By your own argument, we can disregard Obama's use of terms like "collective" and "nationalized" as simply "semantic" applications of out-dated phrases, right? His insistence that the good of "society" outweighs" the good of the "individual" isn't SOCIALISM, it's simply the rational application of an obsolete definition of a political ideology.
If I am going to hold the Obama camp accountable for the terms and phrases they use to describe policy and planning that will be implemented should Barack become President, why wouldn't I hold McCain accountable for the same thing? ESPECIALLY since it was Big John that told the American people everyone should read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith during the Republican debates... sheesh.
My friend, I am CONVINCED that the quickest way to determine the difference between these two candidates is by looking at what they SAY NOW and compare it to how they have acted in the past. Barack Obama has a proven and indisputably LIBERAL track record in his 3 short years in the Senate, and prior to that, everything points to a very left-leaning ideology... thus I feel that his use of such words as "collective good" and "needs of the society" are, indeed, socialist in nature and foundation. Government solutions to every problem under the sun can only be achieved by greater Governmental control of every aspect of our individual lives... something I KNOW you aren't going to argue with, and my single, biggest beef with Barack.
Yet, when the "Straight-Talk Express" comes around and promises the re-institution of "free market principals" into the American economy, I am forced to ask "When did we LAST have free market principals as the basis for our economy?" By his very words and actions, he has FOUGHT free-market principals for much of his tenure in the Senate, and is STILL reluctant to vote for the crisis resolution now on the table because it DOESN'T have enough Government control.
Thus, according to your argument that "semantics" is simply too much attention to trivial details on my part, Obama is the "straight talker" in this election, and if I were going to cast my vote for the candidate that SAID what he was going to DO, rather than saying whatever will get him elected... I'd have to vote for Obama.
In short, Obama is PROMISING to continue his past course of action into the White House, should he win, while McCain is promising to "change" his ways. This is the ONLY conclusion I can draw from listening to the two camps discuss national financial issues, but a more stringent adherence to ACCURATE use of political terms and phrases would eliminate this "interpretive" need you seem to be advocating in continuing through with the misuse and misapplication of well-established and VERY well-defined language.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The antics of symantics.
And you say MY mania runs deep! First off, what "point" went to Obama? I didn't note your example after the declaration. I assume you were not referring to his blaming private sector greed as the sole culprit in our current economic woes - we all know that's hardly the case.
Titus, Titus, Titus ... outside of the "what ended the Great Depression" debate nothing is more maddening then your purist insistence in the employment of terms and phrases. Were you right when you said that the Soviets were not pure communists? YES. That the word "conservative" means: resistant to change? YES. Fascism, socialism, liberalism, all the "isms", we could go on endlessly on how these terms are applied with no resemblance, or at least a less then pure resemblance, to their technical definition in modern political speak and debate. But my gosh man! When learned people intelligently discuss issues and employ these terms and phrases it is a given that we mean "the Soviet's version" of communism. "F. Ryan's version" of conservatism within the modern US political dynamic. That although "classic liberalism" is what defines each and every signatory to the US constitution, it currently means over burdening the tax payer and underfunding the military all while recoiling at a crucifix like a Bram Stoker creature of the night. If I didn't personally know your own level of intelligence I'd be screaming: "fast moving game chief, try and keep up."
And look, I'm not saying that classic definitions have no merit or aren't worth knowing or remembering, not at all. Knowing the proper pure definition is essential; but WE ALL KNOW what candidates, economists, policy wonks et al mean when they employ them in a less then purist form - that they are ALL qualfied by an impure notation. You seem to be requesting that each speaker rattle off a preamble of qualifiers prior to his speech. Either that or refrain from using the term. Neither is going to happen and for the very simple reason that any informed listener already knows that the qualifier exists in abstencia.
When McCain evokes the phrase: "free market economy", we should all (and do outside of you apparently) realize that it is automatically qualified with the words "America's version of ..." Of course you would have a problem with even that terms given the "Americas" refers to more then just the US! Perhaps you are concerned that the "less informed" will not realize that we have all decided to play by the rules that none of these phrases are purist level applicable, and thus these "peasants" will be under a false impression. I don't know your reasoning, but I urge you not to become one of "those" guys ... in the middle of a debate over nuclear jihad you stop to correct your opponent for ending a sentence in a preposition.
For the record, "Free Market Economy" is defined as: Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.
Now, I WILL grant you one thing in terms of that specific economic term. We have allowed for so much government incursion into the private sector, up to and including (especially including in my opinion) the vote scheduled for 8a.m. Eastern on this $700,000,000,000.00, that it would be healthy for a national leader to stand up and demand that we start using an alternative term just to demonstrate how far the US has strayed from its' pure definition. Maybe the fact that we can no longer legitimately apply that phrase would serve as a wake up call for those resisting both fiscal sanity and reigning in government growth.
Let me close with this ... if you are arguing a neophyte (in all things political and historical) and he is pissing you off with some arrogant rendition of his version of reality, by all means, nail him with the fact that he hasn't a clue what all those phrases he is employing mean (like Barak ... he, he). However, if it's you, I, Jambo, John McCain, or any other qualified panel of participants, it seems rather silly to me to insist that each of us employ a preamble of qualifiers just so that when I off the cuff refer to Breshnev (sp?) as "that commie bastard" I don't get corrected on the technical definition of communism. The "qualified participants" as I refer to them all know preconversation that the terms we intend to evoke are not purist. I mean we "get" the impure implication when using the various terms ... and have chosen to use them anyway because they are the closest widley identifiable word available to properly convey a point.
By the way ... I want you to consider one thing. If you are the only one insisting on pure definitions (like the word conservative) that for all practical purposes has been abandoned by modern speakers, perhaps you are the one no longer properly applying the word. Perhaps the definition has changed within the modern vocabulary (such as "free market economy") to the point that the pure definition is no longer the correct one. Like some archaic language that leaves this earth when the last of its people's pass on, maybe you are holding on to meanings that are for all intended purposes no longer used. And I'm not commenting on whether that is a good or bad thing, but that perhaps it is the reality.
Just a thought ...
Titus, Titus, Titus ... outside of the "what ended the Great Depression" debate nothing is more maddening then your purist insistence in the employment of terms and phrases. Were you right when you said that the Soviets were not pure communists? YES. That the word "conservative" means: resistant to change? YES. Fascism, socialism, liberalism, all the "isms", we could go on endlessly on how these terms are applied with no resemblance, or at least a less then pure resemblance, to their technical definition in modern political speak and debate. But my gosh man! When learned people intelligently discuss issues and employ these terms and phrases it is a given that we mean "the Soviet's version" of communism. "F. Ryan's version" of conservatism within the modern US political dynamic. That although "classic liberalism" is what defines each and every signatory to the US constitution, it currently means over burdening the tax payer and underfunding the military all while recoiling at a crucifix like a Bram Stoker creature of the night. If I didn't personally know your own level of intelligence I'd be screaming: "fast moving game chief, try and keep up."
And look, I'm not saying that classic definitions have no merit or aren't worth knowing or remembering, not at all. Knowing the proper pure definition is essential; but WE ALL KNOW what candidates, economists, policy wonks et al mean when they employ them in a less then purist form - that they are ALL qualfied by an impure notation. You seem to be requesting that each speaker rattle off a preamble of qualifiers prior to his speech. Either that or refrain from using the term. Neither is going to happen and for the very simple reason that any informed listener already knows that the qualifier exists in abstencia.
When McCain evokes the phrase: "free market economy", we should all (and do outside of you apparently) realize that it is automatically qualified with the words "America's version of ..." Of course you would have a problem with even that terms given the "Americas" refers to more then just the US! Perhaps you are concerned that the "less informed" will not realize that we have all decided to play by the rules that none of these phrases are purist level applicable, and thus these "peasants" will be under a false impression. I don't know your reasoning, but I urge you not to become one of "those" guys ... in the middle of a debate over nuclear jihad you stop to correct your opponent for ending a sentence in a preposition.
For the record, "Free Market Economy" is defined as: Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.
Now, I WILL grant you one thing in terms of that specific economic term. We have allowed for so much government incursion into the private sector, up to and including (especially including in my opinion) the vote scheduled for 8a.m. Eastern on this $700,000,000,000.00, that it would be healthy for a national leader to stand up and demand that we start using an alternative term just to demonstrate how far the US has strayed from its' pure definition. Maybe the fact that we can no longer legitimately apply that phrase would serve as a wake up call for those resisting both fiscal sanity and reigning in government growth.
Let me close with this ... if you are arguing a neophyte (in all things political and historical) and he is pissing you off with some arrogant rendition of his version of reality, by all means, nail him with the fact that he hasn't a clue what all those phrases he is employing mean (like Barak ... he, he). However, if it's you, I, Jambo, John McCain, or any other qualified panel of participants, it seems rather silly to me to insist that each of us employ a preamble of qualifiers just so that when I off the cuff refer to Breshnev (sp?) as "that commie bastard" I don't get corrected on the technical definition of communism. The "qualified participants" as I refer to them all know preconversation that the terms we intend to evoke are not purist. I mean we "get" the impure implication when using the various terms ... and have chosen to use them anyway because they are the closest widley identifiable word available to properly convey a point.
By the way ... I want you to consider one thing. If you are the only one insisting on pure definitions (like the word conservative) that for all practical purposes has been abandoned by modern speakers, perhaps you are the one no longer properly applying the word. Perhaps the definition has changed within the modern vocabulary (such as "free market economy") to the point that the pure definition is no longer the correct one. Like some archaic language that leaves this earth when the last of its people's pass on, maybe you are holding on to meanings that are for all intended purposes no longer used. And I'm not commenting on whether that is a good or bad thing, but that perhaps it is the reality.
Just a thought ...
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Let's be clear on a couple of points...
So, it's Sunday morning... church is done, Jacob is back from CCD, and the "drama" with the child's father is back into focus (please, don't ask... sigh). Football is about to start, UW lost to Michigan (ouch), the Twins STILL haven't clinched the Central Division... it's been a tough morning.
I've been trying to watch the entire debate on YouTube, but it's tough with 3 kids and a wife that ALL want to use a computer at the same time. None the less, I've managed at least half of it.
One point I want to make abundantly clear is the focus BOTH candidates made on the importance of maintaining a "free market" system for our economy. Mac harped on it, while selling himself as the choice when it comes to rational "regulation" on the part of the Feds... and (needless to say) Obama used the "free market" system as his example of how corruption and greed remain in the equation and cause problems like the current crisis.
I realized something this last week, as I was speaking to Jambo over the phone: In this case, the point goes to Obama.
The reason is, that since about (and this is NOT carved in stone, just my "off-the-cuff" opinion) 1965, we have NOT been a true "free market" economic system. Our currency value is based on the "perceived" strength of our economy, and not on a measurable and specific commodity (say, GOLD), we regulate very nearly EVERY aspect of trade, manufacturing, production and distribution in this nation (and many outside of it), and the means by which we charge interest for money borrowed is NOT determined by a global, or even national consensus... but instead by a SINGLE man, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who has no constituency and is answerable to no one but God.
We can debate the fact or fiction of "laissez-faire" economics in US history all day long, but the undeniable truth of the matter is that since Herbert Hoover came into office, it has not existed as a policy of the Federal Government (and certainly not of the Executive Branch) at all. Without a laissez-faire policy, there is NO free market economic system and capitalism does not dictate the means and manners of our trade markets.
In the past, Ryan and I have debated the necessity of symantics in our arguments time and time again, and he may feel this is simply another such debate, but I am convinced (now especially) that if the US is to overcome the current financial failure AND ensure that it can't repeat in the future, exactly this kind of understanding must be established in contemporary politics. The candidates and sitting politicians are going to have to STOP using terms that simply DO NOT apply to the American system and its economy.
I understand the need for Federal regulations in the economy... in fact, I advocate many of them (lest we all forget, I AM a registered Democrat)... and I will argue or debate with anyone that says that laissez-faire economics are what will save the US now or in the future. However, regulation for regulation's sake is NOT a good thing, and the regulation has to WORK, or it has to be REMOVED.
Good or bad, pro or con, many people look to FDR as an example of a President that meddled in the economy more than any other in our history. My opinion is that he implemented policies and programs (seemingly willy-nilly) to see what would work, and what wouldn't. Some worked, and many others didn't. Those that didn't work were cut, ended or stopped by Congress or the Supreme Court (and not all with the blessing of FDR, either). Many are still in place, and many others are "New Deal" programs instutued by Presidents AFTER FDR, including such illustrious names as Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon... in fact, EVERY President until Ronald Reagan can be called a New Deal President.
What we CAN'T call ANY President of the US since Teddy Roosevelt is "capitalist". Wilson signed the plan for the Federal Reserve into law in 1913, which was authored by a Republican (the Party leader, in fact, Nelson Aldrich) and supported by every Democrat in Congress and almost NONE of the GOP. That act ended any semblance of "capitalism" in the US as regards Federal policy.
Whether the CIC broke monopolies, instituted regulations, forced legislation, vetoed Congressional measures, whatever the case was... every President since Teddy Roosevelt has worked to "regulate" the US economy in one way or another. So, from that historical viewpoint, I AM getting a little tired of listening to our current candidates repeating the mantras of "free market" and "capitalism" over and over again.
I've been trying to watch the entire debate on YouTube, but it's tough with 3 kids and a wife that ALL want to use a computer at the same time. None the less, I've managed at least half of it.
One point I want to make abundantly clear is the focus BOTH candidates made on the importance of maintaining a "free market" system for our economy. Mac harped on it, while selling himself as the choice when it comes to rational "regulation" on the part of the Feds... and (needless to say) Obama used the "free market" system as his example of how corruption and greed remain in the equation and cause problems like the current crisis.
I realized something this last week, as I was speaking to Jambo over the phone: In this case, the point goes to Obama.
The reason is, that since about (and this is NOT carved in stone, just my "off-the-cuff" opinion) 1965, we have NOT been a true "free market" economic system. Our currency value is based on the "perceived" strength of our economy, and not on a measurable and specific commodity (say, GOLD), we regulate very nearly EVERY aspect of trade, manufacturing, production and distribution in this nation (and many outside of it), and the means by which we charge interest for money borrowed is NOT determined by a global, or even national consensus... but instead by a SINGLE man, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who has no constituency and is answerable to no one but God.
We can debate the fact or fiction of "laissez-faire" economics in US history all day long, but the undeniable truth of the matter is that since Herbert Hoover came into office, it has not existed as a policy of the Federal Government (and certainly not of the Executive Branch) at all. Without a laissez-faire policy, there is NO free market economic system and capitalism does not dictate the means and manners of our trade markets.
In the past, Ryan and I have debated the necessity of symantics in our arguments time and time again, and he may feel this is simply another such debate, but I am convinced (now especially) that if the US is to overcome the current financial failure AND ensure that it can't repeat in the future, exactly this kind of understanding must be established in contemporary politics. The candidates and sitting politicians are going to have to STOP using terms that simply DO NOT apply to the American system and its economy.
I understand the need for Federal regulations in the economy... in fact, I advocate many of them (lest we all forget, I AM a registered Democrat)... and I will argue or debate with anyone that says that laissez-faire economics are what will save the US now or in the future. However, regulation for regulation's sake is NOT a good thing, and the regulation has to WORK, or it has to be REMOVED.
Good or bad, pro or con, many people look to FDR as an example of a President that meddled in the economy more than any other in our history. My opinion is that he implemented policies and programs (seemingly willy-nilly) to see what would work, and what wouldn't. Some worked, and many others didn't. Those that didn't work were cut, ended or stopped by Congress or the Supreme Court (and not all with the blessing of FDR, either). Many are still in place, and many others are "New Deal" programs instutued by Presidents AFTER FDR, including such illustrious names as Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon... in fact, EVERY President until Ronald Reagan can be called a New Deal President.
What we CAN'T call ANY President of the US since Teddy Roosevelt is "capitalist". Wilson signed the plan for the Federal Reserve into law in 1913, which was authored by a Republican (the Party leader, in fact, Nelson Aldrich) and supported by every Democrat in Congress and almost NONE of the GOP. That act ended any semblance of "capitalism" in the US as regards Federal policy.
Whether the CIC broke monopolies, instituted regulations, forced legislation, vetoed Congressional measures, whatever the case was... every President since Teddy Roosevelt has worked to "regulate" the US economy in one way or another. So, from that historical viewpoint, I AM getting a little tired of listening to our current candidates repeating the mantras of "free market" and "capitalism" over and over again.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Solving the world's economic problems over a pint.
Not that I'm drinking this early in the morning ...
A valid observation Titus.
I was assuming - and I should state as well that I have no particular expertise and am simply stating what seems most workable to me - that with the influx of cash into our markets (via my first 3 proposals) that the still viable "lending institutions" would see their fair share of such investment cash which would allow for additional loans for qualified home buyers.
Also, the 200 billion available in low interest loans would be allowed to prop up the "biggies" such as Lehman Brothers, and/or whomever else had the most market potential to be viable with the assistance of such loans. My"assumption" would be that between these two acts of cash injections this would bring your 65% number down to well under 10% thus "culling" those from the heard that would be a waste of a tax payer dollars anyway, were the government bailout to go forward as is.
While I think this would almost certainly avoid a depression, I'm not saying this would eliminate ALL risk from at least a mild recession (even if my entire plan were to be implemented) but it seems to me a healthier option then the bail out - which has no guarantee of success either and for which I am CERTAIN the law of unintended negative consequences will be evident.
A valid observation Titus.
I was assuming - and I should state as well that I have no particular expertise and am simply stating what seems most workable to me - that with the influx of cash into our markets (via my first 3 proposals) that the still viable "lending institutions" would see their fair share of such investment cash which would allow for additional loans for qualified home buyers.
