The living room is done, and looks fantastic. What a difference! Hats off to the wife for picking a great color, and many thanks to Bund Buddies "Super Jon" and Becki for the help and laughs.
Jon brought some kind of paint remover disguised as a Brazilian-version of mezcal that he started doing as shots at about 10:30 AM... the man truly is "super". Liz and Becki are a solid two bottles into the afternoon (with Liz by far the worse for wear), and I'm the late-start with my "black" beers.
It's shaping up to be a long night at the Chateau d'Lieteau... all we're missing is all of you guys!
Friday, March 19, 2010
Found it...
The Senate version that the House is going to "deem and pass" is found HERE... and it is a mightily depressing load of fesces, let me tell you.
The math seems very easy to me...
Employers face the prospect of a penalty for not providing health coverage insurance of $750 per employee.
Average employer cost of health coverage per employee (as of 2009): $12,966
Do any of us think we will continue to have private health insurance once this goes into effect?
Estimated tax cost to the average family making more than $50,000 per year is now at $15K PER YEAR by as early as 2019... that is the figure used by the CBO to show a $138 billion dollar reduction in the deficit. THIS is what Pelosi and Reid don't want people to know about...
The math seems very easy to me...
Employers face the prospect of a penalty for not providing health coverage insurance of $750 per employee.
Average employer cost of health coverage per employee (as of 2009): $12,966
Do any of us think we will continue to have private health insurance once this goes into effect?
Estimated tax cost to the average family making more than $50,000 per year is now at $15K PER YEAR by as early as 2019... that is the figure used by the CBO to show a $138 billion dollar reduction in the deficit. THIS is what Pelosi and Reid don't want people to know about...
Wow... they are really going to do this...
I tried like hell to find a link to the Health Insurance Reform Bill, which I had read was now available online finally, but it isn't the BILL... it is a list of the AMENDMENTS that the House will be voting on in the first half of the reconciliation process that will begin this weekend.
The original Bill is more than 2,700 pages... and the list of amendments to HR 3200 (found HERE) is 1,017 pages. I haven't managed to make out heads nor tails of anything of value in the latter, and I still haven't seen the former.
With this one move, Pelosi will have locked herself into the single most divisive era of Congressional politics that I, for one, can recall. If she thought the partisan efforts to stop judicial appointments was bad... watch what happens now that she has implemented the means to circumvent the entire Congressional voting procedure.
With the polls showing opposition to the reform and the procedure used to get it passed now at more than 72% of mainstream America... I really can't imagine that she thinks passage of this will actually HELP any Democrat's chances of reelection in November. I am truly beginning to suspect that there is an ulterior agenda at work here, and that the Congressional leadership is intentionally ignoring the loud and clear message coming for the public.
The original Bill is more than 2,700 pages... and the list of amendments to HR 3200 (found HERE) is 1,017 pages. I haven't managed to make out heads nor tails of anything of value in the latter, and I still haven't seen the former.
With this one move, Pelosi will have locked herself into the single most divisive era of Congressional politics that I, for one, can recall. If she thought the partisan efforts to stop judicial appointments was bad... watch what happens now that she has implemented the means to circumvent the entire Congressional voting procedure.
With the polls showing opposition to the reform and the procedure used to get it passed now at more than 72% of mainstream America... I really can't imagine that she thinks passage of this will actually HELP any Democrat's chances of reelection in November. I am truly beginning to suspect that there is an ulterior agenda at work here, and that the Congressional leadership is intentionally ignoring the loud and clear message coming for the public.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Eat your hearts out...
Just wanted to rub it in...
Tomorrow, some of our best "Bund Buddies" are coming over to the Chateau d'Lieteau to help us finish our big painting project in the living room, then its grilling on the deck with coolers of the best porters, ales and stouts to be had for the men, and NEPA's finest pinot grigio and riesling wines, courtesy of the famous Nimble Hill Winery, for the ladies.
Since it is about an even split between the heathen Episcopalian crowd and the pius Catholics, we'll be grilling a selection of meats and fish, just to make sure all the bases are covered. Burgers and dogs for the pagans, and salmon patties and tilapia fillets for the rest.
You guys know the address, if you have nothing better to do on a Friday night...
Tomorrow, some of our best "Bund Buddies" are coming over to the Chateau d'Lieteau to help us finish our big painting project in the living room, then its grilling on the deck with coolers of the best porters, ales and stouts to be had for the men, and NEPA's finest pinot grigio and riesling wines, courtesy of the famous Nimble Hill Winery, for the ladies.
Since it is about an even split between the heathen Episcopalian crowd and the pius Catholics, we'll be grilling a selection of meats and fish, just to make sure all the bases are covered. Burgers and dogs for the pagans, and salmon patties and tilapia fillets for the rest.
