"Mr. Lazarus,
You say:
"The legislation -- HR 5244 -- would, among other things, end card issuers' self-proclaimed right to change interest rates at any time. Instead, a 45-day notice would be required for any increase."
Interest rates are the price card issuers charge for the product they sell: credit. Why does every other business have the "self-proclaimed" right to change prices but card issuers don't? Like all price ceiling legislation this will have one guaranteed effect, a shortage of credit--something you are not concerned about. It is not clear that those who are denied credit subsequent to passage of this bill are all bad risks. Anyone who carries a balance will be effected by this legislation--they will pay a lower interest rate (price) over time but they will get less credit, whatever their risk. This includes small businesses, not just families.
If some government price fixing is OK, why not for everything: gas, milk, etc.?"
Monday, September 29, 2008
Letter to LA Times business columnist
An email I sent to David Lazarus, in response to this.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Who Exactly is Getting Bailed Out: Wall Street or Main Street?
For all those in an uproar about the so-called bailout, think on this: these financial and insurance firms are in trouble, in large part, because of the inability or even unwillingness of home "owners" to pay their mortgages. To be sure, these companies should have seen this coming even if they thought these loans had an implicit government guarantee. But who blames a small business owner when he goes out of business because his customers don't pay their bills? No one. And it's really no different here. Whoever invested in MBS may or may not have understood the risks but nobody doubts a debtor's moral obligation to pay, upon which a great deal of business is conducted (or used to be, anyway) not just MBS. The instruments which these mortgages were converted into may be very complex but they are NOT "fictional" or fraudulent. Many people, in the public at large (i.e. Main Street), Wall Street, and especially Washington are responsible for this problem. So, in one way or another as borrowers, electors, or shady politicians we are ALL responsible. So quit bitchin' and pay up!
Is this what CARB is thinking of?
Is this the greentech money growing on trees that CARB is thinking of?
The big 3 car makers get a 25 billion "loan" from the federal government to make electric cars. I'd like to ask Mary Ann Nichols, the chairman of CARB why the government is needed to invest here if investors are chomping at the bit to invest in green tech as she claims. Here are three major american corporations trying to sell bonds but the only buyers are the federal government. Is this how green tech will operate in California, Mary?
The big 3 car makers get a 25 billion "loan" from the federal government to make electric cars. I'd like to ask Mary Ann Nichols, the chairman of CARB why the government is needed to invest here if investors are chomping at the bit to invest in green tech as she claims. Here are three major american corporations trying to sell bonds but the only buyers are the federal government. Is this how green tech will operate in California, Mary?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Palin Update
Two weeks ago, Jeffery Toobin was looking forward to a much less popular Sarah Palin. Well, he can go ahead and wet his pants because, despite the scorched earth journalism conducted on Obama's behalf by the MSM against Mrs. Palin, she is just as popular now as she was then.
I guess the voters don't have the problem with a cheating, lying, incestuous, mean, ditzy, whorish, corrupt, stupid, Yahoo emailing Governor as the media thought they would.
I guess the voters don't have the problem with a cheating, lying, incestuous, mean, ditzy, whorish, corrupt, stupid, Yahoo emailing Governor as the media thought they would.
Bush to Blame?
I'll be the first to admit that Bush has made mistakes--all presidents do. But is he to blame for the economic crisis? Or as Obama said:is the crisis the "final verdict" on Bush's policies? In parallel many make fun of the "fact" that we are socializing the losses of the "free market". But if the market was truly "free" then how is Bush to blame? For allowing the free market to function without government intervention? Either we have a totally free market or government policies are to blame. Clearly, government policies that distorted the mortgage market and increased overall debt are to blame. But are they Bush's policies? Clearly not. The government policies that led to this crisis pre-date the Bush administration and Bush has tried to mitigate if not eliminate these policies. We've had two years of a democrat congress for crying out loud and they have been completely MIA on this, except for their constant caterwauling about the dangers of the free market and the boon of socialism.
(People forget about the word "free" in free markets. Free markets are all about personal freedom to pursue happiness. Freedom is meaningless without free markets. Commerce is the biggest part of human activity. We all participate and the more we are constrained in our commerce the less personal liberty we possess. Free markets are not a license to defraud and steal if that in fact occurred. Those are crimes.)
(People forget about the word "free" in free markets. Free markets are all about personal freedom to pursue happiness. Freedom is meaningless without free markets. Commerce is the biggest part of human activity. We all participate and the more we are constrained in our commerce the less personal liberty we possess. Free markets are not a license to defraud and steal if that in fact occurred. Those are crimes.)
Bailout
In general I oppose government bailouts of private companies. But I don't consider Paulson's plan a "bailout". For these reasons:
Still, you might say, nobody really forced these companies to extend loans to bad risks, securitize and sell the loans, insure the loans with complex derivatives, etc, etc, etc. Actually, I would say it would have been a violation of these managers' fiduciary duty if they had not done so knowing that the federal government was backing it all up. I think the managers should get their big payday! They did exactly as they should have and now we have to pay for it---because (through our elected representatives) we said we would! So quit bitching and start voting for true fiscal conservatives.