Also, the 200 billion available in low interest loans would be allowed to prop up the "biggies" such as Lehman Brothers, and/or whomever else had the most market potential to be viable with the assistance of such loans. My"assumption" would be that between these two acts of cash injections this would bring your 65% number down to well under 10% thus "culling" those from the heard that would be a waste of a tax payer dollars anyway, were the government bailout to go forward as is.
While I think this would almost certainly avoid a depression, I'm not saying this would eliminate ALL risk from at least a mild recession (even if my entire plan were to be implemented) but it seems to me a healthier option then the bail out - which has no guarantee of success either and for which I am CERTAIN the law of unintended negative consequences will be evident.
On "Sharia Law"...
I am impressed! Nicely done, showing me up like that. I wasn't aware that such measures had been taken in the UK, and I will investigate further and be better prepared for the next round of anti-Islamic debate.
All I will say is that you mentioned the "criminal" court aspect of these "sharia" courts, but they ARE NOT courts, and have no authority in and of themselves. They are (as you have shown) arbitrators of disputes that judge based ONLY on the mutual agreement and consent of BOTH parties. This means there is no measurable difference (in my eyes, anyway) between these "courts" and any other arbitration system in place in the UK.
If BOTH parties don't agree to abide by the rulings, then there is no authority to impose a ruling from this "sharia" court. That tells me it is a far cry from a "parallel system of justice" within the United Kingdom, and they have a long way to go before we see imams and sheiks sitting next to the Lords of the Queen's Bench handing down Islamic rulings as the Law of the Land.
Disturbing... yes.
Disasterous... no.
All I will say is that you mentioned the "criminal" court aspect of these "sharia" courts, but they ARE NOT courts, and have no authority in and of themselves. They are (as you have shown) arbitrators of disputes that judge based ONLY on the mutual agreement and consent of BOTH parties. This means there is no measurable difference (in my eyes, anyway) between these "courts" and any other arbitration system in place in the UK.
If BOTH parties don't agree to abide by the rulings, then there is no authority to impose a ruling from this "sharia" court. That tells me it is a far cry from a "parallel system of justice" within the United Kingdom, and they have a long way to go before we see imams and sheiks sitting next to the Lords of the Queen's Bench handing down Islamic rulings as the Law of the Land.
Disturbing... yes.
Disasterous... no.
On "Show of hands"...
You know, I like the "Ryan Plan"... especially the moratorium on capital gains as opposed to simply cutting it further.
However, you didn't explain how you would fix the financial problem as it exists RIGHT NOW. Even the Feds (notoriously bad at crisis assessment and estimation) puts the financial risk of the lending industry (not just the mortgage industry) at $800 billion dollars. Four of the ten largest lenders and loan insurance companies have already gone under, including Lehman Brothers... the biggest.
The issue as I understand it is as follows... (NOTE: I DO NOT claim to have any expertise or superior knowledge in this realm. I am simply passing on the most understandable explanation that I have heard to date)
Let's say that Ryan gets his wish, and no bail out happens. The most "at-risk" firms and institutions are forced to adjust the loans going into foreclosure anyway, because to simply foreclose the loan in a housing market that can't sustain the value of the LOAN, let alone the value of the HOME, the lender has no opportunity to recoup its loss and/or risk. This is BAD for the lender and/or guarantor of the loan, obviously.
Less "at risk" loans and mortgages are not adjusted, but restructured to allow homeowners and mortgagees to continue to struggle through the loan schedule until such time as they can successfully sell the home at its actual loan-value. This is bad for the homeowner and/or PMI provider.
The largest problem the lending market would face is the simple fact that NEW loans to people that qualify and can afford to pay them are not made because the lending insurance companies are incapable of taking on new risk, at ANY level. Thus, empty foreclosed homes stay on the market unsold, while viable new homeowners are unable to get loans. The housing market continues its downward cycle with no clear end in sight.
THIS is bad because more than 65% of the entire lending market is based on the sale of non-commercial real estate and the institution of new loans. This market facet is so important to American finance operations that almost NO banking, lending or savings institution in the US is without substantial real estate investments and risks.
It simply can't be ignored. To allow as much as 65% of ALL our major financing institution's investments to fail is FAR more than enough to collapse the present "soft" economy into what many think could be a "depression-era" slump that could dwarf October of 1929. The "margin's market" failure of '29 constituted only 17% of market investments... and left the lending market very nearly untouched (directly, at least) right through the 1930's.
(All figures and facts found HERE)
This is the simplest way I have heard yet to explain why SOMETHING has to be done to prop up the failing lending and housing markets, and why Fannie and Freddie can't (arguably) be allowed to collapse due to "free-market" pressure.
This is NOT an indicator that I have any idea of how to fix it. We have known for nearly a decade that this was a potential risk, and two Presidents and three Congresses have ignored the issue in lieu of maintaining the status quo. Removing or reducing the risk NOW won't stop the (seemingly) inevitable failure of more then 50% of all guranteed mortgages in the US if Fannie and Freddie go under.
However, you didn't explain how you would fix the financial problem as it exists RIGHT NOW. Even the Feds (notoriously bad at crisis assessment and estimation) puts the financial risk of the lending industry (not just the mortgage industry) at $800 billion dollars. Four of the ten largest lenders and loan insurance companies have already gone under, including Lehman Brothers... the biggest.
The issue as I understand it is as follows... (NOTE: I DO NOT claim to have any expertise or superior knowledge in this realm. I am simply passing on the most understandable explanation that I have heard to date)
Let's say that Ryan gets his wish, and no bail out happens. The most "at-risk" firms and institutions are forced to adjust the loans going into foreclosure anyway, because to simply foreclose the loan in a housing market that can't sustain the value of the LOAN, let alone the value of the HOME, the lender has no opportunity to recoup its loss and/or risk. This is BAD for the lender and/or guarantor of the loan, obviously.
Less "at risk" loans and mortgages are not adjusted, but restructured to allow homeowners and mortgagees to continue to struggle through the loan schedule until such time as they can successfully sell the home at its actual loan-value. This is bad for the homeowner and/or PMI provider.
The largest problem the lending market would face is the simple fact that NEW loans to people that qualify and can afford to pay them are not made because the lending insurance companies are incapable of taking on new risk, at ANY level. Thus, empty foreclosed homes stay on the market unsold, while viable new homeowners are unable to get loans. The housing market continues its downward cycle with no clear end in sight.
THIS is bad because more than 65% of the entire lending market is based on the sale of non-commercial real estate and the institution of new loans. This market facet is so important to American finance operations that almost NO banking, lending or savings institution in the US is without substantial real estate investments and risks.
It simply can't be ignored. To allow as much as 65% of ALL our major financing institution's investments to fail is FAR more than enough to collapse the present "soft" economy into what many think could be a "depression-era" slump that could dwarf October of 1929. The "margin's market" failure of '29 constituted only 17% of market investments... and left the lending market very nearly untouched (directly, at least) right through the 1930's.
(All figures and facts found HERE)
This is the simplest way I have heard yet to explain why SOMETHING has to be done to prop up the failing lending and housing markets, and why Fannie and Freddie can't (arguably) be allowed to collapse due to "free-market" pressure.
This is NOT an indicator that I have any idea of how to fix it. We have known for nearly a decade that this was a potential risk, and two Presidents and three Congresses have ignored the issue in lieu of maintaining the status quo. Removing or reducing the risk NOW won't stop the (seemingly) inevitable failure of more then 50% of all guranteed mortgages in the US if Fannie and Freddie go under.
Show of hands - who's for this 700 billion dollar bail out?
Let me go on the record and say that I am OPPOSED.
First, I hope everyone read my post just below this one. Believe me, that was one discussion that I wish I was wrong about.
To the bail out ...
I have never seen so many politicians in such a stupor over what to do at once. They are so disoriented on what to do that they can't even figure out a way to fight over it. The "it" is what the government action must be to stave off the impending financial doom that has been predicted if there is no federal action whatsoever. Look, I am not an economist, but I have common sense and perhaps an above average grasp of the ideological politics. And it seems to me that if a "bail out" or any action teetering on what is by definition socialism or at least further government intervention into the private sector, is considered "bad" during boom times then my best Vulcan logic tells me it is HORRIBLE during economic bust times. I'm not advocating zero government action, not by any stretch as you will see in a moment, but why mandate the feds to do the very thing they do least well of all? Spend money! It is scheduling disaster. If anyone thinks cronyism or obscene lobbying by special interests is bad now, let me point something out to you: this precedent setting monster bail out would set us all up for a generation's worth of cronyism and high pressure lobbying - times 100 of what it is at current. As it stands now corporate lobbying is done to achieve nearly one thing and one thing alone - deregulation. Whether that's in the form of lower taxes, special tax incentives, lessening of current regulations or just avoiding future regulations, corporate lobbying is meant to keep the feds off their back, period. Now, with this precedent, corporate lobbyists will be soliciting not merely tax breaks or incentives, but ACTUAL DOLLARS. An actual check. So let me ask you something - does the fact that they could possibly get actual monies just GIVEN if proper lobbying pressure is applied increase or decrease the risk of corruption or at least actions contrary to the best interests of Joe & Jane America? No my friends, this is a horrible idea. And the thought that Pelosi and Reid want to set up a PERMANENT commission to go around and buy up bad debt on behalf of the federal government sends a very cold chill down my well developed back.
So, what would F.Ryan suggest? What is the "Ryan Economic Initiative?" I'll give It to you, for I am honor bound to provide my answer if I am to slam someone else's.
1.) Reform Sarbanes-Oxley. It has been said that congress has only two speeds - zero and overreact, and this is certainly true with this bill which quite literally shifted the financial center of the universe from New York to London. Sarbanes-Oxley was a response by Congress to the various high-profile scandals on Wall Street. You know the names: WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing. In short a small number of executives were acting primarily for their own interests, as opposed to on behalf of the interests of shareholders. And in at least one case—Arthur Andersen, one of the Big Five accounting firms—there were some accountants that either were intentionally complicit or were sort of turning the other way in order to make their clients happy. The problem is section 404 of that legislation.You have a confluence of problems with the way Section 404 has been implemented by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which the PCAOB reports to. The basic problem is that on the one hand, you've got total ambiguity—nobody knows what a "problem" IS in today's accounting world in 404 compliance. And in Sarbanes-Oxley they have imposed not just civil but criminal penalties on everybody involved in the process. So, if you're an executive officer, a CFO, a CEO, or if you're a member of the board of directors, the internal accountants who work for your company and give you advice about how to comply are not just civilly responsible, but they can go to jail if they make an error. We don't know whether one box of paper clips is enough to send you to jail or to get you sued in a serious way. That's the problem - the language is so fuzzy that in theory a CEO of a 10 billion dollar company could be brought up on charges for mislabeling a company purchase for a magazine subscription! It must be reformed. There must be specific language layed out so EVERYONE knows where they stand. This, according to my sources, has driven billions of not just domestic venture capital over seas, but foreign investment especially. They don't want the risk of a jail sentence over staples! Put specific language in, and, as #1 part A.) get a prosecutor oriented politician (such as Guliani for example) into the chairmanships of the SEC & PCAOB (& making Romney Treasury Sec wouldn't hurt either). But no matter whom you put in the economic enforcement seats of power, now you have SPECIFIC AND MEASURABLE oversight with individual high profile faces responsible for that enforcement rather then this fuzzy, open for interpretation (grossly so) ambiguous mess of a law. So that's number 1.
2.) Put a 2 year moratorium on the capital gains tax. It being the tax levied on a person or corporation for the profitable sale of any stock. It's at 15% right now. Obama has stated he would double it if elected, which made even fellow Democrats cringe - each time it has been cut in the last 25 years the revenues to the treasury went up. It's established dogma now, that's why no one messes with it ... until Obama. Not to mention the dollars that would flood in if there is zero tax liability on making sound investment choices. So that's at zero, and now combined with the reformation of Sarbanes you are REALLY making investing in the US markets VERY attractive to foreign and domestic peoples with the capital to invest.
3.) Cut corporate tax in half. Currently we have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. How much revenue, not to mention jobs, would be created if you as a corporate entity you were able to have the most profitable consumer market in the world - the US - as your base of operations? We are rapidly losing competitiveness and sending dollars to London et al by leaving this tax (at this rate) and Sarbanes in place. You see what I'm driving at here with the first 3 proposals? Getting PRIVATE money voluntarily pumped into US markets rather then the American tax payer giving it away to the worst of the worst run companies.
4.) Outlaw mortgage loan profit guarantees. Make entities like Freddie and Fannie thoroughly examine their investments knowing THEIR DECISION MAKING is the only "guarantee" of profitability they will have to rely upon when purchasing a mortgage from a lender. Those two institutions were the first domino when the correction in home values came. Were there no "loan profit guarantees" I'd be willing to wager that there would be a lot less mortgage "write downs" on the books at Freddie, thus avoiding the proverbial straw on this camel's back.
5.) Pick up Teddy Roosevelt's manacle (and even a stick if needed) and bust Freddie and Fannie into a million pieces. Not tear it down mind you, but break it up. Doesn't it strike anyone else as "risky" for 50% of home mortgages in the United Sates to be owned by a single entity, even if it is a quasi government/private business? Spread that risk around I say. And because it's incestuously linked to the government, making that bust up happen should be relatively short work. Make quite literally a hundred different companies out of the two giants (Freddie and Fannie) with a hundred different CEO's and write the legislation in such a way that it must remain so. NOW you have limited the risk by spreading it around AND limited the affects of poor management and hard market corrections in the housing market. Not to mention, as 100 separate entity's the lobbying power Freddie currently enjoys as a single monter of a company would all but disappear. And again, I stress Freddie/Fannie because they were the first domino.
6.) Make low interest federal loans available. Now that the first 3 of my proposals have pumped hundreds of billions into the US economy, and we've shored up a future Freddie debacle by trust-busting it, we can allow the classic institutions (including but not limited to: Lehman's, Goldman Sachs) that are teetering on bankruptcy to secure low interest loans. BUT limit the entire amount available to 200 billion dollars so that only the most qualified "slumpers" (the best of the worst) will be granted a loan ( by virtue of the finite, lower amount available) thus limiting the tax payer's burden to only those companies with the best chance of paying the monies back, with interest.
Any one company that can not survive after these 6 proposals are implemented deserves to fade away into economic obscurity ... rather then be given a free lunch by you and I. I reiterate that the bailou, is scheduling a disaster. The one mantra that unites fiscal conservatives and fiscal moderates alike is that, "throwing money at it won't fix the problem." Yet that is exactly what the PoTUS and his Treasury Secretary want to do. Rather give the markets the tools to fix itself, and it will. "Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish ..." logic. If ever the phrase. "the cure is worse then the illness" applied, it's now, embodied in that $700,000,000,000 tax payer funded check. The "Ryan Economic Initiative" holds much more promise in my best estimation.
I welcome your thoughts.
First, I hope everyone read my post just below this one. Believe me, that was one discussion that I wish I was wrong about.
To the bail out ...
I have never seen so many politicians in such a stupor over what to do at once. They are so disoriented on what to do that they can't even figure out a way to fight over it. The "it" is what the government action must be to stave off the impending financial doom that has been predicted if there is no federal action whatsoever. Look, I am not an economist, but I have common sense and perhaps an above average grasp of the ideological politics. And it seems to me that if a "bail out" or any action teetering on what is by definition socialism or at least further government intervention into the private sector, is considered "bad" during boom times then my best Vulcan logic tells me it is HORRIBLE during economic bust times. I'm not advocating zero government action, not by any stretch as you will see in a moment, but why mandate the feds to do the very thing they do least well of all? Spend money! It is scheduling disaster. If anyone thinks cronyism or obscene lobbying by special interests is bad now, let me point something out to you: this precedent setting monster bail out would set us all up for a generation's worth of cronyism and high pressure lobbying - times 100 of what it is at current. As it stands now corporate lobbying is done to achieve nearly one thing and one thing alone - deregulation. Whether that's in the form of lower taxes, special tax incentives, lessening of current regulations or just avoiding future regulations, corporate lobbying is meant to keep the feds off their back, period. Now, with this precedent, corporate lobbyists will be soliciting not merely tax breaks or incentives, but ACTUAL DOLLARS. An actual check. So let me ask you something - does the fact that they could possibly get actual monies just GIVEN if proper lobbying pressure is applied increase or decrease the risk of corruption or at least actions contrary to the best interests of Joe & Jane America? No my friends, this is a horrible idea. And the thought that Pelosi and Reid want to set up a PERMANENT commission to go around and buy up bad debt on behalf of the federal government sends a very cold chill down my well developed back.
So, what would F.Ryan suggest? What is the "Ryan Economic Initiative?" I'll give It to you, for I am honor bound to provide my answer if I am to slam someone else's.
1.) Reform Sarbanes-Oxley. It has been said that congress has only two speeds - zero and overreact, and this is certainly true with this bill which quite literally shifted the financial center of the universe from New York to London. Sarbanes-Oxley was a response by Congress to the various high-profile scandals on Wall Street. You know the names: WorldCom, Enron, Global Crossing. In short a small number of executives were acting primarily for their own interests, as opposed to on behalf of the interests of shareholders. And in at least one case—Arthur Andersen, one of the Big Five accounting firms—there were some accountants that either were intentionally complicit or were sort of turning the other way in order to make their clients happy. The problem is section 404 of that legislation.You have a confluence of problems with the way Section 404 has been implemented by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which the PCAOB reports to. The basic problem is that on the one hand, you've got total ambiguity—nobody knows what a "problem" IS in today's accounting world in 404 compliance. And in Sarbanes-Oxley they have imposed not just civil but criminal penalties on everybody involved in the process. So, if you're an executive officer, a CFO, a CEO, or if you're a member of the board of directors, the internal accountants who work for your company and give you advice about how to comply are not just civilly responsible, but they can go to jail if they make an error. We don't know whether one box of paper clips is enough to send you to jail or to get you sued in a serious way. That's the problem - the language is so fuzzy that in theory a CEO of a 10 billion dollar company could be brought up on charges for mislabeling a company purchase for a magazine subscription! It must be reformed. There must be specific language layed out so EVERYONE knows where they stand. This, according to my sources, has driven billions of not just domestic venture capital over seas, but foreign investment especially. They don't want the risk of a jail sentence over staples! Put specific language in, and, as #1 part A.) get a prosecutor oriented politician (such as Guliani for example) into the chairmanships of the SEC & PCAOB (& making Romney Treasury Sec wouldn't hurt either). But no matter whom you put in the economic enforcement seats of power, now you have SPECIFIC AND MEASURABLE oversight with individual high profile faces responsible for that enforcement rather then this fuzzy, open for interpretation (grossly so) ambiguous mess of a law. So that's number 1.
