What happens when the President and his cronies decide to "Legislate from the Oval Office"? New word: Failout. This President and his cronies are now attempting to bypass the Legislative Branch by drafting laws themselves to provide more cash to a Wall Street that has managed to squander all of the cash that the under-regulated, free-market system once espoused by this President as the brainchild of his idol, Republican demi-god Ronald Reagan.
I am particularly displeased with the House and Senate Democratic leadership on this one. First and foremost, the legislature should have been all over this months ago. Specifically, I am pointing my finger at you, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd. How could you allow the administration to one-up you like that and have a completed bill to put on the table last week? I mean, yeah it was only 3 pages, so they probably showed up early that morning and cobbled it together (much in the same manner a procrastinatorial high-schooler may utilize first-period Algebra class for their writing assignment on Chaucer). Either way, even with their procrastination the Administration managed to put forth a proposal that was allegedly a month or two in the making. Now, the members of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee, as well as their counterparts in the House, are stuck attempting to draft legislation which is based upon the Bush Administration's core intent, which is to provide some easy money to "stimulate" the credit market with new capital.
Never in my wildest dreams did I expect to be hearing the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, as a voice of reason in a crisis. Nonetheless, there he was, and the liberals and conservatives in Congress managed to actually reach across party lines and defeat the centrists in staving off the bailout bill. Everyone's favorite congressman, Dennis Kucinich was there to vote against it as well:
This is really a plan that should have input from more sectors of the population and the economy. There will be huge ramifications with regard to funding availability in the future for other parts of government (including the ones which are working very well). We need to put an end to short-term stitches, and endeavor to create more long-range plans. Otherwise, we will continue to rely upon debt as a vehicle for providing cash flow to support our half-baked solutions.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Taxing Truth This Election
So, I recently did a long drawn-out investigation of the data dumped by the Tax Policy Center on the tax proposals of Obama and McCain. A lot of info, but I have done a better job summarizing it than many of the graphs floating around out there on the 'Net. I'm posting the link here to the blog post on The Cincinnati Enquirer.
If you scroll to the bottom of the page, click up the "Recommend" flag at the bottom of the article, and it will help knock it to the top of the "Recommended" list on the website, and thus get many many more views in the notoriously Republican southwest corner of Ohio, and hopefully do some work to dispel Republican myths.
As always, share the link and spread it around. In addition to the typical "how much taxes do you save" analysis, I also took the liberty to summarize the impact on the federal deficit too. This is one point that is important to many, but gets very much less impact.
If you scroll to the bottom of the page, click up the "Recommend" flag at the bottom of the article, and it will help knock it to the top of the "Recommended" list on the website, and thus get many many more views in the notoriously Republican southwest corner of Ohio, and hopefully do some work to dispel Republican myths.
As always, share the link and spread it around. In addition to the typical "how much taxes do you save" analysis, I also took the liberty to summarize the impact on the federal deficit too. This is one point that is important to many, but gets very much less impact.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain/Palin: Fear First
So, I am watching the Republican National Convention tonight, and I saw the Homage to 9/11. How disgraceful of the RNC to reach back to 9/11 with a purely cynical, self-serving stage show, abusing the memory of those who died on September 11, 2001. I can't even begin to explain how shocked I was that this was going on. I thought for sure they wouldn't go there. So, the party leadership reveals who they are to the American people: Shameless opportunists who will use any device to get ahead. I have boycotted all of the Hollywood recreations of September 11, 2001, including the numerous movies about United flight 93, out of a sense of respect and dignity for those who died. This is a sad commentary on the real values held by the Republican Party today, and a far cry from the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan.
I hope that all of you readers can find the time to write to your Republican, Democratic, and Independent representatives and candidates to voice your outrage at what a terrible offense has been committed to the memories of those dead in the Sept. 11 attacks, and the brave soldiers and unfortunate civilians that have died in the fighting since.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
He Speaks
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) delivers his speech at the Democratic National Convention:
A very energetic speech about what has been accomplished in the past 8 years.
A very energetic speech about what has been accomplished in the past 8 years.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Dear American Issues Project: Your Ad Is So Powerful...
...I had to get up an leave the room until it aired out.
I just saw your ad, and I have to say: Hyperbole Much?
Honestly, you create a connection between Obama and Ayers that supposes that Ayers is some sort of social outcast, save for the close personal friendship of Obama. In fact, Ayers, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago, UIC, and Northwestern. A law professor himself, it is very unlikely that the two would not have to work together. Seriously, the current president can be tied in such loose terms to Osama bin Laden even. Additionally, you've also neglected to consider that Ayers has a long history in the Hyde Park neighborhood, including many political connections in the Chicago scene (again, a place where the two of them are unlikely to spend much time without cooperating sometimes).
Additionally, you've connected them both as working together on the Woods fund board of Directors. What you fail to say is that they were appointed to that non-profit fund by the Mayor of Chicago, nor do you plan on ever informing your viewers what the fund is (judging from your site you probably think it is "evil Communism").
