Obama's Address to Congress

Live Blog from Gateway Pundit

"REPUBLICANS APPLAUD to the promise to not leave deficit to our children. A lie!
A plan free of Earmarks --- A HUGE LIE!
The democrats are shameless. Absolutely shameless.
We will cut weapons systems.
We will end tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas."

Live Blog at Ace of Spades

"Ah, we've got to sacrifice some worthy priorities, including "me." He does this childlike overpronounciation on the last word in a sentence, like do. He does that a lot.

I have no fucking idea what he's talking about now. Honestly, I don't.

I'm sorry, I guess I'm ending the live blog, it's just blah blah blah, I swear I cannot focus on this man's empty words long enough to render his sentences sensible.

Bad Moment for Obama: Talks bullshit about keeping deficits down, but gets Republicans cheering until embarrassed and then flashes a fuck-you look as he laughs it off."

It was what I suspected. More up beat, no detail and he continues to run. Some odds and ends.

Not blame, will look back to learn from our mistakes? what history is he looking at?

He doesn't believe in big government? Okay but his beliefs lead to big government.

Force Adjustments and strings to banks. How about no bail outs or no string? Free market anyone?

He is used capitalist rhetoric well. There is no evidence he believes it.

How well does massive investment by government in science do exactly?

Energy. How are we getting from now to the new energy future? Oil? no Natural gas, can't drill for that either. That is one way to go

Something about the bad choices of the auto industry? Including Unions?

Government is going to find a cure for cancer? I think there was a West Wing on that.

I don't want those who (my best guest) likes economic and social justice touching education.

Health care? Hands off buccko. More on that latter.

Cradle to work education?

Better teachers? Kill the Unions?

Are charter schools really the answer? Make all of them great schools?

Play for pay = collage for social work?

Major on Fox, paraphrasing.
people are not trusting capitalism so they feel they have room for more big government.

Exactly what I expected. How many fell for it?

Logic Look: Appeal to Popularity

Appeal to Popularity

"The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false. "

Watch any politician for 60 seconds yo will see this one. Have they ever mentioned a poll? The question is who are these "people"?

Pre Obama Speakes to Congress

The preview hype is just out of control. He will be a little more hopeful. Not much because he can't. He will again press for big gov./socialist programs. Same old Same old. Keep the campaign going. Lost of big picture no detail populist rhetoric.


It's The Policy, Stupid

"The country and the economy don't need another speech. We need better policy. President Obama is permanently stuck in campaign mode, and as DJ notes below, believes everyone still buys his pitch. It is manisfestly apparent that President Obama believes he can talk his way out of this bad economy and policy debacle. Smartpeople are betting otherwise."

Bingo!

Gibbs Says the Anti-War Socialist Will Give Reaganesque Speech

"Does anyone out there recall President Ronald Reagan promoting trillion dollar spending bills, appeasing enemies, slashing defense spending, raising taxes on the rich, expanding the welfare state, redistributing wealth, funding foreign abortions, and promoting socialized medicine?(cont.)

Only a fool would believe that the Democrat's expansion of government, historic spending, and tax hikes for the rich will bring similar results."

Obama aims for sober honesty, optimism in address

"—He inherited the mess, and a quick turnaround is unlikely. Not only did the recession emerge on Bush's watch, the Bush approach wasn't the right one.

"—Thinking short-term won't do the trick. Focusing even amid the crisis on longer-term goals such as helping the millions without health insurance and switching the U.S. to greater dependence on alternative energy sources is crucial to the nation's economic well-being. "

So it is not his or his parties fault and It will take lots of time to fix. Never faced it before so never before seen solutions. Great?!

Preview of Obama's Speech

"It is befuddling that the public continues placing great trust in Obama to make the right economic decisions despite not having liked his previous ones very much."

More Tax, Less Iraq, China Pressure

I didn't jump on the deficit reduction story in Washington post story. Why I just have a hard time believing Obama is that stupid. I should just get used to it.

"Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent. "

Economic Freedom? Less money to grow the economy? Why work if they take it all? Pic your poison.

Obama plans “soak the rich” class-warfare economics

"Raising taxes in a recession is about the surest way to ensure its continuance. We’ve seen this over and over again in American history, including the Great Depression. With the budget deficits where they are, permanent tax cuts are almost certainly political suicide, but better to do nothing than to take capital out of the market."(cont.)

"However, the capital-gains tax is crucial to the economy. Bush lowered it in the midst of the last recession and economic upheaval after 9/11 to prompt investors to put their money at risk. Raising the tax on investment gains will ensure that we see less investment at the moment we need more of it. Jobs get created by investors taking risks, and if the reward on risk taking becomes low enough, they’ll sink their money into safer havens instead of building job-creating businesses."

Cont. From Wash. Post

"To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year. "

Saving money from the war? It is mostly off budget spending. There is nothing there to save. Are you going to keep borrowing that money too and spend it else where? Military cuts now are the same mistake Bush 41 and Clinton made. Funny Obama as Bush redux.

Can You Spell D-e-p-r-e-s-s-i-o-n?... Obama Promises to Raise Taxes On Businesses & Wealthy

"The stock market ought to love that.
Obama must really want to kill off the remaining American businesses.
His second month is shaping up to be another thriller already."

My question is why talk about the deficit now. The tidal wave has been to ignore it "we must spend" Anything to do with China?

China: We hate you, but we hate everyone else more

"China still could dump US debt, but they’d lose their shirts, and nothing else in the market looks better. Beijing has become a little too capitalist to pull a cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face ploy with its main assets. They need the stability to stay in power. Right now, that means they need to ensure that US debt doesn’t tank."

Chinese Pressure? That's just what we need with a pup in the Withe House. The question is it all just rhetoric? I think so. It is more likely an excuse to raise taxes and push through health care and the like.

Logic Look: Straw Man

I am not a logician or linguist so I had gotten confuses by straw man as apposed to red herring fallacies. So I went back to my logic book from collage. We all need a big dose of the informal fallacies. Hopefully we all can understand what is really being said. Even if it is nothing.

Logic for good or bad should be required in high schools. Time to refresh what I knew. I didn't want to copy from my book so I will use this site for now. It has a better list.

Straw Man:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. (Cont.)

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. "

Do the "we can't do nothing" stimulus arguments sound familiar.

Coin-A-Thought:Planning Economys

Arrogant Conceit

"So they will "transform our economy." Obama's nearly trillion-dollar plan will not merely repair bridges, fill potholes and fix up schools; it will also impose a utopian vision based on the belief that an economy is a thing to be planned from above. But this is an arrogant conceit. No one can possibly know enough to redesign something as complex as "an economy," which really is people engaging in exchanges to achieve their goals. Planning it means planning them. "

This is a at the polar opposite of our system. If you have to plan what happens in the economy you must know what people are going to do. You must restrict what people do in order to plan the economy from the top.

Planning Economies Means Planning People

More Economic Blame

The blame game is bad, yes. It flies in the face of those who don't know the past are doomed.. Blame everyone. Social justice over economic freedom? I wouldn't bring it up but we are falling into the doomed part of the saying.