2.) Put a 2 year moratorium on the capital gains tax. It being the tax levied on a person or corporation for the profitable sale of any stock. It's at 15% right now. Obama has stated he would double it if elected, which made even fellow Democrats cringe - each time it has been cut in the last 25 years the revenues to the treasury went up. It's established dogma now, that's why no one messes with it ... until Obama. Not to mention the dollars that would flood in if there is zero tax liability on making sound investment choices. So that's at zero, and now combined with the reformation of Sarbanes you are REALLY making investing in the US markets VERY attractive to foreign and domestic peoples with the capital to invest.
3.) Cut corporate tax in half. Currently we have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. How much revenue, not to mention jobs, would be created if you as a corporate entity you were able to have the most profitable consumer market in the world - the US - as your base of operations? We are rapidly losing competitiveness and sending dollars to London et al by leaving this tax (at this rate) and Sarbanes in place. You see what I'm driving at here with the first 3 proposals? Getting PRIVATE money voluntarily pumped into US markets rather then the American tax payer giving it away to the worst of the worst run companies.
4.) Outlaw mortgage loan profit guarantees. Make entities like Freddie and Fannie thoroughly examine their investments knowing THEIR DECISION MAKING is the only "guarantee" of profitability they will have to rely upon when purchasing a mortgage from a lender. Those two institutions were the first domino when the correction in home values came. Were there no "loan profit guarantees" I'd be willing to wager that there would be a lot less mortgage "write downs" on the books at Freddie, thus avoiding the proverbial straw on this camel's back.
5.) Pick up Teddy Roosevelt's manacle (and even a stick if needed) and bust Freddie and Fannie into a million pieces. Not tear it down mind you, but break it up. Doesn't it strike anyone else as "risky" for 50% of home mortgages in the United Sates to be owned by a single entity, even if it is a quasi government/private business? Spread that risk around I say. And because it's incestuously linked to the government, making that bust up happen should be relatively short work. Make quite literally a hundred different companies out of the two giants (Freddie and Fannie) with a hundred different CEO's and write the legislation in such a way that it must remain so. NOW you have limited the risk by spreading it around AND limited the affects of poor management and hard market corrections in the housing market. Not to mention, as 100 separate entity's the lobbying power Freddie currently enjoys as a single monter of a company would all but disappear. And again, I stress Freddie/Fannie because they were the first domino.
6.) Make low interest federal loans available. Now that the first 3 of my proposals have pumped hundreds of billions into the US economy, and we've shored up a future Freddie debacle by trust-busting it, we can allow the classic institutions (including but not limited to: Lehman's, Goldman Sachs) that are teetering on bankruptcy to secure low interest loans. BUT limit the entire amount available to 200 billion dollars so that only the most qualified "slumpers" (the best of the worst) will be granted a loan ( by virtue of the finite, lower amount available) thus limiting the tax payer's burden to only those companies with the best chance of paying the monies back, with interest.
Any one company that can not survive after these 6 proposals are implemented deserves to fade away into economic obscurity ... rather then be given a free lunch by you and I. I reiterate that the bailou, is scheduling a disaster. The one mantra that unites fiscal conservatives and fiscal moderates alike is that, "throwing money at it won't fix the problem." Yet that is exactly what the PoTUS and his Treasury Secretary want to do. Rather give the markets the tools to fix itself, and it will. "Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish ..." logic. If ever the phrase. "the cure is worse then the illness" applied, it's now, embodied in that $700,000,000,000 tax payer funded check. The "Ryan Economic Initiative" holds much more promise in my best estimation.
I welcome your thoughts.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Islam 1 : Britain 0
Titus wrote today:
" I have heard Muslim elements call for separate courts ... I have NOT heard even ONE representative voice of British Government voice serious consideration of this plan, though. No one from Downing Street, or Parliament, or the House of Lords seems to be taking the question seriously at all. They wouldn't do it for the Irish, the Scots, or the Welsh... I find it terribly difficult to believe that they would do it for a Muslim minority, no matter how vocal."
Alright, I believe you. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. I believe you haven't heard anyone within their government take the calls for Muslim Courts seriously. And furthermore that you don't think they will allow such a thing to even initiate, let alone that's its already operating now. I mean it's not like our PC press would publicize it to the point of saturation from sea to shining sea (outside of a one day story on FOX).
So, below is from the London Times Online dated 9/14/08 (link is at the bottom). And you can check a myriad of UK online mainstream newspapers (Telegraph, etc), all of the articles confirm the same thing.
From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008
Revealed: UK’s First Official Sharia Courts
Abul Taher
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
Two things: First, the equivalent of their Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the head of their judiciary, Chief Justice Lord Phillips, is on the record with his endorsement of the idea as you can see from above. I think that qualifies as "one representative voice of the British government." Secondly, the key here which separates it from the Jewish arbitration Courts (the Beth Din courts), is that the government - quietly or otherwise - is allowing for British common law courts to enforce these rulings as law, even in criminal cases such as domestic violence. Beth Din is still voluntary compliance as WAS the Shari courts. In other words previously if you didn't agree with the Sharia ruling you could still take your case to "real court" and start from scratch. And that is still the case in the Jewish court for precisely the reason that there MUST be one court system enforceable by law for everyone ... not any more. You noted my point about the Muslim Courts was a quote, "sound one." And that was with your belief that these courts were still a fundamentalist's pipe dream. Now that you see they are a reality and carry as much weight with the cases they hear as do the British Court's, I'm curious if you've moved on from employing adjectives such as "sound" ... to "alarmed?"
" I have heard Muslim elements call for separate courts ... I have NOT heard even ONE representative voice of British Government voice serious consideration of this plan, though. No one from Downing Street, or Parliament, or the House of Lords seems to be taking the question seriously at all. They wouldn't do it for the Irish, the Scots, or the Welsh... I find it terribly difficult to believe that they would do it for a Muslim minority, no matter how vocal."
Alright, I believe you. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. I believe you haven't heard anyone within their government take the calls for Muslim Courts seriously. And furthermore that you don't think they will allow such a thing to even initiate, let alone that's its already operating now. I mean it's not like our PC press would publicize it to the point of saturation from sea to shining sea (outside of a one day story on FOX).
So, below is from the London Times Online dated 9/14/08 (link is at the bottom). And you can check a myriad of UK online mainstream newspapers (Telegraph, etc), all of the articles confirm the same thing.
From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008
Revealed: UK’s First Official Sharia Courts
Abul Taher
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
Two things: First, the equivalent of their Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the head of their judiciary, Chief Justice Lord Phillips, is on the record with his endorsement of the idea as you can see from above. I think that qualifies as "one representative voice of the British government." Secondly, the key here which separates it from the Jewish arbitration Courts (the Beth Din courts), is that the government - quietly or otherwise - is allowing for British common law courts to enforce these rulings as law, even in criminal cases such as domestic violence. Beth Din is still voluntary compliance as WAS the Shari courts. In other words previously if you didn't agree with the Sharia ruling you could still take your case to "real court" and start from scratch. And that is still the case in the Jewish court for precisely the reason that there MUST be one court system enforceable by law for everyone ... not any more. You noted my point about the Muslim Courts was a quote, "sound one." And that was with your belief that these courts were still a fundamentalist's pipe dream. Now that you see they are a reality and carry as much weight with the cases they hear as do the British Court's, I'm curious if you've moved on from employing adjectives such as "sound" ... to "alarmed?"
It's easy!
There are NO examples of a functional democracy surviving the kind of immigration trial you are describing, because NO functional democracy has a history that spans more than 300 years.
Your point about sharia courts in the UK is a sound one, but I would venture this observation: I have heard the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Rowan Williams) advocate for a separate court in a half-hearted attempt to look tolerant and accommodating (much as he does any controversial topic in his own Church!). I have heard many fringe elements within British society call for a separate court system, claiming that the existing Courts (High and Low) are too biased by 1200 years of Christian affiliation. Of course, I have heard Muslim elements call for separate courts... for reasons too obvious to detail.
I have NOT heard even ONE representative voice of British Government voice serious consideration of this plan, though. No one from Downing Street, or Parliament, or the House of Lords seems to be taking the question seriously at all. They wouldn't do it for the Irish, the Scots, or the Welsh... I find it terribly difficult to believe that they would do it for a Muslim minority, no matter how vocal.
Your point about sharia courts in the UK is a sound one, but I would venture this observation: I have heard the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Rowan Williams) advocate for a separate court in a half-hearted attempt to look tolerant and accommodating (much as he does any controversial topic in his own Church!). I have heard many fringe elements within British society call for a separate court system, claiming that the existing Courts (High and Low) are too biased by 1200 years of Christian affiliation. Of course, I have heard Muslim elements call for separate courts... for reasons too obvious to detail.
I have NOT heard even ONE representative voice of British Government voice serious consideration of this plan, though. No one from Downing Street, or Parliament, or the House of Lords seems to be taking the question seriously at all. They wouldn't do it for the Irish, the Scots, or the Welsh... I find it terribly difficult to believe that they would do it for a Muslim minority, no matter how vocal.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
"Muscle bound Alex P. Keaton."
That was GOOD.
For the record, I listen to talk radio or my ipod as I work out, not the gym's sound system. And as I said in the text I "saw" him on one of the 200 TV's in there - which yes, I did find distressing given he was doing his best Justin Timberlake impression, hip-hop dancing and clothes to match ... I can't take seeing "Lip" like that. I just can't.
At any rate ...
"OUR system of government provides for and protects the INDIVIDUAL liberties of the citizen, without compromising the freedoms of those around them. What more perfect and functional system of "assimilation" can we hope for? "
I still contend that the VAST majority of immigrants to this nation (and this includes many of the illegals, too) are coming so they can BECOME AMERICAN, and not to force America to becoming something else.
"Ryan's post focuses much of its attention on Europe and how she is coping with an alien immigrant culture... but, outside of England, none of the nations he listed have their "Rule of Law" in place for even HALF the time we have had ours... most, far less. The US Constitution has stood the test of time far better than the Rights of Man Act, or the Basic Law of Greater Germany ..."
First off, I thought I made the point clear at least 3 times that this "problem" as I saw it was one in which America was NOT having at present nor for the foreseeable future. We have no daylight between us there, so I assume this was just you agreeing with me rather then the converse. In fact it's one of the reasons Steyn titled his book: AMERICA ALONE, because he (as I and you apparently) believe we (read: The United States) could resist reverse assimilation whereas Europe & Canada can not. Second, the fact that England - as you stated above has had its Rule Of Law in place much longer then the rest of Europe - is THE PLACE which is having its law subverted, or perhaps supplanted is a better word, with "Muslim Courts", should scare the holy bat crap out of any democracy in existence at current. And in that capacity it affects not America's culture or Rule of Law etc, but possibly the relationships with her traditional alliances (in a generation or two).
One last thing:
"I'm still waiting for you to show me that these aren't the same issues and concerns held by "conservatives" at any point in history when a society has been faced with an influx of alien culture brought by a large, immigrant population ..."
Of course these are many of the same "concerns" that conservatives have traditionally held throughout history regarding alien culture's immigrating. That's not the point. The point is that "what" we conservatives are concerned about now is different - namely the importation of a group of peoples united with arguably draconian outlooks on law and liberty DURING an era in which the host country (the UK) has embraced "tolerance" to a point of enabling the supplantation of their own Rule Of Law. Now YOU show me in history when such a thing has happened - the rapid importation of a century's behind religious ideology (in terms of liberty and tolerance) into a democratic host country so wrapped up in "PC tolerance" that their own rule of law (i.e. their courts) is being supplanted by that alien ideology. Show me in history where that turned out just honky dory and "conservatives" were shown to have misplaced concerns regarding that in specific. THEN I'll stop worrying about Europe and the relationship affects it could have on the US.
And remember: the parameters of that example have to be specific to what's occurring in the UK and Europe as a whole (along with Canada): the rapid (doubling every ten years) importation of younger workers whom are generally united by a single religion, into a modern democrat society that has placed specific emphasis on a PC tolerant approach to alien religions all while those new worker immigrants insist and are granted the right to form their own court system and are given special access to public communication outlets (i.e. Canada's public speakers) to proselytize and practice their religion, as where indigenous religions are not. And oh ya - that "single religion" of the rapidly imported workers has to be at the point in history you point out, the one responsible for 90% of the terror attacks world wide.
You show me THAT example in history turning out just peachy for the host country, and I will belay my concerns. As I said, this situation is unique to the "if its not the Italians it the Irish" old argument that any type of immigration is healthy. Thus, I don't think you'll find your example. But I'll be waiting with baited breath ....
For the record, I listen to talk radio or my ipod as I work out, not the gym's sound system. And as I said in the text I "saw" him on one of the 200 TV's in there - which yes, I did find distressing given he was doing his best Justin Timberlake impression, hip-hop dancing and clothes to match ... I can't take seeing "Lip" like that. I just can't.
At any rate ...
"OUR system of government provides for and protects the INDIVIDUAL liberties of the citizen, without compromising the freedoms of those around them. What more perfect and functional system of "assimilation" can we hope for? "
I still contend that the VAST majority of immigrants to this nation (and this includes many of the illegals, too) are coming so they can BECOME AMERICAN, and not to force America to becoming something else.
"Ryan's post focuses much of its attention on Europe and how she is coping with an alien immigrant culture... but, outside of England, none of the nations he listed have their "Rule of Law" in place for even HALF the time we have had ours... most, far less. The US Constitution has stood the test of time far better than the Rights of Man Act, or the Basic Law of Greater Germany ..."
First off, I thought I made the point clear at least 3 times that this "problem" as I saw it was one in which America was NOT having at present nor for the foreseeable future. We have no daylight between us there, so I assume this was just you agreeing with me rather then the converse. In fact it's one of the reasons Steyn titled his book: AMERICA ALONE, because he (as I and you apparently) believe we (read: The United States) could resist reverse assimilation whereas Europe & Canada can not. Second, the fact that England - as you stated above has had its Rule Of Law in place much longer then the rest of Europe - is THE PLACE which is having its law subverted, or perhaps supplanted is a better word, with "Muslim Courts", should scare the holy bat crap out of any democracy in existence at current. And in that capacity it affects not America's culture or Rule of Law etc, but possibly the relationships with her traditional alliances (in a generation or two).
One last thing:
"I'm still waiting for you to show me that these aren't the same issues and concerns held by "conservatives" at any point in history when a society has been faced with an influx of alien culture brought by a large, immigrant population ..."
Of course these are many of the same "concerns" that conservatives have traditionally held throughout history regarding alien culture's immigrating. That's not the point. The point is that "what" we conservatives are concerned about now is different - namely the importation of a group of peoples united with arguably draconian outlooks on law and liberty DURING an era in which the host country (the UK) has embraced "tolerance" to a point of enabling the supplantation of their own Rule Of Law. Now YOU show me in history when such a thing has happened - the rapid importation of a century's behind religious ideology (in terms of liberty and tolerance) into a democratic host country so wrapped up in "PC tolerance" that their own rule of law (i.e. their courts) is being supplanted by that alien ideology. Show me in history where that turned out just honky dory and "conservatives" were shown to have misplaced concerns regarding that in specific. THEN I'll stop worrying about Europe and the relationship affects it could have on the US.
And remember: the parameters of that example have to be specific to what's occurring in the UK and Europe as a whole (along with Canada): the rapid (doubling every ten years) importation of younger workers whom are generally united by a single religion, into a modern democrat society that has placed specific emphasis on a PC tolerant approach to alien religions all while those new worker immigrants insist and are granted the right to form their own court system and are given special access to public communication outlets (i.e. Canada's public speakers) to proselytize and practice their religion, as where indigenous religions are not. And oh ya - that "single religion" of the rapidly imported workers has to be at the point in history you point out, the one responsible for 90% of the terror attacks world wide.
You show me THAT example in history turning out just peachy for the host country, and I will belay my concerns. As I said, this situation is unique to the "if its not the Italians it the Irish" old argument that any type of immigration is healthy. Thus, I don't think you'll find your example. But I'll be waiting with baited breath ....
On Ryan...
Just thought I'd share with you all just how deep Ryan's mania runs...
He sends me a text stating that he is at Gold's Gym and is working out while watching 1st Srgt Lipton (played in the Band of Brothers by Donnie Wahlberg of New Kids on the Block fame) dance and sing in a reunion tour of his boy-band days.
I can't express how distressing an image it is to think of this muscle-bound version of Alex P. Keaton sweating and pumping iron while raptly staring at a balding, 39-year old boy-band-wash-up as he dances and sings his way through a crowd of soccer-moms reliving their teenage wet-dreams.
{shudder}
He sends me a text stating that he is at Gold's Gym and is working out while watching 1st Srgt Lipton (played in the Band of Brothers by Donnie Wahlberg of New Kids on the Block fame) dance and sing in a reunion tour of his boy-band days.
I can't express how distressing an image it is to think of this muscle-bound version of Alex P. Keaton sweating and pumping iron while raptly staring at a balding, 39-year old boy-band-wash-up as he dances and sings his way through a crowd of soccer-moms reliving their teenage wet-dreams.
{shudder}
All I have to say is...
I'm still waiting for you to show me that these aren't the same issues and concerns held by "conservatives" at any point in history when a society has been faced with an influx of alien culture brought by a large, immigrant population.
