that Palin should have overturned it during her tenure. I’ll let Obama fans explain why that error in judgment is superior to voting "present" when dealing with "a bill permitting the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to report suspected child abuse while protecting the identity of the facility or person providing the information."
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Apparently I'm a Republican?
So yesterday I get the mail (well tehnically I grabbed it this morning, but it was yesterday's delivery). In it I receive 2 letters from the John McCain campaign. One let's me know that they have enclosed a John McCain bumper sticker just for me.
The other let's me know I have a registered survey enclosed. A resoundingly unenthusiastic "Yay!" from me.
We'll address the bumper sticker issue first. Even if I find myself supporting and voting for McCain, do I really want to slap this bumper sticker on my car. My car isn't anything special (A Buick Regal), yet somehow... You ever notice that the cars with al the bumper stickers are generally pieces of crap? And that maybe the bumper stickers are hiding body damage and/or holding pieces of the car together?... yeah, so do I really want to cheapen my car with a bumper sticker that likely will never be peeled off, and for as long as I own the car, I'll be sporting a McCain '08 sticker? I think I'll go slap it on someone else's car. In a metropolitan area of roughly 400,000 total residents, I'm sure I can find someone who needs a freebie job to hold their car together.
Onto the survey letter. Not only do I get a survey to fill out, but I get a special letter from the chair of the Republican Party's "Victory 2008" Committee, Carly Fiorina (you might remember her as the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard).
She goes on to explainthat my registered survey is one of a select few being mailed by the Republican National Committee in my area. Apparently my input is valued because of my "high level of political involvement and steadfast commitment to the Republican Party."
Let's get one thing straight. This blog and a few offhand remarks to people around me (oh, and my future faux Presidential aspirations, I almost forgot about that) is the extent of my political involvement. As for my steadfast commitment to the Republican Party...um, I vote for some Democrats, and as of the midterm elections in 2006, my vote didn't count because I wasn't "on their list of registered voters", despite showing them my voter registration, a million or so forms of identification, and had no status changes since voting in 2004. Oh, did I mention that I am not, and have never been registered as a Republican??? I just love their assumptions. I guess signing up for the Conservative Book Club, the NRA, and Human Events Publishing, that makes me a proxy-Republican?
As she ends her little letter, with the standard solicitation of money toward the campaign coffers, she assures me (because I really need such assurance about these things) that the "dedication of outstanding Republicans like you is certain to help our Party...blah blah blah"
(Again..Republicans like me??? Where DO they get this kind of information??)
Naturaly, since the postage is paid, I'll fill out the survey, since MY opinion is so darn important for them to understand voters in my area (primarily democratic county, as most urban areas are). But the question is, do I send them a little extra note asking them where I can find out how I became a Republican wthout registering? Maybe they stamped a "R" on my butt when I was born, and I just haven't seen it as of yet...
The other let's me know I have a registered survey enclosed. A resoundingly unenthusiastic "Yay!" from me.
We'll address the bumper sticker issue first. Even if I find myself supporting and voting for McCain, do I really want to slap this bumper sticker on my car. My car isn't anything special (A Buick Regal), yet somehow... You ever notice that the cars with al the bumper stickers are generally pieces of crap? And that maybe the bumper stickers are hiding body damage and/or holding pieces of the car together?... yeah, so do I really want to cheapen my car with a bumper sticker that likely will never be peeled off, and for as long as I own the car, I'll be sporting a McCain '08 sticker? I think I'll go slap it on someone else's car. In a metropolitan area of roughly 400,000 total residents, I'm sure I can find someone who needs a freebie job to hold their car together.
Onto the survey letter. Not only do I get a survey to fill out, but I get a special letter from the chair of the Republican Party's "Victory 2008" Committee, Carly Fiorina (you might remember her as the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard).
She goes on to explainthat my registered survey is one of a select few being mailed by the Republican National Committee in my area. Apparently my input is valued because of my "high level of political involvement and steadfast commitment to the Republican Party."
Let's get one thing straight. This blog and a few offhand remarks to people around me (oh, and my future faux Presidential aspirations, I almost forgot about that) is the extent of my political involvement. As for my steadfast commitment to the Republican Party...um, I vote for some Democrats, and as of the midterm elections in 2006, my vote didn't count because I wasn't "on their list of registered voters", despite showing them my voter registration, a million or so forms of identification, and had no status changes since voting in 2004. Oh, did I mention that I am not, and have never been registered as a Republican??? I just love their assumptions. I guess signing up for the Conservative Book Club, the NRA, and Human Events Publishing, that makes me a proxy-Republican?
