Seems someone in Wyoming County, PA is as pissed off as F. Ryan is about the 9-11-12 questions being raised by Congress.
They've set up a table with large signs just outside of the Post Office (the only Federal building in the county) and are handing out impeachment literature to anyone walking by. Liz, my wife, seems to think this is more election drama than it is serious impeachment concerns... but I'm not sure that's true.
This part of PA is pretty conservative, in a general sense. I do think the county voted for Obama, but it was awfully close if I recall correctly. What I do know is that the NRA has a HUGE presence here, and that they are all over this like flies on feces. I personally wouldn't be surprised if the table in question was paid for by the NRA itself.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Fifty years ago today...
On this day in 1962, Pope John XXIII convened the first session of the Second Vatican Council.
I'm constantly amazed at the level of misunderstanding that still, half a century later, surrounds this event. Since the Council's closing in 1965, most Catholics and nearly all Protestants view the history of the Catholic faith as falling into two parts: pre-Vatican Council and post-Vatican Council.
Angelo Roncalli came to the papal conclave in 1958 with a round-trip train ticket... convinced he'd be returning to Venice once a new Pope had been found. His election was seen as a "stop-gap" measure... truly, a continuation of the interregnum following the death of Pius XII, until a more long-term candidate could be identified and elected.
You'd be hard pressed to find a man who did more to change the face of the Catholic Church than John XXIII did... and I am serious here. Francis of Assisi comes to mind, as does Benedict. Loyola and Xavier. These are the names that I think of when I think about who shaped the Church as we know it today... and I simply cannot imagine keeping John's name off that list. I realize he didn't do it alone... but he wasn't afraid to do what no one had done in the Church for nearly a century, and he took on issues that had troubled the Vatican for more than 500 years.
I'm constantly amazed at the level of misunderstanding that still, half a century later, surrounds this event. Since the Council's closing in 1965, most Catholics and nearly all Protestants view the history of the Catholic faith as falling into two parts: pre-Vatican Council and post-Vatican Council.
Angelo Roncalli came to the papal conclave in 1958 with a round-trip train ticket... convinced he'd be returning to Venice once a new Pope had been found. His election was seen as a "stop-gap" measure... truly, a continuation of the interregnum following the death of Pius XII, until a more long-term candidate could be identified and elected.
You'd be hard pressed to find a man who did more to change the face of the Catholic Church than John XXIII did... and I am serious here. Francis of Assisi comes to mind, as does Benedict. Loyola and Xavier. These are the names that I think of when I think about who shaped the Church as we know it today... and I simply cannot imagine keeping John's name off that list. I realize he didn't do it alone... but he wasn't afraid to do what no one had done in the Church for nearly a century, and he took on issues that had troubled the Vatican for more than 500 years.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
scandal
I just saw the Reaganomics post and will respond at my first opportunity. I just popped on today to link to a detailed account of a story I've had a particular interest in ...
The State Department held a press briefing today in which the most detailed account of the Benghazi Embassy attacks was laid out. Found HERE this story reads like something out of a Vince Flynn novel. The attacks, firefights, driving against traffic with two flat tires in an escape attempt, and most damning of all is State flatly saying that "others in the administration" whom claimed this was all a result of protests (spontaneous or otherwise) were wrong noting, "that was never our conclusion."
Now you might ask yourself why State would come out against its' own administration (read: its' current boss). Well, State Department officials, career State Department officials are testifying under oath to congress starting today and a security official that fended off the attack has already testified that security was "inappropriately low", and repeated requests for enhancing it were denied. The bottom line - career State Department and security professionals are not about to commit perjury for a CIC that looks to be on his way out of office.
The POTUS clearly and repeatedly lied. UN Ambassador Susan Rice, SoS Clinton, and Press Secretary Jay Carney all repeated this lie, emphatically so. A sign of how bad this is getting - Carney does a daily press briefing... he hasn't been seen nor heard from in two weeks; and what is described as an "emergency meeting" between Hillary and the President is said to be taking place this very afternoon.
And guess what? The next presidential debate is on foreign policy.
The State Department held a press briefing today in which the most detailed account of the Benghazi Embassy attacks was laid out. Found HERE this story reads like something out of a Vince Flynn novel. The attacks, firefights, driving against traffic with two flat tires in an escape attempt, and most damning of all is State flatly saying that "others in the administration" whom claimed this was all a result of protests (spontaneous or otherwise) were wrong noting, "that was never our conclusion."
Now you might ask yourself why State would come out against its' own administration (read: its' current boss). Well, State Department officials, career State Department officials are testifying under oath to congress starting today and a security official that fended off the attack has already testified that security was "inappropriately low", and repeated requests for enhancing it were denied. The bottom line - career State Department and security professionals are not about to commit perjury for a CIC that looks to be on his way out of office.
