Many people who read this essay will say that I hate Sarah or that I feel threatened by her. They couldn’t be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is I love the former VP candidate, I love what she has done to the political landscape in America and I love how she keeps me emotionally and intellectually entertained; much like a car race (can anyone say crashhhh!!!) This is why I, unlike many liberals accross the country, am enjoying Sarah’s reign as defacto-populist-conservative spokeswoman. Watching her is like watching a Saturday Night Live skit in the Twighlight Zone on the Outer Limits. I am speechless, shocked, and confused all at the same time. I am so happy. She is the political version of crack cocaine.
Sarah gave a speech recently at the first ever National Tea Party Convention. Six hundred delegates paid a hefty price to be a part of this historical meeting on contemporary conservative thought. She began her speech by saying thank you to Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), who she described as a true representative of the Tea Party movement, someone who saw that Washington wasn’t working and decided to run for Senator, in order to bring the government back to the people. But, his Tea Party affiliations end there. Senator Brown is against any further restrictions to abortions or gay marriage, and he is a supporter of Massachusetts’s current healthcare program that provides universal coverage and does require compliance by the citizens of that state. What?!? He supports insurance mandates, socialized medicine, and an unconstitutional intrusion upon our freedom. When did these become Tea Party standards? On top of this Scott Brown has said in the Boston Globe, that he is not certain exactly what the Tea Party movement stands for. This is the best they could come up with? That’s like having Kermit the frog (and by Kermit I am referring to Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman) as the Democratic National Committee Chairman.
The truth is that Scott Brown represents everything that Half-Gov. Palin says is wrong with the Republican Party. He is quite possibly the most moderate Republican in the Senate. Her support for this man is laughable. Much like Sarah’s support of Rush Limbaugh after he said that liberal Democrats were retards (despite calling for Rahm Emanuel’s resignation for using the same word to describe the same people), her support of Senator Brown is another political compromise, by “The Uncompromised One.” Her popular appeal comes from her claim that she is not like the Washington establishment. In this she is correct, she likes to play the Washington word games, unfortunately her spin is too obvious for most moderate Americans to endure long term. If she likes to play the game (and I know that she does), she is going to have to improve her forehand return and volley. And if you are listening Mrs. Palin, please run for President in 2012, because politics has not been this entertaining in many years.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Me.
The deepest reaches of my mind are filled with the libations of my darkest thoughts.
How can I be who I am? Can I remain sacrosanct?
Of course not, it was never meant to be.
Was I ever beyond the bowls of this inglorious existence?
Certainly I must have achieved some pedestrian level of influence on the body of my brothers and sisters.
I play it cool, like Mr. Blonde. I don’t care, but I do.
I’m heated ready to explode and I love everything.
I can’t be who I want to be, I get in my own way.
I yearn to be love plus nothing, but I continue to be me plus something.
I know I’m narcissistic, I realize I enjoy the sound of my own voice. But can’t I make a difference?
Won’t I bruise someone’s conscience?
My issue is not self loathing, it never has been.
The problem is I love myself too much. I can’t get past the Me and I can’t control the id in my soul.
Fly me away Superman. Perhaps this load is too heavy.
A shot to the belly and a bottle of scotch will cure all ills, but will I make a difference?
Will my dream to work to love endure? Or will Mr. Orange take me down to keep me from questioning those who question me?
It’s Wild E. and the Roadrunner, and I’m not sure who I am.
Today I feel like the road, unable to be part of the game and grind. Just a bystander, hoping my turns, hills and slopes will have an influence.
Today I am me.
How can I be who I am? Can I remain sacrosanct?
Of course not, it was never meant to be.
Was I ever beyond the bowls of this inglorious existence?
Certainly I must have achieved some pedestrian level of influence on the body of my brothers and sisters.
I play it cool, like Mr. Blonde. I don’t care, but I do.
I’m heated ready to explode and I love everything.
I can’t be who I want to be, I get in my own way.
I yearn to be love plus nothing, but I continue to be me plus something.
I know I’m narcissistic, I realize I enjoy the sound of my own voice. But can’t I make a difference?
Won’t I bruise someone’s conscience?
My issue is not self loathing, it never has been.