As she ends her little letter, with the standard solicitation of money toward the campaign coffers, she assures me (because I really need such assurance about these things) that the "dedication of outstanding Republicans like you is certain to help our Party...blah blah blah"
(Again..Republicans like me??? Where DO they get this kind of information??)
Naturaly, since the postage is paid, I'll fill out the survey, since MY opinion is so darn important for them to understand voters in my area (primarily democratic county, as most urban areas are). But the question is, do I send them a little extra note asking them where I can find out how I became a Republican wthout registering? Maybe they stamped a "R" on my butt when I was born, and I just haven't seen it as of yet...
Monday, June 23, 2008
Hateful, Selfish, and Conservative; Compassionate, Selfless, and Liberal?
Generally speaking, Conservatives are usually well off and are most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals.
-Quoted from earhtpal on a post by helenl (a great read which can be found at--http://helenl.wordpress.com/)
First question would be, what makes this assumption to be true or false?
Are we conservative because we are well off, or are we well off because we are conservative? Do the two even technically correlate with each other? (I'll get to the second portion later)
Let's say conservative are as a rule well off. Were we born well off, and naturally became conservatives, or because we were conservatives we were predestined to become well off for ourselves? Maybe, in order to gain more money, the only thing needed, is to become conservative. then we'll all have money, as a general rule. Instead of being rich, we'll just all be normal everyday conservatives. I have to say, I do not fit this mold. However if I end up CHOOSING to become rich, maybe I should blame it on the fact that I became conservative, and finally practiced what I preached. Yes, ten I too, could grow my own money trees, drink expensive champagne, and wipe myself with $100 bills, just because I can.
Of course, now you have to look at the opposite end of the spectrum: Liberals.
Liberals would, by this statement, be more likely to poorer. So, were they born poor and therefore liberal? Or did they choose to be liberal, and therefore become poor? Is it maybe, that liberals are poor because they CHOOSE to be? Maybe that they purposefuly avoid the high paying end of things. in order to go after the more societally-benevolent and low paying jobs. Of course, then this obviously means George Soros (Billionaire liberal) wouldn't fit the mold either. Maybe he should give all his money away toward actually helping the poor liberals and live like them, rather than creating more money machines, which only serve to enhance his own elitism, that pump messages out to captivate his liberal audiences, who meanwhile still find themselves in need of life's basic necesities, all which Soro's has in abundance, and amazingly enough doesn't share...but he's a philanthropist (which by some definitions just isn't the same)
In both cases, lets look at it as a matter of choice. If conservatives are choosing to become filthy stinking rich, while liberals are choosing to work for less money, then what's the argument? Let's say you got the choice everytime, that literally everyone got to choose whether or not they wanted to be rich, or be poor. (Funny, that sounds like the entire premise of the American Dream)
The liberals would have no right to complain because they took the very road that they knew would lead them to Poorsville. Yet, if they did complain and tried to force the conservatives to give up their money, wouldn't the complaints from Castle Richness be even more validated because they specifically chose to earn their money, knowing full well that all they had to do was pick the right path?
Today in America, everybody, and I mean EVERYbody, has an equal chance at great success in their lives, by whatever means they define it. The question is, do you want to work for it, or do you think everything you need should just be handed to you on a platter, whilst you lay about? And how do we define "need"?
1. Is it clean drinking water, and vitamins and minerals enough to keep you alive, maybe some bread for substance and carb-driven energy?
2. Is it top notch healthcare, plentiful food on your table everyday, and a big house with enough space to live comfortably? Is your food catered, do you go to the store to get it, or do you grow it all yourself? Does the Big house have enough bedrooms so everyone has their own, maybe even guest rooms, or is it just a simple abode with a couple bedrooms, a bath, a kitchen, a gathering place and a dining room, and maybe a yard? Do you really even need a yard? As a matter of fact, do you even really need a house? An Apartment? Maybe just a tent for shelter from rain?
If you answered yes to one....welcome to the work camps of the Nazi war machine. Was that really fulflling the "needs" of humanity?
