And I can't keep up while I'm at work, so I'll use the Bund to respond.
Ryan is voicing concern that our "4th trimester" abortion-supporting President is being allowed to give the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame this May. I agree that his views on when life begins and what a woman can or cannot "choose" in regards to the life of her child are distressing in the extreme, and I think that the university's choice is a poor one.
But, he is not lecturing, teaching or expounding on faith and/or morals and it is the express position of the University that: "The invitation of President Obama to be our commencement speaker should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research. You cannot change the world if you shun the people you want to persuade. The school is not honoring President Obama for his stands on issues, but rather his leadership."
He also voiced concern that some professors at Boston College had complained that the crucifixes in all the classrooms distracted the learning process, and had petitioned that they all be removed. As much as I am sure these professors would LOVE to try and get the school to remove these symbols of Catholic faith... their 6 and 7 digit annual salaries DEPEND on their signing a document called a "mandatum of doctrinal concordance" which basically means they cannot teach or advocate anything that actively or by association conflicts with or refutes established Catholic doctrine and magesterial teaching. Removal of the crucifix, or the image of the Blessed Virgin, or failure to acknowledge or allow for established worship schedules kept on the campus itself constitutes a breach of this mandatum... and they are fired, regardless of tenure or contract. These mandatum (Latin for "promised compliance"... similar to our "mandatory") constitute a legal requirement of employment and tenure, as established by the Holy See and upheld and recognized by the US Supreme Court as neither discriminatory nor unfair or unusual in its application.
In short... they haven't got a "prayer" of seeing this petition recognized.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The "Left's" fundemental failing...
It occurred to me today as I was reading the latest headlines and news articles that the Left in this country is working under a very powerful but equally erroneous assumption:
That the Federal Government of the United States was established by the Founding Fathers to rule the nation and its citizens.
This is, quite simply and without question, NOT the case.
The United States Constitution was written and adopted by the various States to ensure that the laws, limits and regulations established within it dictated just how far the federal government could go WITHOUT interfering with the sovereign and independent authority of the individual States that make up the United States. In short, it details how far the Feds can go... and establishes very clearly that they can go no further. To ensure that no particular Branch of government can exceed these limits, all three branches were given separate but equal authority to "check and balance" the authorities of the other two branches.
The presumed assumption on the part of the Left today that, given the popularity of the Democratic Party in American politics, the agenda and intentions of the DNC must be the agenda and the intentions of the entire nation is not only FALSE, but inherently WRONG, as well.
We are NOT a democracy. No matter how much anyone (including some of Ryan's past rants) may want to use that term to describe the American system of Government... we are simply NOT a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC, and thus, we DO NOT vote for or elect "rulers" or "leaders"... we elect REPRESENTATIVES who enforce the laws, limits and regulations as defined in the Constitution or legislatively enact the same. The "Rule of Law" is not established in this country by RULERS or LEADERS, no matter if they are elected or not... it is established by the Constitution of the United States and by the individual and sovereign States that make up that Union. Anything to the contrary, in opinion or fact, is simply the failure of the people of the United States to realise and maintain that REPUBLIC and its make up.
Were the "majority" opinion or voice to be the only deciding factor of RULE in this country, as it would be in a true democracy, then the majority of voters could, conceivably, vote to legalize rape (or child pornography, or any one of a hundred other obviously heinous crimes) with no recourse for the "victims" rights or the minority voice. As the Framers managed it, though... the Rule of Law is established by the Constitution, and NOT by rulers and leaders, elected or otherwise.
I can offer no greater evidence to this FACT than to point to each and every Oath of Office taken by every President, Governor, Senator, Representative, Secretary, or Military Officer since the country. No one ever takes the Oath to defend and protect the United States, or its leaders, or its government, or its citizens... they "swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and nothing else.
Our nation, our government... our very society is instituted on the IDEAL of the "republic"... not on the "idea" of democracy, or majority rule, or anything of the sort. We function or fail as a nation with the common understanding of this premise.
Does anyone else see a fundamental failure on the part of the Left to recognize this? Or am I, once again, preaching to the choir?
That the Federal Government of the United States was established by the Founding Fathers to rule the nation and its citizens.
This is, quite simply and without question, NOT the case.
The United States Constitution was written and adopted by the various States to ensure that the laws, limits and regulations established within it dictated just how far the federal government could go WITHOUT interfering with the sovereign and independent authority of the individual States that make up the United States. In short, it details how far the Feds can go... and establishes very clearly that they can go no further. To ensure that no particular Branch of government can exceed these limits, all three branches were given separate but equal authority to "check and balance" the authorities of the other two branches.
The presumed assumption on the part of the Left today that, given the popularity of the Democratic Party in American politics, the agenda and intentions of the DNC must be the agenda and the intentions of the entire nation is not only FALSE, but inherently WRONG, as well.
We are NOT a democracy. No matter how much anyone (including some of Ryan's past rants) may want to use that term to describe the American system of Government... we are simply NOT a democracy. We are a REPUBLIC, and thus, we DO NOT vote for or elect "rulers" or "leaders"... we elect REPRESENTATIVES who enforce the laws, limits and regulations as defined in the Constitution or legislatively enact the same. The "Rule of Law" is not established in this country by RULERS or LEADERS, no matter if they are elected or not... it is established by the Constitution of the United States and by the individual and sovereign States that make up that Union. Anything to the contrary, in opinion or fact, is simply the failure of the people of the United States to realise and maintain that REPUBLIC and its make up.
Were the "majority" opinion or voice to be the only deciding factor of RULE in this country, as it would be in a true democracy, then the majority of voters could, conceivably, vote to legalize rape (or child pornography, or any one of a hundred other obviously heinous crimes) with no recourse for the "victims" rights or the minority voice. As the Framers managed it, though... the Rule of Law is established by the Constitution, and NOT by rulers and leaders, elected or otherwise.
I can offer no greater evidence to this FACT than to point to each and every Oath of Office taken by every President, Governor, Senator, Representative, Secretary, or Military Officer since the country. No one ever takes the Oath to defend and protect the United States, or its leaders, or its government, or its citizens... they "swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" and nothing else.
Our nation, our government... our very society is instituted on the IDEAL of the "republic"... not on the "idea" of democracy, or majority rule, or anything of the sort. We function or fail as a nation with the common understanding of this premise.
Does anyone else see a fundamental failure on the part of the Left to recognize this? Or am I, once again, preaching to the choir?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
On Nov 5th, 2008...
... I asked the question: Should the GOP play opposition politics in the same manner than the Dems did for the last two years of the Bush Administration? My answer was NO.
I advocated they should stand by their platform, principles and purposes... but to hold up nominations and block legislation the way they did would gain them nothing in the long run, and would give Pelosi, Reid and Obama someone to point at and say "See? THEY are holding up progress and change!" Better to stick to your guns, and wait for Obama-Pelosi-Reid to self-destruct.
We are just over 60 days into the "Obama era", and without any assistance from the GOP, "Obama & Co." is cracking at the base. I actually got to watch Gietner (sp?) give his litany of praise to a professed, card-carrying Communist governor of the Chinese Central Bank, and in less than 80 minutes, the dollar had lost 14% of its value on the global market. Two hours after that, the CBO came out with another updated report saying that the Obama omnibus budget would put the over-all US deficit over ten years at more than $9 billion dollars... which, by my meager math skills, comes to an average tax bill for the American tax payer (all 148 million of us) over ten years of just over $60,800... and that is PER TAXPAYER, not per household. That means we can expect to see just over $130,000 go out of our household in taxes between now and 2019 (more, if the two oldest stay home after high school)... just to balance what we have SPENT in the first 60 days of Obama's Presidency.
Some Democratic Senators are questioning the size and scope of the budget (mostly "blue dog", but Dems, nonetheless) and many Democratic Governors are balking at the scope of the changes that the new 10-year plans will force on State legislatures and their tax structures. Both the House and Senate budget bills have excluded the President's "middle-class tax cut" from their proposals... which even the wildly-biased mainstream media can't ignore. I can't wait to see Olbermann spin the omission of "Making Work Pay" from BOTH bills! How does THAT not Constitute another broken campaign promise?
I'm no longer waiting to see how much damage is done... the damage has already been done! Now, I just want to watch the Administration and this Congress implode all over itself.
I advocated they should stand by their platform, principles and purposes... but to hold up nominations and block legislation the way they did would gain them nothing in the long run, and would give Pelosi, Reid and Obama someone to point at and say "See? THEY are holding up progress and change!" Better to stick to your guns, and wait for Obama-Pelosi-Reid to self-destruct.