The POTUS clearly and repeatedly lied. UN Ambassador Susan Rice, SoS Clinton, and Press Secretary Jay Carney all repeated this lie, emphatically so. A sign of how bad this is getting - Carney does a daily press briefing... he hasn't been seen nor heard from in two weeks; and what is described as an "emergency meeting" between Hillary and the President is said to be taking place this very afternoon.
And guess what? The next presidential debate is on foreign policy.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
On Ryan's defense of Reaganomics...
F. Ryan reminded me that he had, indeed, responded to my questions about GOP taxation policies, but in a comment rather than a post. I wanted to keep that discussion front and center, so here are his salient points:
"I don't think we can have a proper discussion on "Reaganomics" & what aspects of it jump started the economy if we simply define it as the raising & lowering of personal income tax rates, which is the way I read your posts. lets get a common definition of Reaganomics first. "
"In other words, if he compromised on taxes in 86' because he made the executive calculation that the USSR was now a greater threat than the once faltering/now recovered US economy, then that makes his decision part of history, but not necessarily part of Reaganomics. "
"...we need to establish whether we mean Reaganomics the theory, as articulated by Reagan, or the reality of what legislation was produced post political compromise, because "supply side" is traditionally thought of as the polar political/economic opposite.of Keynsian, and Reagan's ideology is certainly one of a supply sider "
Fair enough. I define "Reaganomics" as the policies and agendas laid out by Reagan from early in 1980 (once his campaign came full swing) though his entire terms in office. In short, "Reaganomics" is the economic policy, in all its subtle nuances, of the man as he ran for President AND of the President himself through both his terms in office.
Let's begin with Reagan's Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech, given in Detroit, MI on July 17, 1980. In that speech, Reagan made four fundamental promises for the first term of his Presidency:
1) Massive spending cuts to reduce the Federal deficit and secure a balanced budget by 1984, including the elimination of such wasteful and redundant organs as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy,
2) Massive tax cuts to reduce marginal income tax rates across the board, lower the capital gains tax, eliminate loopholes and simplify the tax code,
3) Reduce the rate at which the Federal government grows,
4) A return to the "gold standard" to ensure a strong, inflation-proof US Dollar into the future.
With the help of history's unwavering eye, we see that there was no balanced budget, that Education and Energy are still sucking up tax dollars and clogging the machine of government, there still is no gold standard (nor will there ever be), and that government spending doubled from 1980 to 1989.
Now, I know Ryan is foaming at the mouth because Reagan spent $991 billion in 1987 (up from Carter's last budget of $541 billion) specifically to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War. One can't win a war without spending money, I agree. What I question is why we have to separate "Reaganomics" from any efforts to "win" the Cold War. Either the country is fighting a war to win, or we are not. I've often heard Ryan defend Bush Jr. and his spending as all part of the effort to win the "War on Terror"... but Obama hasn't lowered the amount of money spent on the military since his inauguration, either. Why is his spending less important than Bush's?
Winning the Cold War had to have been, and (indeed) WAS, an integral part of Reagan's economic agenda from the very start. Thus, it was part of Reaganomics and can't be separated from it.
Furthermore, I contend that the pundits of Reaganomics today use the term and "theory" of the policies in ways that are not only contradictory to the actual Reagan vision, but do so in the most un-factual manner (not a real word, I know) possible simply to make a talking point. I want to be sure that we, as members of this proud brotherhood, DO NOT fall into that same trap. We are more than capable (and yes, I am including myself in this generalization) of taking the truly objective path and seeing history for what it is, rather than what we want it to be.
I'm the first to admit that Reagan restructured the tax rate, and lowered the top marginal rate from 70% to 28% (33% in '88). Capital gains went from 44% to 32%. However, the amount of revenue stemming from payroll tax went from 58% to 88% in the same time frame, meaning more and more of the government funds come from our paychecks... especially the paychecks of the top 25% of wage earners. These are the same wage earners that today we are told are paying the bills in this country.
The rate at which government grew was lowered from 5% to 2.5% in 7 years... probably his greatest achievement, economically. However, he was spending nearly twice what Carter was spending, in any way you care to present it. As a percentage of GDP, as gross dollars, as a percentage of total revenue... all were more than 80% MORE than what was spent in the four years of Carter's term. His deficits were nearly three times what Carter's were... and his national debt figure was the first to take the US out of the world's primary creditor to the world's primary debtor... something 3 of the next 4 Presidents would emulate in the years that followed.
Thoughts?