The problem is I love myself too much. I can’t get past the Me and I can’t control the id in my soul.
Fly me away Superman. Perhaps this load is too heavy.
A shot to the belly and a bottle of scotch will cure all ills, but will I make a difference?
Will my dream to work to love endure? Or will Mr. Orange take me down to keep me from questioning those who question me?
It’s Wild E. and the Roadrunner, and I’m not sure who I am.
Today I feel like the road, unable to be part of the game and grind. Just a bystander, hoping my turns, hills and slopes will have an influence.
Today I am me.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Why Ask Why? The Socratic Method and Theological Interpretation
Some Christian traditionalists view the asking of questions as a form of disobedience. I see exploration and critical though processes regarding popular opinion based not on fact but upon the opinion of an authority as a truly virtuous consequence of a curious mind. Basing our opinions solely upon what others have told us, without exploration, is un-liberating. Living with a world view base upon out dated dogma and constricting rules of engagement between men is an act of obedience. But to what? And at what cost?
Obedience to God is not what is at stake here. You can challenge the contemporary understanding of The Church without questioning God’s commands. Jesus never intended His children to blindly follow the leadership within The Church. In fact, our understanding of Theology Proper is base upon, educated and curious men’s challenges of what The Bible is telling us and what we should believe as saints of God, living among men. If this were not true, we would be worshipping as we were two thousand years ago. The fact that we are not is a testament to our increased understanding of scriptural principles and a deeper regard for context and audience when interpreting Biblical texts.
The most telling incite into the nature of humanity, is what I call the “grandeur of the contemporary.” Each generation of The Church has a contingency that believes that finally, after all these years; they not only have a deeper understanding of Christ upon their lives than previous generations, but that their views are above suspicion and introspection. Where does the motivations for these feeling originate?
It would be easy to blame the leadership with in The Body of Christ. After all they are a target for all those that wish to criticize The Church. However, criticism is not the true motivation of incite. The fact is many Biblical Scholars gained knowledge through critical study of The Word, not memorization of known facts and texts. A deeper understanding, developed through asking tough theological questions, allows teachers and preachers to tie multidimensional Biblical concepts to one another providing for deeper and more complex sermons.
We cannot put the burden of inaction upon the congregation either. Jesus never blamed the Jews for the corruption of faith within the leadership. He placed the blame solely upon the upper echelon of teachers. The sheep should be lead, and follow they will. This is our nature. Many like their answers in black and white and many ideas in The Bible are just that. However, many more Christian ideas are base primarily upon opinion. Armenians versus Calvinists, Pentecostals versus Baptists, Protestants and Orthodox versus Catholics, Conservative Christianity versus Liberal Theology, Billy Graham versus Jerry Falwell and the list goes on and on. One side can prove the other wrong only as far as they can prove that their own ideas are also left wanting.
What is most important is that these questions are as much a cornerstone of our faith as baptism and worship. Though we may never find the answers, the experience that that exploration provides can bring us closer to our Deity. Each time we question opinion, we have an innate opportunity to either solidify our argument, or better understand the plausibility of dissenting opinions. Through this we come to a deeper and less compromised understanding of God and a closer and more intimate relationship to our Savior.
Obedience to God is not what is at stake here. You can challenge the contemporary understanding of The Church without questioning God’s commands. Jesus never intended His children to blindly follow the leadership within The Church. In fact, our understanding of Theology Proper is base upon, educated and curious men’s challenges of what The Bible is telling us and what we should believe as saints of God, living among men. If this were not true, we would be worshipping as we were two thousand years ago. The fact that we are not is a testament to our increased understanding of scriptural principles and a deeper regard for context and audience when interpreting Biblical texts.
The most telling incite into the nature of humanity, is what I call the “grandeur of the contemporary.” Each generation of The Church has a contingency that believes that finally, after all these years; they not only have a deeper understanding of Christ upon their lives than previous generations, but that their views are above suspicion and introspection. Where does the motivations for these feeling originate?
It would be easy to blame the leadership with in The Body of Christ. After all they are a target for all those that wish to criticize The Church. However, criticism is not the true motivation of incite. The fact is many Biblical Scholars gained knowledge through critical study of The Word, not memorization of known facts and texts. A deeper understanding, developed through asking tough theological questions, allows teachers and preachers to tie multidimensional Biblical concepts to one another providing for deeper and more complex sermons.