For an organization that seems intent on further informing public opinion and changing minds, you are severely closed minded about how much Mr. Ayers can change his own mind over the course of 40 years.
I also browsed the rest of your site, and I can find really nothing of substance save for the "extensive research of the Obama-Ayers connection". Much of this "over 100 pages" is highly redundant reporting, back story about the Weather Underground, and even a 7 page discussion of 9/11 and United 93, carefully planted to evoke sympathy and/or anger from the reader.
Your energy security "idea" is pretty sparse to say the least. You drop in some shout-outs to numerous renewable energy sources, but your prime focus is on non-renewable resources. In fact, all of the photography is photos of offshore oil wells. You make a big pitch for coal and shale-based energies as well. I can't help but feel that your priority is to preserve the current resource hoarding, depletion, and control markets. Really, you have nothing new to share, and even the regurgitated party lines aren't even discussed in detail.
Your "strong economy" says nothing about how your proposals will help to strengthen the economy. Your bullet points "Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts", "Opposing any attempt to raise taxes in any form", "Supporting free trade", "Opposing over-regulation of American business and industry" all promote an approach to public policy that HAS NEVER HELPED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, PERIOD. We tried this over the past 7 years: nothing. Remember the 80's? Yeah. The "roaring" 80's! Fat chance. I don't know anybody who wants a return to the 80's. What about the 20's? The "Roaring 20's"? Well, they culminated with the dawn of Great Depression (a market correction event of similar size to the unregulated growth during the 20's). Harding + Coolidge + Hoover = Great Depression. Say it all together.
Additionally, your proposals in "Safe & Secure Homeland" seem to be in conflict with yours from "Strong Economy". How would you propose we pay for the fencing, the monitoring, the supervision, and the enforcement of such a strong border policy. I think that it is impressive that there isn't more illegal immigration with the system that we have currently, and it is a testament to how strongly the border patrol and support people manage to work with what they have. As you try to narrow that group of illegal immigrants down to zero you reach a point of diminishing returns. Surely you are familiar with these, as you purport to know so much about strengthening the economy.
As for your "Protecting American Families" agenda, you speak nothing of actually protecting families. You speak worlds about how you will enforce creating more families, ones without planning. What do you plan to do to protect them? I can't see a single mention of any family services or assistance that you will support. Surely if you care so much about precious children, you also care that they live in supportive and nurturing homes. By the way, no "Activist Judge" in Massachusetts "thwarted the will of the people". The issue of gay marriage was actually a vote in the statehouse. Seems that you see no problem "thwarting the will of the people", however, when it suits your own agenda. You must be thinking of New Hampshire. I know, it is hard, they are some of 'dem smallish states up the the nor'east. Okay, give your brain a rest for a minute...
Better? Good. Judicial "Activism" has not given us a single thing that you report on your site. Can you explain to me what threat to you or your agency is posed by gay marriage, abortion, or removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.
Hey! You know what, I can't believe that activists in the Executive branch inserted "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's. What was his name? Eisenhower? Yeah, he built that big public works project: the Interstate System. Remember that? I am surprised that you don't think of the large, federally subsidized and regulated network of highways to be "Socialism". It definitely fits the description. Ah, that's right, the guy in charge of it is your hero. Well, I guess that just changes everything now doesn't it.
Oh yeah. And the "In God We Trust" on our money? That was added during the civil war by Abraham Lincoln's Treasury Secretary. Another "activist" from the executive branch.
Neither of these were performed by popular vote, or even by popular legislative process. Instead, they were "activists" in high places pulling strings to get their messages across.
Well, seems that you *do* like "activists" after all, just only when they are suiting your agenda. Otherwise, they must be evil and must be stopped and represent everything "Un-American".
In closing, from the poorly researched bullet points on your site, the vague position statements, lack of documentation and references, and blatant contradictions and hypocrisy I can only conclude one thing: You are merely a front group that was created (on or around 05-August-2008) for the purpose of publishing misleading ads to drag public discourse into the putrid, feces-laden pig-sty that you have set up shop within. You provide nothing here to inform newcomers of why your positions and proposals are "American" or even beneficial. Rather, you merely seem to be blowing your cash on misleading your viewership. I suppose that it must be so lonely and pathetic in your world that you can only find company by lashing out to the rest of us up here in a sad attempt to drag us down to your level.
When you have real discourse, research, and well-thought out ideas (rather than rehashed Reagan talking points), you can participate in this debate. Until then, you will remain mired in the loneliness that is your own ignorance, intolerance, and refusal to adapt to the real world.
This article is my rebuttal to The American Issues Project, and it's latest attack ad (linked on the site).
I just saw your ad, and I have to say: Hyperbole Much?
Honestly, you create a connection between Obama and Ayers that supposes that Ayers is some sort of social outcast, save for the close personal friendship of Obama. In fact, Ayers, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago, UIC, and Northwestern. A law professor himself, it is very unlikely that the two would not have to work together. Seriously, the current president can be tied in such loose terms to Osama bin Laden even. Additionally, you've also neglected to consider that Ayers has a long history in the Hyde Park neighborhood, including many political connections in the Chicago scene (again, a place where the two of them are unlikely to spend much time without cooperating sometimes).