We are just over 60 days into the "Obama era", and without any assistance from the GOP, "Obama & Co." is cracking at the base. I actually got to watch Gietner (sp?) give his litany of praise to a professed, card-carrying Communist governor of the Chinese Central Bank, and in less than 80 minutes, the dollar had lost 14% of its value on the global market. Two hours after that, the CBO came out with another updated report saying that the Obama omnibus budget would put the over-all US deficit over ten years at more than $9 billion dollars... which, by my meager math skills, comes to an average tax bill for the American tax payer (all 148 million of us) over ten years of just over $60,800... and that is PER TAXPAYER, not per household. That means we can expect to see just over $130,000 go out of our household in taxes between now and 2019 (more, if the two oldest stay home after high school)... just to balance what we have SPENT in the first 60 days of Obama's Presidency.
Some Democratic Senators are questioning the size and scope of the budget (mostly "blue dog", but Dems, nonetheless) and many Democratic Governors are balking at the scope of the changes that the new 10-year plans will force on State legislatures and their tax structures. Both the House and Senate budget bills have excluded the President's "middle-class tax cut" from their proposals... which even the wildly-biased mainstream media can't ignore. I can't wait to see Olbermann spin the omission of "Making Work Pay" from BOTH bills! How does THAT not Constitute another broken campaign promise?
I'm no longer waiting to see how much damage is done... the damage has already been done! Now, I just want to watch the Administration and this Congress implode all over itself.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
You know what really pisses me off?
I'm right and no one will ever know it.
I was reading back posts of the Bund, looking for the criteria for the Presidential report cards and came across the energy debates circa April 2008. We were entrenched in the oil/gasoline prices at the time, $4 a gallon gas, etc. and the embryonic stages of my New Deal 2008 plan. (What twisted connotations ring with THAT title now, not even a year later!)Remember how everyone EXCEPT ME balked at the idea of the federal government spending 30 BILLION dollars for private home owner power generation over the span of a four year term? Remember how this money would be recovered in a decade because the initial money was SBA style loans? Remember why this could NEVER HAPPEN because 1) The feds had no place instigating that kind of policy, that was PRIVATE sector responsibility, and 2) There were better ways of spending 30 Billion?
Good freaking Lord how good does that plan sound now?
An honest to God stimulus action that would WORK. It A) pays for itself and B) funnels money BACK into the economy in two ways. Way number one, jobs in the creation of the devices (solar panels, wind powered generators) and their installation and two, money saved from power bills becomes discretionary income going to goods and services.
When this is all over we're going to have a federal government that won't spend a DIME more than it has to because it WON'T BE ABLE TO. 6.9 trillion is going to take a while to pay off. Maybe my grandkids will see a balanced budget and no deficit.
My plan WOULD HAVE WORKED! And we'll never know.
I was reading back posts of the Bund, looking for the criteria for the Presidential report cards and came across the energy debates circa April 2008. We were entrenched in the oil/gasoline prices at the time, $4 a gallon gas, etc. and the embryonic stages of my New Deal 2008 plan. (What twisted connotations ring with THAT title now, not even a year later!)Remember how everyone EXCEPT ME balked at the idea of the federal government spending 30 BILLION dollars for private home owner power generation over the span of a four year term? Remember how this money would be recovered in a decade because the initial money was SBA style loans? Remember why this could NEVER HAPPEN because 1) The feds had no place instigating that kind of policy, that was PRIVATE sector responsibility, and 2) There were better ways of spending 30 Billion?
Good freaking Lord how good does that plan sound now?
An honest to God stimulus action that would WORK. It A) pays for itself and B) funnels money BACK into the economy in two ways. Way number one, jobs in the creation of the devices (solar panels, wind powered generators) and their installation and two, money saved from power bills becomes discretionary income going to goods and services.
When this is all over we're going to have a federal government that won't spend a DIME more than it has to because it WON'T BE ABLE TO. 6.9 trillion is going to take a while to pay off. Maybe my grandkids will see a balanced budget and no deficit.
My plan WOULD HAVE WORKED! And we'll never know.
Monday, March 23, 2009
sigh, sigh, sigh . . .
. . . that's all you do! Sobbing like so much the injured little school girl, complete with the pink bow and plaid patterned skirt.
Look, panty man - face it: you are considered, in 2009, a rabid - and I mean RABID - right winger, I don't give a damn what letter begins your political party affiliation. Partly because of your own new conclusions on certain issues, and because the party of your youth has gone friggin-A bonkers. Lets also note that I have always been a conservative myself - albeit I am a much more mature one (in argument and self) now then was present in the Grand dice pit and on the back dock circa 2002. And with the election of the most left wing candidate in US history (William Jennings Bryant would have been preferable at this point) causing the convergence of monetary, social and defense policy into a single quasi-socialist (not to mention amateur & just flat out historically ignorant) voice booming from D.C, OF COURSE we find less and less to disagree on within current events.
So ... what's left? History. You have always been "skeptical" (as you've described it) of Regan's tax policy. Assuming that you still are, and with us all acknowledging he is a "top 5" US president, explain to me just how the largest tax receipts and fastest expansion of prosperity in the history of the US leaves room for "skepticism" from an enlightened fellow such as yourself.
Or pick another facet of history . . . or lets finish the "Presidential Report Cards." FDR and Clinton may prove particularly fractious here.
At any rate, stop whining - ACT!
Look, panty man - face it: you are considered, in 2009, a rabid - and I mean RABID - right winger, I don't give a damn what letter begins your political party affiliation. Partly because of your own new conclusions on certain issues, and because the party of your youth has gone friggin-A bonkers. Lets also note that I have always been a conservative myself - albeit I am a much more mature one (in argument and self) now then was present in the Grand dice pit and on the back dock circa 2002. And with the election of the most left wing candidate in US history (William Jennings Bryant would have been preferable at this point) causing the convergence of monetary, social and defense policy into a single quasi-socialist (not to mention amateur & just flat out historically ignorant) voice booming from D.C, OF COURSE we find less and less to disagree on within current events.
So ... what's left? History. You have always been "skeptical" (as you've described it) of Regan's tax policy. Assuming that you still are, and with us all acknowledging he is a "top 5" US president, explain to me just how the largest tax receipts and fastest expansion of prosperity in the history of the US leaves room for "skepticism" from an enlightened fellow such as yourself.
Or pick another facet of history . . . or lets finish the "Presidential Report Cards." FDR and Clinton may prove particularly fractious here.
At any rate, stop whining - ACT!
The ULTIMATE neighborhood watch!
You are going to love this. In the UK many of the papers have carried this story in their tech sections. I heard it moments ago on the conservative talk radio program of Roger Hedgecock. And there is little wonder why it has gotten next to zero play in the US papers, media etc.
Texas sheriff Don Reed, the executive director of border sheriffs, was able to secure funding in the 2007 budget for an innovative new program. In the wake of the popularity of groups such as the Minutemen, he wanted to expand participation in the same vane as a "neighborhood watch." In November the first 15 of a planned 200 cameras went up along the Southern US border. They are linked to the Internet where online users, free of charge, can pick from the various sections to monitor the border live! In addition, there is an "email hot line" to send in tips. With the first 15 cameras alone Sheriff Reed says over 30,000 lbs of marijuana have been seized and 30 incidents in which "groups" attempting to illegally enter the US of A have been apprehended. And even though the majority of participants are from AZ, NM & TX, he says they received one email from Australia in which the sender described he and his "mates are watching your border from our pub."
I haven't gone and looked for the website yet, but I'm sure something as unique as this will take little more then a few minutes to find, and I intend to link to it on our site.
Gotta love Texas sheriffs . . . hehe.
Texas sheriff Don Reed, the executive director of border sheriffs, was able to secure funding in the 2007 budget for an innovative new program. In the wake of the popularity of groups such as the Minutemen, he wanted to expand participation in the same vane as a "neighborhood watch." In November the first 15 of a planned 200 cameras went up along the Southern US border. They are linked to the Internet where online users, free of charge, can pick from the various sections to monitor the border live! In addition, there is an "email hot line" to send in tips. With the first 15 cameras alone Sheriff Reed says over 30,000 lbs of marijuana have been seized and 30 incidents in which "groups" attempting to illegally enter the US of A have been apprehended. And even though the majority of participants are from AZ, NM & TX, he says they received one email from Australia in which the sender described he and his "mates are watching your border from our pub."
I haven't gone and looked for the website yet, but I'm sure something as unique as this will take little more then a few minutes to find, and I intend to link to it on our site.
Gotta love Texas sheriffs . . . hehe.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
{sigh}
I long for the days when we had something to functionally debate in this forum...
Sadly, I am in full agreement with nearly everything Ryan says. I'm nearly convinced that Obama is rapidly making himself a joke to Americans, and completely irrelevant to the rest of the world (especially such peace-loving, tolerant societies as Iran and North Korea).