We cannot put the burden of inaction upon the congregation either. Jesus never blamed the Jews for the corruption of faith within the leadership. He placed the blame solely upon the upper echelon of teachers. The sheep should be lead, and follow they will. This is our nature. Many like their answers in black and white and many ideas in The Bible are just that. However, many more Christian ideas are base primarily upon opinion. Armenians versus Calvinists, Pentecostals versus Baptists, Protestants and Orthodox versus Catholics, Conservative Christianity versus Liberal Theology, Billy Graham versus Jerry Falwell and the list goes on and on. One side can prove the other wrong only as far as they can prove that their own ideas are also left wanting.
What is most important is that these questions are as much a cornerstone of our faith as baptism and worship. Though we may never find the answers, the experience that that exploration provides can bring us closer to our Deity. Each time we question opinion, we have an innate opportunity to either solidify our argument, or better understand the plausibility of dissenting opinions. Through this we come to a deeper and less compromised understanding of God and a closer and more intimate relationship to our Savior.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Rise of the Fed bashers By George F. Will Thursday, December 10, 2009 Washington Post
And at Rep. Ron Paul, the 2008 presidential candidate who had the zany idea -- as many laughing people thought -- that the Federal Reserve system could become a sizzling political issue. Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Fed, who does not laugh promiscuously, knows that it is no laughing matter that Paul has 317 co-sponsors (180 Republicans, 137 Democrats) for a bill to open the Fed's books to "audit" by the comptroller general.
The canny congressman cannot accomplish what the title of his best-selling book recommends: "End the Fed." But he probably hopes that if the Fed's transactions with financial institutions were publicized, he and kindred spirits could stir populist resentment of the mysterious institution. Although profoundly mistaken in his objective -- breaking the Fed to Congress's saddle -- Paul is not frivolous. His rage against the Fed is rooted in his rejection of fiat money -- paper money backed by nothing but confidence in Congress (really), and his libertarian enthusiasm for maximizing the role of unmanaged markets in allocating social rewards.
Bernanke on Monday told the Economic Club of Washington that Congress already can examine the Fed's balance sheet. His worry is that Congress, by ordering audits when it dislikes Fed monetary policy decisions, might make the Fed seem subject to, and eventually actually make it subject to, congressional pressure.
At Bernanke's recent confirmation hearing on his nomination for a second four-year term, Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is co-sponsoring a Senate version of Paul's bill, asked Bernanke: "Do you believe that employment should be a mission, a goal of the Federal Reserve?" Bernanke, who had already noted Congress's "mandate" that the Fed "achieve maximum employment and price stability," answered that the Fed "can assist keeping employment close to its maximum level through adroit policies."
That mandate was, however, improvidently given. Congress created the Fed and can control it, and eventually will do so if the Fed eagerly embraces the role of the economy's comprehensive manager. America's complex, dynamic economy cannot be both "managed" and efficient. Attempting to manage it is an inherently political undertaking, and if the Fed undertakes it, the Fed will eventually bring upon itself minute supervision by Congress.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has, as usual, a better idea: Repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 that, he says, "dangerously diverted the Fed from its most important job: price stability." For 65 years after its creation in 1913, the Fed's principal duty was to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation from undermining price stability. Humphrey-Hawkins gave it the second duty of superintending economic growth.
Before the recent downward tick in unemployment from 10.2 percent to 10 percent, Democrats said: The absence of downward movement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending. After the downward tick they said: The improvement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending lest the momentum stall. For such people, "more spending" is a verbal tic. Let such people begin managing the Fed and they will mandate low interest rates, regardless of circumstances. The currency will fail as a store of value.
Is the Fed's independence (de facto, not de jure) "undemocratic"? Somewhat. So what?
America is committed to democracy -- and to circumscribing democracy's scope in order to minimize the damage it can do by improvident responsiveness to untempered gusts of public passion. Thus the government is replete with restraining mechanisms -- three branches of government, rival chambers of the legislative branch, vetoes, supermajority requirements, judicial review, etc. And there are extraconstitutional circumscriptions of democracy, such as allowing the Fed an independence that exists at the sufferance of Congress.
