So here is the situation: We are muddling along in an economy that could generously be called sluggish, and nobody is feeling generous right now. We are over 13 trillion dollars in debt. Civil Engineers tell us that it will take 2.2 trillion dollars to repair our basic infrastructure. The first boomers are retiring. Uncle Sam needs a boatload of money, and btw, we're gonna need a bigger boat.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Invest in America (re-thinking taxes)
Saturday, September 11, 2010
9/11
I really hate the phrase, "nine-eleven" It is september 11. How many people refer to Pearl Harbor as 12/7? So, here we are, nine years later. I was roughly 2 miles north of the World Trade Center when the planes flew through the towers. My great fear was that we would all somehow be afraid after that day. The targets of terrorist attacks are not the victims of the attacks. The targets are those who survive.
Terrorism is defined as acts that cause us to chamge our behavior through fear. If you are afraid the terrorists win. I live in New York City. I'm not afraid of another terror attack, I expect one! OOOOHHH Islam-- be afraid- OOOOHHH a mosque be afraid-- please! To quote Sean Connery from the movie Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight, only fools and priests go through life with thoughts of death.
I'm going to die- I may get hit by a bus tomorrow. So what! I will not worry about a terrorist attack. In Israel, when Hamas blows up a Sbarro's on Tuesday, they re-open on Wednesday. That is the ultimate weapon against terrorism. They may succeed in killing people, but their actual goal is making you afraid that you are next. The greatest weapon we have against terrorism is our middle finger. In honor of September 11, let us raise our twin middle fingers towards those who think we can be cowed by hateful acts.
Terrorism is defined as acts that cause us to chamge our behavior through fear. If you are afraid the terrorists win. I live in New York City. I'm not afraid of another terror attack, I expect one! OOOOHHH Islam-- be afraid- OOOOHHH a mosque be afraid-- please! To quote Sean Connery from the movie Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight, only fools and priests go through life with thoughts of death.
I'm going to die- I may get hit by a bus tomorrow. So what! I will not worry about a terrorist attack. In Israel, when Hamas blows up a Sbarro's on Tuesday, they re-open on Wednesday. That is the ultimate weapon against terrorism. They may succeed in killing people, but their actual goal is making you afraid that you are next. The greatest weapon we have against terrorism is our middle finger. In honor of September 11, let us raise our twin middle fingers towards those who think we can be cowed by hateful acts.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
The Obama Conundrum
President Obama is getting hit by both sides. The right calls him a Marxist, a socialist, a fascist, and a communist. The left is angry that he tries too hard to make legislation palatable to Republicans. He ran on the idea that he was going to transform politics and bring people together. He has failed miserably at that. The question is whether or not he deserves to own that failure?
In a word, no. The simple fact is that he has made more than a good faith effort to reach out to the Republican party. They have refused to play along, and yet he has not given up hope that they will come on board. Additionally, he has gotten involved in political games. Republicans try to paint this as scandal and Democrats get disappointed.
There is nothing illegal about a party trying to prevent a primary challenge to an incumbent. It happens all the time. So why is this paragon of post-partisanship engaging in that activity? In a word, pragmatism. During the primaries, New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman wrote time and again that then Senator Obama was a centrist, and if we wanted a true champion of liberal causes we should vote for then Senator Clinton.
The first 20 months of this administration has borne that out. All the outreach to the Republicans, his endorsement of Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln, why would he do that? He needs the votes. Period. Senator Lincoln can vote in the Senate (until January, at least). President Obama feels the need to woo as many legislators as he can to vote for his agenda. If Senator Lincoln were not an incumbent, I doubt the President would have chosen sides in the primary.
For all his rhetoric eschewing politics, the requirements of his job force him to be political. When the people lead, the leaders will follow. When enough people demand a more progressive agenda, President Obama will deliver it. And by that time, he will deliver it in 30 minutes or less or it will be free.
In a word, no. The simple fact is that he has made more than a good faith effort to reach out to the Republican party. They have refused to play along, and yet he has not given up hope that they will come on board. Additionally, he has gotten involved in political games. Republicans try to paint this as scandal and Democrats get disappointed.
There is nothing illegal about a party trying to prevent a primary challenge to an incumbent. It happens all the time. So why is this paragon of post-partisanship engaging in that activity? In a word, pragmatism. During the primaries, New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman wrote time and again that then Senator Obama was a centrist, and if we wanted a true champion of liberal causes we should vote for then Senator Clinton.
The first 20 months of this administration has borne that out. All the outreach to the Republicans, his endorsement of Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln, why would he do that? He needs the votes. Period. Senator Lincoln can vote in the Senate (until January, at least). President Obama feels the need to woo as many legislators as he can to vote for his agenda. If Senator Lincoln were not an incumbent, I doubt the President would have chosen sides in the primary.