2 More vids:

How Democrats Brought Down the American Economy

Sick of Missouri Politicians

To me there are no moderate politicians in this state. To compound the matter I heard it said(not a good source) the state government described as a kind of back woods mess. Lack of professional staff, part time congress people voting to help the industries they work in and lack of well structured bureaucracy. I could be wrong. I don't follow it that closely.

I could not disagree with Sen. Claire McCaskill any more than I do. So it is good that her offices are going to be marched on.

An might i say i love our new Governor Jay Nixon.

Missouri Dem Governor Is Not Worried About Cost of Stimulus "Missouri Kids & Grandkids Will Pay the Debt Off"

"In Missouri, the governor does not even know how he's going to spend all of the spendulus money. He's even set up a website Transform gov to ask for tips on how to spend the money in Missouri."

Just a hat tip to Ed Martin at American Issues Project. Someone else from the mess that is St. Louis making a difference.

Appease Gaza Terrorist, They Will Go Away

Good news: U.S. to pledge $900 million to rebuild Gaza

"Wasn’t one of the left’s chief criticisms of Israel’s Gaza operation that there was no Plan B if Hamas disintegrated? Fatah couldn’t ride in as the white knight on the backs of Israeli tanks to restore order or else they’d be seen as stooges and collaborators, we were told, not unreasonably."

Ace Of Spades

"Clinton's proposing this, hoping to use the money as a catspaw to increase Fatah's popularity and get them back in charge, rather than Hamas.

Um... I see what she's doing here but 1) it won't work and 2) it's not worth it."

American Taxpayers Lavishly Reward Palestinians for Terrorist Rocket Attacks

"No wonder Palestinians won't stop firing rockets at Israeli population centers until they evoke a response. We are in effect paying them hundreds of $millions for doing it."

Appeasement is as Appeasement does? At 800Mil Good deal. We didn't give up anything we really need and have plenty of.. OH

Coin-A-Thought: Free People Free to Work

This one is my own. May be there is a problem, a similar quote Of Marx or equal insanity. It chants well. Economic Freedom And Social Freedom just don't. It is, I hope a counter position to Economic and Social Justice. Freedom works it self out. Justice requires someone to work it out. A small group have to be that someone as apposed to all of us working it out.

FREE PEOPLE FREE TO WORK.

Unsure of the New American Tea Parties

You just knew this was coming. New American Tea Party

Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows

"Seattle on Monday. Denver on Tuesday. Mesa AZ on Wednesday. Overland Park, Kansas today. What a week, huh? We got the anti-stimulus, anti-entitlement protest ball rolling — and now the movement, spurred further by CNBC host Rick Santelli’s call for a “Chicago Tea Party,” is really taking off."

St. Louis Tea Party At the Arch -- Friday at 11:00 AM

"St. Louis area conservatives will host a protest against the Obama Generational Theft Act this Friday at 11 AM at the steps of the St. Louis Gateway Arch."

I am Extremely happy that the other side is finally rallying. It will help counteract the so called Moonbats. A much needed step.

It am also rather proud the the local 97.1 Talk is getting recognized by so many. Allman Is much more logical than most. He doesn't use the name calling, is on point and usually gets the root of the issues.

Rick Santelli's Rant spins on. He is a wall street guy so his credibility with some is zero. They want to say he is just arguing for wall street. It missed the point. He is arguing for economic freedom, it need to be put in that context. Just ad the "porkulus" Should be. STOP calling it that please.

That is the fundamental flaw with this.

Tea Party USA Watch: Taxpayers coming together

"Tons of groups and individuals are stepping up to the plate in the wake of last week’s anti-stimulus/anti-entitlement protests and the call for a nationwide Tea Party."

The info page of the Tea Parties on PJTV

"America is on the brink of another revolution. In a new American Tea Party, citizens across the USA are beginning to protest giant government programs that reach deep into their pockets. These programs create huge economic burdens on American families and threaten their livelihood now and into the future."

Anti-stimulus/ Anti-entitlement? Deep into their pockets? This is the same old Republican arguments. Truthfully I want a more Libertarian argument. Your singing to the choir. I will not get you very far. I am concerned that these will be painted as conservative dogma and nothing more. Those in power don't have to fight off any argument they have been for the pas few weeks. Again I am voicing my objection to who is leading this movement. They are going to be painted with a very similar brush to the one Conservative paint the crazy left. It will all be a fringe blip.

Is it not better to make a clear economic freedom ( don't call it free market) and social freedom case. It covers ever thing that is on the table and everything that is to come. Do not say founding father, use specific names. No porkulus comments. No more Generational Theft. Track ever thing back as quick as you can to those two points. We need to vastly smarter and have a more carefully though basic out public argument.

You want a revolution act like it. No Freaken Republican Revolution. We need a pre-FDR, Wilson revolution. A sane Libertarian one. I (and the people) will not be on a Republican, Malkin, Hannity, Rush revolution. That is not really a revolution.

FREE PEOPLE FREE TO WORK

Prosecute The Leaks

Obama will not prosecute leaks of national security leaks Bush should have. He may not of been able to win. It would have however sent a signal. The leak under Bush where the beginigs of the wire tap and torture stories. Stories that where spun in all kinds of eivil America directions. Just may be some of these reportes wouold think twice.

NY Times Leaks Classified Military Information... Again

Yesterday, the Old Gray Lady broke the news that America Special Forces soldiers were training Pakistani troops to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and that the operations were larger and more ambitious than previously acknowledged.

A Personal Second Declaration of Independence.

It has been cold from where I type. It is a problem that I have been unable to fix myself so it persists. The cold creeps in through my fingers and nose and leaks an apathy to my mind. So I have been away. Pacing, frustrated at what I do not understand. At having been away for a short time I come to find that we now can threaten legal action for the bad taste of a cartoon. I am beginning to believe that I do understand all to well. This was once a free society. I can be held responsible for violations of others rights. Not being offended is not a right. Having bad taste is and its costs can be calculated in a free society. Those costs are calculated in a court when societies that are oppressed by the ideas of suffocating social and economic justice.

We are called cowards for wishing not to be called something we are not. Further still our leaders have enshrined in law that we are not allowed in our "free society" to judge people by the content of their character.

We are told that the pain of the restorative fires of failure are to great. That government must at unsustainable cost lessen the pain. The must spread pain over the rest of time. We must all live with the nagging pain until it consumes us. We are left small apathetic lives with no chance of restoration.

We are told that it is an unrecoverable disadvantage in a global society predominated by failing states. State that syphon too much wealth into their governments to mitigate the the drives of individuals. They do it for the fairness and equality in all, not allowing for the exceptional. We must join them so we too can gains perceived advantages ignoring the slow lose of fundamental strength of our state.

We are told guns bring only chaos. We do not entertain the though of responsible balance of power in our "free" society. Protection of all people from of the evil of the gun is the only issue. Never speak of the deterring oppression of absolute equality the gun may bring.