- Government policy expanded the mortgage market with CRA, FHA, Fannie & Freddie
- The fed expanded the market with low interest rates
- Government policy explicitly and implicitly guaranteed the loans
- Government policy created the accounting procedures that led to liquidity crises in individual companies
- Government employees undermined confidence in the banking system
Still, you might say, nobody really forced these companies to extend loans to bad risks, securitize and sell the loans, insure the loans with complex derivatives, etc, etc, etc. Actually, I would say it would have been a violation of these managers' fiduciary duty if they had not done so knowing that the federal government was backing it all up. I think the managers should get their big payday! They did exactly as they should have and now we have to pay for it---because (through our elected representatives) we said we would! So quit bitching and start voting for true fiscal conservatives.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
LA Times "Green" Journalism
"Green" is the new "yellow" journalism.
The LA Times has an editorial today about greenhouse gas regulation and in it they claim:
The assumption that states that don't sign on to this economic suicide (the Western Climate Initiative) pact won't become more energy efficient is ridiculous. American industry gets more energy efficient every year without any government intervention.
Why would those states have dirtier air? Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. Will the air quality suddenly improve when one steps across the border from Nevada to California? Doubtful. And what are the trade-offs if they did have dirtier air? And why is higher expenditure on health care bad for the economy but spending money on "clean" technology is good for the economy? They present no analysis indicating that CO2 regs will be worth whatever significant gains in air quality there may be. California residents will have less money to spend on healthcare under the regulations--we know that.
But the real dumb statement here is the one about other states having to buy "cleantech" from California. Maybe they will, but so will Californians! Does the LA Times think California companies will be giving this away for free? And anyway, if "cleantech" is the boom industry that CARB and the LA Times think it is what is to stop Nevada from building it and selling it to California?
Everytime I read LA Times & NY Times editorials they remind me of the editorials I used to read in my high school newspaper. The childish solutions to complex or non-existent problems. The juvenile idea that legislation is the answer to all our difficulties & the complete ignorance on economic details.
The LA Times has an editorial today about greenhouse gas regulation and in it they claim:
"The California Air Resources Board recently released a study concluding that the state's economy will grow faster as a result of its mandate to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases, increasing our gross state product by $4 billion by the time the program is completed in 2020. The states that don't act now [to regulate CO2] will be more susceptible to higher energy prices because they won't have become more energy efficient; they'll have higher health expenditures because of their dirtier air; and they'll have to buy technological innovations from states such as California, where they're being developed."Where to begin? We already know that the Cal AIr Resources Board's analysis is based on fraudulent accounting.
The assumption that states that don't sign on to this economic suicide (the Western Climate Initiative) pact won't become more energy efficient is ridiculous. American industry gets more energy efficient every year without any government intervention.
Why would those states have dirtier air? Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. Will the air quality suddenly improve when one steps across the border from Nevada to California? Doubtful. And what are the trade-offs if they did have dirtier air? And why is higher expenditure on health care bad for the economy but spending money on "clean" technology is good for the economy? They present no analysis indicating that CO2 regs will be worth whatever significant gains in air quality there may be. California residents will have less money to spend on healthcare under the regulations--we know that.
But the real dumb statement here is the one about other states having to buy "cleantech" from California. Maybe they will, but so will Californians! Does the LA Times think California companies will be giving this away for free? And anyway, if "cleantech" is the boom industry that CARB and the LA Times think it is what is to stop Nevada from building it and selling it to California?
Everytime I read LA Times & NY Times editorials they remind me of the editorials I used to read in my high school newspaper. The childish solutions to complex or non-existent problems. The juvenile idea that legislation is the answer to all our difficulties & the complete ignorance on economic details.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Go ahead, blame the fucking liberals
The American Prospect has an article trying to debunk the notion that the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) has anything to do with the current losses being suffered by mortgage lenders and others who profited from the lending. CRA compels federally insured banks to make loans in communities where they get deposits, especially low income neighborhoods. The author of the article, Robert Gordon, says:
He also notes that only 50% of the financial institutions involved in sub prime were covered by the CRA. Only 50%? Well then, I guess CRA had nothing to do with the meltdown. He then makes the claim:
But he misses a larger point. The CRA and many other government policies created a climate where companies received preferential treatment when they adhered to CRA type policies--even the mortgage lenders not covered by the CRA. To insist that the federal government's over-arching policy to extend home ownership to every possible person is not a major cause of the current crisis is disingenuous. A good example of this is the mortgage interest deduction, a policy that incentivizes home purchases and distorts the real estate market. The CRA is just one (large) part of this social engineering project.
Between the CRA and the behavior of Fannie & Freddie the risk was discounted. Still, smart risk analysts should have dreamed up some worst case scenarios. Isn't that what they are paid to do? But maybe they did and they weren't listened to. But think about it: if you had the chance to lend money (and reap interest) and some other very large and rich entity was guaranteeing the loan, wouldn't you do it?
The other problem here are the accounting rules that make the lenders balance sheets look very illiquid, when in fact they may be fine.
"Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question:In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?"It never occurs to him that they may have been doing both. Damn those dastardly bankers! Trying to make money...the nerve! Maybe they approved bad loans because they assumed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (i.e. the federal govt) would guarantee the loans because that was the arrangement and they figured out a way to make money doing it. Wow.
He also notes that only 50% of the financial institutions involved in sub prime were covered by the CRA. Only 50%? Well then, I guess CRA had nothing to do with the meltdown. He then makes the claim:
"Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA."It's a good thing he included that "perhaps", because his conclusion is conjecture. I can easily say: "Perhaps two in four sub-prime loans were made by instituions fully governed by CRA." based on the same data he uses.
But he misses a larger point. The CRA and many other government policies created a climate where companies received preferential treatment when they adhered to CRA type policies--even the mortgage lenders not covered by the CRA. To insist that the federal government's over-arching policy to extend home ownership to every possible person is not a major cause of the current crisis is disingenuous. A good example of this is the mortgage interest deduction, a policy that incentivizes home purchases and distorts the real estate market. The CRA is just one (large) part of this social engineering project.
Between the CRA and the behavior of Fannie & Freddie the risk was discounted. Still, smart risk analysts should have dreamed up some worst case scenarios. Isn't that what they are paid to do? But maybe they did and they weren't listened to. But think about it: if you had the chance to lend money (and reap interest) and some other very large and rich entity was guaranteeing the loan, wouldn't you do it?
The other problem here are the accounting rules that make the lenders balance sheets look very illiquid, when in fact they may be fine.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Costs and Benefits of AB 32--Global Hysteria Act
Since my wife obstinately refuses to see that the investment and jobs induced by AB 32 should be counted as costs let me TRY to clarify with an analogy.
When the government contracts to build military airplanes, Boeing (or whoever wins the contract) INVESTS money to build the planes and creates JOBS to build the planes. Does anyone really think that the money invested for capital and labor are a benefit for taxpayers? The contract creates (or should) net income for Boeing and its workers but these are COSTS of building the airplanes paid for with taxpayer money.
In the case of AB 32 implementation the investment would mostly come from the private sector. But this makes no difference. Investment money comes from households, just like taxes do. So households are still paying for the capital investment necessary to implement AB 32. Hence, investment and the jobs created by that investment are a COST shouldered by (mostly) California households. Investment money does not grow on trees. Now, if the government is paying for military planes necessary for national defense you might say, "Well, that's worth it." And even if the cost was to mitigate global warming you might say it's worth it. But here's the problem: CARB is not saying this is a cost and asking you if it's worth it, they are saying it is a benefit! It is simply insane!
If government always conducted economic analysis like this there would never be a regulation rejected based on cost/benefit concerns. The government would always say, 'Look at all the jobs we made!" Consider Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate accounting law: there are many workers, products and capital put to work but nobody in their right mind considers the money spent on this as a benefit. These are costs that reduce corporate profits. The benefits for investors may outweigh those costs (highly unlikely) but nobody counts those costs as benefits!
When the government contracts to build military airplanes, Boeing (or whoever wins the contract) INVESTS money to build the planes and creates JOBS to build the planes. Does anyone really think that the money invested for capital and labor are a benefit for taxpayers? The contract creates (or should) net income for Boeing and its workers but these are COSTS of building the airplanes paid for with taxpayer money.
In the case of AB 32 implementation the investment would mostly come from the private sector. But this makes no difference. Investment money comes from households, just like taxes do. So households are still paying for the capital investment necessary to implement AB 32. Hence, investment and the jobs created by that investment are a COST shouldered by (mostly) California households. Investment money does not grow on trees. Now, if the government is paying for military planes necessary for national defense you might say, "Well, that's worth it." And even if the cost was to mitigate global warming you might say it's worth it. But here's the problem: CARB is not saying this is a cost and asking you if it's worth it, they are saying it is a benefit! It is simply insane!
If government always conducted economic analysis like this there would never be a regulation rejected based on cost/benefit concerns. The government would always say, 'Look at all the jobs we made!" Consider Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate accounting law: there are many workers, products and capital put to work but nobody in their right mind considers the money spent on this as a benefit. These are costs that reduce corporate profits. The benefits for investors may outweigh those costs (highly unlikely) but nobody counts those costs as benefits!
Friday, September 19, 2008
CARB Part 5
The implementation of AB 32--the Global Hysteria ACt of 2006---may reduce energy consumption since CO2 is going to cost money. CARB has spent plenty of time and money on fancy macroeconomic modeling to justify the coming regulations. Never mind that the assumptions behind all the modeling is a fraud.
If they had just let me figure out how to reduce CO2. Naturally, I contend that CO2 is a vital component to life on earth: without it, we'd be dead. But hey, if the chicken littles insist, let me try.
BUILD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS!!!
If they had just let me figure out how to reduce CO2. Naturally, I contend that CO2 is a vital component to life on earth: without it, we'd be dead. But hey, if the chicken littles insist, let me try.