The objective answer to needs really can't be objective, but rather subjective. For instance, I could take my rifle, shotgun, and a hunting knife, and trek into the wilderness. I could survive indefinitely and healthily. Could You? Or do you need more to live?
Now to the second half Generally Speaking,conservatives are... "most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals."
Conservatives donate to charitymore so than liberals do. By ratio and by sheer numbers of dollars. It was brought up that rich people donate to philathropic causes, poor people just share. Now if a poor person shares what they have, how many people benefit from it? Since it's person to person, I'd say a few to a dozen, rarely ever more than that. If a rich person donates to a charity, how many people benefit from it? I would say anywhere from one to several thousand. The charitable donation is often funneled through an organization that solicits donations from many, to help many. Be it for food, or clothing, or disease research.
But is one greater than the other? I would say no. I might even say the poor person sharing may mean more to the recipients, knowing that their helper didn't have much to give. But is the help received from the "sharing" anymore effective than say Joe Millionaire's $1000 "charitable contribution"? Again I would say no. It all helps the recipient the same. They all receive the same benefit regardless of who it came from, and how well off they were.
Consider also this. The well off pay more in taxes, while the worst of the poor will never pay dime one. In fact the latter would most likely be supported by the taxes paid by the former. Should the poor complain that his lifestyle is being paid for by someone else? I should hope so...I should hope that he has enough pride to let the complaint sink into his very consciousness, that he might work his way out of such a situation. And not that he should sit back and complain that the rich guy still isnt paying enough (despite giving up over 50% of his income to taxes in one form or another, often which never pay for much of anything he'll ever benefit from himself).
Less compassionate? This seems to be more conjecture than fact. For every mean-spirited conservative you can name, I can probably name 2 very compassionate conservatives that would make some of the most compassionate of liberals look like Scrooge. And if I wanted to turn the tables on liberals with the same statement, I'm sure anyone could do the same to me. People are people, political idealists on opposite ends of the same political ideology don't make the personality different. Compassion comes in many forms, just as hatred does. One could say that conservatives are nothing but warmongers, while one could say liberals are nothing but Godhaters. Both statements can be true when applied to select people, but when placed against the whole population, you would find the statements to be vastly false.
After all, for an absolute statement to be true, it must apply every time and without exception. But it only takes one example of falsehood to make the absolute statement false.
So with all that in mind, do incomes and political ideology truly coordinate? And if so, how can one argue with the other when it comes to economics?
-Quoted from earhtpal on a post by helenl (a great read which can be found at--http://helenl.wordpress.com/)
First question would be, what makes this assumption to be true or false?
Are we conservative because we are well off, or are we well off because we are conservative? Do the two even technically correlate with each other? (I'll get to the second portion later)
Let's say conservative are as a rule well off. Were we born well off, and naturally became conservatives, or because we were conservatives we were predestined to become well off for ourselves? Maybe, in order to gain more money, the only thing needed, is to become conservative. then we'll all have money, as a general rule. Instead of being rich, we'll just all be normal everyday conservatives. I have to say, I do not fit this mold. However if I end up CHOOSING to become rich, maybe I should blame it on the fact that I became conservative, and finally practiced what I preached. Yes, ten I too, could grow my own money trees, drink expensive champagne, and wipe myself with $100 bills, just because I can.
Of course, now you have to look at the opposite end of the spectrum: Liberals.
Liberals would, by this statement, be more likely to poorer. So, were they born poor and therefore liberal? Or did they choose to be liberal, and therefore become poor? Is it maybe, that liberals are poor because they CHOOSE to be? Maybe that they purposefuly avoid the high paying end of things. in order to go after the more societally-benevolent and low paying jobs. Of course, then this obviously means George Soros (Billionaire liberal) wouldn't fit the mold either. Maybe he should give all his money away toward actually helping the poor liberals and live like them, rather than creating more money machines, which only serve to enhance his own elitism, that pump messages out to captivate his liberal audiences, who meanwhile still find themselves in need of life's basic necesities, all which Soro's has in abundance, and amazingly enough doesn't share...but he's a philanthropist (which by some definitions just isn't the same)
In both cases, lets look at it as a matter of choice. If conservatives are choosing to become filthy stinking rich, while liberals are choosing to work for less money, then what's the argument? Let's say you got the choice everytime, that literally everyone got to choose whether or not they wanted to be rich, or be poor. (Funny, that sounds like the entire premise of the American Dream)
The liberals would have no right to complain because they took the very road that they knew would lead them to Poorsville. Yet, if they did complain and tried to force the conservatives to give up their money, wouldn't the complaints from Castle Richness be even more validated because they specifically chose to earn their money, knowing full well that all they had to do was pick the right path?
