A Few More Inconvenient Facts (For the Progressives to Choke On)

1) According to the National Center for Health Statistics, black illegitimacy was 19% in 1940. By 2008, it had risen to 72.5%. Wow, I guess that there wasn't "inequality" back in 1940.............2) According to Amity Shlaes's modern masterpiece, "The Forgotten Man", black unemployment was actually LOWER than white unemployment in 1930. Compare that to January 2012, where white unemployment was 7.4% and black unemployment was 13.6% (the black teenage unemployment rate was 38.5%). Wow, I guess that there wasn't "inequality" back in 1930.............3) Back in the 1950s, there were no policeman "patrolling" the hallways of inner-city high schools. There were no assaults on teachers and students and there wasn't even any foul language used. Compare that to Philadelphia today, where there are hundreds of policemen throughout the high schools and where there have been over 4,000 teacher assaults (this, according to the Philadelphia Enquirer) over the past five years. Wow, I guess that there wasn't "inequality" in the 1950s.............4) According to the U.S. Census, nearly 1/3 of those in the lowest economic quintile in 2004 had moved out of that status by 2007. Similarly, and according to the I.R.S., 57% of the people in the lowest quintile in 1996 had moved out of that status by 2005 (nearly 33% having moved up TWO quintiles). Wow, I guess that, while there may in fact be some persistent poverty in America, we're not even remotely as stratified a country after all.

On Tonight's Michigan Primary

Can you say yet ANOTHER fourth place finish for the Newtster? I know that you can.

Warren Buffett - The Crony Crusader?

Back in 2008, Warren Buffett was working as an economic adviser to then candidate Obama. It was also during this time frame that Mr. Buffett invested a whopping $5,000,000,000 into Goldman Sachs. And, not only that, folks, he basically admitted that the only reason that he did so was because he knew that the government would "act" (i.e., dole out copious amounts of bailout money). How, pray tell, is this action not considered insider-trading? I mean, seriously.

On the Relationship Between the Stock-Market Crash and the Great Depression

After the Stock Market crashed in October of '29, the unemployment rate never once reached 10% in ANY of the twelve ensuing months. It peaked at 9% in December of that year and then actually started coming DOWN (to as low as 6.3% in June of 1930). It wasn't until the idiotic interventions of Hoover (trade restrictions, massive deficit spending, a draconian tax increase, etc.) and FDR (the NRA, the AAA, new unit banking laws, massive increases in excise taxes, etc.) that did the unemployment rate truly start to skyrocket (and, yes, maintain at such a scary level until the war). Now, granted, one could always say that it could have been worse....

A Smokingly Bad Policy

Another thing that this country desperately needs to do is Social Security disability reform. We currently have far too many mildly handicapped individuals who are fully capable of working (and, in many instances, who ARE working) and who are instead collecting a disability check once a month. It's an absolute drain on the system and, unless we can somehow come to grips with it, the baby-boomers are more than likely going to get screwed in the end............................................................................................Here, folks, is an example of what I'm talking about. I have a friend who suffers from paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, an intermittently irregular heartbeat. Yes, it's kind of a pain in the ass (this, in that it sometimes makes him anxious and tired) but it isn't life-threatening and he's been able to navigate his way through life without a lot of difficulty. Since I've gotten to know him and his condition, I've encountered several other people with the same condition and they're BOTH on disability. And, get this, folks, one of them is a 26 year-old woman who works 26 hours a week....and the only reason that she doesn't work more than that is because it will cut into her disability check. I mean, there is definitely something wrong here. The woman can work 26 hours a week but she can't work 40 hours a week? And she frigging lives with her boyfriend who basically supports her, too. It's an absolute miscarriage of justice, in my opinion..............................................................................................And then there are the drug-addicts and alcoholics who are also collecting. I mean, I know that this is a little bit dicier in that a lot of these people are basically unemployable at a certain point and it probably doesn't serve society to have them out on the street. But they should at least be made to stay sober and/or in treatment as a condition for payment. I mean, just from my own experience, I had a co-worker whose sister was a crack addict and she was still smoking crack while collecting. Seriously, does that sound at all compassionate to you? It sure as hell doesn't sound compassionate to me as a tax-payer, that's for sure.