If Time magazine has a lick of sense, Bernanke will be its Person of the Year because his leading role in stabilizing the financial system enabled the president to pursue other objectives. He did not do it perfectly, but he prevented paralysis.
On Monday, he reminded his Economic Club listeners of John Maynard Keynes's hope that "economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people, on a level with dentists." But humble people do not claim -- as Bernanke does, under Congress's mandate -- the competence to simultaneously produce, with "adroit" policies, price stability and full employment.
Like the Fed, dentists are always important and urgently desired when pain is intense. But they are rarely objects of their patients' affections.
georgewill@washpost.com
The canny congressman cannot accomplish what the title of his best-selling book recommends: "End the Fed." But he probably hopes that if the Fed's transactions with financial institutions were publicized, he and kindred spirits could stir populist resentment of the mysterious institution. Although profoundly mistaken in his objective -- breaking the Fed to Congress's saddle -- Paul is not frivolous. His rage against the Fed is rooted in his rejection of fiat money -- paper money backed by nothing but confidence in Congress (really), and his libertarian enthusiasm for maximizing the role of unmanaged markets in allocating social rewards.
Bernanke on Monday told the Economic Club of Washington that Congress already can examine the Fed's balance sheet. His worry is that Congress, by ordering audits when it dislikes Fed monetary policy decisions, might make the Fed seem subject to, and eventually actually make it subject to, congressional pressure.
At Bernanke's recent confirmation hearing on his nomination for a second four-year term, Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is co-sponsoring a Senate version of Paul's bill, asked Bernanke: "Do you believe that employment should be a mission, a goal of the Federal Reserve?" Bernanke, who had already noted Congress's "mandate" that the Fed "achieve maximum employment and price stability," answered that the Fed "can assist keeping employment close to its maximum level through adroit policies."
That mandate was, however, improvidently given. Congress created the Fed and can control it, and eventually will do so if the Fed eagerly embraces the role of the economy's comprehensive manager. America's complex, dynamic economy cannot be both "managed" and efficient. Attempting to manage it is an inherently political undertaking, and if the Fed undertakes it, the Fed will eventually bring upon itself minute supervision by Congress.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has, as usual, a better idea: Repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 that, he says, "dangerously diverted the Fed from its most important job: price stability." For 65 years after its creation in 1913, the Fed's principal duty was to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation from undermining price stability. Humphrey-Hawkins gave it the second duty of superintending economic growth.
Before the recent downward tick in unemployment from 10.2 percent to 10 percent, Democrats said: The absence of downward movement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending. After the downward tick they said: The improvement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending lest the momentum stall. For such people, "more spending" is a verbal tic. Let such people begin managing the Fed and they will mandate low interest rates, regardless of circumstances. The currency will fail as a store of value.
Is the Fed's independence (de facto, not de jure) "undemocratic"? Somewhat. So what?
America is committed to democracy -- and to circumscribing democracy's scope in order to minimize the damage it can do by improvident responsiveness to untempered gusts of public passion. Thus the government is replete with restraining mechanisms -- three branches of government, rival chambers of the legislative branch, vetoes, supermajority requirements, judicial review, etc. And there are extraconstitutional circumscriptions of democracy, such as allowing the Fed an independence that exists at the sufferance of Congress.
If Time magazine has a lick of sense, Bernanke will be its Person of the Year because his leading role in stabilizing the financial system enabled the president to pursue other objectives. He did not do it perfectly, but he prevented paralysis.
On Monday, he reminded his Economic Club listeners of John Maynard Keynes's hope that "economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people, on a level with dentists." But humble people do not claim -- as Bernanke does, under Congress's mandate -- the competence to simultaneously produce, with "adroit" policies, price stability and full employment.
Like the Fed, dentists are always important and urgently desired when pain is intense. But they are rarely objects of their patients' affections.
georgewill@washpost.com
Monday, December 7, 2009
Obama, the anti-Churchill? By Fareed Zakaria
If you take out just one sentence, Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan last week was all about focusing and limiting the scope of the U.S. mission in that country. The objectives he detailed were exclusively military: to deny al-Qaeda a haven, reverse the Taliban's momentum and strengthen the Kabul government's security forces. The nation that he was interested in building, he explained, was this one.