BUILD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS!!!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
CARB Part 4
From page 12 of the CARB Economic analysis of AB 32 implementation:
"The positive impacts [of implementation] are largely attributable to savings that result from reductions in expenditures on energy. These savings translate into increased consumer spending on goods and services other than energy."This makes no sense. Spending on energy and spending on "goods and services other than energy" are the same thing when you are talking about GSP (gross state product). It is inconceivable that an actual economist wrote this sentence.
CARB Part 3
The Cal Air Resources Board has finally come out with its analysis of the economic impacts of the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). They are still claiming that implementation will have a net positive impact on state income. The only way they can make such an outlandish claim is by ignoring that any jobs and investment induced by the act are a COST of implementation not a BENEFIT. Until they admit this basic flaw in their analysis they cannot be taken seriously.
Mary Nichols, the chair of CARB, is quoted in the LA Times as follows:
What on god's green earth is preventing these investors from spending this money now? Well, in fact, investors already are spending on "clean" tech. AB 32 may increase investment on this sector as Ms. Nichols implies, but again, this is a COST of the regulations. The money invested is lost to other sectors that may need investment. Are we to believe that the California Assembly knows best how investors should spend their money?
The absolute fraud of the assumptions behind this economic analysis needs to be exposed.
Mary Nichols, the chair of CARB, is quoted in the LA Times as follows:
"Investment money is available for clean and green technology in California. It is in the billions. Investors are out there looking for a place to spend it."Hello?
What on god's green earth is preventing these investors from spending this money now? Well, in fact, investors already are spending on "clean" tech. AB 32 may increase investment on this sector as Ms. Nichols implies, but again, this is a COST of the regulations. The money invested is lost to other sectors that may need investment. Are we to believe that the California Assembly knows best how investors should spend their money?
The absolute fraud of the assumptions behind this economic analysis needs to be exposed.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Obama is a Liar!
From his statement on 9/11:
"Let us remember that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are still at large, and must be brought to justice."He should have said "some of the terrorists". As I recall, Obama's brother in faith, Khalid Sheik Mohammed--the "mastermind" of 9/11 is presently at Gitmo enjoying all the trappings of American liberty.
First Amendment and Islam
The 1st amendment:
What do you imagine the authors of the first amendment meant by "religion"? It's clear to me they meant Christianity and Judaism (to a lesser extent). The framers never intended to include Islam or any other faith. In fact, Islam was seen as a threat even back then: Jefferson's Koran (that Keith Ellison was sworn in on) was a translation intended to help Christians fight Islam. I think the framers would be astounded and dismayed at the inroads that Islam has made into western society.
As more and more western Muslims and even christian leaders demand a place for sharia law in western jurisprudence it is clear that Islam is incompatible with western civ. Why would they ask for separate legal systems?
I take individuals as they are but Islam as a whole is harmful to western civilization. You can call me a bigot, but you would be wrong. Bigotry involves a level of prejudice. I have seen Islam at work in western society and there is nothing prejudicial about my judgment. Am I to be tolerant of every religion no matter how crazy it is?
I don't propose that the government ban the koran or the preaching of Islam., but do stop the construction of mosques. And also, put a complete stop to government alliances and funding with all muslim organizations.
To say that the first amendment protects Islam is like saying the first amendment protects pornography. Both are destructive forces in western society.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What do you imagine the authors of the first amendment meant by "religion"? It's clear to me they meant Christianity and Judaism (to a lesser extent). The framers never intended to include Islam or any other faith. In fact, Islam was seen as a threat even back then: Jefferson's Koran (that Keith Ellison was sworn in on) was a translation intended to help Christians fight Islam. I think the framers would be astounded and dismayed at the inroads that Islam has made into western society.
As more and more western Muslims and even christian leaders demand a place for sharia law in western jurisprudence it is clear that Islam is incompatible with western civ. Why would they ask for separate legal systems?
I take individuals as they are but Islam as a whole is harmful to western civilization. You can call me a bigot, but you would be wrong. Bigotry involves a level of prejudice. I have seen Islam at work in western society and there is nothing prejudicial about my judgment. Am I to be tolerant of every religion no matter how crazy it is?
I don't propose that the government ban the koran or the preaching of Islam., but do stop the construction of mosques. And also, put a complete stop to government alliances and funding with all muslim organizations.
To say that the first amendment protects Islam is like saying the first amendment protects pornography. Both are destructive forces in western society.
I Don't Get This
Is this really supposed to make me not want to vote for McCain? The Obama campaign is incredibly tone deaf about these things.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Palin & Bush
Nobody has commented that Sarah pronounces 'nuclear' as 'nucular'. Just like Bush. I love her.