Miscellaneous 119

1) Here's some more interesting data. According to government statistics (and as set forth by the University of California, Santa Cruz), the total net worth of the top 1% in 1983 was 33.8% of the country's total wealth, and their total financial wealth represented 42.9%. By 2007, these numbers changed to 34.6% and 42.7%, respectively - not exactly a humongous difference (and in fact a reduction when it came to financial wealth). You'd think, wouldn't you, what with all of this "the rich are getting richer" rhetoric, the emergence of the 99% movement, etc., that the disparity in wealth statistics would show at least a little bit more than the margin of error? I was certainly surprised by the numbers.............2) The left is always ragging on Austrian economics, that its practitioners arethoroughly nutty, etc.. But, I gotta tell you here, folks (and, no, I'm not a strict adherent to this or any other school of thinking, that you very much), they have a hell of a better track record of predicting things than do the Marxists, Keynesians, and Monetarists. That's for sure. Back in 1928, Ludwig Von Mises predicted the Great Depression. In the '70s, Murray Rothbard predicted stagflation. And various other "Austrians" have also predicted the tech and housing bubbles (Peter Schiff and Ron Paul were especially prescient in this regard) of the past two decades. I mean, I don't know if this alone signifies any sort of greatness but it is pretty damned impressive, I think.............3) Randy Edsall's 2-10 opening season at Maryland is rapidly becoming less of a mystery. According to some of the stuff that I've been reading on the Maryland blogs, a total of 23 players have left the team since Mr. Edsall's arrival. They've either been kicked off the team, transferred, or simply quit the sport entirely. I guess that this Edsall guy is staunch disciplinarian and a lot of the players simply couldn't deal with it. The good news (if, that is, you're a Maryland fan) is that Edsall is now recruiting "his" players (some of which are flat-out blue-chips, btw); individuals who apparently like that style of leadership. And if his experience at UConn is any indication of what the future holds, the performance on the field will eventually reflect that soon. Fingers crossed.

On Me and President Obama

I've been accused in certain quarters of judging President Obama too harshly. I personally don't think that that's true. But let's just table that for a minute and allow me to defend the guy. During last night's CNN debate, Newt Gingrich made an absolutely outlandish charge. He said that President Obama was the most dangerous foreign policy President in U.S. history. It was a ridiculous statement and even an armchair historian like me knows that William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Richard Nixon (the man suffered from textbook paranoia, for Christ), and George W. Bush were all FAR more reckless that President Obama. I mean, I know that Mr. Gingrich is prone to rank hyperbole and all but that was exceedingly repugnant, even for him.

Too Late For These Guys to Get In?

At the Intersection of Big Business, Big Government, and Big Labor

What would be my answer to the question, "So, where, in your opinion, is the place where most of the nastiest whoring and crony-capitalism eventuates?"

The Four Stooges/Horsement of the Apocalypse

These are the four clowns that I blame for the financial collapse. I'd be interested to see who the rest of you blame.

Oh, Romney by a Long-Shot - Not Even Close

What would be my answer to the question, "So, out of Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum, which of the three would you trust the most with nuclear weapons?"