"We the people" have become oppressed by the people. The people have lost the responsible curiosity vital to the building of ideals started so long ago. We have let the growth of this idea to be lead by those that trade in halve truths. They spout myopic details with no context and use broad unarguable concepts of fairness and morals, moving the people behind them. We have allowed the idea to grow into failed territory. The growth speeds up as the world does. We trust our leaders more, unable to bring ourselves to do the needed work. "We the People" see not the dead branches all around us.

Long this country has lived. Born from a revolution of enlightenment and rationalism. It is now dying from a revolution in oppressive equality by the people of the people. Born from 20th century philosophy and a 60's counter culture it has grown to slowly strangle us.

I will happily and forcefully fight to remove the people's oppression. Leadership, reason, education and enlightenment of all things are the weapons. They may now be woefully inadequate to force the idea to a sustainable course. There is no need for use of the gun as the time will have come and gone before they can be use to recover.

I live in the slowly dying light not yet doomed to just burn dimly on in the absence of freedom. Many dark days are ahead. The ideals of freedom can be stoked again now. When they are not years from now the gun will have to be used when glimmering light is seen clearly once again in the distance. This is where I reside. Not yet fully fallen into the dark chaos so many others are doomed.

I am not a citizen of a once Great Britain bullied to accept surrender to the EU. I am not a citizen of a France bending to the post modern will of its neighbors and people. I am not a citizen of a Europe with government socialized societies allowing ideals of multiculturalism to over write their own. I am not a citizen of a Cuba who in ignorance supported a dictatorial collectivist take over. I am not a citizen of a Venezuela slowly voting a dictator to permanent power. I am not a citizen of a China of a people given, out of necessity, economic freedom but will not yet fight for social freedom.

I will not be a citizen of 2009 co-opting the worst of the rest America. I will be a citizen of 1861 and 1941 fight and die for preservation of this noble experiment and freedom of peoples America. I will be a citizen of 1776 full of independent self-reliant people America. I will be a citizen of 1862, 1920 and 1964 intervene only if free society absolutely can not remove oppression of an unchangeable physicality America. I will be a citizen of the Late 1800's free use of both the backs and minds to leap us forward. I will be a citizen of the yet realized New Renaissance of American ideals.


It's a first draft any way.

Tea Party Rant

I first saw this and didn't think much of it. Via US Common Sense:


Well not at first. It kind of highlights my point about the Michell Malkin rallies. When Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh(don't listen to him) or any of the others make relevant arguments they can be more show than tell. Rick Santelli how ever makes the point in a more populist way. He also, as far as i know, does not have the baggage the others do.

Hot Air is not as enthusiastic and
Chicago Traders Mock Obama's Housing Bailout Plan

Finally Rick Santelli later talking about the whole thing. (little over half way through)

Coin-a-Thought :Have Laws Not Legislation

From Cafe Hayek

"He helps us to comprehend that law itself (as opposed to legislation) is largely spontaneous and undesigned. Not all legislation is law - consider the fact that highway drivers routinely exceed posted speed limits by five or ten miles per hour. And not all law is created by legislation (or even by court proceedings) - consider the "first come, first served" rule..."

Similar to the just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. This applies more to civil rule as opposed to moral choices. It says some thing about the needless overly legal way legislation is written and implemented as well as needless number of laws that are passed. So,

Have Laws Not Legislation

Pushing Open The Door for Fairness Rules

I have no faith in the administration's denial. It was not very strong to begin with.

From Hot Air

"I’d like to hear a little more about Obama’s opposition to reimposition of FD on talk radio. Would he block such a move by Congress with a veto? Or would he replace an FCC commissioner who attempted to reimpose it?

That’s not an academic question. We have had several members of Congress talk approvingly of reimposing equal-time requirements on talk radio, including Senators Tom Harkin, Debbie Stabenow, and Representatives Maurice Hinchey and Dennis Kucinich, among others. Just in the last two weeks, we have seen a veritable avalanche of support from Capitol Hill for the Fairness Doctrine or its equivalent."

They will not even try to pass it. Why?
From US Common Sense:

"The first reason is that the government should not be dictating how the media companies should schedule the news/commentary formats and programs that they carry. Even though these stations use government regulated frequencies, the general public will view any attempt to strong-arm the messages shared on air as an infringement of free speech or an attempt to push propaganda to the masses. The second reason is the conservative hosts will use such an action as a reason to wage war against the President (not that they needed any additional ammo). Obama already has to deal with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity; both men whom he has addressed by name in his first month in office."

It is good political reason not to. It is made much easier by the fact they don't have to. They can easily go through the FCC. I don't believe that they are trying to push any "fairness" rules right now. The issue is that they are pushing over the road blocks, setting up government to easily implement them. Stimulus? Net Neutrality? I don't know what the end game is. Yes, i believe they think they have America's best interest at heart. I am just not sure that their ideas and mine of America's best interest are even in the same ball park.

Coin-a-Thought : Vote or Revolt

Some ideas are hard to explain in a post of thirty second sound bite. Like ignorance is bliss. You could give a basic explanation of that but you have to sit with it in your head for any real understanding. In an attempt to allow more ideas so sit in your head longer I am going to chop some thoughts down to little, hard to forget bites. When they apply, you will remember and hopefully see more clearly.

From FT.com's Crookblog via EconLog
Acctualy from a book but this is where it hit me.

"I would sooner take up arms against a government that saw me as a child than vote for it."

Vote Or Revolt. Our redress is when we vote. If the will of the majority is no longer heard then do we Revolt? So when do you stop voting and start revolting. Two more elections as I look at it now. In the times we live, we are all going to have to decide in the next few years:

Vote OR Revolt

Protesting the Stimulus

I am glad to see some protests against the stimulus and Obama. I not sure that it being lead by people like Michelle Malkin are the best to be leading the rallying cry. I think, as with Hannity or Savage , they make a lot of sense on any number off issues(not all by any means). However the kind of name calling and over the top talk turn people away. People we will need If we are really going to push back.

The pork is the least of the problem. It makes for a good rallying point but it is only going to go so far. Focus on what was hidden and what it will allow will go much further. Do protest all look similar?

So the protests in CO:

Help Us Roast The Pig!

Hundreds Rally Against Generational Theft Act In Denver

Slapstick Politics: Denver Anti-Stimulus Rally: Videos

Instipundit Rally Photos

“Yes, we care!” Porkulus protesters holler back Updated

Then From AZ:

With signs in hand, protests await President's arrival in Mesa

Mesa, Arizona: Anti-porkulus protesters raise their voices

There needs to be protest every time he leaves D.C. and every time some new unbelievable crap comes out of this bill.

Fairness Doctrine Passed in the Stimulus for The Internet.

Update: From American Spectator via Gateway Pundit

"Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."'

No Right wing hack here, much more a Libertarian. The progressives have only to say go and it is done. We are going to get gotten by strings. Administrative regulation. Net neutrality was slipped in to the stimulus bill. It has been up for debate before. It is some what confusing and went no where.

Hold Off On Net Neutrality

"Network neutrality is supposed to promote continuing Internet innovation by restricting the ability of network owners to give certain traffic priority based on the content or application being carried or on the sender's willingness to pay. The problem is that these restrictions would prohibit practices that could increase the value of the Internet for customer"

When It was talked about I was confused. I didn't come down either way. Didn't look into it at the time. It may be that some priority need to be set a side but should stay relatively neutral. That would be the case if I didn't think that they were up to something very very bad.