For all his rhetoric eschewing politics, the requirements of his job force him to be political. When the people lead, the leaders will follow. When enough people demand a more progressive agenda, President Obama will deliver it. And by that time, he will deliver it in 30 minutes or less or it will be free.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Class Warfare
President Bush passed a tax cut in 2001 that is set to expire. It is expiring for two reasons. First, it is expiring because it was passed under reconciliation, and reconciliation rules prevented it from lasting longer than 10 years. The other reason it is expiring is so that they could say that it only cost $1.35 trillion. Oh, and by the way, the reason it was passed under reconciliation was because even some Republicans balked at the cost.
Senator Jon McCain was on a Sunday talk show today and he was asked about the Obama Administration's plan to let the tax cuts expire for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, but extend them for everyone else. He responded by saying that this is letting class warfare begin. To borrow from Rachel Maddow, this is Bullpucky (I like the word but would use a different one).
Over the last 30 years, our deficit has grown from under $1 Trillion to more than $14 Trillion. Most of this deficit growth has occurred during the Preisdencies of supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans. In fact, the last Democratic President left us with a surplus. Three other things have happened during this time that are both significant and relevant when discussing the deficit. The wealthiest Americans have seen their wealth grow exponentially, middle class wages have been stagnant, and the top marginal tax rate has gone from around 70% to about 35% today.
Letting the upper class tax breaks expire is not class warfare. Their taxes have been cut in half as the deficit has exploded. Republicans are railing against the deficit. What do we do? Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that's where the money is. We need to let the taxes increases on the richest 2% because that is where the money is. They benefited the most as our deficit exploded, they can aford to plug the hole.
Senator Jon McCain was on a Sunday talk show today and he was asked about the Obama Administration's plan to let the tax cuts expire for the wealthiest 2% of Americans, but extend them for everyone else. He responded by saying that this is letting class warfare begin. To borrow from Rachel Maddow, this is Bullpucky (I like the word but would use a different one).
Over the last 30 years, our deficit has grown from under $1 Trillion to more than $14 Trillion. Most of this deficit growth has occurred during the Preisdencies of supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans. In fact, the last Democratic President left us with a surplus. Three other things have happened during this time that are both significant and relevant when discussing the deficit. The wealthiest Americans have seen their wealth grow exponentially, middle class wages have been stagnant, and the top marginal tax rate has gone from around 70% to about 35% today.
Letting the upper class tax breaks expire is not class warfare. Their taxes have been cut in half as the deficit has exploded. Republicans are railing against the deficit. What do we do? Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that's where the money is. We need to let the taxes increases on the richest 2% because that is where the money is. They benefited the most as our deficit exploded, they can aford to plug the hole.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Being Sarah Palin
For Mature Audiences only:
By Mature, I refer only to the age of the audience, because I'm pretty that I could go into immature college frat-boy mode in this post quite easily. Also, I wish to state for the record that I do not hate Sarah Palin. I want to bang her! (see what I mean about immature?)
Sarah Palin is an attractive woman, and acknowledging that is not sexist by the way. I wouldn't talk politics with her, and not just because we would disagree, which would probably end my chances of sex with her. I don't talk politics with my girlfriend with whom I mostly agree. Some may wonder how I know that I agree politically with my girlfriend if we don't talk about it. Very simply, life happens and we talk about things that happen and occasionally opine in the discourse.
As Keith Olbermann has often said about Governor Palin, "This woman is an idiot." Let me be clear, I do not think she is an idiot for disagreeing with me. Nor is it because she is a Conservative, a Christian, a woman, pro-life, Republican. I say she is an idiot because I believe I am simply stating a fact. This is not a matter of education, it is a matter of common sense (which really isn't all that common).
Let me present my evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE2gE-VVjBI
The link shows a clip of the Saturday Night Live version of the first Palin/Couric interview followed by the actual interview. Notice that Tina Fey's words are almost exactly the ones uttered by the former Governor. When asked about the TARP bailout, she rambles on about all sorts of topics as if after speaking long enough the question is presumed to be answered.
People fixate on the question about what she reads (and by people I mean media). Like there could be a right answer to that question. People mention her not knowing the "Bush Doctrine". I wouldn't have associated the question by Charles Gibson to the policy of preventive war. However, when she answers a question on what to do by saying that there are "common sense conservative solutions" to problems, do you get the sense that she knows what they might be?
I don't think she cares enough to learn what policy proscriptions might be good for our country. That's fine. People go crazy over her. I'm fine with that, too. But is thinking she'd be a disaster as President, is availing myself of my First Amendment right to free speech, a right she claims to hold dear, hatred?
By Mature, I refer only to the age of the audience, because I'm pretty that I could go into immature college frat-boy mode in this post quite easily. Also, I wish to state for the record that I do not hate Sarah Palin. I want to bang her! (see what I mean about immature?)
Sarah Palin is an attractive woman, and acknowledging that is not sexist by the way. I wouldn't talk politics with her, and not just because we would disagree, which would probably end my chances of sex with her. I don't talk politics with my girlfriend with whom I mostly agree. Some may wonder how I know that I agree politically with my girlfriend if we don't talk about it. Very simply, life happens and we talk about things that happen and occasionally opine in the discourse.