Today in America, everybody, and I mean EVERYbody, has an equal chance at great success in their lives, by whatever means they define it. The question is, do you want to work for it, or do you think everything you need should just be handed to you on a platter, whilst you lay about? And how do we define "need"?
1. Is it clean drinking water, and vitamins and minerals enough to keep you alive, maybe some bread for substance and carb-driven energy?
2. Is it top notch healthcare, plentiful food on your table everyday, and a big house with enough space to live comfortably? Is your food catered, do you go to the store to get it, or do you grow it all yourself? Does the Big house have enough bedrooms so everyone has their own, maybe even guest rooms, or is it just a simple abode with a couple bedrooms, a bath, a kitchen, a gathering place and a dining room, and maybe a yard? Do you really even need a yard? As a matter of fact, do you even really need a house? An Apartment? Maybe just a tent for shelter from rain?
If you answered yes to one....welcome to the work camps of the Nazi war machine. Was that really fulflling the "needs" of humanity?
The objective answer to needs really can't be objective, but rather subjective. For instance, I could take my rifle, shotgun, and a hunting knife, and trek into the wilderness. I could survive indefinitely and healthily. Could You? Or do you need more to live?
Now to the second half Generally Speaking,conservatives are... "most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals."
Conservatives donate to charitymore so than liberals do. By ratio and by sheer numbers of dollars. It was brought up that rich people donate to philathropic causes, poor people just share. Now if a poor person shares what they have, how many people benefit from it? Since it's person to person, I'd say a few to a dozen, rarely ever more than that. If a rich person donates to a charity, how many people benefit from it? I would say anywhere from one to several thousand. The charitable donation is often funneled through an organization that solicits donations from many, to help many. Be it for food, or clothing, or disease research.
But is one greater than the other? I would say no. I might even say the poor person sharing may mean more to the recipients, knowing that their helper didn't have much to give. But is the help received from the "sharing" anymore effective than say Joe Millionaire's $1000 "charitable contribution"? Again I would say no. It all helps the recipient the same. They all receive the same benefit regardless of who it came from, and how well off they were.
Consider also this. The well off pay more in taxes, while the worst of the poor will never pay dime one. In fact the latter would most likely be supported by the taxes paid by the former. Should the poor complain that his lifestyle is being paid for by someone else? I should hope so...I should hope that he has enough pride to let the complaint sink into his very consciousness, that he might work his way out of such a situation. And not that he should sit back and complain that the rich guy still isnt paying enough (despite giving up over 50% of his income to taxes in one form or another, often which never pay for much of anything he'll ever benefit from himself).
Less compassionate? This seems to be more conjecture than fact. For every mean-spirited conservative you can name, I can probably name 2 very compassionate conservatives that would make some of the most compassionate of liberals look like Scrooge. And if I wanted to turn the tables on liberals with the same statement, I'm sure anyone could do the same to me. People are people, political idealists on opposite ends of the same political ideology don't make the personality different. Compassion comes in many forms, just as hatred does. One could say that conservatives are nothing but warmongers, while one could say liberals are nothing but Godhaters. Both statements can be true when applied to select people, but when placed against the whole population, you would find the statements to be vastly false.
After all, for an absolute statement to be true, it must apply every time and without exception. But it only takes one example of falsehood to make the absolute statement false.
So with all that in mind, do incomes and political ideology truly coordinate? And if so, how can one argue with the other when it comes to economics?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Lopsided Political Outrage
These days it seems, the political scene is as divisive as ever. When it comes to elections, many people seem to vote one way or the other across the board. To Republicans, all democrats have become super liberal socialists. To Democrats, all republicans are vast right wing warmongers. If you're a democratic representative at any level it is expected by the party that you support the party despite your own ideals, and the same goes for republican lawmakers as well.