My opinion is that we will continue to see more evidence of incompetence and blatant fraud from more and more of the Democratic leadership (White House and Congressional) over the next two years, along with more and more proof that the policies and legislation of the Dems simply doesn't work (or worse, makes things worse). I'm not advocating standing by and allowing the Dems to "hang themselves" with their own rope... but I'm confident in their ability to make themselves irrelevant far faster than they are capable of actually instituting any really damaging policies or programs. The AIG fiasco is ample proof that Democratic "bill ramming" doesn't speed recovery... it increases the chance that mistakes and loop-holes will be found to circumvent regulation and show the failings of the Democratic platform as a whole.
Obama fancied himself a historian prior to the election... but were that actually the case, he'd know he was on the fast-track to repeating the same errors that cost previous Democratic Presidents their Congressional support (Carter AND Clinton are stellar examples), and he hasn't shown me that he has the political savy to "spin" such an event to his advantage the way Clinton did in '95.
With any luck, he really will become the 2nd Carter Administration...
Sadly, I am in full agreement with nearly everything Ryan says. I'm nearly convinced that Obama is rapidly making himself a joke to Americans, and completely irrelevant to the rest of the world (especially such peace-loving, tolerant societies as Iran and North Korea).
My opinion is that we will continue to see more evidence of incompetence and blatant fraud from more and more of the Democratic leadership (White House and Congressional) over the next two years, along with more and more proof that the policies and legislation of the Dems simply doesn't work (or worse, makes things worse). I'm not advocating standing by and allowing the Dems to "hang themselves" with their own rope... but I'm confident in their ability to make themselves irrelevant far faster than they are capable of actually instituting any really damaging policies or programs. The AIG fiasco is ample proof that Democratic "bill ramming" doesn't speed recovery... it increases the chance that mistakes and loop-holes will be found to circumvent regulation and show the failings of the Democratic platform as a whole.
Obama fancied himself a historian prior to the election... but were that actually the case, he'd know he was on the fast-track to repeating the same errors that cost previous Democratic Presidents their Congressional support (Carter AND Clinton are stellar examples), and he hasn't shown me that he has the political savy to "spin" such an event to his advantage the way Clinton did in '95.
With any luck, he really will become the 2nd Carter Administration...
Fear and Loathing in D.C.
For weeks now the White House has been claiming that Obama's stimulus and new budget (more money then was spent from George Washington to George W. Bush) would increase the federal deficit to "only" $6.96 Trillion dollars, and they used OMB numbers to back that estimate up.
Well, THE standard in evaluating government spending, the non partisan CBO - Congressional Budget Office - says that the number, given Obama's budget, will actually be a devastating $9.3 TRILLION by 2019, and that's with a recovered (growing by 4% a year) economy factored in starting in 2010! A full $2.3 trillion more then he has been promising. Even the Democrat controlled (represented in the chairman's comments today) Senate Budget Committee said today that "hundreds of billions must be trimmed" because such a number is "unsustainable." His minority member colleague even went so far as to say this would "guarantee the financial failure of our country."
But guess what? The White House, via the White House press secretary - "family guy" Gibbs, says: "this changes nothing." They are going ahead as planned. And the real kicker is, and I'm giving a close paraphrase, they know something the CBO doesn't - the positive impact the president's "stimulus" bill will have, causing greater tax receipts. AND GET THIS - he still claims those receipts will allow him to cut the deficit by 2/3rds in the next 4 years!
What fantasy world is this? What acid trip are they on? All sense of reality has been abandoned. The inmates aren't just running the asylum, they're calling it a day spa and charging admission all while smiling like the Cheshire Cat.
And by the way Barry - at least when Bush was a source of comedy it was derived from his mangled words . . . rather then from making fun of mangled genes.
Well, THE standard in evaluating government spending, the non partisan CBO - Congressional Budget Office - says that the number, given Obama's budget, will actually be a devastating $9.3 TRILLION by 2019, and that's with a recovered (growing by 4% a year) economy factored in starting in 2010! A full $2.3 trillion more then he has been promising. Even the Democrat controlled (represented in the chairman's comments today) Senate Budget Committee said today that "hundreds of billions must be trimmed" because such a number is "unsustainable." His minority member colleague even went so far as to say this would "guarantee the financial failure of our country."
But guess what? The White House, via the White House press secretary - "family guy" Gibbs, says: "this changes nothing." They are going ahead as planned. And the real kicker is, and I'm giving a close paraphrase, they know something the CBO doesn't - the positive impact the president's "stimulus" bill will have, causing greater tax receipts. AND GET THIS - he still claims those receipts will allow him to cut the deficit by 2/3rds in the next 4 years!
What fantasy world is this? What acid trip are they on? All sense of reality has been abandoned. The inmates aren't just running the asylum, they're calling it a day spa and charging admission all while smiling like the Cheshire Cat.
And by the way Barry - at least when Bush was a source of comedy it was derived from his mangled words . . . rather then from making fun of mangled genes.
Ha - I just bought her . . .
. . . books (I had to clarify that, I DO live in Vegas after all).
Funny you should mention her in your last - I just receieved the 2 Ayn Rand books I ordered from Amazon in the mail - "Atlas Shrugged", and "The Fountain Head." I realize she was an antheist of sorts, and I couldn't agree more with you about the relevance of faith in our society, but from what I gather her books (these 2 being among the most popular) have gained new popularity due to her fictional depiction of an Orwellian, big brother future . . . one that seems a little too familiar for comfort.
And ps . . . . CHEATER!
Funny you should mention her in your last - I just receieved the 2 Ayn Rand books I ordered from Amazon in the mail - "Atlas Shrugged", and "The Fountain Head." I realize she was an antheist of sorts, and I couldn't agree more with you about the relevance of faith in our society, but from what I gather her books (these 2 being among the most popular) have gained new popularity due to her fictional depiction of an Orwellian, big brother future . . . one that seems a little too familiar for comfort.
And ps . . . . CHEATER!
MAN CAUSED DISASTER
I shit you not - the DIRECTOR of HOMELAND SECURITY, our nations highest intelligence officer, out ranking the CIA Chief, Mrs. Napolitano, has made the executive decision to no longer employ the word TERRORISM because she regards the very word as "fear mongering", and has directed that in all literature, documents, press briefings, and testimony to congress public and private, to refer to acts of TERRORISM as a "MAN CAUSED DISASTER."
What were the NAZIS then madam? Tolerance challenged? Was Stalin "politically overly motivated?" How about Timothy McVey - a manure enthusiast?
This is demonstrative of how Chamberlain's are made. This is the only group that could make Carter look like Winston Churchill.
Enjoy your 1 term Barry.
What were the NAZIS then madam? Tolerance challenged? Was Stalin "politically overly motivated?" How about Timothy McVey - a manure enthusiast?
This is demonstrative of how Chamberlain's are made. This is the only group that could make Carter look like Winston Churchill.
Enjoy your 1 term Barry.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
It's time I confessed...
{sigh}
I've been unfaithful... I have strayed... I have cheated.
I know things have been busy for everyone. Jambo makes his big family trip to the Great White North, Baddboy with two jobs and a family of his own, and Ryan with his sun-tanning and phone texting (hehe... just kidding). Anyway, I know it explains why the Bund has been so slow lately.
But, I have found another venue to vent my political angst... another outlet for my need to debate while the Bund gathers it's strength... Conservative Punk. It's a bit daunting facing off against kids (literally) half my age, still in school and full of the indoctrination our colleges and universities stuff into impressionable young minds... but it does force one to hone the debate skills, I can tell you that!
So, why the confession?
The DAMN discussion board for ConPunk.com is DOWN now for three days... just as I had the final and irrefutable argument against Ayn Rand and her Objectivist "rand-roids" ready to show that faith and the belief in God still have relevance in today's world!
I'm board shitless... so let's pick a fight here.
Somebody start a beef about something we KNOW we don't agree on... and stop posting crap about stuff no rational person could possibly debate, like "Obama is an idiot" or "Congress is WRONG" or "Bin Laden is a bad man"... PLEASE!!!!!
I've been unfaithful... I have strayed... I have cheated.
I know things have been busy for everyone. Jambo makes his big family trip to the Great White North, Baddboy with two jobs and a family of his own, and Ryan with his sun-tanning and phone texting (hehe... just kidding). Anyway, I know it explains why the Bund has been so slow lately.
But, I have found another venue to vent my political angst... another outlet for my need to debate while the Bund gathers it's strength... Conservative Punk. It's a bit daunting facing off against kids (literally) half my age, still in school and full of the indoctrination our colleges and universities stuff into impressionable young minds... but it does force one to hone the debate skills, I can tell you that!
So, why the confession?
The DAMN discussion board for ConPunk.com is DOWN now for three days... just as I had the final and irrefutable argument against Ayn Rand and her Objectivist "rand-roids" ready to show that faith and the belief in God still have relevance in today's world!