Rome had the Goths, the Iberians, the Icenii, the Bretons, and the Germans ALL looking to become a member of the Roman society. Rome was reluctant or refused this assimilation, and non-assimilation was the result. The British Empire had no better success with the natives of it's own islands. The Irish, the Scots and the Welsh have ALL had their issues with "British" assimilation... right up to the decade of the 1990's.
This is no more successful campaign of assimilation than the ones we have seen in US history. The forced segregation by society (if not by the government itself) of immigrant minorities such as the Italian, the Greek, the German, the Irish, the Chinese, the Korean, the Vietnamese, and the Mexican immigrants to this nation from its inception to the 1970's delayed the assimilation of these groups for multiple generations, rather than the expected single generation. However, prior to the "rush" of illegals in the 1980's, society here in America DID see assimilation at work.
FORCED assimilation certainly has had no better success. The Native American people were forced to learn English in traditional Western-style schools, and the assimilation never really took place. Only in the last 20 years have American Indians seen their general standard of living parallel that of the rest of the Anglo-Saxon majority of America, and I'm not sure it still isn't below the "average" in the broad spectrum. "Integration" within the black community is replete with examples of forced and failed assimilation, and not only in the South. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that many Southern states have a BETTER track record than most Northern States.
OUR system of government provides for and protects the INDIVIDUAL liberties of the citizen, without compromising the freedoms of those around them. What more perfect and functional system of "assimilation" can we hope for?
I still contend that the VAST majority of immigrants to this nation (and this includes many of the illegals, too) are coming so they can BECOME AMERICAN, and not to force America to becoming something else. I will admit that there are many "civil rights" groups in the US that encourage Mexican and other Latino immigrants to maintain and continue their culture and heritage, but I feel these are the exception rather than the rule, and that these organizations are much like the modern-day labor unions in that they fight to preserve a DIFFERENCE to justify their own existence.
Look at the long and storied history of immigration in this country, and tell me I am wrong when I say that immigrant people assimilated successfully BECAUSE of our LAWS and FREEDOMS, and IN SPITE of society's best efforts to stop it.
I look at the modern issue, and see "conservatives" wanting to change the LAWS to suit their view of SOCIETY, and IN SPITE of history's lesson that assimilation is a process in America, not a government requirement for residency.
It is not the Federal government's JOB to protect Christianity from the encroachment of Islam in America. If, over the next 100 years, the majority of Americans choose to follow Allah rather than Jesus Christ... I'd say that is a failing on the part of Christianity's leaders, not the Feds. However, if this is true, then the opposite must also be true... and the Feds have to STOP protecting non-Christian faiths while limiting the practice of only Christianity.
Ryan's post focuses much of its attention on Europe and how she is coping with an alien immigrant culture... but, outside of England, none of the nations he listed have their "Rule of Law" in place for even HALF the time we have had ours... most, far less. The US Constitution has stood the test of time far better than the Rights of Man Act, or the Basic Law of Greater Germany, or any of the other "baker's dozen" insturments of government that constitute European political foundation. The failings of European states to assimilate is not, and should never be, a reflection on American immigration policy.
Period.
Rome had the Goths, the Iberians, the Icenii, the Bretons, and the Germans ALL looking to become a member of the Roman society. Rome was reluctant or refused this assimilation, and non-assimilation was the result. The British Empire had no better success with the natives of it's own islands. The Irish, the Scots and the Welsh have ALL had their issues with "British" assimilation... right up to the decade of the 1990's.
This is no more successful campaign of assimilation than the ones we have seen in US history. The forced segregation by society (if not by the government itself) of immigrant minorities such as the Italian, the Greek, the German, the Irish, the Chinese, the Korean, the Vietnamese, and the Mexican immigrants to this nation from its inception to the 1970's delayed the assimilation of these groups for multiple generations, rather than the expected single generation. However, prior to the "rush" of illegals in the 1980's, society here in America DID see assimilation at work.
FORCED assimilation certainly has had no better success. The Native American people were forced to learn English in traditional Western-style schools, and the assimilation never really took place. Only in the last 20 years have American Indians seen their general standard of living parallel that of the rest of the Anglo-Saxon majority of America, and I'm not sure it still isn't below the "average" in the broad spectrum. "Integration" within the black community is replete with examples of forced and failed assimilation, and not only in the South. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that many Southern states have a BETTER track record than most Northern States.
OUR system of government provides for and protects the INDIVIDUAL liberties of the citizen, without compromising the freedoms of those around them. What more perfect and functional system of "assimilation" can we hope for?
I still contend that the VAST majority of immigrants to this nation (and this includes many of the illegals, too) are coming so they can BECOME AMERICAN, and not to force America to becoming something else. I will admit that there are many "civil rights" groups in the US that encourage Mexican and other Latino immigrants to maintain and continue their culture and heritage, but I feel these are the exception rather than the rule, and that these organizations are much like the modern-day labor unions in that they fight to preserve a DIFFERENCE to justify their own existence.
Look at the long and storied history of immigration in this country, and tell me I am wrong when I say that immigrant people assimilated successfully BECAUSE of our LAWS and FREEDOMS, and IN SPITE of society's best efforts to stop it.
I look at the modern issue, and see "conservatives" wanting to change the LAWS to suit their view of SOCIETY, and IN SPITE of history's lesson that assimilation is a process in America, not a government requirement for residency.
It is not the Federal government's JOB to protect Christianity from the encroachment of Islam in America. If, over the next 100 years, the majority of Americans choose to follow Allah rather than Jesus Christ... I'd say that is a failing on the part of Christianity's leaders, not the Feds. However, if this is true, then the opposite must also be true... and the Feds have to STOP protecting non-Christian faiths while limiting the practice of only Christianity.
Ryan's post focuses much of its attention on Europe and how she is coping with an alien immigrant culture... but, outside of England, none of the nations he listed have their "Rule of Law" in place for even HALF the time we have had ours... most, far less. The US Constitution has stood the test of time far better than the Rights of Man Act, or the Basic Law of Greater Germany, or any of the other "baker's dozen" insturments of government that constitute European political foundation. The failings of European states to assimilate is not, and should never be, a reflection on American immigration policy.
Period.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Did you say "Plunky little monk"
Have you been in Jambos CCD classes. That sounds like you need to start embracing your inner Catholic.
I should add ...
The author of the book which inspired my longer then average post is being brought up on charges in Canada for which he will have to appear in court to address. The CIC, that's the Canadian Islamic Congress, filed a human rights violation with ... drum roll please ... the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, and the Alberta Human Rights Commission on the grounds of his, "blatant Islamaphobia." He has had to hire attorney's, appear multiple times in court and if found guilty (it's yet to be adjudicated) have his book banned from reproduction (if ever there was a pun) in Canada all while paying stiff fines too ... for writing a book. This assuming as both an American citizen and a subject of the British Crown he steps foot back in that country. Now I'm curious - what if you're a writer of lesser note, with less resources financial and otherwise then this chap? A writer for whom Canada IS home? Do you even dare write the book? It is a blatant attempt at suppression of information in its most basic form - the written word. While they sell Mein Kampf openly - authored by the greatest offender of human rights ever to walk the earth - this writer gets hauled into court, and by the very people whom would undoubtedly defend that Muslim book store owner's right to a curious taste for "German literature."
Natan Sharansky (the first political prisoner released by Gorbachev in the waining years of the Soviet Empire and coauthor of The Case For Democracy), once defined "true freedom" as being able to pass a "test" as he defined it: "Can you stand in the middle of the town square and declare your dislike and disapproval of your government and your community without fear of reciprocity?" I dare say that our North American brethren are in danger of failing that test.
Natan Sharansky (the first political prisoner released by Gorbachev in the waining years of the Soviet Empire and coauthor of The Case For Democracy), once defined "true freedom" as being able to pass a "test" as he defined it: "Can you stand in the middle of the town square and declare your dislike and disapproval of your government and your community without fear of reciprocity?" I dare say that our North American brethren are in danger of failing that test.
Monday, September 22, 2008
"You can't buck demography."
So several months ago I read a television headline that was somewhat unnerving. The television sat on mute, as it often does in my household in the morning - I listen to the radio, I watch TV as I'm going about household chores and I and I alone will decide when a television broadcast deserves the right to be heard in my living room, a rarer and rarer occasion these days I assure you. But I digress, where was I? Awe yes, the headline - at the bottom of the FOX News broadcast it read: UK Considering Allowing Muslim Court Rulings To Be Enforceable By Law. Now, I didn't know which one I found more troubling - the fact that the United Kingdom was considering this action, or that within the heart of one of the West's most established democracies there even existed such a room which read on the outside: Welcome to the Muslim Court. So I did what our group does, I went online to research it. And as I did I came across a book I've heard mentioned before on various talk radio programs. And when I saw that the author was advertising - as a badge of honor no less - that the book was about to be banned in Canada, I said to myself, this is our type of guy. America Alone, The End Of The World As We Know It. Ahhh, an optimist! Quite the uplifting title don't you think? Well I bought it on Amazon and cracked it open last night on my breaks at work, and was through the first few chapters before my shifts end. I urge each of you to read it, this is OUR type of author - UK born, Vermont living, sharp tonged writer with that fantastic dry English humor when it comes to our ultimate demise. You'll laugh out loud - that is, when you're not crying. Now ... to the crying part, and what my literary purchase has to do with the FOX News bottom of the screen headline.
As I delve into this subject I want to state categorically that this is a paraphrased weave of both my own interpretations and observations, and that of the author of America Alone - Mark Steyn. Were he to venture on to our little site and notice, "hey, that chap just used my argument", I want to have dutifully given the proper credit. So Steyn if you're reading this, great book so far, and I'm about to use it ...
Alright. Demography.
"When history comes calling it will start with the most basic question of all - who's there?" Would any one venture to guess what the most popular new -born boys' name in Belgium is? No, not some high windy mountain Western European name, like I don't know - Franz. It's Mohammed. Sweden? Mohammed. Amsterdam? Mohammed. In the United Kingdom as of 2005 Mohammed was the 5th most popular boys' name. While that fact is settling in let's think for a second whom the world's last great super power was. Something about a sun never setting ... often Imperial Britain's success is chalked up to their decisive mastery of the seas. Put simply, they had the best Navy, period. But there is a subtext there of equal importance. How exactly did this "pipsqueak" of an island, with 28 million people in the North Atlantic, become more influential and dominant then say, China with their (at the time) 320 million? By 1820 half of Britain's population were under 15 years old. Their advances in health and science allowed them to be among the first to conquer infant mortality on a large scale. A nation full of young, spry lads, heart bursting for adventure and a chance to prove their medal - well one can see how when combined with the world's premier vessels how their influence spread, quite literally, from one end of the earth to the other. And this is not to debate the rise and fall of the British Empire, not at all. But to make a simpler, broader point about demography. As the author noted, "Just because your high school has 200 students and the other has 2000, doesn't guarantee that they'll beat you in basketball. But it at least gives them an advantage." Now imagine if it wasn't Britain whom first conquered both infant mortality and Posiedon. They at least had a tradition of some individual liberties, courts, and property rights. What if had been Japan? Or Russia? Iran? And yes each of these have seen their own empires come and go (Persia most notably off the top of my head) but we are talking about the "last" great imperial superpower (sorry Micheal Moore, it isn't us), the one which shaped the world and borders we live in and by today. Briton. And believe me, this is no anti-Arab rant I'm taking part in. I just happen to think numbers are relevant, you know ... given we are in this whole war for the future of the world with modern-day religious fascism thing. So, back to those numbers, the UK and Europe in general ... At current the percentage of the population 15 years old and under in Spain is 14%. The UK, 18%. The US, 21%. Saudi Arabia, 39%. Pakistan, 40% . Yemen, 47%. Notice anything there? Would anyone hazard to guess what the "fertility stability" rate for human civilization is set at by demographers? That means just maintaining say, 10 million people from 1950 to 2000 with no spike and no decline. It's 2.1%. Every woman must reproduce at least 2.1 babies in her lifetime to maintain the population, wherever it is at. In Europe, currently as a whole their live birth rate per woman is 1.38. Japan, 1.32. Russia, 1.14. Canada is at an all time low at 1.48. Spain's is a staggering 1.1. The Spaniards are on a course to literally halve themselves every generation. 1 child for every two adults. The author noted the folly in Spain renaming the traditional "mother" and "father" listings on their birth certificates and changing them to "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B." I mean, whose A and whose B? Great! Another thing to argue over with the misses. His observation was, "No point in renaming the teams if you're no longer going to play the game." Ireland is better, 1.8% - thank the Church's stance against birth control and the Irishman's complete inability to utilize a calender for anything other then crop cycles. Germany and Austria are at 1.3. Italy, 1.2. America's is 2.1%. We are the fastest reproducers of the Western, democratized first world. And just a quick aside, the "Blue Sates" are slacking off. Or more like jac... You know the one - the infamous Blue vs Red State map you've seen countless times. Well, the states that went for Bush in 2000 & 2004 reproduce at a 12% higher rate then blue states. Anyone surprised by that? I doubt it. Back to Europe - do you know what happens when an advanced society decides to "invest" heavily into socialized everything - health care, daycare, prenatal care (although less and less a problem clearly), education, retirement pensions etc? You need to maintain a tax base that is broader then those availing themselves of the government services, with no gaps. If you're halving each other every 30 years as the secular, progressive Spaniards are doing, just who the hell is going to pick up the tab as there become 8 times as many retired grandparents as there are employed grandchildren? And this applies to the "blue state mentality" as well. The flawed logic in the secularists, liberal's social agenda via the government is that it requires a religious oriented birth rate to maintain the tax base! Forget outsourcing telecommunication jobs to India from Massachusetts - they are outsourcing the most basic job of all, REPRODUCING. So what does Europe (and Canada) do since they don't have us Red State Bible thumping reproducers around to replace those "workers?" They import them of course. And I know Titus has now officially begun to repeat at the screen his mantra that "no closed society can sustain itself, no closed soc ...", and that's all well and good and quite true. However, it DOES matter who the imports are doesn't it? I mean, if demographics is a game of last man standing, it does matter what the men you recruit to your team think regarding liberty, doesn't it? And again, this is no racist's rant or point of view that looks down upon the color or ethnicity of new immigrants to Europe. Just set aside the fact that my dearly beloved nephew and niece are half African-American, and that I'm so tan myself that any white racist airport security guard worth his neoNazi credentials wouldn't let me park my truck for 3 seconds in front of passenger pick-up, what I'm talking about is what the imported worker brings to the host country does matter. Does the immigrant change slightly to form the melting pot or does he or she reverse assimilate the host? "Who" the West imports for workers as they decide children are an inconvenience matters to those of us raising children. To the numbers on "who" we can import from ... Whose got the extra manpower as we (in specifically Europe and Canada) look around the globe? The global fertility leader is Niger, at 7.46%. That's 7 and a half births PER WOMAN. Next is Mali at 7.42. Somalia is 6.76. Afghanistan, 4.7 (these are all UN census numbers I might add). Add that to the "under 15" numbers I ran from above. Notice what the commonality is among demography's "high-enders?" Islam.
To these "importing nations." The "post-Christian" birthrates are unsustainable given the lavish welfare sate of modern day Europe and Canada. Toronto's large newspaper, Globe and Mail stated, in regards to the record low fertility rate among Caunucks, "Luckily for our future economic and fiscal well-being, Canada is well positioned to counter the declining population trend by continuing to encourage the immigration of talented people to this country from over crowded parts of the world." Overcrowded places? Why so unspecific? It's clear that the highest birthrates, and populations with the largest and quickest expanding young workforce are those dominated by Islam, and that is EXACTLY where Europe and Canada is importing from. So what Ryan! You racist! You're an Islamaphobe! First off, I'm pretty sure that in my book -and my compatriots on this site will concur - that any religious, self sufficient, patriarchal, well to do , i.e. CONSERVATIVE group of peoples are aces in my eyes. In fact I may have more in common with the newly arrived moderate Muslim then I do a California born and bred Berkley professor - in fact I know I do. But that's just it - are they arriving, (and again for now this is the question Europe has to grapple with rather then the US, we won't run out of Mexicans for at least another 60 years) and adapting their religion with the democratic rule of law and outlooks on personal (namely female) liberties? Or are they for the first time in modern history, changing the host country? And bare in mind, this doesn't fall prey to the argument that, "when I was a kid it was the Italins, then the Greeks, and the Irish" etc. Those are all races, nationalities that the UK, and the US imported. Islam is a religion, with very specific codes of conduct and views on those whom don't oblige. It's not just transatlantic, it's trans-earth! And I'm certainly not subscribing to the view that every Muslim is a whacked-out high-jacker, certainly not. If 100% of your population believes in a liberal pluralist democracy it doesn't matter whether 70% of your population is one color or another in terms of preserving "freedom" as we know it. But if a code of conduct, and just for fun lets call it a religion, of even 10% of your population is at odds with that very concept, then you have a real societal problem on your hands. Especially if that 10% are the only ones having babies. Consider this: in the 2005 rankings of Freedom House's survey of personal liberty and democracy around the world, 5 of the 8 countries with the lowest "freedom" score were Muslim. Of the 46 Muslim majority nations in the world, only 3 were "free." Of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50% of the population, only another 3 were ranked free - Benin, Serbia/Montenegro, and Suriname. Which begs the question - where will Spain and France be in say 30 years?
