| *lol* |
[Feb. 9th, 2010|07:24 am] |
|
|
|
|
| Various Thoughts on Scary Stuff |
[Feb. 5th, 2010|07:06 pm] |
You know, the deficits scare me, social security becoming insolvent absolutely terrifies me. None of this is new mind you, except that we seem to be getting closer and closer to that cliff all the time. Before I start making plans to build myself a bunker in the woods though, I'm going to wait and give this country one last opportunity to surprise me. A recent Fox News Poll shows that a whopping 86% of the electorate are either worried or outright angry over the deficits. This is before the news about Social Security going into the red has really hit, and later this year I expect Social Security to become a major news story, much like Health Care was before it died.
If this is the case, then when and if the Republicans take over the House and Senate next November, I think there will be more political will to cut and reform entitlements then ever before. I'm not sure there will be enough will to actively take a chainsaw to them, but there WILL be the will to do something, and hopefully it'll be enough.
Of course, then there's the other foot. Even if the Republicans win every seat possible, have a healthy majority in both the House and Senate. Obama is still the President and the Democrats will still have enough seats to obstruct any cuts that are too deep. So for two years at least we'll have to make do with shallower cuts, we'll have to play hardball politics and cut as much as we can in each budget before Obama breaks out his Veto pen. I suspect, given the desire to cut deficits right now, that Obama will actually take hits whenever he does this, however by this point I'm less concerned about winning an election and more concerned about survival as a nation. Hopefully shallow cuts will be enough to push the bear back until we either have wider majorities or a fiscal conservative in the white house, hopefully both. And hopefully the desire to cut the deficits will remain through that time, I suspect it will as even people on the left are starting to realize we're plucked up if we continue down this fiscal path too much longer, but I'm no fortune teller.
On the bright side, for America at least. Once again there's a large possibility that we may survive and thrive by the mere virtue of making the fewest mistakes. You don't have to outrun the bear after all, you just need to outrun enough of the other guys. China's economy appears to be a precariously constructed bubble, Europe has the same problems we do on steroids, and most other countries have a lot of these same problems to at least one extent or another. If in the next two or three years we begin to seriously put our affairs in order before the crap hits the fan everywhere else, then we clearly re-emerge at the dominant economic and military super power once again.
Kinda reeks for everybody else of course. Still, I'd much prefer to have at least one major free, economically prosperous country, then go through another dark age.
Anyhow, I guess I just want to see what all of you really think about all of this. Do you think we're doomed, doomed, DOOMED! Or is there a light at the end of the tunnel? |
|
|
| Oh (no) Canada |
[Feb. 4th, 2010|05:40 am] |
| [ | mood |
| |  amused | ] |
Maybe the propaganda-fooled public believes the lie but politicians know better.
Oh (no) Canada
You've heard the mantra, chanted by everyone on the left, from Michael Moore to The New York Times: America's profit-centric health-care system is dismally inferior to that of Canada's purely pristine humanitarian-driven version.
Indeed, the central theme of Moore's 2007 "documentary" film, "Sicko," was that Canada -- with its universal, government-run and taxpayer-funded "free" health care -- is a medical paradise.
And a Times editorial last August glowingly declared: "Contrary to what one hears in political discourse, the bulk of the research comparing the United States and Canada found a higher quality of care in our northern neighbor."
Well, tell that to Danny Williams, premier of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The popular 59-year-old politician has discovered that nothing is for free. He's somewhere in the US today -- prepping for heart surgery.
Seems the procedure he needs simply isn't available in Newfoundland -- at any price.
And, with his own health on the line, he prefers to put his trust in the "second-rate, profit-driven health-care behemoth" south of the St. Lawrence, rather than try a hospital in Canada.
"Ultimately, we have to be the gatekeepers of our own health," said Williams' deputy premier, "and he has taken medical advice from a number of different sources,"
Williams, he added, "is doing what's best for him."
Precisely.