I'm board shitless... so let's pick a fight here.
Somebody start a beef about something we KNOW we don't agree on... and stop posting crap about stuff no rational person could possibly debate, like "Obama is an idiot" or "Congress is WRONG" or "Bin Laden is a bad man"... PLEASE!!!!!
Oh, this is too easy...
{gleefully rubbing hands together}
Where to begin to emasculate this latest load of revisionist tripe?
...
Actually... you are 100% correct. I heard much of the Libby-Congressional testimony today, and I better understand that the bonus question is one that actually WAS addressed by both the Sec Tres (current) AND Congress (yes, Dodd knew and wrote the bail-out bill anyway). Those lying bastards can look surprised and indignant all they want, it is now on the "record" that both the Administration AND Democratic leadership in the Senate not only okay'd the millions in contractual bonus payments, but they did so after being told by both the Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke AND AIG itself that the more than $120 million could only be stopped if it was expressly written into the bail-out bill (which Dodd didn't do).
If this is the kind of "change we can believe in" and expect for the first sixty days of the Obama Administration... then I can't wait to see what the next 670 days bring, and what that will do to the balance of power in Congress. As Ryan pointed out, Clinton's actions in his first term did what? They cost the Dems their more than 20-year-old Congressional majority.
Does anyone here think Obama will fair any better?
Where to begin to emasculate this latest load of revisionist tripe?
...
Actually... you are 100% correct. I heard much of the Libby-Congressional testimony today, and I better understand that the bonus question is one that actually WAS addressed by both the Sec Tres (current) AND Congress (yes, Dodd knew and wrote the bail-out bill anyway). Those lying bastards can look surprised and indignant all they want, it is now on the "record" that both the Administration AND Democratic leadership in the Senate not only okay'd the millions in contractual bonus payments, but they did so after being told by both the Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke AND AIG itself that the more than $120 million could only be stopped if it was expressly written into the bail-out bill (which Dodd didn't do).
If this is the kind of "change we can believe in" and expect for the first sixty days of the Obama Administration... then I can't wait to see what the next 670 days bring, and what that will do to the balance of power in Congress. As Ryan pointed out, Clinton's actions in his first term did what? They cost the Dems their more than 20-year-old Congressional majority.
Does anyone here think Obama will fair any better?
I always liked Hoover's starched white collar.
I for one as a free thinker and pseudo-polysci expert am not, I repeat am NOT outraged at the the AIG bonuses. They totaled what was it? Ah, yes - roughly $165 million. Uh huh, I see - $165 mil. Yep, no question about it, that's a lot of money. Now within this forum some knee jerk reactions to my making such a proclamation may be, "there goes Ryan, believing the private sector can do no wrong." That I have embraced as religion the creedo espoused by Micheal Douglas's character in the movie Wall Street: "Greed ... is GOOD." But these onlookers, electronic lurkers, and all around cheek cluckers would be wrong. This is not I trying to defend any private venture as incapable of being anything other then pure as the driven snow. Rather this is an earnest attempt to not take my eye off the ball. And since I proclaim the intellectual prowess of being able to read the stiches on that incoming ball, let us proceed . . .
In 1993 Bill Clinton signed off on an official memorandum that was to become HUD's new defacto policy: The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream, which was to deliver on the Clinton administration's promise to extend home ownership into lower income neighborhoods. His goal was to increase home ownership by noticeable numbers within his first term as president, a seemingly noble goal; however, the details of this would be felt in spades years later, employed and produced under the law of unintended consequences as is always the child birthed from the mother of social engineering. This memo, which HUD via congressional help effectively set as Fannie and Freddie policy was available right on the HUD website until the housing collapse hit the front pages. There is little wonder why it has since vanished in my estimation. Joseph R. Mason, a finance professor at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and a consultant at Criterion Economics noted the following excerpt from the policy's language source:
"For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
Notice the stressing of "creativity" in overcoming these traditional "impediments." You know, such as actually being able to afford the home you're buying, impediments such as those. This begat a series of creative methods available to homebuyers. Among them were the 100% to loan financing - zero down; the sub prime rates, quite literally setting interest rates below the prime rate in order to squeeze payments just within reach. And everybody's favorite "interest only" loans allowing buyers to purchase three to four times the amount of house they could afford on their income in a "standard" loan. Now, these practices did indeed allow many lower income buyers into the market. But it didn't stop there. HUD estimated that nearly 600,000 new homeowners would be created in the first year (multiply that out over 13 years), but not all of them were the intended target. You see, you can't lower the standards (or at least they didn't) for "only" minorities or certain groups. These new standards were available to everyone: dentists, day traders, executives, et al - all people who saw the housing markets surging and jumped in utilizing these new "creative" programs in order to flip a house they never intended to live in for a profit. Add to that those whom bought homes they did intend to live in, but bought 3 to 4x's out of their range because they could pour the mortgage into one of these new programs and qualify. And all of that is in addition to the lower income families who were qualified for home ownership outside of traditional routes. And it was a self sustaining cycle - as more and more utilized these "progressive" new programs and standards the housing bubble grew, housing prices went through the roof and more people wanted to jump in, inflating the bubble even further. Each added fuel to the housing fire that seemed to have no end in sight. And since Fannie and Freddie were buying up the majority of these new loans, the lenders figured "why not", the government is the de facto backer of F&F, so the loans are "guaranteed."
Then it burst.
Housing prices fell through the floor as the markets corrected the artificially inflated prices. Between low income owners that could no longer afford the monthly note, or investors that were caught holding 3 to 10 houses they never intended to live in and notes they could not maintain, or owners paying interest only with an untouched principle now larger then the home value - no one could now sell the homes they owned for the amount owed, and they default. There goes Freddie and Fannie as the largest holders of these notes, and there is the beginning of the September 2006 economic spiral down. But it gets worse. In the meanwhile, during the housing boom times, AIG had purchased 50% of Fannie's now toxic debt. They begin to wobble. They are, among other things, the largest insurer in the world. Their tentacles stretch into Citi Bank, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns . . . sound familiar?
So Bush is looking at a complete financial sector meltdown, which in turn could freeze cold small business, the back bone of the American economy, which depends on loans from this sector to survive and expand. What to do? He is at this point left with 2 options, 1.) he could explain everything I just wrote to the American people in a joint session of congress. This has many prickly sides to it. After all, he continued the Clinton-era policy because it dovetailed with his "ownership society" message and policies, so he was also culpable. In addition this would require the government to go in and cut out the cancer of toxic debt - a surgical strike at the cause, quite literally buying up AIG's Freddie and Fannie investment's, and all other's who now held the bad mortgages. But then the government would be the new lien holder so either they would have to evict millions of people, and seize millions of investment properties - at a time when we are closing in on a presidential election year, poor people being tossed out? I don't think so. Or simply mail these home owners the deeds free and clean. Again no good in an election cycle -those maintaining their mortgages would be rioting in the streets, free houses?! Why would anyone bother paying another month's mortgage? Simply default and wait until the government sends you the deed. Neither of those options are politically viable. Plus, under option number 1 the wholesale reform of Freddie and Fannie would need to be undertaken. Bush attempted that reform in 2005, with the aide of Senate heavyweights like John McCain (whose floor speech warning of a F&F collapse I pasted here last year). But Chris Dodd (D) CT, and Rep Barney Frank (D) Massachusetts, warned the White House and GOP leaders that was a non starter. That the solvency of F&F was assured and that no one was going to touch the ownership legacy of Clinton and his Party in congress, and on the heels of Katrina Bush hadn't the political will to fight them. So option #1 was solidly off the table. But Bush can't pull a Hoover - be seen as doing nothing (although that's a distorted view of Hoover, it's the historical perception). So what to do? Introduce option #2. Have your Treasury Secretary declare the 6 words that may come to haunt him more then "mission accomplished" ever did: "AIG is too big to fail" (and may I add here - if any one company is "too big to fail", then perhaps it is "too big" to exist, and just maybe channeling the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt is warranted). Paulson is careful not to discuss the particulars of what is causing them to fail, just declare the funds needed and get the money. And guess what? A Democrat controlled congress is only happy to oblige - remember, in option #1 they are culpable too. And the urgency is stressed in the "mark to market" pricing of AIG. That being the company total value. Once upon a time "total value" was determined by what they call a "5 year average." And as the name implies a company could list their total value based on a 5 year average, going backward or forward. So, you have a bad year C, you average A, B, and the out year forecasts for D & E and use that formula to tell the street (Wall Street) your total value. It was a stabilizing system to reduce volatility in the markets. Total value affects the individual stock price similarly to how oil prices effect how much you pay for a gallon of gas. But, the highly successful practice of employing the "5 Year Average" was ended by congress with one word: ENRON. In its traditional reaction of killing a housefly with a cannon ball, congress changed the rules of listing a company's total value based on what it is worth that very day. That very day or "mark to market" pricing. Meaning that if AIG isn't bailed out on the double, it could collapse any given day, crushing the financial sectors not just in the US, but other Western nations as well. There was the possibility of a world wide depression.