Obama in 2008
I was all set to vote for Obama until I found out today that he is a Muslim. Nothing wrong, per se, with being a Muslim, but I don't want one for a president. What's that you say? It's not true? But I read it on the internet. That's good enough for me. Look at me! I'm a journalist!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Jeffery Toobin is scared
From the Anderson Cooper show on Monday (9/8):
COOPER: Earlier we saw her attacking Obama on earmark, she actually asked for more earmarks per capita than any other state. Do the facts matter in the support for Sarah Palin?This exchange, seen live, was the purest distillation of the liberal panic spreading like wildfire. As far as relaxing? I AM RELAXED!! Now that we have the Terminatrix on our side. My point here is that the only people who need this advice are panicky liberals, or "people" as Mr. Toobin calls them. Again, Mr. Toobin, I am fucking relaxed: McCain/Palin are the underdogs coming back in the fourth quarter with nothing to lose!!! We're playing for pride and we just might win! I understand how you might be soiling yourself over Mrs. Palin, Jeff, she is quite something, isn't she?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Well, you know, I think it's our job to point out the facts. I mean it's not our job to tell people who to vote for [yeah right, fucker], but I sat here agog [agog? Jeez, this isn't the bombing of Pearl Harbor] listening to her attacking Obama on earmarks when she hired a consultant to get earmarks. Now, that's not disqualifying for the presidency but it is contradictory.
COOPER: That was when she was a Mayor of --
TOOBIN: Yes, and, you know, same thing with the bridge to nowhere. There is a tremendous amount of excitement now about her because she's such a novelty.
I also think people need to take a deep breath and relax.[Before you pass out from your panic attack you little candyass bitch!] We're still -- these polls deal with the immediate aftermath of the convention. I think people are going to take -- she's going to start giving a few interviews and we'll see if she's as popular two weeks from now as she is now.[Yes, we will, mofo!!]
Alaska--Sucking at the Federal Teat?
Tim Noah, that special needs child at Slate.com, has an article attacking Sarah Palin on the grounds that, per capita, Alaska has the highest return on federal tax money of all the states. Is there something wrong with this? It all depends on your point of view I guess.
For some context let me say this: what do I get called when I complain that the vast majority of tax money in Los Angeles goes to South Los Angeles? That's right! A racist!
Now: Why is Alaska the highest in this category? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the federal government owns almost 70% of Alaska? Second only to Nevada* in that category. Additionally Alaska is the largest state in land mass: 656,000 square miles but 47th in population: 683,000 citizens. Or maybe Juneau being a 4000 mile drive from Washington, DC makes it a little expensive for the feds to do things there? I guess our first line of defense against Rooskie nuke attack takes a little money to operate. Do you think the extreme weather makes roads more expensive to maintain and build? Maybe Noah thinks we should cut back on the money spent on "native" populations up there? Is the cost of living in Alaska relatively high? Why yes it is! In short, there are all kinds of reasons that Alaska leads this category, but Sarah Palin is not one of them.
In Noah's enfeebled mind it is because Palin and her Republican cronies secretly hose federal tax dollars from the Treasury to buy expensive frames for their glasses and state-of-the-art hunting rifles.
Maybe Noah should ask himself why states receive different returns on their tax dollars to begin with. He would find out that his "progressive" forbears were limited in how and how much tax money they could spend so they dreamed (I say "dreamed" not "dreamt"--it sounds more down home American, kinda like Sarah!) up the 16th amendment--which basically allows the feds to spend money wherever they want in whatever amounts they want. Prior to that taxes were to be apportioned among the several states based on what they contributed--kind of useless from the feds perspective.
Don't get me wrong, I wish Alaska got a lot less but I wish we ALL got a lot less. In fact, I prefer massive tax cuts to the point where the feds have serious difficulty running their midnight basketball & marxist indoctrination.
Noah is trying to make a point with statistics but he fails. I could just say that while Alaska gets the most per capita, they are number 44 in absolute numbers. If you were trying to make the case that Sarah Palin was "a pig at the trough" (these guys can't stop calling her a pig!) you would focus on the absolute numbers and by this measure she is the runt of the litter getting shoved off the teat. Which statistical approach is more valid? I say they are both valid but not for the argument Noah is trying to make.
And, finally: Is Alaska really the biggest consumer of federal tax dollars per capita? Among states, yes, it spends aprox. 14 grand per capita. But it and every other state is swamped by the District of Columbia which spends 65,000 federal tax dollars per capita! But, but...yes, I know that is where the federal government is! There's always a reason!
Tim Noah is always coming up with these bullshit analyses to make republicans look like hypocrits or child molestors or baby killers. I'm sure there are actual hypocrits in the GOP. So why does Noah have to pretend that Palin is? Because he's in this to win! He's an Obamatron and no distortion is too low for him to assure GOP defeat in the fall. Well, fuck him! I just busted his ass!
For some context let me say this: what do I get called when I complain that the vast majority of tax money in Los Angeles goes to South Los Angeles? That's right! A racist!
Now: Why is Alaska the highest in this category? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the federal government owns almost 70% of Alaska? Second only to Nevada* in that category. Additionally Alaska is the largest state in land mass: 656,000 square miles but 47th in population: 683,000 citizens. Or maybe Juneau being a 4000 mile drive from Washington, DC makes it a little expensive for the feds to do things there? I guess our first line of defense against Rooskie nuke attack takes a little money to operate. Do you think the extreme weather makes roads more expensive to maintain and build? Maybe Noah thinks we should cut back on the money spent on "native" populations up there? Is the cost of living in Alaska relatively high? Why yes it is! In short, there are all kinds of reasons that Alaska leads this category, but Sarah Palin is not one of them.