Ace Of Spades and a hat tip.

"According to critics, while language in the FCC policy statement is about limiting (or filtering) porn, the way it's written could easily be expanded to limit or regulate opinion and gives the FCC fairly broad powers to do so. And as we all know, the FCC board consists of political appointees and the balance shifts whenever a new administration takes over that's of a different political party than the previous one. "

Beyond the Fairness Doctrine - Reason Online

"Now the bad news. There's a host of other broadcast regulations that Obama has not foresworn. In the worst-case scenario, they suggest a world where the FCC creates intrusive new rules by fiat, meddles more with the content of stations' programs, and uses the pending extensions of broadband access as an opportunity to put its paws on the Internet. At a time when cultural production has been exploding, fueled by increasingly diverse and participatory new media, we would be stepping back toward the days when the broadcast media were a centralized and cozy public-private partnership."

Hot Air

"The basic line of attack described in the quote, i.e. “localism,” is also familiar as a favored lefty strategy for sneaking in Fairness without calling it Fairness. The Center for American Progress hailed it in its 2007 report on how to “reform” talk radio and Boehner sent a letter to the FCC opposing it last year (scroll down to the last update)."

IDB - Fairness Down Your Throat

"A 21st century Fairness Doctrine, however, would have to extend beyond the airwaves to accomplish its purposes of government-regulated "balance" in the opinions available to the public.
After appearing at the Heritage Foundation in Washington earlier this month, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell gave a videotaped interview to the Media Research Center and warned that "whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called Fairness Doctrine, which won't be called that — it'll be called something else."
And McDowell asked: "So, will Web sites (and) bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views, rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?"
According to McDowell, "this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine." But McDowell believed it would be given a different name and "intertwined into the net neutrality debate."'

This is not exactly how it proposed that they would get the Fairness Doctrine in. As Usual they were much bolder than I thought. Reposting the video(for a third time?)



" the bigger concern should for them should be if you have government dictating content policy"

Obama controls the FCC, or will in a month or so. He just has to tell them that the Internet need to be more "fair" and its over. No law needs to be passed. No review. No discussion. It is done.
He won't do it right away. Obama can just wait till all the pieces are in place. Heath Care in place, unions in control, census done, nationalized banks, endless newspeak and so on. Better list here.

If Obama Wins, Damage Likely to Be Permanent

"Four years is more than enough time to inflict permanent damage on this country, given the large majorities the moonbat messiah is likely to have in both houses of Congress. The Wall Street Journal warns that if Dems get BHO in the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we will enter “a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy.”'

Are they moving us in a progressive direction because they think it works better and the rest is just to keep them in power. I don't like conspiracies. Most of the time I think they are complete crap. But what the hell is going on here?

Learning as a Hate Crime

In normal times hate crime legislation would not be as big of a deal. I wouldn't be for much more than whats on the books now any way. How far are the progressives going to go? Look to Europe to see just how far they can go with what might sound like a good idea.

The Brussels Journal (right leaning ?) via Bird Brain

"In Europe, where citizens lack the protection of a First Amendment, hate crime legislation is used to punish citizens for the expression of negative opinions concerning minority groups. In Europe the concept of hate crimes make sense because hate crimes are crimes of opinion and sentiment. Unlike America, Europe criminalizes opinions and sentiments. However, in the United States, with its First Amendment, it is difficult to see what purpose hate crime legislation can serve. The Matthew Shepard Actcontains a “Rule of Construction” explicitly stating that “Nothing in this Act... shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Hence, it is hard to see what the use of introducing hate crime legislation in America can be, unless one deliberately wants to bring in a subjective element into the legal system which abolishes the old principle of equal treatment before the law and which justifies arbitrary actions on the part of the authorities. This is exactly what has happened across the Atlantic. In Europe, hate crime legislation has been used to silence people with opinions that do not conform with official state policies. These include celebrities, children and even elected politicians speaking on behalf of their electorate."(cont.)

"In October 2006 Codie Stott, a 14-year-old schoolgirl from Salford, England, was arrested for racism and spent three-and-a-half hours in police custody because she had refused to study with a group of five Asian pupils who did not speak English. When the Asians began talking in Urdu, Codie went to speak to the teacher. “I said ‘I’m not being funny, but can I change groups because I can’t understand them?’ But the teacher started shouting and screaming, saying ‘It’s racist, you’re going to get done by the police’.” A complaint was made to the police and Codie was placed under arrest. She was not prosecuted as she was too young, but the experience was traumatic for the young girl."

Multicultural crap. Everyone must be treated the same no matter how inefficient, no matter how costly, no matter how wrong, how illogical or who it hurts. Multicultural oppresion coming to a city near you.

Economic Good News, Until the Stimulus Kills It

Just to lazy to try to but the information together. Bits and pieces trickled out over the end of last week. It got drowned out as most important news does.

Signs of a bottom? MaxedOutMama: The Old Tried And True

"...the signs of US economic stabilization (not the bottom, but getting there) are beginning to pop up like weeds.

Retail Sales. There are several significant things about January. First, the weather was not favorable, and anyone who remembers the recent spate of weakening retail sales which were all attributed to snow and ice will get a chuckle out of the fact that retail sales rose this January. It appears that consumers are no longer as frightened of snow and/or the wrong color walls.

Second, auto sales increased, and dealer auto sales increased. Third, the SA retail total increased from December, although it is still 9% lower than Jan 09. Fourth, electronics picked up, clothing picked up, general merchandising picked up, and restaurants & bars picked up. The general pattern is one of recession, but the end to the steep fall in consumer spending. Half to 2/3rds of this is driven by the fall in gas and heating oil prices. The rest is due to the fact that things wear out and the financial conservatives are beginning to spend a bit. Between the two, employed people have a little more money each week in their pockets and they may not be willing to spend recklessly, but they are spending for things that are useful and needed."

It is to bad they are going to kill it off. As the government grows as a consumer it crowds out the the more dynamic individual consumers(the free market). They as well begin to set the rules not the market. Their biggest problem is the uncertainty they bring. What are they going to do next? How much money can they borrow? what happens to inflation a year from now? Are ever going to fix the actual problems. Their biggest problem is the uncertainty they bring. It all stifles the economy.

Fairness "Red Herring" Doctrine

There is a Problem. The Fairness Doctrine is Not the Answer. It is picking up steam
From Wizbang:

"Bob Beckel said on Hannity last night that Democrats' bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is a figment of conservatives' imagination"

No, you might have been able to make that case before the election. Now ant number of people are coming out in support of this stupidity.

From Fox News:

"A political battle is brewing over control of the radio airwaves as Democrats consider pushing for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC policy that requires broadcast stations to provide opposing views on controversial issues of public importance.

Democratic lawmakers who support the doctrine say it will help increase the number of liberal shows in a landscape dominated by conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh."

Stabenow, Harkin and Bill Clinton are now both on board just for starters.
From News Busters via Michelle Malkin:

"Former President Bill Clinton isn’t pleased that conservatives are allowed to express views counter to his on the airwaves, and wants a re-enactment of the Fairness Doctrine.