Additionally, you've connected them both as working together on the Woods fund board of Directors. What you fail to say is that they were appointed to that non-profit fund by the Mayor of Chicago, nor do you plan on ever informing your viewers what the fund is (judging from your site you probably think it is "evil Communism").
For an organization that seems intent on further informing public opinion and changing minds, you are severely closed minded about how much Mr. Ayers can change his own mind over the course of 40 years.
I also browsed the rest of your site, and I can find really nothing of substance save for the "extensive research of the Obama-Ayers connection". Much of this "over 100 pages" is highly redundant reporting, back story about the Weather Underground, and even a 7 page discussion of 9/11 and United 93, carefully planted to evoke sympathy and/or anger from the reader.
Your energy security "idea" is pretty sparse to say the least. You drop in some shout-outs to numerous renewable energy sources, but your prime focus is on non-renewable resources. In fact, all of the photography is photos of offshore oil wells. You make a big pitch for coal and shale-based energies as well. I can't help but feel that your priority is to preserve the current resource hoarding, depletion, and control markets. Really, you have nothing new to share, and even the regurgitated party lines aren't even discussed in detail.
Your "strong economy" says nothing about how your proposals will help to strengthen the economy. Your bullet points "Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts", "Opposing any attempt to raise taxes in any form", "Supporting free trade", "Opposing over-regulation of American business and industry" all promote an approach to public policy that HAS NEVER HELPED TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, PERIOD. We tried this over the past 7 years: nothing. Remember the 80's? Yeah. The "roaring" 80's! Fat chance. I don't know anybody who wants a return to the 80's. What about the 20's? The "Roaring 20's"? Well, they culminated with the dawn of Great Depression (a market correction event of similar size to the unregulated growth during the 20's). Harding + Coolidge + Hoover = Great Depression. Say it all together.
Additionally, your proposals in "Safe & Secure Homeland" seem to be in conflict with yours from "Strong Economy". How would you propose we pay for the fencing, the monitoring, the supervision, and the enforcement of such a strong border policy. I think that it is impressive that there isn't more illegal immigration with the system that we have currently, and it is a testament to how strongly the border patrol and support people manage to work with what they have. As you try to narrow that group of illegal immigrants down to zero you reach a point of diminishing returns. Surely you are familiar with these, as you purport to know so much about strengthening the economy.
As for your "Protecting American Families" agenda, you speak nothing of actually protecting families. You speak worlds about how you will enforce creating more families, ones without planning. What do you plan to do to protect them? I can't see a single mention of any family services or assistance that you will support. Surely if you care so much about precious children, you also care that they live in supportive and nurturing homes. By the way, no "Activist Judge" in Massachusetts "thwarted the will of the people". The issue of gay marriage was actually a vote in the statehouse. Seems that you see no problem "thwarting the will of the people", however, when it suits your own agenda. You must be thinking of New Hampshire. I know, it is hard, they are some of 'dem smallish states up the the nor'east. Okay, give your brain a rest for a minute...
Better? Good. Judicial "Activism" has not given us a single thing that you report on your site. Can you explain to me what threat to you or your agency is posed by gay marriage, abortion, or removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.
Hey! You know what, I can't believe that activists in the Executive branch inserted "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's. What was his name? Eisenhower? Yeah, he built that big public works project: the Interstate System. Remember that? I am surprised that you don't think of the large, federally subsidized and regulated network of highways to be "Socialism". It definitely fits the description. Ah, that's right, the guy in charge of it is your hero. Well, I guess that just changes everything now doesn't it.
Oh yeah. And the "In God We Trust" on our money? That was added during the civil war by Abraham Lincoln's Treasury Secretary. Another "activist" from the executive branch.
Neither of these were performed by popular vote, or even by popular legislative process. Instead, they were "activists" in high places pulling strings to get their messages across.
Well, seems that you *do* like "activists" after all, just only when they are suiting your agenda. Otherwise, they must be evil and must be stopped and represent everything "Un-American".
In closing, from the poorly researched bullet points on your site, the vague position statements, lack of documentation and references, and blatant contradictions and hypocrisy I can only conclude one thing: You are merely a front group that was created (on or around 05-August-2008) for the purpose of publishing misleading ads to drag public discourse into the putrid, feces-laden pig-sty that you have set up shop within. You provide nothing here to inform newcomers of why your positions and proposals are "American" or even beneficial. Rather, you merely seem to be blowing your cash on misleading your viewership. I suppose that it must be so lonely and pathetic in your world that you can only find company by lashing out to the rest of us up here in a sad attempt to drag us down to your level.
When you have real discourse, research, and well-thought out ideas (rather than rehashed Reagan talking points), you can participate in this debate. Until then, you will remain mired in the loneliness that is your own ignorance, intolerance, and refusal to adapt to the real world.
This article is my rebuttal to The American Issues Project, and it's latest attack ad (linked on the site).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)