So, you have this perfect storm brewed up, two administrations, and multiple congresses involving the 2 major parties all culpable. They get together and decide that option #1, although less costly financially to the tax payer, is much too costly politically. So instead of the surgical removal of the toxic debt, they treat the entire patient - they simply throw money at AIG. This doesn't remove the debt mind you, it just hopefully balances their books and limps them along until the debt can be reconciled in the private sector.
But it gets worse. Has anyone ever read the bailout legislation? TARP, or the "Troubled Asset Relief Program" basically makes the Treasury Secretary the most powerful man in the country. And power is most easily allotted by making the language of the law as vague as possible. And I quote from T.A.R.P:
[definition of Troubled Assets] ... any other financial instrument that the Secretary [of the Treasury], after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.
In 1993 Bill Clinton signed off on an official memorandum that was to become HUD's new defacto policy: The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream, which was to deliver on the Clinton administration's promise to extend home ownership into lower income neighborhoods. His goal was to increase home ownership by noticeable numbers within his first term as president, a seemingly noble goal; however, the details of this would be felt in spades years later, employed and produced under the law of unintended consequences as is always the child birthed from the mother of social engineering. This memo, which HUD via congressional help effectively set as Fannie and Freddie policy was available right on the HUD website until the housing collapse hit the front pages. There is little wonder why it has since vanished in my estimation. Joseph R. Mason, a finance professor at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and a consultant at Criterion Economics noted the following excerpt from the policy's language source:
"For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
Notice the stressing of "creativity" in overcoming these traditional "impediments." You know, such as actually being able to afford the home you're buying, impediments such as those. This begat a series of creative methods available to homebuyers. Among them were the 100% to loan financing - zero down; the sub prime rates, quite literally setting interest rates below the prime rate in order to squeeze payments just within reach. And everybody's favorite "interest only" loans allowing buyers to purchase three to four times the amount of house they could afford on their income in a "standard" loan. Now, these practices did indeed allow many lower income buyers into the market. But it didn't stop there. HUD estimated that nearly 600,000 new homeowners would be created in the first year (multiply that out over 13 years), but not all of them were the intended target. You see, you can't lower the standards (or at least they didn't) for "only" minorities or certain groups. These new standards were available to everyone: dentists, day traders, executives, et al - all people who saw the housing markets surging and jumped in utilizing these new "creative" programs in order to flip a house they never intended to live in for a profit. Add to that those whom bought homes they did intend to live in, but bought 3 to 4x's out of their range because they could pour the mortgage into one of these new programs and qualify. And all of that is in addition to the lower income families who were qualified for home ownership outside of traditional routes. And it was a self sustaining cycle - as more and more utilized these "progressive" new programs and standards the housing bubble grew, housing prices went through the roof and more people wanted to jump in, inflating the bubble even further. Each added fuel to the housing fire that seemed to have no end in sight. And since Fannie and Freddie were buying up the majority of these new loans, the lenders figured "why not", the government is the de facto backer of F&F, so the loans are "guaranteed."
Then it burst.
Housing prices fell through the floor as the markets corrected the artificially inflated prices. Between low income owners that could no longer afford the monthly note, or investors that were caught holding 3 to 10 houses they never intended to live in and notes they could not maintain, or owners paying interest only with an untouched principle now larger then the home value - no one could now sell the homes they owned for the amount owed, and they default. There goes Freddie and Fannie as the largest holders of these notes, and there is the beginning of the September 2006 economic spiral down. But it gets worse. In the meanwhile, during the housing boom times, AIG had purchased 50% of Fannie's now toxic debt. They begin to wobble. They are, among other things, the largest insurer in the world. Their tentacles stretch into Citi Bank, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns . . . sound familiar?
So Bush is looking at a complete financial sector meltdown, which in turn could freeze cold small business, the back bone of the American economy, which depends on loans from this sector to survive and expand. What to do? He is at this point left with 2 options, 1.) he could explain everything I just wrote to the American people in a joint session of congress. This has many prickly sides to it. After all, he continued the Clinton-era policy because it dovetailed with his "ownership society" message and policies, so he was also culpable. In addition this would require the government to go in and cut out the cancer of toxic debt - a surgical strike at the cause, quite literally buying up AIG's Freddie and Fannie investment's, and all other's who now held the bad mortgages. But then the government would be the new lien holder so either they would have to evict millions of people, and seize millions of investment properties - at a time when we are closing in on a presidential election year, poor people being tossed out? I don't think so. Or simply mail these home owners the deeds free and clean. Again no good in an election cycle -those maintaining their mortgages would be rioting in the streets, free houses?! Why would anyone bother paying another month's mortgage? Simply default and wait until the government sends you the deed. Neither of those options are politically viable. Plus, under option number 1 the wholesale reform of Freddie and Fannie would need to be undertaken. Bush attempted that reform in 2005, with the aide of Senate heavyweights like John McCain (whose floor speech warning of a F&F collapse I pasted here last year). But Chris Dodd (D) CT, and Rep Barney Frank (D) Massachusetts, warned the White House and GOP leaders that was a non starter. That the solvency of F&F was assured and that no one was going to touch the ownership legacy of Clinton and his Party in congress, and on the heels of Katrina Bush hadn't the political will to fight them. So option #1 was solidly off the table. But Bush can't pull a Hoover - be seen as doing nothing (although that's a distorted view of Hoover, it's the historical perception). So what to do? Introduce option #2. Have your Treasury Secretary declare the 6 words that may come to haunt him more then "mission accomplished" ever did: "AIG is too big to fail" (and may I add here - if any one company is "too big to fail", then perhaps it is "too big" to exist, and just maybe channeling the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt is warranted). Paulson is careful not to discuss the particulars of what is causing them to fail, just declare the funds needed and get the money. And guess what? A Democrat controlled congress is only happy to oblige - remember, in option #1 they are culpable too. And the urgency is stressed in the "mark to market" pricing of AIG. That being the company total value. Once upon a time "total value" was determined by what they call a "5 year average." And as the name implies a company could list their total value based on a 5 year average, going backward or forward. So, you have a bad year C, you average A, B, and the out year forecasts for D & E and use that formula to tell the street (Wall Street) your total value. It was a stabilizing system to reduce volatility in the markets. Total value affects the individual stock price similarly to how oil prices effect how much you pay for a gallon of gas. But, the highly successful practice of employing the "5 Year Average" was ended by congress with one word: ENRON. In its traditional reaction of killing a housefly with a cannon ball, congress changed the rules of listing a company's total value based on what it is worth that very day. That very day or "mark to market" pricing. Meaning that if AIG isn't bailed out on the double, it could collapse any given day, crushing the financial sectors not just in the US, but other Western nations as well. There was the possibility of a world wide depression.
So, you have this perfect storm brewed up, two administrations, and multiple congresses involving the 2 major parties all culpable. They get together and decide that option #1, although less costly financially to the tax payer, is much too costly politically. So instead of the surgical removal of the toxic debt, they treat the entire patient - they simply throw money at AIG. This doesn't remove the debt mind you, it just hopefully balances their books and limps them along until the debt can be reconciled in the private sector.
But it gets worse. Has anyone ever read the bailout legislation? TARP, or the "Troubled Asset Relief Program" basically makes the Treasury Secretary the most powerful man in the country. And power is most easily allotted by making the language of the law as vague as possible. And I quote from T.A.R.P:
[definition of Troubled Assets] ... any other financial instrument that the Secretary [of the Treasury], after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.
The SoT decides, then informs congress of how he has decided to spend the money. Of course streamlining this to one man, one authority is necessary because we are in a "crisis." I wonder how you say that in German? Now, Bush's Secretary is Paulson, the former Charmain of a little outfit named Goldman Sachs. So Paulson sends the multi billion bailout to AIG . . . but guess what (yes, it actually does get worse)? Paulson knows the tentacles of AIG are far and world wide, so he authorizes them to send 60%, nearly $101 billion dollars to outside entities: Goldman Sach gets 12 billion; Meryl Lynch $7 billion; Citi Bank $11 billion; UK banks $13 billion; German banks $17 billion, and that's not the full list. And at that time each and every one of these organizations was giving out executive bonuses along with Lynch looking to dump Bank of America to balance its books. Now if some of these names sound familiar, as in they received their own bailouts, they did! Many of the recipients in the TARP legislation have been double dipped by the Treasury department because Paulson allowed AIG to be a clearing house of these smaller "off the books" (as in AIG handed them out) bailouts when he had control of the first 50% of TARP. Then Geitner (in control of the second 50%, per congress) came along and "bailed out" these companies individually! It's the biggest shill game in the history of man kind. And still, to this very day, the toxic debt that originated with Fannie and Freddie, crept into and nearly paralyzed AIG, Bare Sterns, and all the lower companies such as Citi Bank IS STILL OUT THERE! All the tax payer money has done is to attempt, and I stress attempt, to balance these books so as to make their mark to market rating stable. And in the hope that if this is accomplished the toxic debt will reconcile itself either with a comeback in housing & the economy in general, or that the "debt risk" is spread out over enough quarters that it doesn't drop the companies rating (such as the too big to fail AIG), using bailout monies in the meantime to balance each quarter's books - in which case our trillions are merely buying them time.