And what has become of those progressive pluralistic societies that have taken on more and more "workers" to sustain their socialist Utopia? The Middle East and North Africa are now the principle suppliers in new immigrants to Europe and Canada. Has the culture we would recognize as "free" been affected? Perhaps we should ask the first defendant in the newly established "Muslim Court." By the way, as of yesterday UK lawmakers will allow the legal enforcement handed down by these courts servicing their "neighborhoods." Looks like it's a good time to open up that new clitorectomy office next to the local pub. I'm sure they'll be content to stay in "their neighborhoods." The calls to prayer broad casted on public speakers in Canada? The same Canada that would scream in outrage were the Pope to offer Easter Mass within 100 yards of a publicly owned piece of land - don't worry. I'm sure they'll be content to broadcast only in "their neighborhoods" over the next 30 years. They wont spread out. Want more fun facts kiddies? In the fall of 2001 the Ottawa Citizen conducted a coast-to-coast survey of Canadian Imams and found all but 2 insistent that there was no Muslim involvement in the September 11th attack. 5 years later in the summer of 2006, a poll in the United Kingdom found that only 17% of British Muslims believed there was ANY involvement of Arabs in 9/11. With a sizable percentage making comments such as, "it was done by Mossad." And I'm sure you gay people will have nothing to worry about were you to find yourself in a Muslim Court or Muslim dominated England. The rise of gay-bashing (actual physical assaults) in the city of Amsterdam - the most "tolerant" city on earth - has increased so sharply that Dutch officials actually commissioned a study by the University of Amsterdam to determine what was going on. The result read as follows:
"Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity."
Well that ought to calm things down - tell a bunch of young devout Muslim men that they're closet a** pirates. It's not like if say 19 of them got together they could do any real damage, right? In February, 2008 on the BBC the Archbishop of Canterbury said it was, "dangerous to have one law for everyone." And that the introduction of Sharia Law was inevitable. What? Isn't that the founding principle of the democratic rule of law? The same law applies to all, equally? That's antiquated in 2008? Within days of that comment the British and Ontario governments both confirmed that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions were to receive welfare payments for each of their wives. What does this mean for the future, outside of what will be a sudden influx of fringe Mormons into the great white North? I shudder to guess. Still think I'm just some right-wing whack job that sounds more and more like Micheal Savage the more you read? Also in 2008 the UK announced new "sharia bonds", that will, "make London the world capital of Islamic banking" as they put it. What is "Islamic banking" exactly? There will be "sharia home loans." One can only imagine what the fill-out questionnaire will look like on that application form! "Which of the following methods do you find is most effective in denying the Holocaust? A.) ... " The deeply traditionally Christian town of Oxford, Britain has joined their Canadian brethren in "multicultural tolerance" via the loud speaker. 3 times a day the Central Mosque will broadcast the Muslim call to prayer over loudspeakers that can be heard throughout the city. Tolerance? Broadcasting the supremacy of Allah over the tops of centuries old Anglican Churches is tolerance? How about something more basic - disease? There's a not-so PC problem with British Muslim nurses in public hospitals riddled with Clostridium Difficle and refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing their hands requires them to bare their arms. And if you think its tough to get Europe on board with invading Iraq now, what do you think the chances will be of putting together a traditional coalition force in say 25 years, should we need to go into Iran? Do you think "Sharia bonds" will finance the construction of new tanks in order to roll into Persia? I don't think so. Their Muslim populations in Europe, if they remain at today's pace, are set to double every ten years. As we learned in Iraq, despite all of our weaponry and technology - numbers matter. Boots on the ground make a difference, and Northern Africa and the Middle East are putting boots on the ground all throughout Europe at a very noticeable rate, or rather the Europeans are! Is anyone going to tell me with a straight face that Islam has actually gone through a reformation (for lack of a better word) and that there is zero danger in what are obviously principles and practices that make it antithetical to the liberties of a Western democracy? Is there any wonder why we shrug off news reports that lead with exclamations like: "The death toll is now 9 in the aftermath of the Dutch cartoon controversy." Even if its only 5 to 10 percent that are actually "hot for jihad", what is the likely hood that their activities will be punished or even curtailed if they are standing trial in a Sharia Court in Oxford, Britain?
So, does the current crop of Europeans have the will to resist? Their fathers and grandfathers were good at fighting for their freedom - the sons only seem to be good at enjoying it, to a fault. A MAJOR shift in the global order is coming if this trend continues. We could show up at a G8 meeting and find not a single European in the French, British and German contingencies. They've already gotten rid of all the Christians themselves, what's say we get rid of these pesky democrats (small "d") too. This is where it starts my friends - incrementalism. French municipal swimming baths have introduced gender-segregated swimming sessions at the request of local Muslim officials. Australian hospitals have removed pork from their menus. I am in NO WAY comparing moderate Islam with Nazism, but this is hauntingly familiar territory. What's next? Nuremberg Laws? No mingling with Jews in public? How far off can that be? Think about this - if a Scot marries a Dane there probably won't be any church affiliation reorganization (probably because there is no church affiliation at all). However, that same Scot marries a Yemeni, what are the odds he or she will need to first convert to Islam? It's reverse assimilation of the host country.
This one really concerned me: dovetailing with the idea that there's nothing modern about modern Islam, i.e. no intellectual or otherwise reformation (again, for lack of a better word), the UN released a study in a 2002 report. Ready? "More books are translated into Spanish each year then have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand." And what are some of the books that actually get translated for sale in Muslim book stores, in Manchester say? Mein Kampf, displayed prominently in the front. Oh ya, the old stalwart - The Protocols of The Elders of Zion. Forget about the fact that Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Kingdom of Saudi, what impact will these "literary selections" have on the minds of young Muslim Brits?
So what do you get when the principle supply of your young new workers come from literally dozens of nations around the world whom are united by a single ideology that suppresses everything from science and hygene to personal liberties, controls information, and has views on unfavorable races and genders reminiscent of the worst of European fascism? They'll get their reformation alright. Europe that is, not Islam. But this time it won't be some plucky little monk with a hammer and nail, posting grievances on a door. From London to Transylvania, from the Baltic to the Pyrenees ... the call to prayer will go out .... 3 times a day like clockwork ... a clock with German style precision that is ...
"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."
-Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History.
One last thing. In 2007 the Mayor of the city of Brussels - the capital of the EU - was Socialist Party member Freddy Thielemans, who presided over the ruling Socialist Party Caucuas of the city with 17 other members. Here are their names:
1. Fatima Abid
2. Mustafa Amrani
3. Samira Attalbi
4. Mohammed Boukantar
5. Philippe Close
6. Jean Baptise de Cree
7. Ahmed el Ktibi
8. Julie Fiszman
9. Faouzia Hariche
10. Karine Lalieux
11.Marie-Paule Mathias
12. Yvan Mayeur
13. Mounia Mejbar
14. Mohamed Ouria Ghili
15. Mahfoudh Romdhani
16. Sevet Temiz
17. Christian Van Der Linden
Nice huh?
As I delve into this subject I want to state categorically that this is a paraphrased weave of both my own interpretations and observations, and that of the author of America Alone - Mark Steyn. Were he to venture on to our little site and notice, "hey, that chap just used my argument", I want to have dutifully given the proper credit. So Steyn if you're reading this, great book so far, and I'm about to use it ...
Alright. Demography.
"When history comes calling it will start with the most basic question of all - who's there?" Would any one venture to guess what the most popular new -born boys' name in Belgium is? No, not some high windy mountain Western European name, like I don't know - Franz. It's Mohammed. Sweden? Mohammed. Amsterdam? Mohammed. In the United Kingdom as of 2005 Mohammed was the 5th most popular boys' name. While that fact is settling in let's think for a second whom the world's last great super power was. Something about a sun never setting ... often Imperial Britain's success is chalked up to their decisive mastery of the seas. Put simply, they had the best Navy, period. But there is a subtext there of equal importance. How exactly did this "pipsqueak" of an island, with 28 million people in the North Atlantic, become more influential and dominant then say, China with their (at the time) 320 million? By 1820 half of Britain's population were under 15 years old. Their advances in health and science allowed them to be among the first to conquer infant mortality on a large scale. A nation full of young, spry lads, heart bursting for adventure and a chance to prove their medal - well one can see how when combined with the world's premier vessels how their influence spread, quite literally, from one end of the earth to the other. And this is not to debate the rise and fall of the British Empire, not at all. But to make a simpler, broader point about demography. As the author noted, "Just because your high school has 200 students and the other has 2000, doesn't guarantee that they'll beat you in basketball. But it at least gives them an advantage." Now imagine if it wasn't Britain whom first conquered both infant mortality and Posiedon. They at least had a tradition of some individual liberties, courts, and property rights. What if had been Japan? Or Russia? Iran? And yes each of these have seen their own empires come and go (Persia most notably off the top of my head) but we are talking about the "last" great imperial superpower (sorry Micheal Moore, it isn't us), the one which shaped the world and borders we live in and by today. Briton. And believe me, this is no anti-Arab rant I'm taking part in. I just happen to think numbers are relevant, you know ... given we are in this whole war for the future of the world with modern-day religious fascism thing. So, back to those numbers, the UK and Europe in general ... At current the percentage of the population 15 years old and under in Spain is 14%. The UK, 18%. The US, 21%. Saudi Arabia, 39%. Pakistan, 40% . Yemen, 47%. Notice anything there? Would anyone hazard to guess what the "fertility stability" rate for human civilization is set at by demographers? That means just maintaining say, 10 million people from 1950 to 2000 with no spike and no decline. It's 2.1%. Every woman must reproduce at least 2.1 babies in her lifetime to maintain the population, wherever it is at. In Europe, currently as a whole their live birth rate per woman is 1.38. Japan, 1.32. Russia, 1.14. Canada is at an all time low at 1.48. Spain's is a staggering 1.1. The Spaniards are on a course to literally halve themselves every generation. 1 child for every two adults. The author noted the folly in Spain renaming the traditional "mother" and "father" listings on their birth certificates and changing them to "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B." I mean, whose A and whose B? Great! Another thing to argue over with the misses. His observation was, "No point in renaming the teams if you're no longer going to play the game." Ireland is better, 1.8% - thank the Church's stance against birth control and the Irishman's complete inability to utilize a calender for anything other then crop cycles. Germany and Austria are at 1.3. Italy, 1.2. America's is 2.1%. We are the fastest reproducers of the Western, democratized first world. And just a quick aside, the "Blue Sates" are slacking off. Or more like jac... You know the one - the infamous Blue vs Red State map you've seen countless times. Well, the states that went for Bush in 2000 & 2004 reproduce at a 12% higher rate then blue states. Anyone surprised by that? I doubt it. Back to Europe - do you know what happens when an advanced society decides to "invest" heavily into socialized everything - health care, daycare, prenatal care (although less and less a problem clearly), education, retirement pensions etc? You need to maintain a tax base that is broader then those availing themselves of the government services, with no gaps. If you're halving each other every 30 years as the secular, progressive Spaniards are doing, just who the hell is going to pick up the tab as there become 8 times as many retired grandparents as there are employed grandchildren? And this applies to the "blue state mentality" as well. The flawed logic in the secularists, liberal's social agenda via the government is that it requires a religious oriented birth rate to maintain the tax base! Forget outsourcing telecommunication jobs to India from Massachusetts - they are outsourcing the most basic job of all, REPRODUCING. So what does Europe (and Canada) do since they don't have us Red State Bible thumping reproducers around to replace those "workers?" They import them of course. And I know Titus has now officially begun to repeat at the screen his mantra that "no closed society can sustain itself, no closed soc ...", and that's all well and good and quite true. However, it DOES matter who the imports are doesn't it? I mean, if demographics is a game of last man standing, it does matter what the men you recruit to your team think regarding liberty, doesn't it? And again, this is no racist's rant or point of view that looks down upon the color or ethnicity of new immigrants to Europe. Just set aside the fact that my dearly beloved nephew and niece are half African-American, and that I'm so tan myself that any white racist airport security guard worth his neoNazi credentials wouldn't let me park my truck for 3 seconds in front of passenger pick-up, what I'm talking about is what the imported worker brings to the host country does matter. Does the immigrant change slightly to form the melting pot or does he or she reverse assimilate the host? "Who" the West imports for workers as they decide children are an inconvenience matters to those of us raising children. To the numbers on "who" we can import from ... Whose got the extra manpower as we (in specifically Europe and Canada) look around the globe? The global fertility leader is Niger, at 7.46%. That's 7 and a half births PER WOMAN. Next is Mali at 7.42. Somalia is 6.76. Afghanistan, 4.7 (these are all UN census numbers I might add). Add that to the "under 15" numbers I ran from above. Notice what the commonality is among demography's "high-enders?" Islam.
To these "importing nations." The "post-Christian" birthrates are unsustainable given the lavish welfare sate of modern day Europe and Canada. Toronto's large newspaper, Globe and Mail stated, in regards to the record low fertility rate among Caunucks, "Luckily for our future economic and fiscal well-being, Canada is well positioned to counter the declining population trend by continuing to encourage the immigration of talented people to this country from over crowded parts of the world." Overcrowded places? Why so unspecific? It's clear that the highest birthrates, and populations with the largest and quickest expanding young workforce are those dominated by Islam, and that is EXACTLY where Europe and Canada is importing from. So what Ryan! You racist! You're an Islamaphobe! First off, I'm pretty sure that in my book -and my compatriots on this site will concur - that any religious, self sufficient, patriarchal, well to do , i.e. CONSERVATIVE group of peoples are aces in my eyes. In fact I may have more in common with the newly arrived moderate Muslim then I do a California born and bred Berkley professor - in fact I know I do. But that's just it - are they arriving, (and again for now this is the question Europe has to grapple with rather then the US, we won't run out of Mexicans for at least another 60 years) and adapting their religion with the democratic rule of law and outlooks on personal (namely female) liberties? Or are they for the first time in modern history, changing the host country? And bare in mind, this doesn't fall prey to the argument that, "when I was a kid it was the Italins, then the Greeks, and the Irish" etc. Those are all races, nationalities that the UK, and the US imported. Islam is a religion, with very specific codes of conduct and views on those whom don't oblige. It's not just transatlantic, it's trans-earth! And I'm certainly not subscribing to the view that every Muslim is a whacked-out high-jacker, certainly not. If 100% of your population believes in a liberal pluralist democracy it doesn't matter whether 70% of your population is one color or another in terms of preserving "freedom" as we know it. But if a code of conduct, and just for fun lets call it a religion, of even 10% of your population is at odds with that very concept, then you have a real societal problem on your hands. Especially if that 10% are the only ones having babies. Consider this: in the 2005 rankings of Freedom House's survey of personal liberty and democracy around the world, 5 of the 8 countries with the lowest "freedom" score were Muslim. Of the 46 Muslim majority nations in the world, only 3 were "free." Of the 16 nations in which Muslims form between 20 and 50% of the population, only another 3 were ranked free - Benin, Serbia/Montenegro, and Suriname. Which begs the question - where will Spain and France be in say 30 years?
And what has become of those progressive pluralistic societies that have taken on more and more "workers" to sustain their socialist Utopia? The Middle East and North Africa are now the principle suppliers in new immigrants to Europe and Canada. Has the culture we would recognize as "free" been affected? Perhaps we should ask the first defendant in the newly established "Muslim Court." By the way, as of yesterday UK lawmakers will allow the legal enforcement handed down by these courts servicing their "neighborhoods." Looks like it's a good time to open up that new clitorectomy office next to the local pub. I'm sure they'll be content to stay in "their neighborhoods." The calls to prayer broad casted on public speakers in Canada? The same Canada that would scream in outrage were the Pope to offer Easter Mass within 100 yards of a publicly owned piece of land - don't worry. I'm sure they'll be content to broadcast only in "their neighborhoods" over the next 30 years. They wont spread out. Want more fun facts kiddies? In the fall of 2001 the Ottawa Citizen conducted a coast-to-coast survey of Canadian Imams and found all but 2 insistent that there was no Muslim involvement in the September 11th attack. 5 years later in the summer of 2006, a poll in the United Kingdom found that only 17% of British Muslims believed there was ANY involvement of Arabs in 9/11. With a sizable percentage making comments such as, "it was done by Mossad." And I'm sure you gay people will have nothing to worry about were you to find yourself in a Muslim Court or Muslim dominated England. The rise of gay-bashing (actual physical assaults) in the city of Amsterdam - the most "tolerant" city on earth - has increased so sharply that Dutch officials actually commissioned a study by the University of Amsterdam to determine what was going on. The result read as follows:
"Half of the crimes were committed by men of Moroccan origin and researchers believe they felt stigmatized by society and responded by attacking people they felt were lower on the social ladder. Another working theory is that the attackers may be struggling with their own sexual identity."
Well that ought to calm things down - tell a bunch of young devout Muslim men that they're closet a** pirates. It's not like if say 19 of them got together they could do any real damage, right? In February, 2008 on the BBC the Archbishop of Canterbury said it was, "dangerous to have one law for everyone." And that the introduction of Sharia Law was inevitable. What? Isn't that the founding principle of the democratic rule of law? The same law applies to all, equally? That's antiquated in 2008? Within days of that comment the British and Ontario governments both confirmed that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions were to receive welfare payments for each of their wives. What does this mean for the future, outside of what will be a sudden influx of fringe Mormons into the great white North? I shudder to guess. Still think I'm just some right-wing whack job that sounds more and more like Micheal Savage the more you read? Also in 2008 the UK announced new "sharia bonds", that will, "make London the world capital of Islamic banking" as they put it. What is "Islamic banking" exactly? There will be "sharia home loans." One can only imagine what the fill-out questionnaire will look like on that application form! "Which of the following methods do you find is most effective in denying the Holocaust? A.) ... " The deeply traditionally Christian town of Oxford, Britain has joined their Canadian brethren in "multicultural tolerance" via the loud speaker. 3 times a day the Central Mosque will broadcast the Muslim call to prayer over loudspeakers that can be heard throughout the city. Tolerance? Broadcasting the supremacy of Allah over the tops of centuries old Anglican Churches is tolerance? How about something more basic - disease? There's a not-so PC problem with British Muslim nurses in public hospitals riddled with Clostridium Difficle and refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing their hands requires them to bare their arms. And if you think its tough to get Europe on board with invading Iraq now, what do you think the chances will be of putting together a traditional coalition force in say 25 years, should we need to go into Iran? Do you think "Sharia bonds" will finance the construction of new tanks in order to roll into Persia? I don't think so. Their Muslim populations in Europe, if they remain at today's pace, are set to double every ten years. As we learned in Iraq, despite all of our weaponry and technology - numbers matter. Boots on the ground make a difference, and Northern Africa and the Middle East are putting boots on the ground all throughout Europe at a very noticeable rate, or rather the Europeans are! Is anyone going to tell me with a straight face that Islam has actually gone through a reformation (for lack of a better word) and that there is zero danger in what are obviously principles and practices that make it antithetical to the liberties of a Western democracy? Is there any wonder why we shrug off news reports that lead with exclamations like: "The death toll is now 9 in the aftermath of the Dutch cartoon controversy." Even if its only 5 to 10 percent that are actually "hot for jihad", what is the likely hood that their activities will be punished or even curtailed if they are standing trial in a Sharia Court in Oxford, Britain?