The Sweet Smell of "The Devil's in the Details"

One of the hard-core left's most persistent refrains is that the "poor are getting poorer". We hear it so much in fact that even those of us not necessarily in step with the progressive mindset accept it as gospel. The problem, of course, is that reality isn't always the same as a bromide and, yes, because of this, maybe this, too, is something that we should examine a trifle further....................................................................................................Yes, folks, the earning power of the bottom quintile has in fact been reduced. But the usual indicator of that is the percentage of the adjusted gross income that that group accrues. It says nothing about the size of the overall economy/pie. It's hard for me to think that the poorest of the poor in 1969 was actually better off than the poorest of the poor was in 2009.........................................................................................................Another problem with this statistic is that it generally refers to household income. Yes, folks, this particular indicator HAS gone down but, so, too, has the average size of the household, the number of people in that household who are working, etc.. If you look at strictly the INDIVIDUAL'S income/purchasing power, you're liable to get an entirely different story...................................................................................................The final weakness of this analysis is that it treats the categories as if they were fixed. They're not. If you look at the numbers from the I.R.S., more than half of the people in the bottom quintile of income in 1996 had risen to a higher quintile by 2005 (this, and a fair number people in top quintile moved down). The plain fact, folks, is that most of us start off poor and move up from there. It isn't even close to a static phenomenon, in other words............................................................................................P.S. Here's an empirical counterpart that perhaps fleshes it out a little. A retired person (68 years old, say) decides to sell her home and move to a smaller residence. She makes $250,000 at closing and because of this she shows up in the top 1-2% of income owners. But after that she clearly returns to the middle-class in subsequent years. Another example would be a 22 year-old student who goes from making $15,000 a year as a part-time worker (which would clearly put him in the bottom quintile) to $60,000 as a full-time worker. And there are obviously many more examples that further underscore this dynamism but I think that you should get the drift here, I hope.

On Ron Paul and the FED

He's apparently right. This, in that, if the FED hadn't a) distorted interest rates, b) printed money to an almost obscene level, and c) created a bailout culture on Wall Street (Greenspan's nickname actually WAS Mr. Bailout), there probably wouldn't have ever been a sub-prime lending crisis or especially a housing bubble. I mean, yeah, there no doubt would have been a correction eventually and all, but NOTHING like the calamity that actually happened.

Miscellaneous 118

1) The problem with the greedy bankers theory (relative to the financial collapse) is that bankers and Wall Street have ALWAYS been greedy. That's a constant. Ergo, something other than that HAD to have been thrown into the mix, back in the 90s, to further unleash that pure greed. And I would argue that it was government policy; the FED distorting interest rates, the national and New York FEDs creating a bailout culture, various government initiatives to facilitate home ownership, regulators at HUD basically being asleep at the switch, the SEC giving special privileges to investment banks over commercial banks, etc.. I mean, I know that it's far more in-fashion to blame the private sector and all but, still.............2) Of all the professional sports halls of fame, the most perplexing to me is the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I just don't understand it. Take the case of former receiving great, Art Monk. When Mr. Monk retired in 1996, he was the NFL's second all-time leading receiver (trailing only at that time the great Jerry Rice). He ended his career with 940 receptions for 12,721 yards and 68 touchdowns. I mean, no, he wasn't the fast guy in the world and there were other receivers who were far more dangerous deep-threats. But in terms of moving the chains, going over the middle to make the tough catch in traffic (I only saw him drop one ball and when he did I pinched myself), there's never been anybody better than Art Monk. Sounds like a sure first ballot hall of famer, no? Well, not according to whoever it is who does the voting over there. Nope, those sons of bitches made Mr. Monk wait FOURTEEN YEARS (well, actually nine - everybody has to wait five). It was absolutely disgraceful, I think.............3) And they're damn doing it again! This go-round to Cris Carter and Tim Brown (both of who retired with over a thousand catches). I don't know, folks, they must have something against wide receivers or something.............4) That, or they're frigging idiots!

On Conservative Elitists

They think that we're immoral/wretched.

On Liberal Elitists

They think that we're stupid/compassionless.