And I am supposed to display "outrage" over the $165 mil to AIG execs? Or focus on how many homes Mrs. Madoff still owns? Are they serious? I suppose the "are they serious" question will be answered by our Commander-In-Chief Thursday night . . .when he appears on Leno (the first ever sitting president to do so).
Focusing on AIG execs and their bonuses is merely a game of distraction. You see, the question quickly becomes - what if they (all recipients of the multiple bailouts) go through the nearly trillion in bail out funds allotted, and the markets have not rebounded to the point that the toxic debt has been reconciled? What then? Then we are back at square one, a trillion dollars lighter. The entire scheme is a book balancing act hoping to limp these companies along until they can become profitable to the point of self absolving their bad debt. And the "what if" problems soon begin to multiply when you realize that none of this, none of it, has constrained our new president's ideology. He still went through with a $787 billion stimulus package that stimulates nothing more then left wing pet projects. He is still going to pass his $3.4 trillion dollar budget, which is more tax dollars spent then every president from George Washington to George W. Bush, combined. Meaning a hyper perfect storm is in the making - the spending devalues our dollar while the market tanking/energy costs runs us into inflation. You end up in the Wiemar Republic of Germany, rolling your pay checks home in a wheel barrel, burning them for heat once you get there because they are more valuable as a flame accelerate then they are as a payment to your gas company.
Enter the strong man . . . exclaiming democracy is a messy business.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
AIG bonuses
Ben Bernanke is on the record saying that AIG is primarily responsible for the rapid decline our national economy has suffered over the last 12 months, because it (as a corporation) led the charge in poor performance being rewarded with huge, top-heavy bonuses paid to the very executives that wrote and implemented the policies that led the company to NEED the $171 billion in bail out funds they've already accepted.
Today, the $121 million in additional (meaning extra-budgetary) bonuses they paid to the top 50 executives were considered "ok" because they were contractually obligated to pay them... in addition to the $195 million already in the budget of the company for the year 2008.
Can someone explain to me WHY they are obligated to pay an additional $121,000,000 to the very 50 people who were unquestionably responsible for the collapse that led the company to NEED the bail out in the first place? Why are MY tax dollars lining the pockets of the men who drove the company into the ground? How is rewarding the poor performance and bad decision making of these 50 men and women going to make sure that the company IMPROVES its financial footing so the problem doesn't repeat in the future?
This goes beyond blaming the problem on government interference. 1970s legislation that called for easier requirements for low-incoming housing loans or questionable lending practices certainly contributed to the problem... but that does NOT equal rewarding poor or unethical business practices with huge bonuses coming at a time when the company must be saved by tax-payer dollars or go under completely.
If memory serves, Ryan was the only advocate of "let the business run the business" in a post-bailout world... so can you clear this up for me, please?
Today, the $121 million in additional (meaning extra-budgetary) bonuses they paid to the top 50 executives were considered "ok" because they were contractually obligated to pay them... in addition to the $195 million already in the budget of the company for the year 2008.
Can someone explain to me WHY they are obligated to pay an additional $121,000,000 to the very 50 people who were unquestionably responsible for the collapse that led the company to NEED the bail out in the first place? Why are MY tax dollars lining the pockets of the men who drove the company into the ground? How is rewarding the poor performance and bad decision making of these 50 men and women going to make sure that the company IMPROVES its financial footing so the problem doesn't repeat in the future?
This goes beyond blaming the problem on government interference. 1970s legislation that called for easier requirements for low-incoming housing loans or questionable lending practices certainly contributed to the problem... but that does NOT equal rewarding poor or unethical business practices with huge bonuses coming at a time when the company must be saved by tax-payer dollars or go under completely.
If memory serves, Ryan was the only advocate of "let the business run the business" in a post-bailout world... so can you clear this up for me, please?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Concerning Ryan's DC concerns...
It seems the concerns about the Pelosi plan to expand the scope of the House by adding a seat for the residents of the District of Columbia are more serious than I at first gave them credit for... and perhaps I was too hasty in dismissing Ryan's worries.
However, I fail to see how Pelosi (or anyone else for that matter) can circumvent the rather clear and concise definition of the scope and role and MAKE-UP of the House and its Members.
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States..."
Unless she thinks she can convince the rest of Congress and the country that the District needs to become a State (which, by its very definition it cannot), there is no Congressional means by which she (or anyone else) can get that additional seat. DC isn't a State... so it gets no representation in the House, just like Puerto Rico, Guam, Somoa, US Virgin Islands or any other federal district or protectorate has no seat in the House.
As much as the Left isn't going to like this... what they are proposing is "un-Constitutional" in every sense of the word.
However, I fail to see how Pelosi (or anyone else for that matter) can circumvent the rather clear and concise definition of the scope and role and MAKE-UP of the House and its Members.
Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States..."
Unless she thinks she can convince the rest of Congress and the country that the District needs to become a State (which, by its very definition it cannot), there is no Congressional means by which she (or anyone else) can get that additional seat. DC isn't a State... so it gets no representation in the House, just like Puerto Rico, Guam, Somoa, US Virgin Islands or any other federal district or protectorate has no seat in the House.
As much as the Left isn't going to like this... what they are proposing is "un-Constitutional" in every sense of the word.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
How does Ryan miss THIS?
All I have been hearing today is the gaff from Obama about how there is a "bankruptcy in the US every 30 seconds because of medical costs." It took the opposition about 30 seconds to shoot that right out of the water as absolute swill... not a shred of proof to back it up.
And what do I get from Ryan? He's getting ready to pull a "Tony Soprano" on his old landlord for the $1,500 security deposit they still owe him.
That's the price of a recession, I guess... even Ryan sweats the almighty dollar.
{grin}
And what do I get from Ryan? He's getting ready to pull a "Tony Soprano" on his old landlord for the $1,500 security deposit they still owe him.
That's the price of a recession, I guess... even Ryan sweats the almighty dollar.
{grin}
And speaking of Louisianna...
I want to add that Bobby Jindal is a GREAT example of exactly what I was talking about in my last post.
Bobby has stated that he will REFUSE the stimulus dollars that Obama/Reid/Pelosi signed into law, BECAUSE it will increase the taxes residents of LA have to pay after only three years, and it will FORCE LA to change its state Constitution to accomodate those taxes. He can... and IS... showing that HIS plans work, because Louisianna has seen its job market GROW over the last 18 months, not fall. Unemployment in LA has stayed steady... not risen... and all of this is directly attributed to a "lower taxes" mentality in Baton Rouge that no one else in the country can claim to follow.
As I have said previously, Bobby has been in the public's eye promoting his agenda in LA... and its results... in direct opposition to the solutions proposed and flouted by the DNC. My question is: WHY only Jindal? Why aren't we hearing from the rest of the Republican leadership? Why is no one holding up Barbour or other GOP Governors and their agendas when they WORK, in direct contradiction to liberal ideals and promises?
{sigh}
Bobby has stated that he will REFUSE the stimulus dollars that Obama/Reid/Pelosi signed into law, BECAUSE it will increase the taxes residents of LA have to pay after only three years, and it will FORCE LA to change its state Constitution to accomodate those taxes. He can... and IS... showing that HIS plans work, because Louisianna has seen its job market GROW over the last 18 months, not fall. Unemployment in LA has stayed steady... not risen... and all of this is directly attributed to a "lower taxes" mentality in Baton Rouge that no one else in the country can claim to follow.
As I have said previously, Bobby has been in the public's eye promoting his agenda in LA... and its results... in direct opposition to the solutions proposed and flouted by the DNC. My question is: WHY only Jindal? Why aren't we hearing from the rest of the Republican leadership? Why is no one holding up Barbour or other GOP Governors and their agendas when they WORK, in direct contradiction to liberal ideals and promises?
{sigh}
After some further thought...
I wrote my last just as I was leaving my office to finish a project in another building, so I was a bit rushed. The jist is sound, but I left for home at about 1 AM and thought I'd add to it some. So, for the 45 minutes I was driving home, I pondered Ryan's post.