And then there was that one line: "I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan." Here lies the tension in Obama's policy. He wants a clearer, more discriminating foreign policy, one that pares the vast commitments and open-ended interventions of the Bush era, perhaps one that is more disciplined than Bill Clinton's approach to the world. (On the campaign trail, Obama repeatedly invoked George H.W. Bush as the president whose foreign policy he admired most.) But America is in a war that is not going well, and scaling back now would look like cutting and running. Obama is searching for a post-imperial policy in the midst of an imperial crisis. The qualified surge -- send in troops to regain the momentum but then draw down -- is his answer to this dilemma.
This first year of his presidency has been a window into Obama's worldview. Once most presidents get hold of the bully pulpit, they cannot resist the temptation to become Winston Churchill. They gravitate toward grand rhetoric about freedom and tyranny and embrace the moral drama of their role as leaders of the free world. Not Obama. He has been cool and calculating, whether dealing with Russia, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama is a realist by temperament, learning and instinct. More than any president since Richard Nixon, he has focused on defining American interests carefully, providing resources to achieve them and keeping his eyes on the prize.
ad_icon
"In the end," the president said last Tuesday, "our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms." He explained that America's economic and technological vigor underpinned its ability to play a world role. At a small lunch with a group of columnists before his speech last week, he made clear to us that he did not want to run two wars. He seemed to be implying that the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan were not the crucial path to America's long-term security. He explained that challenges at home -- economic growth, technological innovation, education reform -- were at the heart of maintaining America's status as a superpower. In fact, throughout history great nations have lost their way by getting bogged down in imperial missions far from home that crippled their will, strength and focus. (Sometimes even when they won they lost: Britain prevailed in the Boer War, but it broke the back of the empire.)
It is clear that Obama is attempting something quite ambitious -- to reorient U.S. foreign policy toward something less extravagant and adversarial. That begins with narrowing the "war on terrorism"; scaling back the conflict with the Islamic world to those groups and countries that pose serious, direct threats to the United States; and reaching out to the rest. He has also tried to develop a better working relationship with major powers such as Russia and China, setting aside smaller issues in hopes of cooperation on bigger ones. This means departing from a bipartisan approach in which Washington's role was to direct and hector the rest of the world, pushing regimes large and small to accept American ideas, and publicly chastising them when they refused. Obama is trying to break the dynamic that says that when an American president negotiates with the Chinese or Russians, he must return with rewards or concessions -- or else he is guilty of appeasement.
For his policy to succeed, Obama will need to maintain his focus come July 2011. Afghanistan will not be transformed by that date. It will not look like France, with a strong and effective central government. The gains that will have been made will be fragile. The situation will still be somewhat unstable. But that should still be the moment to begin the transition to Afghan rule. We can find ways to secure American interests in that region more manageably. By the end of 2011, the United States will have spent 10 years, thousands of lives and $2 trillion trying to create stable, democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the most difficult, divided countries in the world. It will be time to move on.
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. His e-mail address is comments@fareedzakaria.com.
And then there was that one line: "I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan." Here lies the tension in Obama's policy. He wants a clearer, more discriminating foreign policy, one that pares the vast commitments and open-ended interventions of the Bush era, perhaps one that is more disciplined than Bill Clinton's approach to the world. (On the campaign trail, Obama repeatedly invoked George H.W. Bush as the president whose foreign policy he admired most.) But America is in a war that is not going well, and scaling back now would look like cutting and running. Obama is searching for a post-imperial policy in the midst of an imperial crisis. The qualified surge -- send in troops to regain the momentum but then draw down -- is his answer to this dilemma.