So, does the current crop of Europeans have the will to resist? Their fathers and grandfathers were good at fighting for their freedom - the sons only seem to be good at enjoying it, to a fault. A MAJOR shift in the global order is coming if this trend continues. We could show up at a G8 meeting and find not a single European in the French, British and German contingencies. They've already gotten rid of all the Christians themselves, what's say we get rid of these pesky democrats (small "d") too. This is where it starts my friends - incrementalism. French municipal swimming baths have introduced gender-segregated swimming sessions at the request of local Muslim officials. Australian hospitals have removed pork from their menus. I am in NO WAY comparing moderate Islam with Nazism, but this is hauntingly familiar territory. What's next? Nuremberg Laws? No mingling with Jews in public? How far off can that be? Think about this - if a Scot marries a Dane there probably won't be any church affiliation reorganization (probably because there is no church affiliation at all). However, that same Scot marries a Yemeni, what are the odds he or she will need to first convert to Islam? It's reverse assimilation of the host country.
This one really concerned me: dovetailing with the idea that there's nothing modern about modern Islam, i.e. no intellectual or otherwise reformation (again, for lack of a better word), the UN released a study in a 2002 report. Ready? "More books are translated into Spanish each year then have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand." And what are some of the books that actually get translated for sale in Muslim book stores, in Manchester say? Mein Kampf, displayed prominently in the front. Oh ya, the old stalwart - The Protocols of The Elders of Zion. Forget about the fact that Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Kingdom of Saudi, what impact will these "literary selections" have on the minds of young Muslim Brits?
So what do you get when the principle supply of your young new workers come from literally dozens of nations around the world whom are united by a single ideology that suppresses everything from science and hygene to personal liberties, controls information, and has views on unfavorable races and genders reminiscent of the worst of European fascism? They'll get their reformation alright. Europe that is, not Islam. But this time it won't be some plucky little monk with a hammer and nail, posting grievances on a door. From London to Transylvania, from the Baltic to the Pyrenees ... the call to prayer will go out .... 3 times a day like clockwork ... a clock with German style precision that is ...
"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."
-Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History.
One last thing. In 2007 the Mayor of the city of Brussels - the capital of the EU - was Socialist Party member Freddy Thielemans, who presided over the ruling Socialist Party Caucuas of the city with 17 other members. Here are their names:
1. Fatima Abid
2. Mustafa Amrani
3. Samira Attalbi
4. Mohammed Boukantar
5. Philippe Close
6. Jean Baptise de Cree
7. Ahmed el Ktibi
8. Julie Fiszman
9. Faouzia Hariche
10. Karine Lalieux
11.Marie-Paule Mathias
12. Yvan Mayeur
13. Mounia Mejbar
14. Mohamed Ouria Ghili
15. Mahfoudh Romdhani
16. Sevet Temiz
17. Christian Van Der Linden
Nice huh?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Have the ref stop the fight!
OUCH! Very nicely done Titus. Now, if we could just get rationale and facts to matter to the average Obama supporter, rather then succumbing to rabid Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS, also known as Mad Oberhman Disease), we would be in business.
Friday, September 19, 2008
My take on the ISSUES...
As I have stated, Richter and I have been “debating” the issues as seen from each of the Presidential nominee camps. As we have both presented differing numbers and points of order, I have decided to make my arguments AGAINST Obama’s policies by categorically following his stated positions according to his official website (found HERE).
Now, being a politician, Obama presents mountains of information on his site, and as I am unlikely to have the time or energy to hit EVERY topic, I will follow the course of our most recent “discussion” and touch on those now patently familiar subjects for all concerned. The hyperlinks that I have included lead you (or anyone) to the sources of my information.
Let’s start with his Economic/Tax Relief page:
Obama thinks that the Bush tax cuts favor the rich, and do nothing for the poor and middle class. Those earning $1 million or more receive a cut 160 times bigger than the middle class earner. Let’s rationally look at this statement and weigh its validity to the debate in general.
According to the US Census Bureau, the average “middle class” income range for the years 2000 to 2007 was between $31,850.00 and $77,100.00. This is a mean average annual income for all tax payers between the age of 15 and 65 years of age, and constituted the vast majority of what most experts call the “middle class” in America. However, a qualifier needs to be employed here, because anyone should understand that, even earning the high-end of that scale ($77K) isn’t going to get you very much of a lifestyle in places like San Diego, CA or New York, NY. In fact, that income wouldn’t get you much of a lifestyle in any major metropolitan area, including such “middle America” places as Omaha, NE, Minneapolis, MN, Chicago IL, or Madison, WI. BUT, it is the mean average, so we’ll stick with it and assume that is what Obama means by “middle class”.
So, let’s take 3 separate examples of income. First, we’ll use the low end of the middle-income scale ($31,850 per year). Then we’ll take the high-end ($77,100 per year). Finally we’ll take the “magic” number… $1,000,000 per year in taxable income.
In 2000, the person earning $31,850 (Mr. “A”) paid $5,506 in Federal taxes. The same person, earning the same money in 2007, paid $4,386. That means that he paid 17% of his gross income in 2000, and 13% of his gross income in 2007. His savings between the two years is $1,120, or 3% of his gross income.
In 2000, the person earning $77,100 (Mr. “B”) paid $18,582 in Federal taxes. The same person, earning the same money in 2007, paid $15,698. That means that he paid 24% of his gross income in 2000, and 20% of his gross income in 2007. His savings between the two years is $2,884, or 4% of his gross income.
In 2000, the person earning $1 million (Mr. “C”) paid $373,670 in Federal taxes. The same person, earning the same money in 2007, paid #329,074. That means he paid 37% of his gross income in 2000, and 33% of his gross income in 2007. His savings between the two years is $44,596, or 4% of his gross income.
All three of our tax payers saw very nearly an exact 4% cut in their tax burden between ’00 and ’07. However, Mr. C earned more than 30 times the amount of money that Mr. A earned, yet he paid more than 39 times the tax amount. Where is the “160 times” tax break that Obama is talking about? I don’t see Mr. C paying even ONE times less than Mr. A and B, do you?
This is basic, 5th grade math. It doesn’t even touch the earned income credits, child deductions, et al that Mr. A and B can take advantage of that Mr. C can’t.
The next rung in our debate was Federal revenue and how it is affected by lower taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, from 2003 to 2006 (the numbers I found first, not necessarily those that best reflect the above examples, I know…), the Federal revenue INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts by 35%! From $1,783,000,000,000 in 2003 to $2,407,000,000,000 in just 3 years! If the tax cuts had actually HURT revenue and added to the deficit (Richter’s contention), then the CBO numbers certainly wouldn’t show a 35% increase, would they? Absolutely not! They reflect the FACT that the Laffer Curve proves when it shows that lower taxes DO equal more revenue for the Feds, because the PEOPLE spend more money within the economy, and the more stringent sales and import taxes contribute to the coffers far more than the income tax does.
Moving on (to steal a very liberal moniker!), we see that Obama thinks that NAFTA and CAFTA are bad for American jobs and industry. Richter made the case last night that the Obama plans reflected “Clinton-like” agendas and policies. To the best of my meager recollection, NAFTA was the “flag-ship” of Clinton’s trade policy, and the framework of CAFTA was laid down almost single-handedly by then Vice President Al Gore (although Bush signed it into law in 2002). Obama clearly says on his website that CAFTA must GO, and NAFTA must be re-written to better suit American interests. Doesn’t sound like Obama thinks all that much of Clinton’s trade policies, does it?
Next, let’s look at Obama’s Energy Policies:
Obama promises a plan of getting 1 million hybrid cars on the road by 2015. Those 1 million cars would still function at a gasoline consumption rate of between 25 and 35 miles to a gallon… more, if they are running at less than highway speeds. The average cost of an electric hybrid vehicle, right now, is roughly 66% higher than its standard gasoline equivalent. This means that the average HEV will cost more than $50k, while a gas-powered vehicle will run $30k. The Bush “tax cuts” that Obama and Richter are so upset with ALREADY offer a $3400 deduction if you buy a HEV within the calendar year, or roughly 5% of the cost of the vehicle. Presumably, Obama would further subsidize the cost to make the program cost effective for the majority of America.
McCain wants to institute a plan where 15 million TRUCKS (the 18 wheeler variety that move 88% of all goods in this nation) are converted to natural gas propulsion by 2012, at a cost of roughly 17% of the base cost of the vehicle. The United States holds (arguably) the largest natural gas reserves in the world, with the only real competition coming from Russia and Canada. With these 15 million trucks running on cheap, clean and easily available natural gas, the US will free itself of the cost of 4.2 million barrels of diesel EVERY DAY! In one year, the average amount of annual heating oil would be saved 171 times over! One year of natural gas-powered trucks EQUALS 171 years of heating oil for people’s homes! As the owner of a home heated with fuel oil, I’m ALL in favor of that plan!
Mac’s plan doesn’t cost the tax payer OR the Government anything. The cost of the conversion is covered by CORPORATE tax incentives that are geared towards the manufacture of both the NG vehicles and the NG distribution facilities that the trucks would go to in order to fill up their tanks. Again, lowering taxes is the incentive to driving the economic engine of America towards making the more economical and environmentally-friendly natural gas a feasible alternative to diesel and gasoline.
Speaking of heating plans… Mac is also selling abundant American natural gas as a primary source for home and commercial heating units. Knowing I am looking at paying between $3.89 and $4.24 a gallon for fuel oil this winter, and I use roughly 900 gallons a season, the nearly $3,700 I am looking to spend on heating my home this winter is a big concern for me. If I were to get the $5,500 tax break for a natural gas conversion of my fuel oil system, I’d spend $12.26 per million cubic feet of gas, or (roughly) $1,100 per season in gas for my furnace.
That’s $2,600 of my money that DOESN’T need to be spent on fuel… and what I am spending isn’t going to rogue Muslim states or madrasahs in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or into Hugo Chaves’ pockets… it’s going to the US economy from start to finish, every time.
Whew… I’m spent.
More later…
Now, being a politician, Obama presents mountains of information on his site, and as I am unlikely to have the time or energy to hit EVERY topic, I will follow the course of our most recent “discussion” and touch on those now patently familiar subjects for all concerned. The hyperlinks that I have included lead you (or anyone) to the sources of my information.
Let’s start with his Economic/Tax Relief page:
Obama thinks that the Bush tax cuts favor the rich, and do nothing for the poor and middle class. Those earning $1 million or more receive a cut 160 times bigger than the middle class earner. Let’s rationally look at this statement and weigh its validity to the debate in general.
According to the US Census Bureau, the average “middle class” income range for the years 2000 to 2007 was between $31,850.00 and $77,100.00. This is a mean average annual income for all tax payers between the age of 15 and 65 years of age, and constituted the vast majority of what most experts call the “middle class” in America. However, a qualifier needs to be employed here, because anyone should understand that, even earning the high-end of that scale ($77K) isn’t going to get you very much of a lifestyle in places like San Diego, CA or New York, NY. In fact, that income wouldn’t get you much of a lifestyle in any major metropolitan area, including such “middle America” places as Omaha, NE, Minneapolis, MN, Chicago IL, or Madison, WI. BUT, it is the mean average, so we’ll stick with it and assume that is what Obama means by “middle class”.
So, let’s take 3 separate examples of income. First, we’ll use the low end of the middle-income scale ($31,850 per year). Then we’ll take the high-end ($77,100 per year). Finally we’ll take the “magic” number… $1,000,000 per year in taxable income.
In 2000, the person earning $31,850 (Mr. “A”) paid $5,506 in Federal taxes. The same person, earning the same money in 2007, paid $4,386. That means that he paid 17% of his gross income in 2000, and 13% of his gross income in 2007. His savings between the two years is $1,120, or 3% of his gross income.
In 2000, the person earning $77,100 (Mr. “B”) paid $18,582 in Federal taxes. The same person, earning the same money in 2007, paid $15,698. That means that he paid 24% of his gross income in 2000, and 20% of his gross income in 2007. His savings between the two years is $2,884, or 4% of his gross income.
In 2000, the person earning $1 million (Mr. “C”) paid $373,670 in Federal taxes. The same person, earning the same money in 2007, paid #329,074. That means he paid 37% of his gross income in 2000, and 33% of his gross income in 2007. His savings between the two years is $44,596, or 4% of his gross income.
All three of our tax payers saw very nearly an exact 4% cut in their tax burden between ’00 and ’07. However, Mr. C earned more than 30 times the amount of money that Mr. A earned, yet he paid more than 39 times the tax amount. Where is the “160 times” tax break that Obama is talking about? I don’t see Mr. C paying even ONE times less than Mr. A and B, do you?
This is basic, 5th grade math. It doesn’t even touch the earned income credits, child deductions, et al that Mr. A and B can take advantage of that Mr. C can’t.
The next rung in our debate was Federal revenue and how it is affected by lower taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, from 2003 to 2006 (the numbers I found first, not necessarily those that best reflect the above examples, I know…), the Federal revenue INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts by 35%! From $1,783,000,000,000 in 2003 to $2,407,000,000,000 in just 3 years! If the tax cuts had actually HURT revenue and added to the deficit (Richter’s contention), then the CBO numbers certainly wouldn’t show a 35% increase, would they? Absolutely not! They reflect the FACT that the Laffer Curve proves when it shows that lower taxes DO equal more revenue for the Feds, because the PEOPLE spend more money within the economy, and the more stringent sales and import taxes contribute to the coffers far more than the income tax does.
Moving on (to steal a very liberal moniker!), we see that Obama thinks that NAFTA and CAFTA are bad for American jobs and industry. Richter made the case last night that the Obama plans reflected “Clinton-like” agendas and policies. To the best of my meager recollection, NAFTA was the “flag-ship” of Clinton’s trade policy, and the framework of CAFTA was laid down almost single-handedly by then Vice President Al Gore (although Bush signed it into law in 2002). Obama clearly says on his website that CAFTA must GO, and NAFTA must be re-written to better suit American interests. Doesn’t sound like Obama thinks all that much of Clinton’s trade policies, does it?
Next, let’s look at Obama’s Energy Policies:
Obama promises a plan of getting 1 million hybrid cars on the road by 2015. Those 1 million cars would still function at a gasoline consumption rate of between 25 and 35 miles to a gallon… more, if they are running at less than highway speeds. The average cost of an electric hybrid vehicle, right now, is roughly 66% higher than its standard gasoline equivalent. This means that the average HEV will cost more than $50k, while a gas-powered vehicle will run $30k. The Bush “tax cuts” that Obama and Richter are so upset with ALREADY offer a $3400 deduction if you buy a HEV within the calendar year, or roughly 5% of the cost of the vehicle. Presumably, Obama would further subsidize the cost to make the program cost effective for the majority of America.
McCain wants to institute a plan where 15 million TRUCKS (the 18 wheeler variety that move 88% of all goods in this nation) are converted to natural gas propulsion by 2012, at a cost of roughly 17% of the base cost of the vehicle. The United States holds (arguably) the largest natural gas reserves in the world, with the only real competition coming from Russia and Canada. With these 15 million trucks running on cheap, clean and easily available natural gas, the US will free itself of the cost of 4.2 million barrels of diesel EVERY DAY! In one year, the average amount of annual heating oil would be saved 171 times over! One year of natural gas-powered trucks EQUALS 171 years of heating oil for people’s homes! As the owner of a home heated with fuel oil, I’m ALL in favor of that plan!
Mac’s plan doesn’t cost the tax payer OR the Government anything. The cost of the conversion is covered by CORPORATE tax incentives that are geared towards the manufacture of both the NG vehicles and the NG distribution facilities that the trucks would go to in order to fill up their tanks. Again, lowering taxes is the incentive to driving the economic engine of America towards making the more economical and environmentally-friendly natural gas a feasible alternative to diesel and gasoline.
Speaking of heating plans… Mac is also selling abundant American natural gas as a primary source for home and commercial heating units. Knowing I am looking at paying between $3.89 and $4.24 a gallon for fuel oil this winter, and I use roughly 900 gallons a season, the nearly $3,700 I am looking to spend on heating my home this winter is a big concern for me. If I were to get the $5,500 tax break for a natural gas conversion of my fuel oil system, I’d spend $12.26 per million cubic feet of gas, or (roughly) $1,100 per season in gas for my furnace.
That’s $2,600 of my money that DOESN’T need to be spent on fuel… and what I am spending isn’t going to rogue Muslim states or madrasahs in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or into Hugo Chaves’ pockets… it’s going to the US economy from start to finish, every time.
Whew… I’m spent.
More later…
Okay, it's official...
Richter is an idiot.
I like the guy... I really do. It's hard not to. The man is honest to a fault, obviously he is very committed to his principals, and he would give you the shirt off his back (literally!) if he thought you needed it. He loves his family, and is a good father and a good husband (or his wife would have ditched him decades ago!).
The man is simply SO out-of-touch with reality that he is unable to view even objective arguments against Obama as anything other than a "right-wing" attack on the future of America!