In a preview of an interview with liberal talker Mario Solis-Marich to be aired in its entirety Friday, Clinton complained about the money funding “right wing talk shows” like Rush Limbaugh, and believes we should have “more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions.”'

It looks as if Obama is starting to cave as well.
From Hot Air:

"It’s an easy question. Does this administration believe in free speech or government censorship? Their sudden inability to provide a clear answer, when they had no problem giving such assurances eight months ago, does not bode well for the answer."

The Talk about this is heating up. More from Hot Air:

'“Where they want it, [liberal radio] succeeds, and where they don’t, it doesn’t.” That seems clear enough to everyone except Press, who responds by naming a list of markets where people don’t support libtalkers. He complains twice about the death of libtalking Obama 1260 in DC without mentioning the fact that its ratings were so low it took a microscope to find its listeners."

Ever heard of a red herring? This is exactly what it is. Obama gets to replace at least one of the committee people in the FCC. In March? April? That is all he needs.

It will not be called the Fairness Doctrine. It has more to do with what those in the administration think is fair. If not through the FCC it will be passed in bill or regulated in in little pieces. In the budget? Bank bailouts? Through treasury measures? The next stimulus? This stimulus? We don''t know the effects of much of any of it.

Islamic Training Camps in the US

The things that get ignored. I do remember something of this from quite a while ago.

From Brutally Honest via Bookworm Room

History of Radical Islamist Compounds on North American soil

"The newly released documentary by the Christian Action Network referenced above provides a cursory look at the terrorist organization Jamaat ul Fuqra, and their front organization known as the Muslims of the Americas headquartered in Hancock, New York. "

Canada Free Press is conservative and I don't know much about it. I have heard it use by what I consider reliable sources. Looking at Jamaat ul Fuqra further,

From Gates of Vienna: Jamaat ul-Fuqra on Brit Hume via Free Republic

Partial transcript from Special Report, June 2007:

"This federal law enforcement fact sheet obtained by Fox News links the Muslims of America with a group called Jamaat ul-Fuqra. The document states that its leader, Sheikh Gilani, who lives in Pakistan, began preaching against the west back in 1981, at a mosque in Brooklyn.

Jamaat ul-Fuqra, the fact sheet states, has more than 35 suspected communes, and more than 3000 members spread across the United States, all in support of one goal, the purification of Islam through violence. The document states that shoe bomber Richard Reed, DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad may be linked to the group."

Does any one know what we are doing?

Electronic Financial 9/11/08 Attack?

Update- It may just be a crazy meme. That is mainly why I waited, not long enough i guess.
Kanjorski and the Money Market Funds: The Facts

I have been thinking this over and I really don't know. When did the election turn? Was it the economy? My line of thinking gets darker. I don't believe in massive carefully paned conspiracy. I do however believe that if enough people have the same goal and follow similar tactics they can do bad things before any one or enough people catch on. SO, Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. Then there is the conspiracy. I am not sure i believe this but the evidence is piling up. Is this part of the Cloward-Piven Strategy? It was all layed out before the election. I have no idea but it is all getting very scary.

From Atlas Shrugs:

"Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania explains what former Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. During the first third of the video an enraged caller is ranting to Rep. Kanjorski about how wasteful the first $700 billion bailout was. The best part is 2 minutes and 15 seconds into the tape where Rep. Kanjorski reveals what Paulson and Bernanke told congress that shocked them into supporting the first $700 billion bailout.

On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

Kanjorski also explains why Paulson spent the bailout money differently than he originally proposed."

Here is the video from C-Span

"They say 4 or 5 trillion dollars could have been emptied out of the bank by the end of that business day. Presumably, it could not have gone all to one entity, else that entity just could have gone back when the markets opened, and continued to withdraw funds. So, if it were designed as action to induce a panic, it had to have been done in a way that the new would spread quickly, go "viral" as it were, to others holding funds or control over funds in similar banking institutions/markets. So, the transaction had to be public, or at least traceable, because they had to be noticeable, and they had to instill a panic so that the run would continue, and people would be noticing what was happening and would move to preserve and protect what money they could access."

There are clearly a mountain of more questions than answers. Was it just a panic run? Foreign government? Terrorists? Or Crazy as it is (yes very crazy) some one orchestrating it from in side the US? READ THE Post. It goes even further. What did the Senators know? I am a little sick. Hope this is all just some made up dream.

From Moonbattery

"These days it's not easy to know what to believe, as Democrats attempt to panic the herd into submitting to the socialist power play currently underway in Washington."

From Gateway Pundit

"This is all very interesting-- When President Hussein was campaigning and the "economic crisis" hit, he did not think it pressing enough to leave the campaign trail, but now we should push through a trillion dollars in legislation without oversight because a few weeks later the King deems it urgent?"

It is going around:
Zero Hedge: How The World Almost Came To An End At 2PM On September 18
Rush Limbaugh

Obama Dropping Sanctions on Iran, That's Going to Work

Gateway Pundit Is the source on this one. All the other reports seem to be coming from the same place.

"from the February 18, 2009 edition of Geostrategy Direct (subscribers only):

But "Change" is taking place, Barak has intimated, originating not in the Mideast but in Washington, D.C. in the form of a U.S. reconciliation with Iran.

Such a process could result in U.S. acceptance of Teheran's nuclear weapons program and the downplaying of its threats against Israel.

Just as Barack Obama entered office facing a massive economic crisis beyond the scope of his experience, likewise the new Israeli leader will have to make or delay making difficult strategic decisions from the minute he or she enters office.

Barak has already signaled what the new government can expect, officials here said.

The United States has abandoned its policy of sanctioning companies that aid Iran's nuclear and missile program, they said.

The officials said the new Obama administration of has decided to end sanctions against Iranian government agencies or companies that aid Teheran's missile and nuclear program. The officials said Israel has been informed of the new U.S. policy."(cont.)

"Similarly, Obama has decided on a new U.S. ambassador to Syria and is expected to lift sanctions against a nation charged with aiding Al Qaida in Iraq and secretly building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance.
Diplomatic sources said Obama, in consultation with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has asked Frederic Hof to become the first U.S. ambassador to Damascus since 2005. The sources said Hof, a member of the National Advisory Committee of the Middle East Policy Council, agreed to take the post.

The sources said the Obama administration was expected to suspend U.S. sanctions on Syria's military and energy programs.

They said Hof would be authorized to facilitate an expansion of U.S. relations with Syria, which deteriorated under President George Bush."(cont.)

"The sources said Obama sent emissaries to Syria in September 2008 and pledged that if elected he would reconcile with the regime of President Bashar Assad. After his election victory, they said, Obama sent another message that promised to appoint an ambassador within the first weeks of his administration."

It looks like pretty straight forward appeasement. I don't know quit what to say. 3yrs 48wks to go? He is not just week on foreign policy he is insane. May be he is doing it just to threaten to reinstate them? Many of us knew Obama was a massive mistake. Nukes all over the middle East. Great!? that will work. The next President( if there is one) has going to have no room to do anything constructive.