Occupy This, Folks

I just came upon some interesting data. According to the Tax Foundation, a summary of federal income tax data shows that the percentage of the adjusted gross income of the top 1% actually went DOWN in 2009 (the most recent available year). And it went down precipitously; from 20% in 2008 to 16.9% in 2009 (a 15.5% reduction). Yes, people, their percentage of the federal income tax burden went down, too. But that went down at a significantly lesser rate; 3.4% (from 38% to 36.7%), than did their income..................................................................................................Look, I'm not saying that we should start feeling sorry for the top 1%. Not at all. In fact, folks, I think that they probably SHOULD pay more. But don't you think that maybe we should first get the facts before we start going off all half-cocked, obliterate property, etc.? I mean, I'm just asking.

Uh, Try Nobody

What would be my answer to the question, "So, who, in your opinion, has ever played the pompous asshole better than Clifton Webb?"

Miscellaneous 117

1) Boy, does this Gingrich guy ever have chutzpah. Not only does he want Santorum out of the race, now he's saying that Romney should get out as well (if in fact he loses Michigan). The dude (or should I say, dick?) wants to be coronated, apparently.............2) Right now, if I had to grade Mr. Obama, I'd probably give him about a C/C+. Yes, the dude has had some awesome terrorist decapitations and all (which I've consistently credited him for), but a) the health-care bill is ladened with disincentives and waivers and b) the stimulus package was basically a get rich quick scheme for big corporations....Having said that, though, I still plan on voting for the guy. This, in that he's still much better than Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (that, and I actually kind of like divided government).............3) Note to Sean Hannity. According to an ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 74% of Republicans and 67% of self-described conservatives now support gays being able to serve openly in the military. Don't you think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, you might want to throw up the white flag on this one and look for somebody else to disparage?...Just a suggestion.

Allen Iverson

What would be my answer to the question, "So, who's your least favorite professional athlete of the past 25 years?"

Ranking the Ivies (Strictly My Opinion)

8) Brown (not a lot of argument there, probably).............7) Dartmouth.............6) Cornell.............5) Columbia.............4) Penn.............3) Princeton.............2) Harvard.............1) Yale (I'm a Connecticut Yankee - What can I say?).

Miscellaneous 116

1) When Peter Orszag stepped down as President Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, that was a pretty major loss, I think. The dude quite literally was one of the few straight shooters in all of D.C. and I really despair whenever I see people like that cash it in.............2) Mr. Orszag's input was especially valuable during the lengthy cap and trade debate. While Democrats in Congress wanted to give away (mostly to corporations, mind you) 85% of the emission permits for 2012 and only auction away the remaining 15%, Mr. Orszag countered with this little piece straight medicine, "If you didn't auction the permits, it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States. All of the evidence suggests that what would occur is that corporate profits would increase by approximately the value of the permits." Unfortunately, Mr.s Waxman and Markey didn't listen to Orszag and decided to lard the bill (which is currently stalled) up anyway.............3) For those of you who think that what Jeremy Lin has been doing the past couple weeks is somehow a miracle, think again. I just heard a couple of stats from ESPN (their science guy, specifically) and the fellow has in fact supreme talent. The first one has to do with quickness; the fact that he can go from 0 to 10 miles per hour in less than a second. The second one has do with release time on his shot; the fact that he can get off his shot in .6 seconds (faster even than all-time three-point shooter, Ray Allen). If the fellow can somehow cut down on his turnovers, he just might end up being a legitimate star after all.............4) I've never seen a bunch that could lose the upper-hand the way that these Republicans can. President Obama clearly overstepped his mandate with this whole thing about forcing religious organizations to provide birth control. Advantage Republicans, right? But then when he made the compromise, exercised damage control, etc., that clearly should have been the end of it. The Republicans should have simply declared their victory and mosied on. But they didn't. Nope. They malingered and turned it into some troglodytic birth-control issue. And NOW...THEY look like the unreasonable ones. Absolutely unbelievable, those people.