"I don't think we can have a proper discussion on "Reaganomics" & what aspects of it jump started the economy if we simply define it as the raising & lowering of personal income tax rates, which is the way I read your posts. lets get a common definition of Reaganomics first. "
"In other words, if he compromised on taxes in 86' because he made the executive calculation that the USSR was now a greater threat than the once faltering/now recovered US economy, then that makes his decision part of history, but not necessarily part of Reaganomics. "
"...we need to establish whether we mean Reaganomics the theory, as articulated by Reagan, or the reality of what legislation was produced post political compromise, because "supply side" is traditionally thought of as the polar political/economic opposite.of Keynsian, and Reagan's ideology is certainly one of a supply sider "
Fair enough. I define "Reaganomics" as the policies and agendas laid out by Reagan from early in 1980 (once his campaign came full swing) though his entire terms in office. In short, "Reaganomics" is the economic policy, in all its subtle nuances, of the man as he ran for President AND of the President himself through both his terms in office.
Let's begin with Reagan's Republican National Convention Acceptance Speech, given in Detroit, MI on July 17, 1980. In that speech, Reagan made four fundamental promises for the first term of his Presidency:
1) Massive spending cuts to reduce the Federal deficit and secure a balanced budget by 1984, including the elimination of such wasteful and redundant organs as the Department of Education and the Department of Energy,
2) Massive tax cuts to reduce marginal income tax rates across the board, lower the capital gains tax, eliminate loopholes and simplify the tax code,
3) Reduce the rate at which the Federal government grows,
4) A return to the "gold standard" to ensure a strong, inflation-proof US Dollar into the future.
With the help of history's unwavering eye, we see that there was no balanced budget, that Education and Energy are still sucking up tax dollars and clogging the machine of government, there still is no gold standard (nor will there ever be), and that government spending doubled from 1980 to 1989.
Now, I know Ryan is foaming at the mouth because Reagan spent $991 billion in 1987 (up from Carter's last budget of $541 billion) specifically to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War. One can't win a war without spending money, I agree. What I question is why we have to separate "Reaganomics" from any efforts to "win" the Cold War. Either the country is fighting a war to win, or we are not. I've often heard Ryan defend Bush Jr. and his spending as all part of the effort to win the "War on Terror"... but Obama hasn't lowered the amount of money spent on the military since his inauguration, either. Why is his spending less important than Bush's?
Winning the Cold War had to have been, and (indeed) WAS, an integral part of Reagan's economic agenda from the very start. Thus, it was part of Reaganomics and can't be separated from it.
Furthermore, I contend that the pundits of Reaganomics today use the term and "theory" of the policies in ways that are not only contradictory to the actual Reagan vision, but do so in the most un-factual manner (not a real word, I know) possible simply to make a talking point. I want to be sure that we, as members of this proud brotherhood, DO NOT fall into that same trap. We are more than capable (and yes, I am including myself in this generalization) of taking the truly objective path and seeing history for what it is, rather than what we want it to be.
I'm the first to admit that Reagan restructured the tax rate, and lowered the top marginal rate from 70% to 28% (33% in '88). Capital gains went from 44% to 32%. However, the amount of revenue stemming from payroll tax went from 58% to 88% in the same time frame, meaning more and more of the government funds come from our paychecks... especially the paychecks of the top 25% of wage earners. These are the same wage earners that today we are told are paying the bills in this country.
The rate at which government grew was lowered from 5% to 2.5% in 7 years... probably his greatest achievement, economically. However, he was spending nearly twice what Carter was spending, in any way you care to present it. As a percentage of GDP, as gross dollars, as a percentage of total revenue... all were more than 80% MORE than what was spent in the four years of Carter's term. His deficits were nearly three times what Carter's were... and his national debt figure was the first to take the US out of the world's primary creditor to the world's primary debtor... something 3 of the next 4 Presidents would emulate in the years that followed.
Thoughts?
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Let's talk "priceless"...
Did anyone else see the Chris Matthews meltdown? I swear, the man was actually in tears!
He all but said that Jim Lehrer's fairly objective position within the framework of the debate made Obama's position in the debate untenable. What does that say about the President and his policies? Without the support of MSNBC and the rest of the sycophantic liberal press, Obama can't make his points, let alone win them against rational opposition.
Does that about sum it up, Mr. Matthews?
He all but said that Jim Lehrer's fairly objective position within the framework of the debate made Obama's position in the debate untenable. What does that say about the President and his policies? Without the support of MSNBC and the rest of the sycophantic liberal press, Obama can't make his points, let alone win them against rational opposition.
Does that about sum it up, Mr. Matthews?
My thoughts...
Man, I hate always being the guy that has to oppose everything F. Ryan says, but here I go again...
Paris Hilton has a purpose in this nation, and deserves the opportunity to work and succeed as much as anyone else. If her purpose is to look stupid constantly, and to put that stupidity on the airwaves at every chance she gets, so be it... she is guaranteed that right.