In Noah's enfeebled mind it is because Palin and her Republican cronies secretly hose federal tax dollars from the Treasury to buy expensive frames for their glasses and state-of-the-art hunting rifles.
Maybe Noah should ask himself why states receive different returns on their tax dollars to begin with. He would find out that his "progressive" forbears were limited in how and how much tax money they could spend so they dreamed (I say "dreamed" not "dreamt"--it sounds more down home American, kinda like Sarah!) up the 16th amendment--which basically allows the feds to spend money wherever they want in whatever amounts they want. Prior to that taxes were to be apportioned among the several states based on what they contributed--kind of useless from the feds perspective.
Don't get me wrong, I wish Alaska got a lot less but I wish we ALL got a lot less. In fact, I prefer massive tax cuts to the point where the feds have serious difficulty running their midnight basketball & marxist indoctrination.
Noah is trying to make a point with statistics but he fails. I could just say that while Alaska gets the most per capita, they are number 44 in absolute numbers. If you were trying to make the case that Sarah Palin was "a pig at the trough" (these guys can't stop calling her a pig!) you would focus on the absolute numbers and by this measure she is the runt of the litter getting shoved off the teat. Which statistical approach is more valid? I say they are both valid but not for the argument Noah is trying to make.
And, finally: Is Alaska really the biggest consumer of federal tax dollars per capita? Among states, yes, it spends aprox. 14 grand per capita. But it and every other state is swamped by the District of Columbia which spends 65,000 federal tax dollars per capita! But, but...yes, I know that is where the federal government is! There's always a reason!
Tim Noah is always coming up with these bullshit analyses to make republicans look like hypocrits or child molestors or baby killers. I'm sure there are actual hypocrits in the GOP. So why does Noah have to pretend that Palin is? Because he's in this to win! He's an Obamatron and no distortion is too low for him to assure GOP defeat in the fall. Well, fuck him! I just busted his ass!
*Nevada is dead last in per capita tax spending mostly due to the gutting of the US military courtesy of Bill Clinton. But, if Harry Reid would stop his candyass obstructionism of Yucca Mountain Nuclear waste repository they could start getting some traction in this category.
McCain/Palin
Given the hysterical reaction to Sarah Palin on the left I am cautiously optimistic that we have a chance of avoiding the Obamessiah presidency.
It is clear that the media has abandoned all pretense of objectivity but in the process they make themselves, Obama and the democRAT party look foolish, inept, incompetent, unappealing, etc, etc. So really, I'm glad that 95% of mainstream "journalists" are Obamatrons---the more they react with elite contempt to McCain/Palin the more votes come our way.
I have to say: part of the reason I have been so pessimistic is that I couldn't think about if Obama DOES lose. You think the left wing reacted badly in 200 and 2004 to losing? If they lose this time, I'm thinking riots, democrat politicians baying at the moon, and serious unrest in blue cities. There is NO WAY they will think McCain won fair and square (if that happens) and these unhinged lefties will be out for blood. Yes, I think there will be death, destruction and general mayhem if Obama loses. That said, all you right wing nutjobs better lock and load if you wanna survive after the election.
It is clear that the media has abandoned all pretense of objectivity but in the process they make themselves, Obama and the democRAT party look foolish, inept, incompetent, unappealing, etc, etc. So really, I'm glad that 95% of mainstream "journalists" are Obamatrons---the more they react with elite contempt to McCain/Palin the more votes come our way.
I have to say: part of the reason I have been so pessimistic is that I couldn't think about if Obama DOES lose. You think the left wing reacted badly in 200 and 2004 to losing? If they lose this time, I'm thinking riots, democrat politicians baying at the moon, and serious unrest in blue cities. There is NO WAY they will think McCain won fair and square (if that happens) and these unhinged lefties will be out for blood. Yes, I think there will be death, destruction and general mayhem if Obama loses. That said, all you right wing nutjobs better lock and load if you wanna survive after the election.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Health Care
If I have to hear people moaning and whining about "affordable" health care and the "ranks" of the uninsured (always reminds me of the ranks of the undead) I am going to punch someone in the face! Why don't they move to Africa? Healthcare is affordable there. Of course, they'll probably die of malaria (thanks to American eco-fascists) or dysentery.
People constantly bitch and moan about not being able to get health insurance unless you work for a large enough business. I'm sure it is a pain in the ass. But why is it so? Health insurers in most states are required by law to cover all kinds treatments and conditions. Laws also make it difficult to drop patients who commit fraud or to disallow treatments not originally covered. So as a business, what would you do? Obviously, you would take on fewer individuals in the first place to limit your losses down the road.
The uninsured are composed of the following people:
1. Those who choose not to buy it: the young and healthy and people who would rather buy beer than health insurance.
2. Those who cannot get it because they or their spouse do not qualify for a group plan and insurers will not give them an individual plan.
By any objective standard the first group is larger. And to the extent that there are people in the second group it can be chalked up to government policies vis a vis insurance companies and health care providers.