Last summer, President Obama -- who still hopes to overhaul American health-care -- defended the Canadian system as one that "works for Canada."
Not for all Canadians, apparently.
Certainly not those well-connected pols, who -- like Danny Williams -- can afford better health care in the good ol' US of A.
Get well soon, Danny.
The NY Post |
|
|
| Why The Dems Will Never Back Off On Climate "Change" |
[Feb. 3rd, 2010|11:12 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  aggravated | ] |
It's their ultimate dream.
Why climate-change alarmists can't tell the truth
Walter Williams
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen online.
The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their loss made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global-warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.
( Read more... ) |
|
|
| This makes me angry |
[Feb. 2nd, 2010|06:59 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | angry | ] |
OK, I have never believed that global warming is real. I've done a lot of research on the matter and knowing well how differential equation chaos math was discovered after trying to map climate models, I have never been convinced.
Now, where I was once simply a skeptic, I am now an absolute cynic. This REALLY pisses me off!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
I would go so far as to say that these men should have their PHD's revoked. I don't know if such a thing can be done, but these douche bags deserve it. |
|
|
| News Story Deleted |
[Feb. 2nd, 2010|01:23 pm] |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/us_budget_backdoortaxes
Reuters:
"The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week."
But the story survives as of this writing on a Canadian backup:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100201/us/usreport_us_budget_backdoortaxes
Backdoor taxes to hit middle class
Mon Feb 1, 4:09 PM
By Terri Cullen
NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.
In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth...
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001... If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well...
How often does Reuters delete brand-new news stories? Was this one withdrawn because it's factually incorrect? Or might the withdrawal have to do with the fact that (1) it shows Obama ready to violate the campaign promise that your taxes won't go up unless you're making over $250K (or maybe $200K); and (2) it mentions offhand that those Bush tax cuts weren't simply "tax cuts for the rich"? |
|
|
| The Reckoning |
[Feb. 1st, 2010|05:01 pm] |
In hard times you cut to the bone, if its not enough you cut further. This is an ancient truth that has yet to dawn on many people, even in the midst of this recession. I think a big reason why so many officials want to say that things are getting better, that the recession is over, is simply that they do not want to be the ones to pay the piper. But the piper is here, outside our door, ready to collect, and I for one am actually eager to pay off our debts.
This Article off of Global Economic Analysis makes it pretty clear that government and municipal jobs around the country are soon going to begin drying up. There are simply too many services employing too many people for too high of wages in too many cities around America. The options for dealing with this, are to either cut jobs, or cut wages, and since unions will not accept wage cuts another round of job cuts are certainly coming down the queue and so the unemployment rate will surely be ticking up again. In the long term this isn't a bad thing though, many of these positions are likely to be privatized, or replaced with non-unionized workers who work for lower wages. Then slowly the cuts will work their way up the food chain. How many wasteful state level spending programs will be cut in order to keep police on the streets, how many political careers will die in the process, and how how weakened will the unions be when this is all over.
Like I said, in hard times you cut to the bone, and first you start by chopping off the parasites that are sapping your strength. And what's most astounding about this is that this time I really do think the American voters will get behind all this cutting. If there is one good positive thing about hard times is that they tend to toughen people up, and after making so many personal sacrifices I don't think there's going to be too much sympathy for Unions demanding increasingly frivolous wages, or spending programs that benefit only a small number of political donors.
Heck, if we're lucky, "if we are lucky," this cutting may eventually reach all the way up into the lofty branches of the federal government. Just how many spending programs have to become insolvent before this happens exactly? How many politicians have to lose their jobs before they have the political will to make the cuts necessary. Or do heads have to roll before the government can be trimmed down to a sustainable size. Either way, the reckoning is here, and all we can do is watch it play out.
Here's hoping we recover just fine. |
|
|
| She had the right idea. |
[Jan. 29th, 2010|08:47 am] |
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.