Seriously...
Ryan's right about one thing: the choice is pretty clear.
Was it a home run? An "out-of-the-park" grand-slam? Probably not, but it was FAR MORE than I expected from Mitt by any stretch of the imagination. It was a stellar win... from start to finish. In fact, it wasn't really much of a debate. It was more a platform for Mitt to make his case in solid contrast to Obama's and the liberal Left. Obama certainly didn't present anything with any conviction, that's for sure.
Obama's mistakes were many and multifaceted. He misspoke stumbled, stuttered and lost his place numerous times. He showed a seriously lack of facts, and an utter inability to counter presented facts in a manner that did anything but HELP Romney. His eyes were anywhere BUT on Romney or the camera, while Romney was calm, poised and obviously listening to everything the President said.
I almost panicked when I heard Romney say (the first time) that he agreed with the President (on ANYTHING)... and I had nightmare visions of the ultra-moderate coming through loud and clear once again. However, the "agreement" was nothing more than gracious debate... and he couldn't have made it more clear that very, very little of what the President has done has been anything but ineffective. He showed that he shared the President's concerns, but has a completely different idea about how to address them. THAT was a tactic that worked fantastically last night... but might not work again.
Perhaps the best news is that the debate was a HUGE success through internet viewing. The debate broke all the records on internet participation, which I think means that a large portion of the younger block of voters was probably viewing, and (thus) that serious questions MUST be twirling through those young minds as we speak. The opinion polls that gauged win/loss last night were 67% to 25% in favor of Romney last night, and though most were online polls (something I can't bring myself to trust at all), it is telling in itself.
Let's not forget, Reagan got crushed in his first debate, too.
Paris Hilton has a purpose in this nation, and deserves the opportunity to work and succeed as much as anyone else. If her purpose is to look stupid constantly, and to put that stupidity on the airwaves at every chance she gets, so be it... she is guaranteed that right.
Seriously...
Ryan's right about one thing: the choice is pretty clear.
Was it a home run? An "out-of-the-park" grand-slam? Probably not, but it was FAR MORE than I expected from Mitt by any stretch of the imagination. It was a stellar win... from start to finish. In fact, it wasn't really much of a debate. It was more a platform for Mitt to make his case in solid contrast to Obama's and the liberal Left. Obama certainly didn't present anything with any conviction, that's for sure.
Obama's mistakes were many and multifaceted. He misspoke stumbled, stuttered and lost his place numerous times. He showed a seriously lack of facts, and an utter inability to counter presented facts in a manner that did anything but HELP Romney. His eyes were anywhere BUT on Romney or the camera, while Romney was calm, poised and obviously listening to everything the President said.
I almost panicked when I heard Romney say (the first time) that he agreed with the President (on ANYTHING)... and I had nightmare visions of the ultra-moderate coming through loud and clear once again. However, the "agreement" was nothing more than gracious debate... and he couldn't have made it more clear that very, very little of what the President has done has been anything but ineffective. He showed that he shared the President's concerns, but has a completely different idea about how to address them. THAT was a tactic that worked fantastically last night... but might not work again.
Perhaps the best news is that the debate was a HUGE success through internet viewing. The debate broke all the records on internet participation, which I think means that a large portion of the younger block of voters was probably viewing, and (thus) that serious questions MUST be twirling through those young minds as we speak. The opinion polls that gauged win/loss last night were 67% to 25% in favor of Romney last night, and though most were online polls (something I can't bring myself to trust at all), it is telling in itself.
Let's not forget, Reagan got crushed in his first debate, too.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
the choice ...
The debate has 3 minutes left.
All I can say is free peoples get the government they deserve. The choice couldn't be more clear - embrace a model of collective salvation that has seen the great nations of Europe waste away, or return to the ideals of our founding. Individual liberty or government sponsored security. A fundamental transformation of America or a fundamental restoration of America.
Here is my fundamental concern - is the American electorate of 2012 sufficiently educated in the principles which have brought America unparalleled success to make a decision that will sustain this nation's preeminence in the world, or are they too busy watching dancing with the stars?
I must say, I fear for any nation in which Paris Hilton has a job.
All I can say is free peoples get the government they deserve. The choice couldn't be more clear - embrace a model of collective salvation that has seen the great nations of Europe waste away, or return to the ideals of our founding. Individual liberty or government sponsored security. A fundamental transformation of America or a fundamental restoration of America.
Here is my fundamental concern - is the American electorate of 2012 sufficiently educated in the principles which have brought America unparalleled success to make a decision that will sustain this nation's preeminence in the world, or are they too busy watching dancing with the stars?
I must say, I fear for any nation in which Paris Hilton has a job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