Looking Around, Where Are The Libertarian Going?

Feeling boxed in to a conservative label by the stimulus arguments I went looking again. I am trying to find constructive disarming and well place with more traffic to link to. The first is is nearly impossible the second is nearly impossible not to find. So in my travels there is this: Econlog. Right at the top is an outtake from a libetrarian disscution an this:

"I confess to being an intellectual snob, but by the same token I claim to be able to differentiate between knowledge and educational pedigree. I respect a well-read self-taught individual more than a Harvard-educated narrow-minded one.

To put it another way, I see a difference between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. To the average lefty, both of them are morons. I think Reagan was genuinely engaged with profound ideas. Palin may have talent and charisma, but I do not think she could explain Hayek."

Great! I can explain Hayek either but I can learn. Parts of the back and forth are just about over my head as well as other parts of this blog. That's a good thing as long as I don't drown.

There has been an ongoing debate about where the Republicans should go after the election. It is largely settled now. Some of the fall out is discussions on libertarian ideas. I admit that I am a novice when it comes to the detailed intellectual (in the weeds) knowledge of libertarianism. The definition changes? Some times it is for anarchy and at time it takes more of a socialist bent?

It is still murky. Most of this discussion (I didn't read every word) is about who the libertarians will embrace now or who will embrace them. I would in a novice way that they should go there own way. Throw some of the craziness overboard and take power. Many cases have been make both way if RINOs could run on their own. Libertarians falls into same kind of place. I do believe the answer to both is yes.
I am not trying following their points exactly. This back and forth started in 06 with:

Brink Lindsey and:

"Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism's relentless dynamism and wealth-creation--the institutional safeguarding of which lies at the heart of libertarian concerns--have been pushing U.S. society in a decidedly progressive direction. The civil rights movement was made possible by the mechanization of agriculture, which pushed blacks off the farm and out of the South with immense consequences. Likewise, feminism was encouraged by the mechanization of housework. Greater sexual openness, as well as heightened interest in the natural environment, are among the luxury goods that mass affluence has purchased. So, too, are secularization and the general decline in reverence for authority, as rising education levels (prompted by the economy's growing demand for knowledge workers) have promoted increasing independence of mind."(cont.)

"Hence today's reactionary politics. Here, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rival ideologies of left and right are both pining for the '50s. The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while conservatives want to go home there."

It goes on to link changes in tax policy on the liberal side to what I consider conservative ideas in order to move the libertarians there direction. FASCinating.

Wilkinson

"Many bloggers seem to be fixated on the immediate political feasibility of libertarian/liberal fusionism. But I think this misses the point. Feasibility is in part a function of the availability of a well-developed and broadly understood position, and a grasp of the kind of policy that follows from it. Fixating on the status quo balance of interest groups is a great way to go nowhere, or just to drift with the waxing and waning of constituencies wedded to superannuated ideas. I think Brink has opened an important conversation for liberals of all stripes genuinely concerned with helping people successfully exercise their autonomy and lead satisfying, dignified lives"

Jonah Goldberg responds:

"The first principles simply aren't aligned. The theoretical arguments in favor of the stimulus amount to rubbing the libertarian cat's fur backwards. And the so-called "libertarian center" hardly seems to be decisive or even relevant to the public debate. In the most important and fundamental debate about the role of government in a generation, the libertarians are lining-up with, and even marching out in front of, the conservatives."

John Hood follows:

"But that's not the same as suggesting that there is at least as much of a natural affinity between libertarians and modern-day liberals as there is between libertarians and modern-day conservatives, if not more. This statement just isn't true. The principles of liberty and virtue are certainly in tension within the broadly construed Right, but the principles of liberty and egalitarianism would be perpetually at war within a reconstructed Left."

Will Wilkinson's response:

"I think Obama and the Democrats are already in the process of screwing it up. The romance of transformative hope is going to wear off pretty quick as all-but-uncontested Democratic policy deepens and lengthens the recession. There’s a lot of culturally and psychologically liberal people out there who are, and are going to be, interested in a liberalism that actually works. I want to use this time of ferment to work on developing the missing option in American politics: an authentically liberal governing philosophy that understands that limited government, free markets, a culture of tolerance, and a sound social safety net are the best means to better lives.

So “whatever happened to liberaltarianism” is that it’s an ongoing project to change who talks to whom, to freshen the stale dialectic of American politics, and to create new possibilities for American political identity."

"sound social saftey net"? Private sector or governmental?

Then two posts: The Future of Liberaltarianism and The Future of Liberaltarianism (II)

"This is obviously a political gloss on what is essentially an intellectual project, and I know Will, like many libertarians I admire, prides himself on not thinking in terms of partisanship. But for anyone who cares about political outcomes, I think it's important to consider the correlation of forces when you set out on ideological projects - especially in a country where the two-party structure has been as durable as it's been in ours. I understand the impulse for smart, independent-minded libertarians to flee what seems like an increasingly anti-intellectual American Right and seek conversations and alliances with the friendlier parts of the left-of-center. But the vacuum on the Right also militates in favor of smart, idiosyncratic thinkers trying to fill it, instead of fighting for a seat at the crowded liberal table. "

As fun as all this is I still think you need a leader that would clarify libertarian positions for the party and run with it. Drag who you can from the two parties and go. With some wins those who are not wedded to the parties will leave for something more in their wheel house.

I Am Done with the Stimulus Bill

Final thoughts on the stimulus package.
First i just didn't get to this: Economic incest

"Government doesn’t make wealth. To the extent the government has wealth, it’s because it uses its police power to demand that we give it our wealth in the form of taxes. The government hasn’t created anything. In today’s America, as in all modern economies, only the people create wealth."

"Keep in mind that, in terms of a biological population, incest occurs when there is no new genetic material. If the same gene pool keeps recycling itself, it replicates errors, useful genes vanish, bad genes multiply, and you rather quickly end up with the Hapsburgs: ugly and insane.

The same thing occurs within the closed circle of a completely government run economy. It’s the same money cycling endlessly around. No new money, no new ideas. Instead, everyone constantly siphons off a little, government bureaucrats make mistakes that result in gold vanishing permanently, and corruption becomes the only way for those in the power seat to generate a little private wealth."

It goes on that this is socialism and is dangerous.

Second, this package is out of line with the traditional arguments. On the conservative side more econimic freedom (creates wealth and innovation) and less social freedom (responsibility) The liberal side less econimic freedom (hurts people less) and more social freedom (feels good do it).

It can go to far in both directions. The excessive restriction side is what we are playing with here. If you have restrict social freedom to much you stifle innovation that leads to economic stagnation and eventual a totalitarian state( the Middle Ages). On the other hand less economic freedom means less wealth creation and innovation. That leads to shrinking economy and more people get hurt. Then the state has to steps in and keep the people from hurting. As those costs rise there are more restrictions to keep the cost down. Again a totalitarian state (U.S.S.R.).