- Mother Teresa |
|
|
| Dems Plan Trap For Republican Candidates |
[Jan. 29th, 2010|12:36 am] |
| [ | mood |
| |  indescribable | ] |
Having conditioned the public to pooh-pooh certain topics the Democrats now plan to use Tea Party and Eligibility stances against Republicans this fall.
In a "do you still beat your wife?" scenario they plan to ask no-win questions to make candidates look like nuts or force them to disavow concerns.
Senate campaign director plots to derail Republican candidates
During this year's U.S. Senate races, it will be Democrats raising the issue of President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
Politico reported Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chief Robert Menendez is distributing a memo to U.S. Senate campaign offices stating Democrats need to demand that their opponents answer a series of questions, including, "Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?"
The report said Menendez wants to use the questions to "frame" opponents and "drive a wedge" between moderates belonging to the GOP and those who have adopted the tea party standards advocating limited government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and more freedom for Americans.
The Democrat memo said, "Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical – yet time-sensitive – opportunity for Democratic candidates.
( Read more... ) |
|
|
| NASA News |
[Jan. 29th, 2010|12:02 am] |
Florida news: "Yay, more funding for NASA! Oh, wait, we're not going to go to the Moon or Mars?"
The Orlando Sentinel has split-personality coverage of the news today:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-budget-boost-012810-20100127,0,5884253.story
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story
"Administration officials and a former astronaut on Wednesday called President Obama's plans for NASA "exciting" and "bold," saying he was replacing a failed moon program with a new $6 billion project to develop commercial rockets capable of taking astronauts into orbit." Versus:
"NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way."
Also: "However, none of the officials would say how much money or what plans existed for creating a NASA spaceship capable of launching humans beyond the space station. When asked, officials repeatedly dodged the question of what plans the administration had for a heavy-lift rocket."
Some of you know Phil Geusz, writer. I keep being reminded of his "Freedom City" novels, soon to be on sale in print. In a key conversation in the stories, the hero talks with an American whose sole idea of a space program is to put satellites in orbit, not to actually explore. That's pretty much our policy now! Bush at least tried... Similarly, I recently watched a low-quality documentary on the space shuttle program. It went like this: "Early space program. Development of the Shuttle. First couple of good flights. Challenger disaster. Columbia disaster. And... uh... here's some footage of astronauts playing with toys." |
|
|
| The REAL Ellie Light Found? |
[Jan. 27th, 2010|05:17 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  confused | ] |
God, what a soup sandwich.
Yesterday we had news that "Ellie Light", the Obama defender who has popped up in dozens of letter-to-the-editor pages around the world, had called into the Michael Smirconish show in Philadelphia. She claimed she was a nurse doing 13-week stints in various parts of the country to explain her different locals in the 60-plus letters to papers found so far. Unexplained was the letters to papers overseas. She insisted she was real and the letters were real.
Today comes an expose in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that the caller was a fake and the REAL Ellie in a man. This one sounds a bit more probable. He's an activist with Daily Kos, an Ayers-connected group, and The Huffington Post.
To those familiar with Leftist activism this perfectly fits the pattern. It has been done before by groups like HSUS and PETA. It spurs reporters to write stories and gives the impression of support by the general public.
The Plain-Dealer was one of the papers that got the emailed letters and obtained the originals also sent to related papers. The headers told the tale and traced back to this guy.
But what about the woman who called the radio show? Does this indicate a wider conspiracy. Was she a loner? Or was she sent by someone to defuse things?
Stay tuned. |
|
|
| SOTU Preview: Obama to cut NASA |
[Jan. 27th, 2010|04:51 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | aggravated | ] |
And make them serve his Global Warming agenda:
NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.
When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.
There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.
In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.
In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible.
Full Story
In other, but related, news: India is forging ahead with their manned space program and China plans a moon landing within the decade. Russia is becoming our lifeline to space and we have no plan now to reduce our dependence on foreign space access. Sound familiar?