This first year of his presidency has been a window into Obama's worldview. Once most presidents get hold of the bully pulpit, they cannot resist the temptation to become Winston Churchill. They gravitate toward grand rhetoric about freedom and tyranny and embrace the moral drama of their role as leaders of the free world. Not Obama. He has been cool and calculating, whether dealing with Russia, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama is a realist by temperament, learning and instinct. More than any president since Richard Nixon, he has focused on defining American interests carefully, providing resources to achieve them and keeping his eyes on the prize.
ad_icon
"In the end," the president said last Tuesday, "our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms." He explained that America's economic and technological vigor underpinned its ability to play a world role. At a small lunch with a group of columnists before his speech last week, he made clear to us that he did not want to run two wars. He seemed to be implying that the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan were not the crucial path to America's long-term security. He explained that challenges at home -- economic growth, technological innovation, education reform -- were at the heart of maintaining America's status as a superpower. In fact, throughout history great nations have lost their way by getting bogged down in imperial missions far from home that crippled their will, strength and focus. (Sometimes even when they won they lost: Britain prevailed in the Boer War, but it broke the back of the empire.)
It is clear that Obama is attempting something quite ambitious -- to reorient U.S. foreign policy toward something less extravagant and adversarial. That begins with narrowing the "war on terrorism"; scaling back the conflict with the Islamic world to those groups and countries that pose serious, direct threats to the United States; and reaching out to the rest. He has also tried to develop a better working relationship with major powers such as Russia and China, setting aside smaller issues in hopes of cooperation on bigger ones. This means departing from a bipartisan approach in which Washington's role was to direct and hector the rest of the world, pushing regimes large and small to accept American ideas, and publicly chastising them when they refused. Obama is trying to break the dynamic that says that when an American president negotiates with the Chinese or Russians, he must return with rewards or concessions -- or else he is guilty of appeasement.
For his policy to succeed, Obama will need to maintain his focus come July 2011. Afghanistan will not be transformed by that date. It will not look like France, with a strong and effective central government. The gains that will have been made will be fragile. The situation will still be somewhat unstable. But that should still be the moment to begin the transition to Afghan rule. We can find ways to secure American interests in that region more manageably. By the end of 2011, the United States will have spent 10 years, thousands of lives and $2 trillion trying to create stable, democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the most difficult, divided countries in the world. It will be time to move on.
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. His e-mail address is comments@fareedzakaria.com.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Politik Americano
Between the troop escalation in Afghanistan and the fudging of some documents and destruction of others in order galvanize support for Global Warming; we have now proven the theory of “circular relativity”. It states that if you go far enough to the Left, eventually you will hit the Right side of any issue. Liberals and conservatives at times mirror an old married couple, they disagree on everything, but after a certain amount of time they start to look alike.
I understand the idea of being fiscally conservative, low taxes and responsible spending, but since we haven’t had a President from either party that could effectively reduce spending in quite some time. Perhaps we should stop screaming for lowering taxes. The Left’s modus operandi is “tax and spend”, the Right’s should be “don’t tax and spend anyway”.
Why does the Tea Party crowd keep saying that they want their country back? It didn’t go anywhere. You lost the election, this is what happens when someone you disagree with gets elected President (voted in by a majority, not stolen, not taken away, not even decided by Floridians who can’t fill out ballot sheets), things begin to happen that you disagree with. You never heard President Bush say, “Since all of you Al Gore supporters don’t agree with my plans for the country, I’m going to respect that and in turn I will refalect (Bush speak for reflect) Al Gore’s ideas in everything I do.”
Someone told me the other day that these large gathering of Tea Party protesters is an indication that the President is destined for only one term. I was watching some Tea Party coverage on Saturday and I’m just guessing, but I’m willing to bet large sums of money that a super large majority of those people didn’t vote for Obama the first time around.
President Obama is a true inspiration to me. He is a Kenyan-Muslim-Communist-Nazi, which proves that America truly is a melting pot. This helps me to believe that even I, a Religious-Liberal-Chink-With Impulse Control Issues, can do anything.
Sarah Palin is no threat in 2012. She lacks media savvy, and a true in depth (we need to hear more than talking points) understanding of the most pressing issues of our time. She is very exciting and she energizes the right. Can anyone say Pat Buchanan?