You guys know the address, if you have nothing better to do on a Friday night...
Pelosi is having a tough time...
... when she can't even get the AFL-CIO to back her health plan with any enthusiasm. They did endorse the plan, but with reservations, and with the "promise" of later improvements.
I can't believe that Ryan has been on this blog raging and raving against the "manner" in which this is getting pushed through, let alone the legislation itself.
Dude... this must be killing you!
I can't believe that Ryan has been on this blog raging and raving against the "manner" in which this is getting pushed through, let alone the legislation itself.
Dude... this must be killing you!
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Something Ryan said is sticking with me...
Ryan posted that his "summation" was made in the last half of his "Bund of Brothers" post, so I went back and re-read it several times. Here are my thoughts... with quotes.
Ryan seems to be (repeatedly) advocating the benefits of a course of action that wouldn't be proposed by ANY politician until 1979, at least not with any national credibility, but he is injecting this point of view almost 50 years into the past. After repeated re-readings of the above-mentioned post, I can readily admit that deregulation of commerce and production, outside of national security interests, a low Federal tax rate, and a greater emphasis on State-level control is the best way to keep an economy running smoothly, and I agree that the best historical example of this is Reagan.
Perhaps my point can best be summed up by asking, what reasonable and contemporary plan could have been followed as an alternative to the progressive and centralized programs that the New Deal instituted? We can say (again and again and again) that the New Deal and the Hoover plans weren't "Reaganomics", but that is a non sequitur of the first degree.
Referring back to our discussion about Jackson's actions in 1830, how can we feel it is acceptable to take a paradigm established in 1981 and force it into a formula firmly found only in the 1930s? Is there evidence that someone in 1929 or 1930 was advocating everything that Reagan advocated (or that Ryan advocates today), so that we can establish that FDR was presented with a plan offering an alternative course and that he chose NOT to follow it? THAT would constitute a failing on the part of FDR in my book, far more than saying "He should have known better than to do what he did" nearly 80 years after the fact. What I see as the historical case is that FDR was elected on the promise that he would change the status quo to fix the problems plaguing America in 1932, and FDR delivered on that promise in every area but one... unemployment.
If Ryan's point is that "Reaganomics" would have done more to fix the economy in 1930 than anything that either Hoover OR FDR was advocating, then I can agree with him whole-heartedly. That isn't the same as saying the New Deal "failed utterly", however, and I still maintain that the nation as a whole benefited from many aspects of the New Deal programs. But, if it furthers understanding between points, when it comes to the manner and means that the Executive Branch should handle a sagging or failing economy, Reagan had it right.
Measuring the New Deal with a "Reaganomics" yard stick is a great way to prove the validity of Reaganomics, but it doesn't work to disprove the gains made by New Deal to address the issues presented in 1929 by the Great Depression... because the paradigm didn't exist.
Labeling most of the New Deal as unconstitutional (as you did twice in your previously mentioned post) is also counter-productive to the fundamental nature of the debate, because it isn't shown to be true, historically speaking. The SCOTUS determined that the National Recovery Administration was determined to be unconstitutional, this is very true... but not because of anything FDR did. This is always assumed to be the fault of the Administration, typically because of the price-fixing nature of the NRA, but the unconstitutional aspect of the NRA was that it was an illegal delegation of authority by Congress to the White House. The Court determined that Congress had signed over too much oversight of commerce between States to the Executive Branch of government, and if you are going to blame someone for doing that, it shouldn't be FDR. Arguing that Social Security is unconstitutional is a purely academic effort as well... because the SCOTUS decided that SSI was constitutionally sound TWICE since its inception and institution.
Can anyone find examples of a "great" President that wasn't forced by circumstances to abandon the status quo and look for alternative means to reach a goal? After April of 1861, Lincoln was handed defeat after defeat, and setback after setback, from his top generals, but he didn't simply throw up his hands and say "To hell with it!" did he? He kept picking new generals until he found a core body of leadership that showed they could deliver on the stated goals of the Union forces and win the war. Go back even farther, and you see that Lincoln had the opportunity to follow in his predecessor's footsteps and continue with a compromise ideology over the question of slavery, but he didn't follow that course. He chose to utilize the military of the Union states to force the issue, once and for all. Reagan had 35 years of containment policy to follow in regards to the USSR when he took office, and the example of seven previous Presidents clearly showed that the status quo worked to maintain the balance of power in the world... but he recognized that the grand strategy would have to be fundamentally changed if the US was going to WIN the Cold War, and he did that through pure force of will.