Especially the republican party....If you go too far towards the middle you are labeled as a liberal hiding in the Republican party, or a RINO (republican in name only).
On the individual level, and granted this is the bias of an independent conservative, it seems that democratic voters will defend their party to the death. Obama, for example, despite early on his campaign was nothing but positive sounding rhetoric, without substance in any way shape or form, people were ecstatic about having him as the next President of the United States. And yet, despite any positive things Bush has actually managed to accomplish, they would rather dismiss it witha comment about all the things he has done wrong (admittedly, this is many, but not worthy of cancelling out anything good).
Another example of lopsided political outrage has come in the form of corruption and scandals. (Former)Republican Representative Duke Cunningham of California gets caught accepting bribes....HUGE OUTCRY. Large Media coverage, including lots of mention among late night talk show hosts. Same with Tom Delay
Former Democratic Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana faces charges of corruption, after being videotaped accepting 10s of thousands of dollars,a nd subsequently raided by the FBI. HUGE OUTCRY....not about what he did, but that his offices (that of a sitting representative) were raided by federal authorities. Less media coverage.
Take also note of the contrasting statements about DeLay's situation with that of Jefferson, by Nancy Pelosi (democrat representative from California):
After Tom DeLay was indicted on September 28, 2005, Nancy Pelosi had some very harsh words: “The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people.”
But, if you forward to yesterday, she's got a very different tone about the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson, of her own party:
“The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious. While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power.
I have no problem with what she says about Mr. DeLay (it is rather true), but I disagree with the softening middle section she gives to her own party's member she won't give to Mr. DeLay.
I find it rather odd the similarity between both situations: In the face of idiocy by a republican, it is often the republicans who put more pressure on their party's member than anyone. In the face of idiocy by a democrat, it is still up to the republican party to press for action on the matter.
Now, obviously I take my vantage point from what I see within the mainstream and talk radio medias, and I don't see as many of the activities that occur on a more frequently than we know basis. But it seems to me that to attack a democrat is akin to murder, while attacking a republican is as everyday normal to people as flipping a light switch. Maybe I'm wrong, but then again this is only a somewhat informed opinion that I make. Feel free to correct me.
Especially the republican party....If you go too far towards the middle you are labeled as a liberal hiding in the Republican party, or a RINO (republican in name only).
On the individual level, and granted this is the bias of an independent conservative, it seems that democratic voters will defend their party to the death. Obama, for example, despite early on his campaign was nothing but positive sounding rhetoric, without substance in any way shape or form, people were ecstatic about having him as the next President of the United States. And yet, despite any positive things Bush has actually managed to accomplish, they would rather dismiss it witha comment about all the things he has done wrong (admittedly, this is many, but not worthy of cancelling out anything good).
Another example of lopsided political outrage has come in the form of corruption and scandals. (Former)Republican Representative Duke Cunningham of California gets caught accepting bribes....HUGE OUTCRY. Large Media coverage, including lots of mention among late night talk show hosts. Same with Tom Delay
Former Democratic Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana faces charges of corruption, after being videotaped accepting 10s of thousands of dollars,a nd subsequently raided by the FBI. HUGE OUTCRY....not about what he did, but that his offices (that of a sitting representative) were raided by federal authorities. Less media coverage.
Take also note of the contrasting statements about DeLay's situation with that of Jefferson, by Nancy Pelosi (democrat representative from California):
After Tom DeLay was indicted on September 28, 2005, Nancy Pelosi had some very harsh words: “The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people.”
But, if you forward to yesterday, she's got a very different tone about the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson, of her own party:
“The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious. While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power.
I have no problem with what she says about Mr. DeLay (it is rather true), but I disagree with the softening middle section she gives to her own party's member she won't give to Mr. DeLay.
I find it rather odd the similarity between both situations: In the face of idiocy by a republican, it is often the republicans who put more pressure on their party's member than anyone. In the face of idiocy by a democrat, it is still up to the republican party to press for action on the matter.
Now, obviously I take my vantage point from what I see within the mainstream and talk radio medias, and I don't see as many of the activities that occur on a more frequently than we know basis. But it seems to me that to attack a democrat is akin to murder, while attacking a republican is as everyday normal to people as flipping a light switch. Maybe I'm wrong, but then again this is only a somewhat informed opinion that I make. Feel free to correct me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)