A proliferation of high deductible, catastrophic care health plans would reduce the "ranks" of the uninsured. State regulations make these plans difficult to offer but they make more sense for people in the first group of uninsured and would be a reasonable alternative for people in the 2nd group as well.
Also, lets stop saying "insurance". What people have is health "coverage". Insurance guards against unwanted and/or unlikely events. The form of health care that most people have is not like that. People will go to the doctor at least once a year and most people end up having minor ailments once in a while. These are not unwanted and/or unlikely events.
The lack of health coverage is directly tied to the socialist policies of the democrat party. People are suffering and dying because of the democrat party. And when Obama becomes President even more people will be suffering and dying. Obama is Death's candidate.
Finally, you do not have a "right" to cutting edge, state-of-the-art health care--so get the fuck over it and take care of yourself if you want to live forever.
People constantly bitch and moan about not being able to get health insurance unless you work for a large enough business. I'm sure it is a pain in the ass. But why is it so? Health insurers in most states are required by law to cover all kinds treatments and conditions. Laws also make it difficult to drop patients who commit fraud or to disallow treatments not originally covered. So as a business, what would you do? Obviously, you would take on fewer individuals in the first place to limit your losses down the road.
The uninsured are composed of the following people:
1. Those who choose not to buy it: the young and healthy and people who would rather buy beer than health insurance.
2. Those who cannot get it because they or their spouse do not qualify for a group plan and insurers will not give them an individual plan.
By any objective standard the first group is larger. And to the extent that there are people in the second group it can be chalked up to government policies vis a vis insurance companies and health care providers.
A proliferation of high deductible, catastrophic care health plans would reduce the "ranks" of the uninsured. State regulations make these plans difficult to offer but they make more sense for people in the first group of uninsured and would be a reasonable alternative for people in the 2nd group as well.
Also, lets stop saying "insurance". What people have is health "coverage". Insurance guards against unwanted and/or unlikely events. The form of health care that most people have is not like that. People will go to the doctor at least once a year and most people end up having minor ailments once in a while. These are not unwanted and/or unlikely events.
The lack of health coverage is directly tied to the socialist policies of the democrat party. People are suffering and dying because of the democrat party. And when Obama becomes President even more people will be suffering and dying. Obama is Death's candidate.
Finally, you do not have a "right" to cutting edge, state-of-the-art health care--so get the fuck over it and take care of yourself if you want to live forever.
Questioning Obama's Patriotism
Fuck Obama. I'm gonna question his patriotism---because I know he's not a patriot. I know what part of the left wing he comes from. The "community organizers" I knew from my left wing days were all staunch anti-Americans who harbored thoughts of revolution in their hearts. Revolution to a new Stalinist order---where Republicans no longer exist, except in a gulag. These leftists admired the Soviet Union and did their best to hinder the fight against communism. I know, because I was one of them. To Obama, the flag is worth burning, but not wearing. I never thought America would elect someone who hated the country but now it appears that we might.
To people like Obama, the whole idea of America as a sovereign nation is quaint and we should start working on the socialist one world order as soon as possible.
I believe we should hunker down and get ready to kick some Rooskie ass. The minute they step over the line in Poland what will President Obama do? Negotiate? I hope not, but I fear so. I may have to join the Polish army so I can live with myself as an American whose leader abandons their allies.
You might notice my pessimistic assumption that Obama will win the election. However much I hope he won't I have to operate on the assumption that he will. However much I love Sarah Palin, I just don't think she's gonna get us over---I don't think any VP choice would have. I could be wrong--the polls are tightening and we still don't know how much of "Bradley effect" there will be in the general---but I remain pessimistic.
To people like Obama, the whole idea of America as a sovereign nation is quaint and we should start working on the socialist one world order as soon as possible.
I believe we should hunker down and get ready to kick some Rooskie ass. The minute they step over the line in Poland what will President Obama do? Negotiate? I hope not, but I fear so. I may have to join the Polish army so I can live with myself as an American whose leader abandons their allies.
You might notice my pessimistic assumption that Obama will win the election. However much I hope he won't I have to operate on the assumption that he will. However much I love Sarah Palin, I just don't think she's gonna get us over---I don't think any VP choice would have. I could be wrong--the polls are tightening and we still don't know how much of "Bradley effect" there will be in the general---but I remain pessimistic.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Us Weekly
James Rainey in the LA Times criticizes Us Weekly's yellow journalism smear job of Palin, so he deserves congratulations. But then he reports that after the GOP women berated the press for its smears of Palin, he confronted Jane Swift (ex-Gov-MA) and asked who (in the mainstream media) had smeared her. Swift was at a loss and lamely mentioned Daily Kos. But just because Swift couldn't think of any doesn't mean there aren't any examples. There are---in the Los Angeles Times just a few pages after Rainey's column. Rosa "Dumb Ass" Brooks and Gloria "Ms Irrelevant" Steinem smear Palin. It should be noted that the LA Times has had 4 anti-Palin op-eds in two days (2 on each day)--that is 66% of the op-eds for two days running. And what about the New York Times lying about the AIP? NPR has aired every bit of dirty laundry possible. So don't try and pretend the MSM isn't trying to destroy this woman---because they know, if they can, the election is over. And since she is purportedly unknown (that's bullshit by the way) everything can be presented as a huge mistake by her AND McCain, making it easier to do away with her. Everyone knows what a buffoon Biden is already so that info is built into his candidacy. Palin, on the other hand, is fresh meat. And the vultures are circling---but as someone else noted she's a lot like Anton Chigurr--the killer in "No Country for Old Men"---she can't be killed!