Miscellaneous 115

1) Most sane conservatives and liberals that I've known over the years don't have a problem with moderates. They see them either as a part-time ally or a group of persons who are at the very least "convincible". It's only these insulated preservers of the particular who seem to have a problem with them (and with free thought, in general, too, apparently). And, boy, do they ever have a problem with them.............2) I'd also like to recommend a couple of classic books that thoroughly explore this phenomenon of pathological ideological rigidity. One of them is "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer and the other is "Escape From Freedom" by Eric Fromm. They're both great books and they really deconstruct this entire ditto-head mentality. Hell, I might even crack them open myself just for a refresher.............3) President Clinton, Robert Rubin, and Lawrence Summers played just as big a role in crafting the Commodities Futures Modernization Act as Senator Gramm did. But, for some strange reason, only Mr. Gramm gets eviscerated by the progressive schmoes. Hm, I really have to wonder why that is - NOT!............4) And I don't buy for one second this whole the Democrats were ambushed bullshit. First of all, nobody complained about it at the time. Nobody said, "Gee, whatever happened to that CFMA that we all of us voted on just a couple of months ago and which a compromise was hammered out in conference and between the Congress and the White House? They did what? They snuck it into an omnibus bill and then they didn't tell us about it? Holy shit, am I ever going to blow a gasket over that!". And, besides, even if not every single Democrat was privy to the action, isn't that the fault of the White House and the Democratic leadership?...I don't know, folks, the way that I see it is that the Democrats here are either culpable, stupid, or derelict. And the fact that they have apologists like David Corn (who, let's face it here, would never make excuses like this for a Republican - EVER) is abominable.............5) Another apologist has asserted that the 50 Republicans (as opposed to only 10 Democrats) who ended up voting no on this, only voted no because of the spending in the bill. Pure speculation. But even if it is true, at least the Republican can say that they actually...read the damn thing! This whole not reading the bill and then bitching about 10 years later stuff is crap, I think.............6) And like I said in the previous post, nobody even knew what a frigging credit swap was back in 2000, and so unless there was a big-time Kreskin or two on the Democratic side back then, I highly doubt that there would have been any major exodus, big time revolt, etc.....Obviously, though, I could be wrong.

On Regulation/Deregulation and the Financial Collapse

a) Investment banks such as Lehman Brothers and Bears Stearns were at the center of the financial crisis and they would have been able to make the same bad investments had the Gramm-Leaech-Bliley Act never even passed.............b) The SEC did change it's rules relative to an investment bank's debt to net-capital ratios (2004). But an analysis of these companies' ratios indicate that in many instances they were actually HIGHER prior to 2004.............c) Spending on financial regulation and the number of pages in the regulation codes were both at an all-time high during the eight years of the Bush administration.............d) The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, while it did allow for the emergence of credit swaps and other such "instruments", it didn't in any way create the original risk to happen - you know, the actual toxic loans themselves.............e) It was the FED (a, HELLO, government entity!!) that (more than likely) created the environment for the housing bubble in the first instance; first by artificially lowering interest rates and secondly by maintaining them at such low levels (causing increased demand for housing and, hence, more debt).............f) It was also the FED (under the auspices of a very bad actor by the name of Alan Greenspan) which created what was essentially a "bailout culture"/"too big to fail" mentality. Fannie and Freddie, Countrywide, Lehman Brothers - they all frigging knew that the taxpayer would come to their rescue. They knew it and, so, they just didn't care.............g) From 1970 to 1995, home ownership in this country was consistently around 64%. By 2005, it had risen to 69%. Based upon the above pieces of information, it's exceedingly hard to see how deregulation caused any of this increase though, yes, I always could be wrong.............h) Now, is this to say that deregulation wasn't a factor AT ALL in the financial collapse? Not necessarily. In fact, folks, the more that I read about this recent history of ours (1995-2008), the more that I really start to question anybody's certainty. But I do think that it's fair to say that the deregulation argument specifically has at least been a trifle oversold.