When President Bush would give a speech on the challenges we were facing as a country, Conservatives would hail his optimism and his inspirational spirit. When President Obama states that unemployment rates moving from 10.2% to 10% “is a step in the right direction” they say he is out of touch with the reality of the situation. Perhaps, next time when speaking to the American people the President should say, “The economic situation in our country is bleak. We face a hopeless and impossible challenge. Soon we will all DIE!” I only fear that if he spoke in these terms pundits from the right would then say he wasn’t showing leadership.
I used to like Glenn Beck. When he was on headline news I didn’t always agree with him but he had a good understanding of politics and a pragmatic approach to the issues. Today he has become a true caricature of himself, a cartoon character to inspire ratings. Last week he spoke for almost 15 minutes about the White House party crashers and somehow managed to link it to a conspiracy between the Obama Administration and Bravo Television, all while stating more than 6 times that he didn’t believe the conspiracy was true.
Lenny Bruce. Shame on us, shame on our government, shame on the police, and shame on our justice system, what we did to that man is no different than what we did to the Japanese during World War II, suspected communists in the 50’s, homosexuals now, or blacks for centuries. Again and again we destroy what it means to be American, in order to protect America. Who’s next? Can anyone say Islam?
I understand the idea of being fiscally conservative, low taxes and responsible spending, but since we haven’t had a President from either party that could effectively reduce spending in quite some time. Perhaps we should stop screaming for lowering taxes. The Left’s modus operandi is “tax and spend”, the Right’s should be “don’t tax and spend anyway”.
Why does the Tea Party crowd keep saying that they want their country back? It didn’t go anywhere. You lost the election, this is what happens when someone you disagree with gets elected President (voted in by a majority, not stolen, not taken away, not even decided by Floridians who can’t fill out ballot sheets), things begin to happen that you disagree with. You never heard President Bush say, “Since all of you Al Gore supporters don’t agree with my plans for the country, I’m going to respect that and in turn I will refalect (Bush speak for reflect) Al Gore’s ideas in everything I do.”
Someone told me the other day that these large gathering of Tea Party protesters is an indication that the President is destined for only one term. I was watching some Tea Party coverage on Saturday and I’m just guessing, but I’m willing to bet large sums of money that a super large majority of those people didn’t vote for Obama the first time around.
President Obama is a true inspiration to me. He is a Kenyan-Muslim-Communist-Nazi, which proves that America truly is a melting pot. This helps me to believe that even I, a Religious-Liberal-Chink-With Impulse Control Issues, can do anything.
Sarah Palin is no threat in 2012. She lacks media savvy, and a true in depth (we need to hear more than talking points) understanding of the most pressing issues of our time. She is very exciting and she energizes the right. Can anyone say Pat Buchanan?
When President Bush would give a speech on the challenges we were facing as a country, Conservatives would hail his optimism and his inspirational spirit. When President Obama states that unemployment rates moving from 10.2% to 10% “is a step in the right direction” they say he is out of touch with the reality of the situation. Perhaps, next time when speaking to the American people the President should say, “The economic situation in our country is bleak. We face a hopeless and impossible challenge. Soon we will all DIE!” I only fear that if he spoke in these terms pundits from the right would then say he wasn’t showing leadership.
I used to like Glenn Beck. When he was on headline news I didn’t always agree with him but he had a good understanding of politics and a pragmatic approach to the issues. Today he has become a true caricature of himself, a cartoon character to inspire ratings. Last week he spoke for almost 15 minutes about the White House party crashers and somehow managed to link it to a conspiracy between the Obama Administration and Bravo Television, all while stating more than 6 times that he didn’t believe the conspiracy was true.
Lenny Bruce. Shame on us, shame on our government, shame on the police, and shame on our justice system, what we did to that man is no different than what we did to the Japanese during World War II, suspected communists in the 50’s, homosexuals now, or blacks for centuries. Again and again we destroy what it means to be American, in order to protect America. Who’s next? Can anyone say Islam?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
CBO: Three-Quarters Of Stimulus Unspent By Ryan Grim ryan@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting
Only $100 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package passed nine months ago has actually been spent by the federal government so far, with another $90 billion of stimulus coming in the form of tax reductions, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Monday evening. That leaves three quarters of the package -- and its stimulative effects -- yet to come.
Slow as that pace may seem, it's in line with initial CBO estimates.