As Keith Olbermann has often said about Governor Palin, "This woman is an idiot." Let me be clear, I do not think she is an idiot for disagreeing with me. Nor is it because she is a Conservative, a Christian, a woman, pro-life, Republican. I say she is an idiot because I believe I am simply stating a fact. This is not a matter of education, it is a matter of common sense (which really isn't all that common).
Let me present my evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE2gE-VVjBI
The link shows a clip of the Saturday Night Live version of the first Palin/Couric interview followed by the actual interview. Notice that Tina Fey's words are almost exactly the ones uttered by the former Governor. When asked about the TARP bailout, she rambles on about all sorts of topics as if after speaking long enough the question is presumed to be answered.
People fixate on the question about what she reads (and by people I mean media). Like there could be a right answer to that question. People mention her not knowing the "Bush Doctrine". I wouldn't have associated the question by Charles Gibson to the policy of preventive war. However, when she answers a question on what to do by saying that there are "common sense conservative solutions" to problems, do you get the sense that she knows what they might be?
I don't think she cares enough to learn what policy proscriptions might be good for our country. That's fine. People go crazy over her. I'm fine with that, too. But is thinking she'd be a disaster as President, is availing myself of my First Amendment right to free speech, a right she claims to hold dear, hatred?
Thursday, September 2, 2010
A Center-Right Nation- the Myth
This may have originally been posted by Worldnewstrust.com
Many people in the punditocracy are cautioning President-elect Obama not to pursue a liberal agenda aggressively because the people will turn on him. They say that despite the largest margin of victory in twenty years tilting left, we are still a “center-right” nation. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing could be further from the truth!
Those who promote the “center-right” nonsense also make the absurd claim that President Bush has been governing from this “center-right” position. Somehow, the two-thirds of the country that want universal health care and out of Iraq are out of the mainstream, and even though the wrong track numbers are as high as the Dow is low, we don’t want to make a major change in direction. This is patently absurd.
Those who would have you buy into the notion of “center-right” America are the exact same ones who would have you believe that we have always been a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that one of the oldest international treaties this nation entered into says quite specifically that we are NOT a Christian nation. The treaty was with Libya, and dates back to our 2nd President(It is left to the reader to look this up but it is easily googled).
Let me state for the record that a “center-right” America would never have elected Senator Obama to the Presidency for the simple fact that Barack Hussein Obama would not have been a Senator to run in the first place. The people who use the term “center-right” today have been gutting the EPA and fighting the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act signed into law by the great leftist pinko Richard Milhouse Nixon!
Center-Rightists still hate Medicare and Medicaid. A “center-right” America would never have supported the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s uppity movement which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Brown V Board of Ed would never have been brought to court in the first place let alone Brown winning in the Supreme Court.
Women’s suffrage, the end of slavery, equal protection, union’s, and anti-trust laws would not exist in a “center-right” America. Why would “Original Constructionists” need to amend The Constitution? At this point, it occurs to me that we would have had a more peaceful past as a “center-right” nation. There would have been no Civil War because we all know that Center-Righter’s are all for States Rights (except when the state in question takes a center-left position).
Likewise, there would never have been a War of 1812. On what do I base this claim, you ask. Well, and I mean no offense to the current residents of the parent company, a “center-right” America would still be England.
Many people in the punditocracy are cautioning President-elect Obama not to pursue a liberal agenda aggressively because the people will turn on him. They say that despite the largest margin of victory in twenty years tilting left, we are still a “center-right” nation. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing could be further from the truth!
Those who promote the “center-right” nonsense also make the absurd claim that President Bush has been governing from this “center-right” position. Somehow, the two-thirds of the country that want universal health care and out of Iraq are out of the mainstream, and even though the wrong track numbers are as high as the Dow is low, we don’t want to make a major change in direction. This is patently absurd.
Those who would have you buy into the notion of “center-right” America are the exact same ones who would have you believe that we have always been a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that one of the oldest international treaties this nation entered into says quite specifically that we are NOT a Christian nation. The treaty was with Libya, and dates back to our 2nd President(It is left to the reader to look this up but it is easily googled).
Let me state for the record that a “center-right” America would never have elected Senator Obama to the Presidency for the simple fact that Barack Hussein Obama would not have been a Senator to run in the first place. The people who use the term “center-right” today have been gutting the EPA and fighting the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act signed into law by the great leftist pinko Richard Milhouse Nixon!
Center-Rightists still hate Medicare and Medicaid. A “center-right” America would never have supported the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s uppity movement which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Brown V Board of Ed would never have been brought to court in the first place let alone Brown winning in the Supreme Court.
Women’s suffrage, the end of slavery, equal protection, union’s, and anti-trust laws would not exist in a “center-right” America. Why would “Original Constructionists” need to amend The Constitution? At this point, it occurs to me that we would have had a more peaceful past as a “center-right” nation. There would have been no Civil War because we all know that Center-Righter’s are all for States Rights (except when the state in question takes a center-left position).
Likewise, there would never have been a War of 1812. On what do I base this claim, you ask. Well, and I mean no offense to the current residents of the parent company, a “center-right” America would still be England.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)