"Progressives" have always hated American space programs. They want to keep us down and in their control. While they have the power they will do just that. Space programs have withered under Democrat administrations but prospered under Republicans.
|
|
|
| Two Important Ballot Measures Being Decided in Oregon |
[Jan. 26th, 2010|05:37 pm] |
By tomorrow, two economically related ballot measures will either be passed or rejected in my home state of Oregon.
Measure 66
Raises tax on household income at and above $250,000 (and $125,000 for individual filers). Reduces income taxes on unemployment benefits in 2009. Provides funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services.
Measure 67
Raises $10 corporate minimum tax, business minimum tax, corporate profits tax. Provides funds currently budgeted for education, health care, public safety, other services.
Acting on my conservative principles, I voted "no" on both. I suspect that most of you here would likely have voted the same.
Some might wonder why I would not vote for ballot 66 at least, given the fact that I received unemployment benefits for the larger portion of 2009 (to my great regret and shame). I have no desire to pay taxes. I do not want to pay taxes nor do I even have the money at this point to pay the taxes from my benefits. Nobody likes to pay taxes, unless they are severely deluded in thinking that having the government confiscate their hard earned money is somehow an act of nobility and virtue. However, this is not about me but about what is best for the state. Moreover, the way I see it, the income I have been receiving is paid by my fellow citizens through their tax dollars, not money I have earned by working in the private sector, so it only seems fair that I have to give some of it back. It was not truly my money. Additionally, it stands to reason that the high taxes and anti-business climate dominating Oregon economics and politics are largely responsible for the loss of jobs and high unemployment. Thus, if it were not for high taxes and the assault on businesses, I would probably not need to collect unemployment to begin with because I would have a job.
This gets to the central fallacy of the liberal belief in government welfare. State welfare is self-perpetuating. Once more people become dependent on government aid, instead of helping them recover, it extends the dependency, much in the same way as an addictive drug. The more government aid you take, the more you need. When the government needs to fund more and more welfare programs, they have to raise taxes in order to keep it going, which then destroys jobs, which then creates more people needing state assistance. Therefore the cycle continues endlessly in a downward spiral.
There are many other lies and absurdities surrounding these two measures.
1. It's fundamental economic wisdom that you never raise taxes in a recession. Even president Obama stated as much himself: "The last thing we want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession." Raising taxes stifles desperately need economic growth.
2. Proponents of the measure insist that only the most affluent of citizens and big businesses will feel the impact. This is demonstrably false. The so-called "rich" in this measure include small business and the people who provide Oregon jobs. Not only do the increase in taxes potentially force businesses to lay off workers, but their higher costs also get passed on to the consumer with higher prices for goods and services. This affects the middle and lower classes most. The minimum $10 corporate tax is also a dubious claim. As columnist Jayne Carroll writes, "One of the never-ending falsehoods being perpetuated by the tax hike enthusiasts is that many businesses pay only a $10 minimum corporate tax. There is an element of truth in their contention, but their claim is class envy-inducing hyperbole. Oregon businesses that pay the $10 minimum corporate tax are companies that have not made a profit or have no taxable income. Profitable businesses pay lofty income taxes. If approved, these measures will authorize minimum taxes even on companies that report an annual loss."
Oregon has lost over 131,000 private sector jobs since the recession started. These measures are projected to cause the loss of another 70,000 jobs. Oregon has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. It peaked at over 12 percent and is now hovering around 11 percent. I am one of them. I do not want to see more jobs lost and my chance at finding a job going out with them.