For nearly an hour yesterday in my office, and another hour once I got home, we went round and round debating the issues as we both saw them. He doubts my numbers and facts (and, to his credit, found a flaw in one of my arguments... so kudos! It won't happen again!) and I am convinced that his sources are as biased and slanted as he is towards Obama.
So, Richter... if you are reading this (which you probably aren't)... these posts here are our best arguments, cited and referenced for your convenience, as to why the FOUR of us are voting for McCain. We show numbers, facts and opinions every bit as much as opinions. All we are waiting for is your counter-arguments or defense of Obama's policies and positions.
More later, when I am caught up.
I like the guy... I really do. It's hard not to. The man is honest to a fault, obviously he is very committed to his principals, and he would give you the shirt off his back (literally!) if he thought you needed it. He loves his family, and is a good father and a good husband (or his wife would have ditched him decades ago!).
The man is simply SO out-of-touch with reality that he is unable to view even objective arguments against Obama as anything other than a "right-wing" attack on the future of America!
For nearly an hour yesterday in my office, and another hour once I got home, we went round and round debating the issues as we both saw them. He doubts my numbers and facts (and, to his credit, found a flaw in one of my arguments... so kudos! It won't happen again!) and I am convinced that his sources are as biased and slanted as he is towards Obama.
So, Richter... if you are reading this (which you probably aren't)... these posts here are our best arguments, cited and referenced for your convenience, as to why the FOUR of us are voting for McCain. We show numbers, facts and opinions every bit as much as opinions. All we are waiting for is your counter-arguments or defense of Obama's policies and positions.
More later, when I am caught up.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Since no one else will do their homework:
First to Titus - try going under "tools", then Internet options, then delete, then click "delete files." Your Internet copy files, automatically generated, are too backed up to allow the cookie for the Bund to function properly. Do that every so often and you will post under the correct date. I had to do that for 3 months, and then one day it stopped.
****
Now I assume Titus had the same conversation I did with Jambo, over the phone, about the Phil Graham bill which more and more people are pointing to as to what set the housing market up for a collapse. Also, they are pointing to Graham for authoring the bill which deregulated the oil speculation markets among other things. Phil can't catch a break, and it is hurting McCain. That's why I should be on the McCain-Palin payroll. To the video tape!
****
First, the the Graham bill related to the housing market.
Jambo's NPR claims its passage allowed for things such as "life of loan profit guarantees." Now that's my phrase because its more accurate in my estimation. In short when a private citizen enters into a mortgage, the mortgage company seals the deal with that person then immediately sells it to a big mortgage investment firm such as Freddie Mac (housing market firm created by congress to help ensure the US remained flush with homeowners). However, the market from the 90's through 2006 (the year the housing market bubble burst) was SO good that these smaller companies whom sold the mortgage to groups like Freddie were able to sell "profit guarantees" along with the mortgage for a premium payed on top of the loan purchase. So if a loan for 250k was set up to make 400k over its 30 year life, that smaller company who made the original loan deal would say to Freddie when they sold it to them, "hey, for an extra 30k we will guarantee your 400k at the end of the loan will have been collected." It was like selling insurance to the player on blackjack - it's an amount that by and large goes straight to the bottom line with next to no risk for the seller - so they thought. Because the housing market was so good these companies assumed they would rarely have to make good on that guarantee because even if a home foreclosed Freddie would make its 400k on a sale because the equity was building so rapidly. Then what happens? The market bursts, the home value drops and Freddie comes looking for their "profit guarantee" because first the home forecloses, then it can't be sold for the profit of 400k. BUT, now the guarantee can't be met because that company who sold it is getting hammered on those requests at a rate higher then they can handle - because of how sudden the collapse came, and how sharply home values fell. Everyone is either stuck with having to sell low after buying high, or declaring bankruptcy or both. This reverberates into the lending market as credit card payments come later and later as people look to credit to cover themselves while sitting on bad houses, then large banks start sitting on their capital because they're scared they won't get it back, and groups like AIG, Lehman, etc can't get the traditional bridge loans to cover bear market periods. Dominoes.
NOW - I ripped Obama for employing Franklin Raines, whom ran "Freddie" into the ground. And I still contend, as I told Jambo last night, that no law regulation or deregulation will ever account for bad CEO management (which is what Raines did, criminally in my opinion). So regardless of what laws were on the books, as much if not more fault is with those CEO's that took an ill advised advantage of looser regulation laws.
So, as to what laws "allowed" or set the environment for this to happen? Or in other words the other responsible party here (aside from unscrupulous CEO's such as Raines) would be the federal government. And YES, it was originated with Graham. But only him? Hardly. This is a bipartisan screw up, and if one party is to blame over the other then I would have to invoke the unwritten rule that whichever PoTUS signed it into law, he owns it - for better or worse. That's what we say right? If its on his watch he gets the credit or blame? With that as a background lets briefly visit the Grahm bill that NPR et al seek to blame for the current financial woes (minus oil - we will get to that in a minute, although that also involves Grahm).
In 1933, obviously just a few years following the stock market crash, Congress passes the Glass-Steagall Act, in hopes that regulating banks will help prevent market instability, particularly amongst Wall Street banks. The purpose of the act was to separate commercial banks that focus on consumers from investment banks, which deal with speculative trading and mergers. Well, in 1999 Grahm proposes a bipartisan bill entitled Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. which effectively replaced the Glass Steagall era practices. Here was its' pro argument:
Although not perfect, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (S. 900) would repeal provisions of the obsolete, Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that prohibits banks and securities firms from owning each other, say Heritage Foundation analysts. Congress will soon consider the conference report on the bill developed by Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas), and Representatives Jim Leach (R-Iowa.), Thomas Bliley (R-Va.).
If the bill becomes law, new financial services holding companies would be allowed to own separate banking, securities, and insurance subsidiaries that could offer integrated retail services to consumers.
In addition, some of the worst abuses of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) -- which requires banks to make uneconomic investments in disadvantaged neighborhoods -- would be corrected.
Banks with under $250 million in assets that have an "outstanding" or "satisfactory" CRA rating would be examined less frequently than under current law -- significantly reducing the regulatory burden.
And banks would be required to disclose payments to so-called community groups that challenge applications for bank mergers and can seriously delay the approval process.
However, the bill would expand CRA to cover bank affiliates of financial services holding companies.
Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin estimated consumers would save $15 billion a year in fees levied on financial services thanks to greater competition and a more efficient financial services system.
Now clearly the law of unintended consequences (from a legislatures point of view) came into fruition regarding the problems such as these "profit guarantees", to ill advised ventures into sub-prime lending, and interest only loans. And hey, people can legitimately argue whether the 1933 law, or the 1999 law is preferable - more or less regulation is not what I'm arguing. Although I will say that the housing market boom intensified after 1999. Many people got rich do to deregulation of financial institutions, and "common" people too. Anyone whom invested in real estate basically. But as I said, that's a separate argument - what we are talking here, what NPR sought to discover (in my opinion) is whom is to blame. The reality is both Obama and McCain currently employ senior economic advisers whom are neck deep in this, one on the legislative side and the other on the corporate management side. HOWEVER - if we are talking blame, remind me who was president in 1999? Hum the Jeopardy music while you think ... dee, dee, dee doo dee dee dee ... William Jefferson Clinton signed this bill into law DEREGULATING the financial and lending markets within the US. Bill Clinton! Now here you have everybody from NPR to Harry Reid to Obama running around screaming and pointing fingers at Grahm (which is not-so-implicitly scolding McCain for employing him), when it was Bill Clinton that signed this deregulation bill into law. And even more hypocritical - that bill passed 90 to 8. Harry Reid voted for it. Now I know Titus's point in an earlier post was that Reid et al aren't running for PoTUS, and that's fine. But Obama has been in the Senate since 2004. In 2005 the negative side effects of the CLINTON signed Graham bill began to become evident in terms of Frediie and Fannie and John McCain stood up and tried to reform those institutions that took ill advised advantage of that bill. Obama was no where on the issue (and for an obvious reason given he was the #2 recipient of their donations). And his economic advisor is one of those CEO's whom unscrupulously took that advantage. Chriss Dodd, Barak Obama, and Barney Frank - all Democrats, one running for president, protected the most blatant example of a company that took unscrupulous advantage of the Graham bill - Freddie Mac. They blocked GOP sponsored legislation in 2003 and 2005 which would have increased oversight and instituted reform.
Now - we can say that the bill was "too much" deregulation and blame law makers. It's not an unreasonable assertion. We can look at who took advantage of that deregulation and blame the borderline criminal behavior of CEO's and the Democrat politicians that protected them. Also reasonable. But what we can not do, in a bill passed 90 to 8, sponsored by a Republican, and signed into law by a Democrat president, is to say that it is Phil Graham's fault alone! It's patently absurd. This is a bipartisan issue within both the federal government and the private sector .... ALL of their hands are dirty. And THAT my friends is why we will get hearings on whether Bonds shot roids into his left or right butt cheeck, but we will NOT get hearings on this.
****
To the deregulation of oil speculation.
First things first, lets define it: as part of a $384 billion Omnibus Spending Bill (sets the budget of many departments of the United States government at once) Phil Graham introduced an amendment which became part of the bill - The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading ("financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party"). Ok? In English that includes, most prominently, oil speculation was deregulated.
Now this has also been blamed on Graham and Bush. The reports I've seen have listed the time frame as: "shortly after Bush was elected president." Which IS technically true. It WAS in fact signed into law, thus deregulating oil speculation, shortly after Bush was elected president ..... ELECT!! It was signed into law in December of 2000 by none other then William Jefferson Clinton! Bush of course took his oath of office a month later! Now he certainly maintained it in each Omnibus Spending bill since, no question. But lets be fair - this originated, (read: SIGNED into law) with Bill Clinton. Thus, according to "the rules", HE OWNS IT. Again, yes Graham and the GOP controlled congress is to blame as well, but again I emphasize that its a bipartisan problem, and again, I say THAT is why we will get zero hearings on speculation. They'll haul oil CEO's in all day, but speculators need not worry, I assure you.
****
Now, by my count NPR is clearly biased (no news there) on whom is to blame (in total). And both Jambo and Titus owe Bush an apology - or at least an amendment to their assertion that oil deregulation was his genesis.
****
Now I assume Titus had the same conversation I did with Jambo, over the phone, about the Phil Graham bill which more and more people are pointing to as to what set the housing market up for a collapse. Also, they are pointing to Graham for authoring the bill which deregulated the oil speculation markets among other things. Phil can't catch a break, and it is hurting McCain. That's why I should be on the McCain-Palin payroll. To the video tape!
****
First, the the Graham bill related to the housing market.
Jambo's NPR claims its passage allowed for things such as "life of loan profit guarantees." Now that's my phrase because its more accurate in my estimation. In short when a private citizen enters into a mortgage, the mortgage company seals the deal with that person then immediately sells it to a big mortgage investment firm such as Freddie Mac (housing market firm created by congress to help ensure the US remained flush with homeowners). However, the market from the 90's through 2006 (the year the housing market bubble burst) was SO good that these smaller companies whom sold the mortgage to groups like Freddie were able to sell "profit guarantees" along with the mortgage for a premium payed on top of the loan purchase. So if a loan for 250k was set up to make 400k over its 30 year life, that smaller company who made the original loan deal would say to Freddie when they sold it to them, "hey, for an extra 30k we will guarantee your 400k at the end of the loan will have been collected." It was like selling insurance to the player on blackjack - it's an amount that by and large goes straight to the bottom line with next to no risk for the seller - so they thought. Because the housing market was so good these companies assumed they would rarely have to make good on that guarantee because even if a home foreclosed Freddie would make its 400k on a sale because the equity was building so rapidly. Then what happens? The market bursts, the home value drops and Freddie comes looking for their "profit guarantee" because first the home forecloses, then it can't be sold for the profit of 400k. BUT, now the guarantee can't be met because that company who sold it is getting hammered on those requests at a rate higher then they can handle - because of how sudden the collapse came, and how sharply home values fell. Everyone is either stuck with having to sell low after buying high, or declaring bankruptcy or both. This reverberates into the lending market as credit card payments come later and later as people look to credit to cover themselves while sitting on bad houses, then large banks start sitting on their capital because they're scared they won't get it back, and groups like AIG, Lehman, etc can't get the traditional bridge loans to cover bear market periods. Dominoes.
NOW - I ripped Obama for employing Franklin Raines, whom ran "Freddie" into the ground. And I still contend, as I told Jambo last night, that no law regulation or deregulation will ever account for bad CEO management (which is what Raines did, criminally in my opinion). So regardless of what laws were on the books, as much if not more fault is with those CEO's that took an ill advised advantage of looser regulation laws.
So, as to what laws "allowed" or set the environment for this to happen? Or in other words the other responsible party here (aside from unscrupulous CEO's such as Raines) would be the federal government. And YES, it was originated with Graham. But only him? Hardly. This is a bipartisan screw up, and if one party is to blame over the other then I would have to invoke the unwritten rule that whichever PoTUS signed it into law, he owns it - for better or worse. That's what we say right? If its on his watch he gets the credit or blame? With that as a background lets briefly visit the Grahm bill that NPR et al seek to blame for the current financial woes (minus oil - we will get to that in a minute, although that also involves Grahm).
In 1933, obviously just a few years following the stock market crash, Congress passes the Glass-Steagall Act, in hopes that regulating banks will help prevent market instability, particularly amongst Wall Street banks. The purpose of the act was to separate commercial banks that focus on consumers from investment banks, which deal with speculative trading and mergers. Well, in 1999 Grahm proposes a bipartisan bill entitled Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. which effectively replaced the Glass Steagall era practices. Here was its' pro argument:
Although not perfect, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (S. 900) would repeal provisions of the obsolete, Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that prohibits banks and securities firms from owning each other, say Heritage Foundation analysts. Congress will soon consider the conference report on the bill developed by Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas), and Representatives Jim Leach (R-Iowa.), Thomas Bliley (R-Va.).
If the bill becomes law, new financial services holding companies would be allowed to own separate banking, securities, and insurance subsidiaries that could offer integrated retail services to consumers.
In addition, some of the worst abuses of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) -- which requires banks to make uneconomic investments in disadvantaged neighborhoods -- would be corrected.
Banks with under $250 million in assets that have an "outstanding" or "satisfactory" CRA rating would be examined less frequently than under current law -- significantly reducing the regulatory burden.
And banks would be required to disclose payments to so-called community groups that challenge applications for bank mergers and can seriously delay the approval process.
However, the bill would expand CRA to cover bank affiliates of financial services holding companies.
Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin estimated consumers would save $15 billion a year in fees levied on financial services thanks to greater competition and a more efficient financial services system.
Now clearly the law of unintended consequences (from a legislatures point of view) came into fruition regarding the problems such as these "profit guarantees", to ill advised ventures into sub-prime lending, and interest only loans. And hey, people can legitimately argue whether the 1933 law, or the 1999 law is preferable - more or less regulation is not what I'm arguing. Although I will say that the housing market boom intensified after 1999. Many people got rich do to deregulation of financial institutions, and "common" people too. Anyone whom invested in real estate basically. But as I said, that's a separate argument - what we are talking here, what NPR sought to discover (in my opinion) is whom is to blame. The reality is both Obama and McCain currently employ senior economic advisers whom are neck deep in this, one on the legislative side and the other on the corporate management side. HOWEVER - if we are talking blame, remind me who was president in 1999? Hum the Jeopardy music while you think ... dee, dee, dee doo dee dee dee ... William Jefferson Clinton signed this bill into law DEREGULATING the financial and lending markets within the US. Bill Clinton! Now here you have everybody from NPR to Harry Reid to Obama running around screaming and pointing fingers at Grahm (which is not-so-implicitly scolding McCain for employing him), when it was Bill Clinton that signed this deregulation bill into law. And even more hypocritical - that bill passed 90 to 8. Harry Reid voted for it. Now I know Titus's point in an earlier post was that Reid et al aren't running for PoTUS, and that's fine. But Obama has been in the Senate since 2004. In 2005 the negative side effects of the CLINTON signed Graham bill began to become evident in terms of Frediie and Fannie and John McCain stood up and tried to reform those institutions that took ill advised advantage of that bill. Obama was no where on the issue (and for an obvious reason given he was the #2 recipient of their donations). And his economic advisor is one of those CEO's whom unscrupulously took that advantage. Chriss Dodd, Barak Obama, and Barney Frank - all Democrats, one running for president, protected the most blatant example of a company that took unscrupulous advantage of the Graham bill - Freddie Mac. They blocked GOP sponsored legislation in 2003 and 2005 which would have increased oversight and instituted reform.
Now - we can say that the bill was "too much" deregulation and blame law makers. It's not an unreasonable assertion. We can look at who took advantage of that deregulation and blame the borderline criminal behavior of CEO's and the Democrat politicians that protected them. Also reasonable. But what we can not do, in a bill passed 90 to 8, sponsored by a Republican, and signed into law by a Democrat president, is to say that it is Phil Graham's fault alone! It's patently absurd. This is a bipartisan issue within both the federal government and the private sector .... ALL of their hands are dirty. And THAT my friends is why we will get hearings on whether Bonds shot roids into his left or right butt cheeck, but we will NOT get hearings on this.
****
To the deregulation of oil speculation.
First things first, lets define it: as part of a $384 billion Omnibus Spending Bill (sets the budget of many departments of the United States government at once) Phil Graham introduced an amendment which became part of the bill - The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading ("financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party"). Ok? In English that includes, most prominently, oil speculation was deregulated.
Now this has also been blamed on Graham and Bush. The reports I've seen have listed the time frame as: "shortly after Bush was elected president." Which IS technically true. It WAS in fact signed into law, thus deregulating oil speculation, shortly after Bush was elected president ..... ELECT!! It was signed into law in December of 2000 by none other then William Jefferson Clinton! Bush of course took his oath of office a month later! Now he certainly maintained it in each Omnibus Spending bill since, no question. But lets be fair - this originated, (read: SIGNED into law) with Bill Clinton. Thus, according to "the rules", HE OWNS IT. Again, yes Graham and the GOP controlled congress is to blame as well, but again I emphasize that its a bipartisan problem, and again, I say THAT is why we will get zero hearings on speculation. They'll haul oil CEO's in all day, but speculators need not worry, I assure you.