Can anyone deny that the definition of "conservative" policy and laissez faire politics in the 1930s was wholly contained in the advocates of the Hoover Administration? Can anyone show where even ONE policy or program of the Hoover years did ANYTHING to effect the downward trend the economy was falling into starting in 1929? Saying loudly and often that F Ryan doesn't believe in a recovery without jobs is fine for RIGHT NOW, but it is terribly hard to defend when that view is forced backwards into history by about 80 years. I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say that the American people were damn sick of the "all or nothing" approach that the Hoover White House had taken for the first three and a half years of the depression, and my proof is in the election results for 1932... FDR as President, a 73% majority in the House for the Democrats and a 60-seat majority in the Senate for the Democrats. This majority control was maintained right through to the 1940 election, telling me that the vast majority of Americans DID see results they could believe in... even if unemployment remained too high.
Ryan seems to be (repeatedly) advocating the benefits of a course of action that wouldn't be proposed by ANY politician until 1979, at least not with any national credibility, but he is injecting this point of view almost 50 years into the past. After repeated re-readings of the above-mentioned post, I can readily admit that deregulation of commerce and production, outside of national security interests, a low Federal tax rate, and a greater emphasis on State-level control is the best way to keep an economy running smoothly, and I agree that the best historical example of this is Reagan.
Perhaps my point can best be summed up by asking, what reasonable and contemporary plan could have been followed as an alternative to the progressive and centralized programs that the New Deal instituted? We can say (again and again and again) that the New Deal and the Hoover plans weren't "Reaganomics", but that is a non sequitur of the first degree.
Referring back to our discussion about Jackson's actions in 1830, how can we feel it is acceptable to take a paradigm established in 1981 and force it into a formula firmly found only in the 1930s? Is there evidence that someone in 1929 or 1930 was advocating everything that Reagan advocated (or that Ryan advocates today), so that we can establish that FDR was presented with a plan offering an alternative course and that he chose NOT to follow it? THAT would constitute a failing on the part of FDR in my book, far more than saying "He should have known better than to do what he did" nearly 80 years after the fact. What I see as the historical case is that FDR was elected on the promise that he would change the status quo to fix the problems plaguing America in 1932, and FDR delivered on that promise in every area but one... unemployment.
If Ryan's point is that "Reaganomics" would have done more to fix the economy in 1930 than anything that either Hoover OR FDR was advocating, then I can agree with him whole-heartedly. That isn't the same as saying the New Deal "failed utterly", however, and I still maintain that the nation as a whole benefited from many aspects of the New Deal programs. But, if it furthers understanding between points, when it comes to the manner and means that the Executive Branch should handle a sagging or failing economy, Reagan had it right.
Measuring the New Deal with a "Reaganomics" yard stick is a great way to prove the validity of Reaganomics, but it doesn't work to disprove the gains made by New Deal to address the issues presented in 1929 by the Great Depression... because the paradigm didn't exist.
Labeling most of the New Deal as unconstitutional (as you did twice in your previously mentioned post) is also counter-productive to the fundamental nature of the debate, because it isn't shown to be true, historically speaking. The SCOTUS determined that the National Recovery Administration was determined to be unconstitutional, this is very true... but not because of anything FDR did. This is always assumed to be the fault of the Administration, typically because of the price-fixing nature of the NRA, but the unconstitutional aspect of the NRA was that it was an illegal delegation of authority by Congress to the White House. The Court determined that Congress had signed over too much oversight of commerce between States to the Executive Branch of government, and if you are going to blame someone for doing that, it shouldn't be FDR. Arguing that Social Security is unconstitutional is a purely academic effort as well... because the SCOTUS decided that SSI was constitutionally sound TWICE since its inception and institution.
Can anyone find examples of a "great" President that wasn't forced by circumstances to abandon the status quo and look for alternative means to reach a goal? After April of 1861, Lincoln was handed defeat after defeat, and setback after setback, from his top generals, but he didn't simply throw up his hands and say "To hell with it!" did he? He kept picking new generals until he found a core body of leadership that showed they could deliver on the stated goals of the Union forces and win the war. Go back even farther, and you see that Lincoln had the opportunity to follow in his predecessor's footsteps and continue with a compromise ideology over the question of slavery, but he didn't follow that course. He chose to utilize the military of the Union states to force the issue, once and for all. Reagan had 35 years of containment policy to follow in regards to the USSR when he took office, and the example of seven previous Presidents clearly showed that the status quo worked to maintain the balance of power in the world... but he recognized that the grand strategy would have to be fundamentally changed if the US was going to WIN the Cold War, and he did that through pure force of will.