So the bill is seeking to limit the hurt caused by so call "too much economic freedom". In reality it was too much economic restriction in the first place(pushing housing, tax law, less transparency, wealth transfer to government for welfare, ect.). They restrict the economy further so fewer people get hurt and then give them help. Then the strings and restrictions on those that get the help. When everyone gets the help, everyone gets the strings. They "for the social good" make everyone take the help. Some banks where forced to take TARP money and everyone gets a tax cuts. It is going quickly off the rail. The over restriction of economic freedom will feed on it self. Give people more, take more from the economy. Costs go up, restrictions go up.

It all make sense in my head? hopefully it makes some sense.

Finally I am not going to cover the little drips of pork coming to light. I am concerned about the pork but hiding behind it are policy changes. Changes made in the middle of the night that where not debated or opened to the light of day. I will try to bundle them together and post a few at a time. The bill is done. The direction is set. Time is better spent now trying to change the path of we travel. America Is not dead but is on life support with the paper work to pull the plug coming from Congress.

Finally, really this is it. I will however happily hammer away at those, as the election comes around again, that say this fixed any thing. There are a very small but growing signs of recovery now and before Congress passed this bill. The stimulus bill may help for the short term but has a good chance of pushing us into a depression after. It is going to be about timing. If at the height of the little recovery the liberals convince us that its over. It is OVER. If we are just pass it and the fiscal conservatives can convince us the stimulus didn't do much. We might have a chance. So hammer away I will.

Book Burning

Just the links cause my head is going to explode.

via Iconic Midwest
‘Too Christian’ for Academia?

"But protests from a small group of scholars associated with the project have led the press to postpone publication, recall all copies already distributed, and destroy the existing print run. The scholars’ complaint? The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, they have reportedly argued, is “too Christian.” “They also object to historical references to the persecution and massacres of Christians by Muslims,” Kurian says, “but at the same time want references favorable to Islam.”'

Blackwell Scrapes Encyclopedia

"The encyclopedia has been pulled by the publisher, and existing copies are being sought out and destroyed."

Followed by an E-mail about the matter.

In other News Federal Book burnig.
Via The Book Burning Begins

The New Book Banning: Children’s books burn, courtesy of the federal government.

"under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children’s products, the federal government has now advised that children’s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing—at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse."

"Penalties under the law are strict and can include $100,000 fines and prison time, regardless of whether any child is harmed.The threat to old books has surfaced so quickly in recent weeks that the elite press still seems unaware of it. "

"The wider pattern of CPSIA’s disruptive irrationality and threat to small businesses has been covered reasonably well by the local press around the country. Some papers have investigated particular aspects of the law—the Los Angeles Times has tracked its menace to the garment industry, and the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal the general plight of thrift stores—but almost no one has cared to consider the law’s broad array of unintended consequences, let alone ask what went wrong in the near-unanimous rush to passage of this feel-good law."

This kind of thing is how you end up in a 21st century dictatorial communist nightmare. It all just not wright any more or just quirky little unintended consequences any more. It is dangerous to the existence of America.

Do Not Be Fooled By Stimulus Bills False Hope

I missed the lack of verification of workers not being included and the repeal of the E-verify out right.

That aside. You can not be fooled by this bill. It may work in the short term. I don't think it has much of a chance but may be. It will in the end require another stimulus bill. The US government becomes a massive consumer. When it stops spending the economy tanks again. Even if it doesn't completely tank and recovers some we have hyper inflation pressure that can't be avoided.

This bill may look like its working it will cause massively more harm than good. I not even including the massive spending on welfare programs that are now in the law. They would have to be repealed after the recovery. Is that Going to happen No.

The Real Stimulus Burden

"Far more plausibly, Democrats will take the stimulus increases and make them part of a new, higher baseline for future spending growth. Anyone who proposes to cut from that amount will be denounced as "heartless" and Draconian."

"We aren't deficit scolds, but these levels are uncharted territory, especially if any economic recovery is weak because the spending doesn't stimulate. The new spending means new federal debt in the trillions of dollars over the next few years, which will test the limits of America's credit-worthiness. To the extent that taxes rise to pay for it all, the U.S. will become less desirable as a destination for the world's capital. Perhaps the Federal Reserve will try to inflate away this growing debt, but the world's bond vigilantes will get a vote on that."

Deficit spending as a percentage of what we produce(GDP)? If its Over 100% we will literally spend more than the entire country makes.

Obama Makes History... Breaks US Debt Record In Just 30 Days

We will be at more than twice the debt/GDP level than at any time in our history.


Hyper Inflation - so much money on the system that the money it self is worth much much less. $10, $20, $50, $100, $1000 milk?

It may look good for a while but DO NOT BE FOOLED.

Stimulus Bill Passes, Now Wrong on Even More Levels

I am not going to link to every thing. Google it your selves. So to the best of my knowledge.

"The measure was passed on a 246-183, with no Republican "yes" votes. It will now go to the Senate, where a vote is expected later Friday. "

Congress Ready to Vote On 1,073 Page Stimulus Bill That Was Only Released at 11 PM Last Night.

"Democrats made the bill available at 11 p.m. on Thursday night.
At 9 a.m. Friday morning, the House begins debate on the bill.
If members of Congress actually took the time to read the bill, they would have to read through the night at a rate of 626 words per minute before heading to the House floor. What are the odds of that happening?"

I am also hearing that there was still hand written changes to the bill still in the bill when they voted on it. There is also a movement to get this signed today before the news tonight. I is becoming apparent that some of this push is from Pelosi. Pelosi has a flight to Rome? tonight. Her office is not denying it. They are running as fast as they can. It can wait till Monday. What the hell is in this thing. The Religious Oppression provision was removed with the school funding.

Some of the school funding is back. Is the Religious restriction back?

Can it wait till Monday?

No One has read the bill. It is not even TYPED.

No Bipartisanship.

Health Care Intervention (they haven't convinced me that is not)

Religions Repression.

The proses is beyond corrupted(CNN saying repub. just don't like it)

Spending only fixes it for a while.

IT makes work not jobs.

Tax cut in this bill are a joke.(no rate cut just rebate)

Some of this comes from Colbern on Beck today. Colbern Is PISSED. Talking of pitch forks an revolution. WAIT TILL MONDAY. It is at least common courtesy.

The plane crash is sucking the air out of the news cycle. Plane crash is bad but this is far more important.

The next two years the Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Communists are running the show. SAY GOOD BUY TO THE AMERICA YOU KNOW. I would never say that lightly but its over. If the Republicans can't get together to stop this. They can't stop anything. AT least wait till Monday. At least sunset the welfare expansion.Congress is getting over whelming calls against and they do not listen. Wait, Lead, GET THE PEOPLE ON BOARD. NO IT IS OVER. Next the gun ban and Censorship.

FREEDOM IS DIEING FAST AND GOVERNMENT IS NOT LISTENING

FREEDOM

What is at stake? How much are You willing to give?


You May Not Lead But You can not Follow until you can Answer The Questions.

Please Can We Kill the Stimulus Bill, Filibuster It Already

When I left around ten it sounded like they where going to try to pass the stimulus today. Thankfully they didn't. So looking for some hope.

GOP Cut out of Stimulus Conference Negotiations

"What a great little scam they've got going here. President Obama excoriates Republicans for standing in the way, while Reid and Pelosi ensure that no icky Republican ideas make their way into the pork-o-rama. Win-Win."(cont.)