****
Now, by my count NPR is clearly biased (no news there) on whom is to blame (in total). And both Jambo and Titus owe Bush an apology - or at least an amendment to their assertion that oil deregulation was his genesis.
Oil aside for a brief moment
Well as I am sure you have all heard, several days ago the American Embassy in Yemen was bombed in a coordinated atack killing 10. As I said in a earlier post I have been getting crushed in the occupaion area of my life so I am not completely up to speed and I will post further as soon as I get some time to research this afternoon. I would imagine that Obama has already found a way to ignore this situation though hoping it would just go away.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Here's a question.
We're all solid middle to low end middle class. We've all felt the gas price crunch like no one's business.
Does this outweigh the benefit of waking our nation to the fact that we're dependent on imported oil? Is it worth $4 a gallon to tank the SUV industry and get a nation of automobile users to car pool and buy hybrids?
I look at the Clinton era and think, "Damn. I was doing pretty good in 1998. What's happened in 10 years?" I can point to regulating speculative trading of oil and say, "Hey! That's different."
In one breath I can call it the rape of the American public. But in another, and just as accurate, I can say the feds removed the blinders to the public about the growing crisis of energy. It was going to happen with or without regulation. We either paid $4 or we saw lines like the 70s. To artifically control the price to save the economy is slapping a band aid on an amputated leg.
This is just gas, mind you. Should Bush be held accountable by history for leaving the American public to take it in the ass by big oil, or applauded for holding the mirror of reality steady and showing the country the ugly situation for what it is?
Does this outweigh the benefit of waking our nation to the fact that we're dependent on imported oil? Is it worth $4 a gallon to tank the SUV industry and get a nation of automobile users to car pool and buy hybrids?
I look at the Clinton era and think, "Damn. I was doing pretty good in 1998. What's happened in 10 years?" I can point to regulating speculative trading of oil and say, "Hey! That's different."
In one breath I can call it the rape of the American public. But in another, and just as accurate, I can say the feds removed the blinders to the public about the growing crisis of energy. It was going to happen with or without regulation. We either paid $4 or we saw lines like the 70s. To artifically control the price to save the economy is slapping a band aid on an amputated leg.
This is just gas, mind you. Should Bush be held accountable by history for leaving the American public to take it in the ass by big oil, or applauded for holding the mirror of reality steady and showing the country the ugly situation for what it is?
Just who is the agent of reform?
In 2005 bill was proposed that very well could of staved off the Fannie/Freddi Mac debacle that has subsequently sent the markets, and other financial institutions, tumbling. A co sponsor was one John Sydney McCain. THE FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005. Mac rose to the floor - 3 years ago now - and gave the following speech encouraging passage of the bill:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
We could discuss how prophetic Mac was back then. How he attempted to get legislation enacted. How he recognized a problem and tried to correct it and protect the people he has spent his life serving. But lets just make a couple quick points regarding America's choice for president, shall we? This bill was quickly squashed in early 2006 when Democrats took over. That charge was led by Sen Chris Dodd (D) Connecticut. Dodd was the #1 recipient of campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie Mac during this time period, 2004 to 2007. Do you know who was #2? And I hope the Richter's of the world whom are inspired by high handed talk and empty rhetoric, are listening. Barak Hussein Obama was the #2 recipient from 2004 to 2007 of monies from Freddie and Fannie Mac. Franklin Raines, the villain above - he headed Obama's VP search committee and to this day holds the position in the Obama campaign of "Senior Economic Advisor." And just for sh*ts and giggles I would add that a Mr. Johnson is another "Senior Economic Advisor" within the Obama camp ... he was CEO of Lehman Brothers.
So, just who is ready to lead? Just who has the vision and ability to recognize needs for reform? You tell me Richter's of the world. You tell me why there are no congressional hearings being called with Raines, Obama and Dodd being dragged in under sworn testimony. This is AT LEAST as important as steroids in baseball wouldn't you say? Barry Bonds didn't cost me or you billions in tax dollars, Barry Obama did. How about if I add that MCCain hasn't requested a single ear mark in his entire career? 26 years. And that Barak, since his election in 2004, has requested over 1 billion in federal ear mark dollars - also known as pork barrel spending - for the state of IL. That's over 1 million dollars for every day he has been a US Senator, including today. Again I ask you .... who is the agent of reform? Is this what they mean by "change?"
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
We could discuss how prophetic Mac was back then. How he attempted to get legislation enacted. How he recognized a problem and tried to correct it and protect the people he has spent his life serving. But lets just make a couple quick points regarding America's choice for president, shall we? This bill was quickly squashed in early 2006 when Democrats took over. That charge was led by Sen Chris Dodd (D) Connecticut. Dodd was the #1 recipient of campaign donations from Freddie and Fannie Mac during this time period, 2004 to 2007. Do you know who was #2? And I hope the Richter's of the world whom are inspired by high handed talk and empty rhetoric, are listening. Barak Hussein Obama was the #2 recipient from 2004 to 2007 of monies from Freddie and Fannie Mac. Franklin Raines, the villain above - he headed Obama's VP search committee and to this day holds the position in the Obama campaign of "Senior Economic Advisor." And just for sh*ts and giggles I would add that a Mr. Johnson is another "Senior Economic Advisor" within the Obama camp ... he was CEO of Lehman Brothers.
So, just who is ready to lead? Just who has the vision and ability to recognize needs for reform? You tell me Richter's of the world. You tell me why there are no congressional hearings being called with Raines, Obama and Dodd being dragged in under sworn testimony. This is AT LEAST as important as steroids in baseball wouldn't you say? Barry Bonds didn't cost me or you billions in tax dollars, Barry Obama did. How about if I add that MCCain hasn't requested a single ear mark in his entire career? 26 years. And that Barak, since his election in 2004, has requested over 1 billion in federal ear mark dollars - also known as pork barrel spending - for the state of IL. That's over 1 million dollars for every day he has been a US Senator, including today. Again I ask you .... who is the agent of reform? Is this what they mean by "change?"
"America is in need of an oil change"
.. says Nancy Pelosi. Really ol' girl? Really?
First Titus, your observations regarding MAC's plans differing from Bush's are well taken, and accurate, outside of one area ...
Bush has lifted the executive ban on off-shore drilling. The president can not lift the federal congressional ban. Which means the executive ban lift is largley symbolic. Beginning in 1982, Congress restricted more and more offshore areas through annual Department of the Interior (DOI) appropriations. The DOI has authority over the OCS, which includes most areas more than three miles offshore. Through this annual process, Congress chose to deny DOI the funding necessary to conduct leasing of new offshore areas to oil and natural gas companies. These off-limits areas comprise 85 percent of the OCS—almost everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico—and the congressional moratoria have become a standard feature of each year's DOI appropriations bill. Until recent years, these restrictions were easily renewed with little controversy, but that's when gas was a buck a gallon.
Now, in May of this year the GOP proposed legislation in the Senate to allow states to "get around" the federal ban and institute a state sanctioned deal with oil companies to drill wherever they choose off their coast, maintaining a great deal of the royalties within the state, much like Titus's proposal on the matter. Democrats in the Senate beat it 56-42.
SO HERE IS THE DEMOCRATS CURRENT DILEMMA: The American people by a 70% plus margin support domestic drilling, and they (the Democrats) control the congress. Add to that the federal ban on off shore drilling expires on October 1st at midnight on its own if it is not changed or renewed. So, the Democrat leadership is stuck between a rock and a hard place to employ an old cliche. On the one hand the extremist climate change crowd is a powerful voice within their Party. They are an organized group within the base and Pelosi can't just dismiss them. Not to mention the Democrat Party leadership as a whole is ideologically and politically committed to not recovering our domestic fossil fuels. On the other hand Pelosi has moderate Democrat Congressmen & women up for reelection this year and those up for reelection don't want to buck the 70% of Americans demanding domestic drilling - so what to do? Well, an Ohio Congressman on Hugh Hewitt's show 3 nights ago described a Democrat closed door House meeting which was set precisely to hammer out a strategy, politically, on what to do about drilling's new popularity. Now of course, the Dems would prefer to have no energy bill at all, blame it on Bush and then hope Barak wins and they will get the exact bill they want rubber stamped. HOWEVER, many of these moderate Democrats, whom are up for reelection in November, told Pelosi point blank that they can not and will not go back to their districts opposed to drilling. At one point it was reported that Pelosi was so obstinate about moving on drilling that these moderates broke out in a chant "DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW." Fantastic leader she turned out to be, huh?
So, where are they on it now? Well Pelosi has now realized that an energy bill must be passed in order to protect Democrat congressional seats and maintain their majority - that's how volatile the energy/gas price debate is, and how jittery the majority party in congress is regarding it. Yesterday a new ENERGY BILL spearheaded by House Democrats and Pelosi in particular, passed the House 236-189, and caused Minority leader Rep John Boehner (R) Ohio screaming into a microphone on the steps of the capitol ... "the plan "won't do a damn thing about American energy." You see, the Democrat passed bill is a sham. A husk. A hollow shell meant to give Democrats up for reelection one line and one line only to take back to their districts: "hey, we passed an energy bill that includes drilling."
It's a farce -
1.) Rolls back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in additional royalties from oil taken from the deep water areas of the Gulf of Mexico under leases issued in the late 1990s. Also, it requires they pay $6 billion in NEW "fees" (read: taxes). The tax will be imposed on oil companies that take up the off shore contracts in order to allow the federal government to then "invest" in alternative fuel research, even though 70% of all alternative fuels research is already provided by oil companies. And just fyi - that's 70% of North American research, not just the US. So clearly Pelosi wants the gas to be as expensive as possible once we pull it out - because that's what a new tax does, it makes the product more expensive.
2.) Requires the release of 70 million barrels of oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to put more oil on the market and "lower gasoline prices." 70 million? What in the name of all that is good and holy is that supposed to do? Outside of lessen or strategic reserve? Oy vey!
3.)Provides tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, and purchase of plug-in gas-electric hybrid cars, and requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy sources. Requires how I ask? Forced by the feds? I'm sure that sudden new requirement won't cause any local communities to see a hike in their electric bill ... mother f%$#@!!*&.
4.) Gives tax breaks for new energy efficiency and conservation programs, including the use of improved building codes and low-interest loans for energy-efficient homes, and for companies that promote their employees use of bicycles for commuting. Uh huh ... bicycles. Now that's a serious energy plan.
5.) The federal government gets the lion's share of the royalties, NOT the states. It's a bend over the state and grab the ankles scenario. Some estimates place the state portion of the revenue as not even being cost effective to begin in the first place. Nice Pelosi, real nice.
6.) There are no federal subsidies or otherwise encouragement to build nuclear power plants - whatsoever.
7.) And most disturbing of all, the part that makes this whole thing a big shill game: THE STATES CAN ONLY DRILL FROM 50 TO 200 MILES OUT! The bulk of the oil and gas, the most easily recoverable, the richest portion, is from 3 MILES TO 50 MILES OUT !!!!
Am I supposed to take this "Energy Bill" seriously? Deny the most oil rich areas, screw the states on revenue, no nuclear and oh ya - GET YOUR EMPLOYEES TO RIDE BIKES!
Let me ask Richter something - is this the "change" we need? Does anyone doubt that this bill would become law under an Obama administration? How many Sheiks, Chavez's, Russian interior minister's and even Canadians are getting a hearty chuckle out of this nonsense? THIS is America taking her energy needs seriously?
And one last observation Richter, on your undying loyalty to the Party of Jimmy Carter - the modern incarnation of the once great Democrat party is a profoundly unserious bunch, whom are supremely unqualified to lead. To put it simply there are no adults left on that side - the Micheal Moore/Ohberman/Move-On elements of that party have infected it like a virulent strain of an incurable virus ... and they are completely incapable of expelling it .... just how tight does one have to squeeze their eyes shut in order not to see this?
First Titus, your observations regarding MAC's plans differing from Bush's are well taken, and accurate, outside of one area ...
Bush has lifted the executive ban on off-shore drilling. The president can not lift the federal congressional ban. Which means the executive ban lift is largley symbolic. Beginning in 1982, Congress restricted more and more offshore areas through annual Department of the Interior (DOI) appropriations. The DOI has authority over the OCS, which includes most areas more than three miles offshore. Through this annual process, Congress chose to deny DOI the funding necessary to conduct leasing of new offshore areas to oil and natural gas companies. These off-limits areas comprise 85 percent of the OCS—almost everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico—and the congressional moratoria have become a standard feature of each year's DOI appropriations bill. Until recent years, these restrictions were easily renewed with little controversy, but that's when gas was a buck a gallon.
Now, in May of this year the GOP proposed legislation in the Senate to allow states to "get around" the federal ban and institute a state sanctioned deal with oil companies to drill wherever they choose off their coast, maintaining a great deal of the royalties within the state, much like Titus's proposal on the matter. Democrats in the Senate beat it 56-42.
SO HERE IS THE DEMOCRATS CURRENT DILEMMA: The American people by a 70% plus margin support domestic drilling, and they (the Democrats) control the congress. Add to that the federal ban on off shore drilling expires on October 1st at midnight on its own if it is not changed or renewed. So, the Democrat leadership is stuck between a rock and a hard place to employ an old cliche. On the one hand the extremist climate change crowd is a powerful voice within their Party. They are an organized group within the base and Pelosi can't just dismiss them. Not to mention the Democrat Party leadership as a whole is ideologically and politically committed to not recovering our domestic fossil fuels. On the other hand Pelosi has moderate Democrat Congressmen & women up for reelection this year and those up for reelection don't want to buck the 70% of Americans demanding domestic drilling - so what to do? Well, an Ohio Congressman on Hugh Hewitt's show 3 nights ago described a Democrat closed door House meeting which was set precisely to hammer out a strategy, politically, on what to do about drilling's new popularity. Now of course, the Dems would prefer to have no energy bill at all, blame it on Bush and then hope Barak wins and they will get the exact bill they want rubber stamped. HOWEVER, many of these moderate Democrats, whom are up for reelection in November, told Pelosi point blank that they can not and will not go back to their districts opposed to drilling. At one point it was reported that Pelosi was so obstinate about moving on drilling that these moderates broke out in a chant "DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW." Fantastic leader she turned out to be, huh?
So, where are they on it now? Well Pelosi has now realized that an energy bill must be passed in order to protect Democrat congressional seats and maintain their majority - that's how volatile the energy/gas price debate is, and how jittery the majority party in congress is regarding it. Yesterday a new ENERGY BILL spearheaded by House Democrats and Pelosi in particular, passed the House 236-189, and caused Minority leader Rep John Boehner (R) Ohio screaming into a microphone on the steps of the capitol ... "the plan "won't do a damn thing about American energy." You see, the Democrat passed bill is a sham. A husk. A hollow shell meant to give Democrats up for reelection one line and one line only to take back to their districts: "hey, we passed an energy bill that includes drilling."
It's a farce -
1.) Rolls back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in additional royalties from oil taken from the deep water areas of the Gulf of Mexico under leases issued in the late 1990s. Also, it requires they pay $6 billion in NEW "fees" (read: taxes). The tax will be imposed on oil companies that take up the off shore contracts in order to allow the federal government to then "invest" in alternative fuel research, even though 70% of all alternative fuels research is already provided by oil companies. And just fyi - that's 70% of North American research, not just the US. So clearly Pelosi wants the gas to be as expensive as possible once we pull it out - because that's what a new tax does, it makes the product more expensive.
2.) Requires the release of 70 million barrels of oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to put more oil on the market and "lower gasoline prices." 70 million? What in the name of all that is good and holy is that supposed to do? Outside of lessen or strategic reserve? Oy vey!
3.)Provides tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, and purchase of plug-in gas-electric hybrid cars, and requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy sources. Requires how I ask? Forced by the feds? I'm sure that sudden new requirement won't cause any local communities to see a hike in their electric bill ... mother f%$#@!!*&.
4.) Gives tax breaks for new energy efficiency and conservation programs, including the use of improved building codes and low-interest loans for energy-efficient homes, and for companies that promote their employees use of bicycles for commuting. Uh huh ... bicycles. Now that's a serious energy plan.
5.) The federal government gets the lion's share of the royalties, NOT the states. It's a bend over the state and grab the ankles scenario. Some estimates place the state portion of the revenue as not even being cost effective to begin in the first place. Nice Pelosi, real nice.
6.) There are no federal subsidies or otherwise encouragement to build nuclear power plants - whatsoever.
7.) And most disturbing of all, the part that makes this whole thing a big shill game: THE STATES CAN ONLY DRILL FROM 50 TO 200 MILES OUT! The bulk of the oil and gas, the most easily recoverable, the richest portion, is from 3 MILES TO 50 MILES OUT !!!!
Am I supposed to take this "Energy Bill" seriously? Deny the most oil rich areas, screw the states on revenue, no nuclear and oh ya - GET YOUR EMPLOYEES TO RIDE BIKES!
Let me ask Richter something - is this the "change" we need? Does anyone doubt that this bill would become law under an Obama administration? How many Sheiks, Chavez's, Russian interior minister's and even Canadians are getting a hearty chuckle out of this nonsense? THIS is America taking her energy needs seriously?
And one last observation Richter, on your undying loyalty to the Party of Jimmy Carter - the modern incarnation of the once great Democrat party is a profoundly unserious bunch, whom are supremely unqualified to lead. To put it simply there are no adults left on that side - the Micheal Moore/Ohberman/Move-On elements of that party have infected it like a virulent strain of an incurable virus ... and they are completely incapable of expelling it .... just how tight does one have to squeeze their eyes shut in order not to see this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