And.....
Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.
She is the second coming of Margaret Thatcher.
I need a cigarette!
And.....
Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.
She is the second coming of Margaret Thatcher.
I need a cigarette!
Harry Reid, Sucker
Harry Reid shows he can't handle Sarah Palin.
I first read about Reid's response last night on CNN, where his spokesass called Palin "shrill". Clearly they don't see that they walked right into a trap: That is exactly the response that will make votes for McCain.
From CNN:
I first read about Reid's response last night on CNN, where his spokesass called Palin "shrill". Clearly they don't see that they walked right into a trap: That is exactly the response that will make votes for McCain.
From CNN:
"Anyone who knows Senator Reid knows he never backs down when he's fighting for what's right and that he always stands up to John McCain when he is wrong," Jim Manley, Reid's press secretary, told CNN.When you respond to these types of attacks (the one from Palin) you lend credence to the attack. It's best not to respond at all. Or just attack back on a different subject. If this is how the democrat party will respond in the campaign I am very confident of a McCain victory. Thanks, Harry!
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Tim Rutten--Jackass Part 1,378,654
Tim Rutten is clearly incapable of rational thought. Take his column from today.
Here is his "logic":
Palin is anti-abortion.
Her daughter is pregnant out-of-wedlock and will keep the baby.
Her daughter is making a "choice" that Palin would deny to others.
Therefore Palin is a......what, exactly? He doesn't say. A meanie? A hypocrite?
So, all women who are anti-abortion and have a baby are guilty of some unknown thought crime invented by Tim Rutten to make a political point.
What Rutten leaves out of course is that for a Christian there is no "choice" involved: you always keep the baby. Palin is not denying the course of action that her daughter is taking to others---that would be hypocrisy. She would deny killing the baby to others--a denial she and her daughter extend to themselves. What, exactly, is the problem here? He can oppose her anti-abortion position on the merits of his position, if any. But he chooses to present a logically incoherent argument that Palin is a........what? Who knows? But she's a conservative baddie, that's for sure!
Here is his "logic":
Palin is anti-abortion.
Her daughter is pregnant out-of-wedlock and will keep the baby.
Her daughter is making a "choice" that Palin would deny to others.
Therefore Palin is a......what, exactly? He doesn't say. A meanie? A hypocrite?
So, all women who are anti-abortion and have a baby are guilty of some unknown thought crime invented by Tim Rutten to make a political point.
What Rutten leaves out of course is that for a Christian there is no "choice" involved: you always keep the baby. Palin is not denying the course of action that her daughter is taking to others---that would be hypocrisy. She would deny killing the baby to others--a denial she and her daughter extend to themselves. What, exactly, is the problem here? He can oppose her anti-abortion position on the merits of his position, if any. But he chooses to present a logically incoherent argument that Palin is a........what? Who knows? But she's a conservative baddie, that's for sure!
Democrats--Party of Favors
I was listening to my local public (read "Maoist") radio station yesterday. The host was interviewing JC Watts at the RNC. A caller (from Hollywood) asked how he or any other black person could be in the Republican party.
It got me thinking. It is clear that people join or align with the Democratic party based on what is or what they perceive to be their own naked self interest. Black people should be in the party because democrats in power will give them money and other advantages over others, eg expanded affirmative action. There are no principles, moral or political, involved (although they pretend there are). Democrats promise a direct delivery of all kinds of tangible benefits to distinct groups of whiners at the expense of other Americans. Republicans, on the other hand, generally do not.
The left seethes at the religious right but what real advantage do the Republicans extend to the religious right by opposing abortion? The religious right opposes abortion as a matter of moral principle--they gain nothing but their souls by their attempt to overturn Roe v Wade.
Meanwhile, we have Obama promising equal pay for equal work. And what is the right to abortion but the right to avoid a large financial burden--a child? Does the democratic party stand for any moral principle at all? I can't see that it does.
It got me thinking. It is clear that people join or align with the Democratic party based on what is or what they perceive to be their own naked self interest. Black people should be in the party because democrats in power will give them money and other advantages over others, eg expanded affirmative action. There are no principles, moral or political, involved (although they pretend there are). Democrats promise a direct delivery of all kinds of tangible benefits to distinct groups of whiners at the expense of other Americans. Republicans, on the other hand, generally do not.
The left seethes at the religious right but what real advantage do the Republicans extend to the religious right by opposing abortion? The religious right opposes abortion as a matter of moral principle--they gain nothing but their souls by their attempt to overturn Roe v Wade.
Meanwhile, we have Obama promising equal pay for equal work. And what is the right to abortion but the right to avoid a large financial burden--a child? Does the democratic party stand for any moral principle at all? I can't see that it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