The more I thought, the more I was inclined to agree that much of the Democratic Party IS bent on trying to marginalize the Constitution as out-dated and irrelevant to anything that applies to traditional or conservative values in America. The First Amendment seems to apply ONLY to the pornography industry or to Hollywood execs... but not to people or communities where a display of the Ten Commandments would be appreciated, or to political commentators who voice a different opinion than the DNC.
Here's my opinion on how best to combat the Reid-Pelosi poison currently spinning through the halls of power...
For every single ultra-liberal proposal that Congress or Obama wants to push through the way that they pushed through the initial stimulus bill, the GOP (and this means specifically Steele and the RNC and Republican Congressional leadership... NOT "talk radio" pundits) needs to find a way to SHOW the public in clear and concise ways WHY the proposal is wrong, bad or ill-concieved. Put it into a press release, have it read in a daily radio address, have Steele and the Congressional leadership begin a tradition of "fire-side chats" to SHOW the population what is wrong with the liberal agenda being forced on America... just do SOMETHING to show that the opposition isn't OPPOSED to something for the sake of opposition. THAT is the message that the Left is bringing home now... there is nothing for the common man in the message of conservatism today, it is only for the super-rich, power-hungry types who rule Wall Street and go to church every Sunday.
Obama has learned one lesson from history, at least: you have to be seen to be doing SOMETHING to fix the problem by the public. "Hands off" is fantastic in political and economic theory, but it doesn't do those in America that really are in trouble any good NOW. They will gravitate and support the man that is seen to be doing SOMETHING, and Huey Long is my example from history. The man was an avowed crook... and I do mean "avowed". He was blatant in his cronyism, he routinely made references to fascist ideals in his speeches, and espoused the strongest form of big, bloated central government we've ever seen, before or since... yet this man's name is still spoken of fondly and with regard in the State of Louisianna to this very day, and LA is considered a "rock-solid" RED state! How can this be?
I feel that if someone is going to attribute this to his undeniable "entitlement" programs, you can also attribute some of it to the "work projects" that are still functional today... like the Huey P. Long Bridge in New Orleans, or UNO, or the first causeway across Lake Pontchertrain (something he championed, in fact, if he didn't actually finish). Back in the day, however, Long's political detractors simply labeled him a "communist" and kept pointing to his moral and ethical failings, rather than offer real substance to counter his positions.
The GOP can't afford to make this mistake again now. If the programs and agendas of Obama, Reid and Pelosi are bad for America, then the GOP has to show the evidence in a clear and measurable manner that will counter their talking points, one-on-one.
The more I thought, the more I was inclined to agree that much of the Democratic Party IS bent on trying to marginalize the Constitution as out-dated and irrelevant to anything that applies to traditional or conservative values in America. The First Amendment seems to apply ONLY to the pornography industry or to Hollywood execs... but not to people or communities where a display of the Ten Commandments would be appreciated, or to political commentators who voice a different opinion than the DNC.
Here's my opinion on how best to combat the Reid-Pelosi poison currently spinning through the halls of power...
For every single ultra-liberal proposal that Congress or Obama wants to push through the way that they pushed through the initial stimulus bill, the GOP (and this means specifically Steele and the RNC and Republican Congressional leadership... NOT "talk radio" pundits) needs to find a way to SHOW the public in clear and concise ways WHY the proposal is wrong, bad or ill-concieved. Put it into a press release, have it read in a daily radio address, have Steele and the Congressional leadership begin a tradition of "fire-side chats" to SHOW the population what is wrong with the liberal agenda being forced on America... just do SOMETHING to show that the opposition isn't OPPOSED to something for the sake of opposition. THAT is the message that the Left is bringing home now... there is nothing for the common man in the message of conservatism today, it is only for the super-rich, power-hungry types who rule Wall Street and go to church every Sunday.
Obama has learned one lesson from history, at least: you have to be seen to be doing SOMETHING to fix the problem by the public. "Hands off" is fantastic in political and economic theory, but it doesn't do those in America that really are in trouble any good NOW. They will gravitate and support the man that is seen to be doing SOMETHING, and Huey Long is my example from history. The man was an avowed crook... and I do mean "avowed". He was blatant in his cronyism, he routinely made references to fascist ideals in his speeches, and espoused the strongest form of big, bloated central government we've ever seen, before or since... yet this man's name is still spoken of fondly and with regard in the State of Louisianna to this very day, and LA is considered a "rock-solid" RED state! How can this be?
I feel that if someone is going to attribute this to his undeniable "entitlement" programs, you can also attribute some of it to the "work projects" that are still functional today... like the Huey P. Long Bridge in New Orleans, or UNO, or the first causeway across Lake Pontchertrain (something he championed, in fact, if he didn't actually finish). Back in the day, however, Long's political detractors simply labeled him a "communist" and kept pointing to his moral and ethical failings, rather than offer real substance to counter his positions.
The GOP can't afford to make this mistake again now. If the programs and agendas of Obama, Reid and Pelosi are bad for America, then the GOP has to show the evidence in a clear and measurable manner that will counter their talking points, one-on-one.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Screw me? Fire down, Pocohontas...
I meant that the issue comes up from the residents of DC... not either of the parties in question. Just like statehood for Puerto Rico, it comes up... and fades away. I do not deny that this Congress, with the obvious drive for power that Reid and Pelosi have in mind, may try even harder than ususal to cement their control of government by creating a new House seat via the District, but they do not have the super-majority, and it is rapidly becoming appearant that the Reid/Pelosi show isn't getting any more viewers simply because Obama is in the White House. Congressional approval is still at an all-time low.
As far as the "Founding Fathers" intentions regarding the representation of the District... I, too, trust their judgment, but I find the argument that when they formed the District and laid out the framework for its function, they probably didn't expect the population of the District to exceed the combined total of the five most populus colonies in 1776, which it does today at just under 600,000 people, and all of them unrepresented in Congress.
Just my thoughts though... no one is asking you to become an ideologue or expecting you to begin to "tow the line" the way you did not all that long ago...
As far as the "Founding Fathers" intentions regarding the representation of the District... I, too, trust their judgment, but I find the argument that when they formed the District and laid out the framework for its function, they probably didn't expect the population of the District to exceed the combined total of the five most populus colonies in 1776, which it does today at just under 600,000 people, and all of them unrepresented in Congress.
Just my thoughts though... no one is asking you to become an ideologue or expecting you to begin to "tow the line" the way you did not all that long ago...
No credit ...
. . . whatsoever.
*sigh*
Despite my philosophical, principled (read: Reagan Conservatism) driven arguments low these many years, which has seen me RIP into the hide of one G.W. Bush and the GOP in general (i.e. border security; spending; war strategy; bail outs; TARP; being "Democrat light" in general etc, etc) Titus still insists on labeling me with the occasional "partisan hack", point in case - his latest inference.
You noted that this DC congressional vote subject is "yawn", old news, won't happen and the GOP, especially Ryan, would be advocating it too if it were a "conservative Mecca", because the subject is nothing more then a partisan football, and they are Party men, not ideological, nor principled . . or even intellectually honest.
Well, let me muster all of my collective articulation, art and ability of prose to summarily issue a resounding: SCREW YOU!
I'm not some Party hack. I WOULD NOT advocate this if it were a town of 3 - Pat Buchanan, F. Ryan, and Rush Limbaugh, because of my respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers and their vision -a point I articulated in that last post. Would the GOP? Hell, I don't know, I'm fed up with them as it is, but not I. And you're wrong on another score - this most certainly does not "come up every 4 to 8 years." And is not just a traditional political football that goes nowhere this time around. Bush didn't advocate this, nor bring it up. Nor did Speaker Gingrich, Speaker Hastert, nor leader Trott nor his successor, the heart surgeon (whose name escapes me at the moment, Fisk maybe); and neither, in any meaningful way, did Pelosi nor Reid when they were in the minority from 2000-2006. It has been brought up before, no question, but not every election cycle, and certainly not with Democrats of this aggressiveness towards "change" controlling both Houses and the Oval Office (read: I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did it this time - this is no mere political banter anymore). And it certainly isn't some old go nowhere chestnut when seen in the light of the sweeping changes - regardless of Constitutionality, precedent or tradition - that Obama is engaging in during his first 60 days. It is another significant piece of his power grab puzzle that sees the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, at best as (in his words): "a set of negative liberties describing what the government can't do to you, but not listing what it should do on your behalf; and that's where the Warren Court didn't go far enough, wasn't radical enough." That description is scary in and of itself, especially when all other rights and privileges are clearly intended to be left to the states and the individual citizen. It is precisely the worry the founders had in even listing a Bill of Rights at all - there was fear (as I know you are aware) that they may be at some point interpreted as the "only" rights afforded individuals, rather then just specifying especially protected ones, leaving all others to the purview of the individual or state.