But much of the spending hasn't had the full impact it could, the report says, because "it appears that stimulus funds substituted for some spending from regular appropriations."
Despite the limitations, the CBO estimates that between 600,000 and 1.6 million people were employed in the third quarter of 2009 who otherwise would not have been. The spending and tax cuts raised the Gross Domestic Product by somewhere between 1.2 and 3.2 percent, it found, and reduced unemployment by 0.3 to 0.9 percent.
In Washington, the stimulus is often discussed as if the entire $787 billion was all spent on the first night -- with some pundits expressing shock and dismay that the economy hasn't already bounced back as a result. That three quarters of the stimulus has yet to be felt undermines their positions.
Shortly after the stimulus was passed, the GOP began declaring it a failure, a conclusion the party has stuck to since - even if some officials take credit for what it's accomplishing when they're back at home
Democrats in Congress have been stung by the criticism and even while pushing for more stimulus spending have worked hard to avoid calling it a stimulus, dubbing it a "jobs" bill instead.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), told HuffPost Monday night that he's not buying the CBO estimate.
"The White House claimed that if we passed the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' unemployment would stay below 8 percent and jobs would be created 'immediately.' Instead, unemployment is over 10 percent, more than three million more Americans are out of work, and folks are asking 'where are the jobs?'" he wrote in an e-mail.
The White House had been mocked for its flawed reporting of how many jobs the stimulus created - which included jobs in congressional districts that don't actually exist. But the CBO said it used a different model than relying on the word of bureaucrats.
"Estimating the law's overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients' reports provide," the CBO said. "Therefore, looking at the actual amounts spent so far (where identifiable) and estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law's impact on employment and economic output using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States."
That could be a tremendous underestimate, as the CBO's thinking doesn't take into account the possibility that the economy might have fallen off a cliff if the stimulus hadn't been passed, with world markets panicking and employers continuing to eliminate jobs at an eye-popping pace.
Similarly, the reason the CBO failed to predict the rise in unemployment that has taken place since February is that the model it uses doesn't take into account the fact that the banking system collapsed.
Slow as that pace may seem, it's in line with initial CBO estimates.
But much of the spending hasn't had the full impact it could, the report says, because "it appears that stimulus funds substituted for some spending from regular appropriations."
Despite the limitations, the CBO estimates that between 600,000 and 1.6 million people were employed in the third quarter of 2009 who otherwise would not have been. The spending and tax cuts raised the Gross Domestic Product by somewhere between 1.2 and 3.2 percent, it found, and reduced unemployment by 0.3 to 0.9 percent.
In Washington, the stimulus is often discussed as if the entire $787 billion was all spent on the first night -- with some pundits expressing shock and dismay that the economy hasn't already bounced back as a result. That three quarters of the stimulus has yet to be felt undermines their positions.
Shortly after the stimulus was passed, the GOP began declaring it a failure, a conclusion the party has stuck to since - even if some officials take credit for what it's accomplishing when they're back at home
Democrats in Congress have been stung by the criticism and even while pushing for more stimulus spending have worked hard to avoid calling it a stimulus, dubbing it a "jobs" bill instead.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), told HuffPost Monday night that he's not buying the CBO estimate.
"The White House claimed that if we passed the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' unemployment would stay below 8 percent and jobs would be created 'immediately.' Instead, unemployment is over 10 percent, more than three million more Americans are out of work, and folks are asking 'where are the jobs?'" he wrote in an e-mail.
The White House had been mocked for its flawed reporting of how many jobs the stimulus created - which included jobs in congressional districts that don't actually exist. But the CBO said it used a different model than relying on the word of bureaucrats.
"Estimating the law's overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients' reports provide," the CBO said. "Therefore, looking at the actual amounts spent so far (where identifiable) and estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law's impact on employment and economic output using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States."
That could be a tremendous underestimate, as the CBO's thinking doesn't take into account the possibility that the economy might have fallen off a cliff if the stimulus hadn't been passed, with world markets panicking and employers continuing to eliminate jobs at an eye-popping pace.
Similarly, the reason the CBO failed to predict the rise in unemployment that has taken place since February is that the model it uses doesn't take into account the fact that the banking system collapsed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)