"I should add, though, that having a monstrosity like this to fight against may be good political fodder, but in the end we're still left fighting a budget-bloating monstrosity."

Good point but I am still hoping someone finds a way to kill this thing. Pissing off the Republicans is a good start.

GOP Rep. Tom Price Releases Statement on Spendulus Bill Outside Pelosi's Locked Door

Good. Good. Get them mad. But no mention of a filibuster.

Did Senate jump the gun on stimulus deal?

"In an early sign of trouble, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was conspicuously absent from the press conference the Senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, held to discuss the deal. Then, a scheduled meeting of the conference committee responsible for the official reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the bill was delayed because, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said, the House leadership hadn't yet been "briefed" on the specifics of the agreement."

CNN was reporting that Pelosi hit the roof. So much so that Obama had to call, calm her down and make her play nice. Paraphrasing.

From the update:

"Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who was one of three Senate Republicans to vote for the bill and whose support is likely central to any deal, opposes that idea. She thinks it's too much federal interference with state and local business. So in order to assuage her and her fellow moderates, the money has thus far been left to the discretion of individual governors."

Really!? Too much "federal interference"!? The whole bill is federal interference. Kill It! Kiillll it!

Congress tackles stimulus compromise

'Their threats were serious enough for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to meet with a group of centrists in his office yesterday after the Senate passed its bill on a 61-37 vote. Mr. Reid said the three Republicans, Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, would be working with Democrats during the negotiations "all the time."'

"And a Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who was instrumental in brokering the compromise on the bill that led to the GOP defection, warned that his support, too, was tenuous. "Everybody understands that Senator Collins says if this comes back materially altered as to the top-line number, or to the pieces within the package, that she plans to vote against it, and you can put me in that category, too," Mr. Nelson said.
When a deal is struck, the final bill must be ratified in both chambers. The Senate will need 60 votes to move forward to avoid a filibuster, which gives Ms. Collins and the other centrists maximum leverage."

I was getting very worried that they used some parliamentary/emergency move to not allow a filibuster. No one seems to be talking about it. We will see come Thursday.

Some senator needs to get to these three. Don't talk about the pork. Or the whole tax versus spending. Talk about Government take over of the private sector. The fact that there is no sunset on any of this emergency spending. Not even just the welfare expenses. Are we supposed to just keep them running? Why not fix the banks first? Can this work if the banks are broken?
Health care commission? Can't it wait a week or two?

The three Republicans in the middle have all the power now. Please stop with the name calling, we need them. Forget the spin. Get them in a room and press them on what they really believe.

If that fails the rest have to go old school. If most of them don't collapse on the floor or are dragged off I will be very pissed and disappointed. I have been disappointed before, no surprise. But I haven't been this mad over legislation in the past. And short of a direct repeal of all free speech I probable won't be again.

Killing The Banks with TARP

The second version of TARP or what ever you call it is unclear to me. Your going to encourage private money with borrowed leveraged money? Didn't they already get burned by assets that where backed by the government. If they get out of the way wouldn't someone find a way to make some money out of this mess? Instead everyone sits on the side lines waiting to see what the government is going to do. What are they doing? Confusing the issue more and borrowing more money collateralize by borrowed money. I don't trust them. I am not sure they really want fix the problem. At lest until they pass everything they want behind the veil of fear.

From A PLAN TO KILL BANKS TREASURY'S DEADLY 'KINDNESS'

"The new Treasury plan continues to put most of the emphasis on pushing banks to make more loans to over-indebted consumers, homeowners and firms. Unlike last year, however, Geithner now believes, "Our policies must be designed to mobilize and leverage private capital, not to supplant or discourage private capital. When government investment is necessary, it should be replaced with private capital as soon as possible."
That's a laudable goal - but contradictory. In reality, government capital replaces ("crowds out") private capital, leaving taxpayers holding a bigger and bigger bag. Call that nationalization by default. "

The leverage idea has been around from the start of this mess. It is not a bad idea but the way it is being done now really is not leveraging anything.

"TARP-afflicted firms will have to pay dividends to the Treasury for its preferred shares before any remaining crumbs fall to common shareholders. Treasury will be first to get any dividends or capital gains if the firm does well, and first to get repaid in the event of bankruptcy.
Once a bank or insurance company gets in bed with the government, the property rights of that company's stockholders become uniquely insecure. When the government jumps into the cockpit, smart stockholders bail out.
And depressed stock prices deflate the banks' capital cushion, regardless of Treasury investments - making them more likely to fail and therefore less likely to lend. In other words, government "help" achieves the opposite of Geithner's declared goal."

The government should NEVER be this in bed with any company. If you bail them out that should be it. Give them the money and treat it as a loan, take common stock or just walk away. There is no risk to the government if they are first to get payed in all cases. In this case it was public outrage that there was no guarantee the money would be payed back. The people needed a clear explanation of what this was going to lead to "incremental nationalization of banks and insurance companies". The "people" where wrong. Why? They are not taught these things (I really wasn't either), NO one explains it to them(sometimes if you look around enough) and they are often used. Think for yourself (that's usually what I have to do).
It may be a good sized hill to understand the bank mess. The basic are not that hard. You don't need an economics degree, library of books or really a class on economics. The last one might help but is not necessary. A little logic and some quite time and you should be fine. If it still doesn't make sense. Get a book on logic.

Read It and Weep, Second

Just going to second the read it and weep comment. There are a great many issues that would have been talked about for weeks, but aren't. The stimulus bill and the economy has sucked up all the air. I said this a couple of months ago.

'Hide most of it behind the economic crisis. Give a speech with lots soaring vague rhetoric. "We have to save the economy." Obama will easily tie card check and heath care to the economy. He might even make an argument for the Fairness Doctrine buy linking all the talk, or misinformation as it will inevitable be called, to uncertainty in the economy. Of course that has to be controlled as well if we want to "SAVE The Economy."'

Not exactly how I pictured it but the sentiment is the same.
Via Bookworm Room (credit for the title too)
Change: The First Three Weeks: Some highlights.

"Obama issued an Executive Order on "Closure of Guantanamo Detention Facilities," which says Gitmo "shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order." It also orders a halt in all military commissions there, while the Gitmo situation gets reviewed.Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on the "State of California Request for Waiver Under the Clean Air Act." This memorandum orders the EPA to review the decision denying California a waiver to enforce stricter auto emissions standards. If the waiver is granted, California will become the defacto arbiter of auto emissions standards in the US. So in a case of obvious interstate commerce with enormous national economic impact, President Obama rediscovers the value of states' rights.Obama issued an Executive Order on "Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts", which says a government contractor can't just hire who he wants, but must first try to hire the same people who worked for the previous contactor - the contractor who likely lost a competitive bid to the new contractor.

Obama issued an Executive Order on "Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects", which revokes President Bush's Executive Orders 13202 and 13208. This new order encourages federal executives to require government contractors and subcontractors to use union-organized labor."

Fighting the stimulus bill is by far the most issue now but the rest can't be allowed to slip through the cracks.