That is the context this DC seat advocation must be seen in - the sweeping, unprecedented, unconstitutional, ill advised, frightening Utopia Obama envisions as his mandate, if not calling from on high, that he was sent here for, to inflict on the rest of us.
****
The 10th . . . Pending my own reading, reaffirming state sovereignty always seems a positive for any conservative, however, I have the same initial reservation our founders did in trying to "specify" or "clear up" or "redefine" state's rights more directly - they may come to be interpreted as the ONLY rights (or general parameters laid down therein) afforded states rather then a simple or reaffirming clarification. Given MN is among the advocates this could be (remember, I haven't read it yet and am going off of your limited description) a rouse meant to clear the way for Obama to impose ever more burdensome federal mandates by being able to declare - "see, A, B and C are NOT specified in the 10th Amendment, I CAN mandate socialized this and federalized that."
But I will read it, and form a more permanent opinion then.
*sigh*
Despite my philosophical, principled (read: Reagan Conservatism) driven arguments low these many years, which has seen me RIP into the hide of one G.W. Bush and the GOP in general (i.e. border security; spending; war strategy; bail outs; TARP; being "Democrat light" in general etc, etc) Titus still insists on labeling me with the occasional "partisan hack", point in case - his latest inference.
You noted that this DC congressional vote subject is "yawn", old news, won't happen and the GOP, especially Ryan, would be advocating it too if it were a "conservative Mecca", because the subject is nothing more then a partisan football, and they are Party men, not ideological, nor principled . . or even intellectually honest.
Well, let me muster all of my collective articulation, art and ability of prose to summarily issue a resounding: SCREW YOU!
I'm not some Party hack. I WOULD NOT advocate this if it were a town of 3 - Pat Buchanan, F. Ryan, and Rush Limbaugh, because of my respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers and their vision -a point I articulated in that last post. Would the GOP? Hell, I don't know, I'm fed up with them as it is, but not I. And you're wrong on another score - this most certainly does not "come up every 4 to 8 years." And is not just a traditional political football that goes nowhere this time around. Bush didn't advocate this, nor bring it up. Nor did Speaker Gingrich, Speaker Hastert, nor leader Trott nor his successor, the heart surgeon (whose name escapes me at the moment, Fisk maybe); and neither, in any meaningful way, did Pelosi nor Reid when they were in the minority from 2000-2006. It has been brought up before, no question, but not every election cycle, and certainly not with Democrats of this aggressiveness towards "change" controlling both Houses and the Oval Office (read: I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did it this time - this is no mere political banter anymore). And it certainly isn't some old go nowhere chestnut when seen in the light of the sweeping changes - regardless of Constitutionality, precedent or tradition - that Obama is engaging in during his first 60 days. It is another significant piece of his power grab puzzle that sees the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, at best as (in his words): "a set of negative liberties describing what the government can't do to you, but not listing what it should do on your behalf; and that's where the Warren Court didn't go far enough, wasn't radical enough." That description is scary in and of itself, especially when all other rights and privileges are clearly intended to be left to the states and the individual citizen. It is precisely the worry the founders had in even listing a Bill of Rights at all - there was fear (as I know you are aware) that they may be at some point interpreted as the "only" rights afforded individuals, rather then just specifying especially protected ones, leaving all others to the purview of the individual or state.
That is the context this DC seat advocation must be seen in - the sweeping, unprecedented, unconstitutional, ill advised, frightening Utopia Obama envisions as his mandate, if not calling from on high, that he was sent here for, to inflict on the rest of us.
****
The 10th . . . Pending my own reading, reaffirming state sovereignty always seems a positive for any conservative, however, I have the same initial reservation our founders did in trying to "specify" or "clear up" or "redefine" state's rights more directly - they may come to be interpreted as the ONLY rights (or general parameters laid down therein) afforded states rather then a simple or reaffirming clarification. Given MN is among the advocates this could be (remember, I haven't read it yet and am going off of your limited description) a rouse meant to clear the way for Obama to impose ever more burdensome federal mandates by being able to declare - "see, A, B and C are NOT specified in the 10th Amendment, I CAN mandate socialized this and federalized that."
But I will read it, and form a more permanent opinion then.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Everyone here should follow my example...
I just got done writing to both my State Senator, Lisa Baker (R) and my State Repressentative, Sandra Major (R), encouraging them to support the effort to re-affirm the sovereignty of the Commonwealth under the Tenth Amendment.
It takes ten minutes (far less time than it takes to read a post here), and it is an effort that will have a far-reaching impact on the Obama Administration, I am sure.
Quit screwing around and DO IT.
It takes ten minutes (far less time than it takes to read a post here), and it is an effort that will have a far-reaching impact on the Obama Administration, I am sure.
Quit screwing around and DO IT.
Let's talk about something NEW...
The question about DC's Congressional representation is one that rears it's head at least once every eight years, and it has since at least 1955. There is no question in my mind that Democrats are championing this now to solidify their control on political power in Congress... but this is almost obvious in its reasoning, and I would expect the GOP to do the same thing, were DC a traditionally "conservative" voting area... and I would expect Ryan to do the same thing, were he a resident of DC.
But I want to discuss a more surprising trend in American legislative politics... and that is the "Tenth Amendment Movement" currently sweeping the State legislatures across the country.
The number of States with resolutions pending is now at about 20, and this is a trend that will continue to grow, I am sure. Some of these resolutions are very succinct in their wording, too... OK and MN being among the most direct (yes, I said MN... home of Mondale, Wellstone, and the DFL Senator Al Franken). MO's HR 212 (which was replaced with HR 294, that removed Obama's name from the text of the bill) is way more specific in it's focus, but does still call for a recognition by the Federal government of the sovereignty of the individual States under the Tenth Amendment.
So, why this urge to re-assert the sovereignty of States NOW?
Think back to our last Democratic President. Clinton's first address to the nation has been quoted here (quite often, in fact) because he promised that "big government ends now"... something he failed to do. As did his predecessor, Bush Sr. and his replacement, Bush Jr. In fact, NO President in the last 100 years has actually REDUCED the size of government, and only 3 have reduced the rate at which that government grows (Truman, Ike and Reagan, with Reagan being the most successful). So, what is different now?
No President has ever made it his GOAL to increase the size and scope of Federal control the way Obama has. He PROMISES higher taxes, he PROMISES more programs, he PROMISES more spending. This Administration is making "tax and spend" its moniker... loudly and proudly. He has DOUBLED the national deficit in his first 50 days, and has now submitted a budget that will DOUBLE that next year, with the added burden that Federal funding for the majority of these programs and funds will end, and the States will be left with the job of paying for them through higher local taxes... taxes the individual States might not want to impose, but that Federal mandates will FORCE them to impose.
In the past, I have advocated a position that no Administration can avoid "moderation" and "compromise" once it takes office... but Obama is advocating real change, and I am delighted that the States are standing up and saying NO to change they do not think is in their best interest.
But I want to discuss a more surprising trend in American legislative politics... and that is the "Tenth Amendment Movement" currently sweeping the State legislatures across the country.
The number of States with resolutions pending is now at about 20, and this is a trend that will continue to grow, I am sure. Some of these resolutions are very succinct in their wording, too... OK and MN being among the most direct (yes, I said MN... home of Mondale, Wellstone, and the DFL Senator Al Franken). MO's HR 212 (which was replaced with HR 294, that removed Obama's name from the text of the bill) is way more specific in it's focus, but does still call for a recognition by the Federal government of the sovereignty of the individual States under the Tenth Amendment.
So, why this urge to re-assert the sovereignty of States NOW?
Think back to our last Democratic President. Clinton's first address to the nation has been quoted here (quite often, in fact) because he promised that "big government ends now"... something he failed to do. As did his predecessor, Bush Sr. and his replacement, Bush Jr. In fact, NO President in the last 100 years has actually REDUCED the size of government, and only 3 have reduced the rate at which that government grows (Truman, Ike and Reagan, with Reagan being the most successful). So, what is different now?
No President has ever made it his GOAL to increase the size and scope of Federal control the way Obama has. He PROMISES higher taxes, he PROMISES more programs, he PROMISES more spending. This Administration is making "tax and spend" its moniker... loudly and proudly. He has DOUBLED the national deficit in his first 50 days, and has now submitted a budget that will DOUBLE that next year, with the added burden that Federal funding for the majority of these programs and funds will end, and the States will be left with the job of paying for them through higher local taxes... taxes the individual States might not want to impose, but that Federal mandates will FORCE them to impose.
In the past, I have advocated a position that no Administration can avoid "moderation" and "compromise" once it takes office... but Obama is advocating real change, and I am delighted that the States are standing up and saying NO to change they do not think is in their best interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