Can anyone deny that the definition of "conservative" policy and laissez faire politics in the 1930s was wholly contained in the advocates of the Hoover Administration? Can anyone show where even ONE policy or program of the Hoover years did ANYTHING to effect the downward trend the economy was falling into starting in 1929? Saying loudly and often that F Ryan doesn't believe in a recovery without jobs is fine for RIGHT NOW, but it is terribly hard to defend when that view is forced backwards into history by about 80 years. I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say that the American people were damn sick of the "all or nothing" approach that the Hoover White House had taken for the first three and a half years of the depression, and my proof is in the election results for 1932... FDR as President, a 73% majority in the House for the Democrats and a 60-seat majority in the Senate for the Democrats. This majority control was maintained right through to the 1940 election, telling me that the vast majority of Americans DID see results they could believe in... even if unemployment remained too high.
Hmmm...
I hesitate to go so far as to say we wouldn't have "won" the war... but we wouldn't have accomplished it in the manner and within the time frame that we did, I'm sure of that.
Without the TVA, Oak Ridge does nothing. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we don't have the bomb without the TVA, because Oak Ridge was sucking more electricity that all of New York City each and every day (1/5 of ALL electrical output in the country was being used by Oak Ridge to refine uranium). The University of Chicago's "Met Lab", where Fermi produced the first self-sustained chain reaction, was built with WPA funding in 1935-36.
By 1944, Wichita, KS was out-producing all of Germany in the field of aircraft manufacturing, due in large part to railroad infrastructure improvements made in the 30s. The same can be said of the "Arsenal of Democracy" that Detroit, MI had become. Railroads, freeways, and canals had allowed the influx of materials and the distribution of military hardware to flow out of the city at a rate never imagined prior to 1940. Textile centers like Scranton, PA were producing 10 million uniforms a month by 1943, and eastern PA and nearly all of West Virginia were pumping coal and oil out of the ground at rates previously unimagined... again, thanks in large part to the infrastructure that the New Deal had laid down.
Farm improvements that had begun under the AAA and other agricultural programs of the New Deal allowed American (and Canadian) farmers to meet and exceed all production demands made by the US military, and still provide a substantial segment of the civilian needs (supplemented with "Victory Gardens" and the like, of course). More importantly, the agricultural sector continued to produce such a volume of produce that it managed to almost single-handedly feed 85% of European needs AFTER the war was over.
The expansion of the electrical grid from less than 44% of the country to more than 75% of the country by 1939 must surely be seen as one of the greatest improvements to the infrastructure. Not because of the convenience of electric power to a home, but because of the increased productivity that comes with that advancement at every level of society. Farmers, factory workers, common laborers, everyone could spend less time working to live and more time being productive in an effort to win the war from the home front. Food canning operations, recycling centers, distribution hubs, small-scale manufacturing of items like ammunition, explosives, clothing, armour, machine parts, equipment and material production, and the exploitation of raw materials needed at every single level of our society could be found in every corner of the nation by war's end, thanks to the advancement of the electrical power lines across the country.
Without the TVA, Oak Ridge does nothing. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we don't have the bomb without the TVA, because Oak Ridge was sucking more electricity that all of New York City each and every day (1/5 of ALL electrical output in the country was being used by Oak Ridge to refine uranium). The University of Chicago's "Met Lab", where Fermi produced the first self-sustained chain reaction, was built with WPA funding in 1935-36.
By 1944, Wichita, KS was out-producing all of Germany in the field of aircraft manufacturing, due in large part to railroad infrastructure improvements made in the 30s. The same can be said of the "Arsenal of Democracy" that Detroit, MI had become. Railroads, freeways, and canals had allowed the influx of materials and the distribution of military hardware to flow out of the city at a rate never imagined prior to 1940. Textile centers like Scranton, PA were producing 10 million uniforms a month by 1943, and eastern PA and nearly all of West Virginia were pumping coal and oil out of the ground at rates previously unimagined... again, thanks in large part to the infrastructure that the New Deal had laid down.
Farm improvements that had begun under the AAA and other agricultural programs of the New Deal allowed American (and Canadian) farmers to meet and exceed all production demands made by the US military, and still provide a substantial segment of the civilian needs (supplemented with "Victory Gardens" and the like, of course). More importantly, the agricultural sector continued to produce such a volume of produce that it managed to almost single-handedly feed 85% of European needs AFTER the war was over.
The expansion of the electrical grid from less than 44% of the country to more than 75% of the country by 1939 must surely be seen as one of the greatest improvements to the infrastructure. Not because of the convenience of electric power to a home, but because of the increased productivity that comes with that advancement at every level of society. Farmers, factory workers, common laborers, everyone could spend less time working to live and more time being productive in an effort to win the war from the home front. Food canning operations, recycling centers, distribution hubs, small-scale manufacturing of items like ammunition, explosives, clothing, armour, machine parts, equipment and material production, and the exploitation of raw materials needed at every single level of our society could be found in every corner of the nation by war's end, thanks to the advancement of the electrical power lines across the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