The liberal philosophy behind tax hikes is intrinsically immoral and wrong in addition to being fiscally insipid. Let us assume, as the proponents claim, that only the "rich" and big business corporations would be hurt by these tax increases. Why should people be punished for financial success and hard work? Why should the government determine how much money you make and penalize you? Why is it right for the government to steal what is rightfully yours and give it to others? The rich already pay the overwhelming portion of the tax burden. If you count the top 1 percent plus the next two highest fifths of the income range, it totals about 70 percent of taxes. According to the Old Testament in passages like 1 Samuel 8, it was considered usury and a sign of tyranny if the ruling authorities took just 10 percent or more of your personal wealth, possessions and assets. Two of the 10 commandments "thou shall not steal" and "thou shall not covet" implicitly support the idea of private property and right to have what one has earned. How is it moral or rational to tax the hell out of the rich or big businesses that provide most of the jobs in this country? Why is making a profit immoral? Profit is immoral only if it is obtained in immoral or illegal ways. Profit is not inherently evil as the left believes. There is no basis for such an assertion.
That is why I support the flat tax. It is fair and simple. Everyone pays the same percentage of their total income to the government, but the rich still pay more because they make more money, not because they are disproportionately taxed.
One last item to note on this particular point is that raising taxes on the rich is self-defeating. It does NOT lead to an increase in government revenue. Why? Because the rich have the knowledge and the means to evade their taxes. This is exactly why the rich Democrats in congress have no problem with tax increases. They can get out of them. Obama's administration is no stranger to tax dodgers. To the contrary, it has been shown that when taxes are cut on upper class income earners, the government receives more revenue because the rich are more willing to pay their fair share and less tempted to evade.
3. Proponents of the measures commit the fallacy of appealing to emotion, particularly for poor school children, so that the rest of us are suppose to respond in a mindless, Pavlovian sympathy and fear. As Carroll remarks about their melancholy rhetoric, "Their “elderly will die in the streets” and the “children will suffer the most” scenarios are the worn-out diatribes of the politically gluttonous and fiscally incompetent. These are the same people who have repeatedly led Oregon to the top of America’s unemployment heap while driving companies to less business-hostile states."
"It's all about the children." The federal government has already poured millions into the public education system and there is very little evidence to support the idea that increased federal educational spending leads to improvements in student academic scores or performance. In fact, in K-12 education, the United States is far behind many other countries in terms of test scores and other measures of performance. I don't know the exact ranking but I believe the U.S. is somewhere around the 25th ranking among civilized nations, last I heard. Our colleges and universities which function on more of a free market model, however, are among the best in the world. The fact is that more government spending and involvement in education, like almost every other aspect of society, actually creates more problems than it solves. The government does two things reasonable well: run the military and manage infrastructure. It corrupts everything else it touches. I have no confidence that the government is going to improve education, health care, or anything else so there is no reason to give those incompetent bureaucrats anymore money.
4. The state bureaucrats want everyone else to tighten their belt but the recession did not stop them from giving themselves salary raises at tax payer expense or from cutting back on spending. Carroll points out in her column that "They claim to have already cut $2 billion in the 2009-2011 Oregon budget before being forced to increase taxes to balance it. In truth, the latest biennial budget is $4.7 billion higher than the last — a 9 percent increase! Because this increase was less than they wanted, they are falsely whining about “cuts.” Meanwhile, the “we made every cost-saving move imaginable” gang authorized $259 million in salary increases for state employees. As 131,000 private sector jobs were lost in Oregon since the recession started, state government employment increased by 2 percent. While Oregonians took pay cuts, state workers got raises."
Raising taxes is not only usury and theft, but it is taking away power and freedom from the people and giving it to the state. The Founding Fathers and the early colonial Americans went to war over tax increases far less damaging than this. As Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." That is conservatism in a nutshell and the underlying reason why I voted against measures 66 and 67.
Thoughts? |
|
|
| Related but unrelated question. |
[Jan. 26th, 2010|01:09 pm] |
I have been trying to figure this out... What is the song on Glenn Beck's radio show that goes like "We are the key..."? Thanks. =^.^=\
Edit: Glenn Beck mentioned on his show that he had it written and produced for the show. As mentioned, it was inspired by Beck's favorite band, Muse. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
confurvatives