Miscellaneous 114

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html - Say what you want about Mr. Bush, people; the fact that he started two unnecessary wars, presided over an out of control level of discretionary spending, mushroomed the budget deficits, etc., you DO have to give him credit for one thing. The dude did recognize the problem over at Fannie and Freddie and tried to do something about it. I mean, you can say that he didn't try hard enough and ultimately rolled over to the pander-bears in Congress FROM BOTH PARTIES, but he tried. That's a hell of a lot more than Barney Frank and Maxine Waters did, that's for sure.............2) When the January job figures came out, there were two two pieces of data that went conspicuously missing from certain cable coverage. On one side of the dial, Fox News refrained from mentioning (at least in Prime-Time) the 243,000 new jobs that were created (O'Reilly simply said that the economy was getting "slightly better"), and on the other side of the dial, MSNBC never once mentioned the fact that the workforce had actually shrunk by 1.2 million (a significant factor as to why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%). Nope, folks, if you wanted to get the entire analysis on the unemployment situation, you had to switch on over to CNN and get it from the professionals; Anderson Crowley, John King, Candy Crowley, etc.. It's kind of a shame, isn't it?............3) Alright, I'll admit it, I've got "Linsanity" now, too. I saw the end of the Toronto game on MSG and the frigging guy was Tim Tebow to the nth. First he made that drive to the hoop and then he frigging wins it with a three-pointer with less than a second to go. Youza, huh? And, the thing is, folks, unlike Tebow, who probably WON'T be a long-term solution for the Broncos, this kid is only going to get better. I mean, just the fact that he doesn't have to study 8 hours a day at Harvard anymore alone....

Bush (43), The Great Financial Deregulator?

"The Bush Administration's eight long years of failed deregulation policies have resulted in our nation's largest bailout ever, leaving the American taxpayers on the hook potentially for billions of dollars." This, folks, is what former House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said in 2009...........................................................................................Hm, kind of matches up nicely with conventional wisdom, doesn't it; a big, bad Republican President laying the hammer down, bringing the country down with him? The only problem, of course, is that it's total bullshit. Yep, folks, you can blame President Bush for a whole litany of things (2 unnecessary wars, out of control discretionary spending, burgeoning deficits, etc.) but deregulation flat-out just isn't one of them...........................................................................................a) The main pieces of deregulation most frequently cited; the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, were both passed and signed into law before Mr. Bush ever became President, b) the budget for financial regulation actually went up and up significantly (the SEC budget, for example, went up from 357 million to a whopping 629 million - this, according to a study by Washington University, St. Louis and George Mason University) under the fellow, c) the codes of Federal regulation actually reached an all-time high of over 75,000 pages during Bush's tenure, and d) Mr. Bush supported and signed into law, Sarbanes-Oxley, a highly REGULATORY piece of regulation. NONE of any of this points to Mr. Bush as a deregulator.....................................................................................................The bottom-line here, people, is that Mrs. Pelosi is either lying or she's an idiot. And, please, get this, too. Pelosi was actually one of the 153 House Democrats who voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley back in 1999. She frigging voted for it!...I mean, come on, does it get any better than this or what?

They FOOLED Me, Jerry

Here it is, folks, from Wikipedia, the final stages of the legislative process on the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Nothing WHATSOEVER on the Republicans tricking the poor, unsuspecting Democrats into voting for it. Nada, bubkas, didn't happen, etc.. But, please, feel free to paranoiacally delude yourself into thinking it so. It is, after all, still a free country............. "After Congress returned into session on December 4, 2000, there were reports Senator Gramm and the Treasury Department were exchanging proposed language to deal with the issues raised by Sen. Gramm, followed by a report those negotiations had reached an impasse.^[65] On December 14, however, the Treasury Department announced agreement had been reached the night before and urged Congress to enact into law the agreed upon language.^[66]

The “compromise language” was introduced in the House on December 14, 2000, as H.R. 5660.^[67] The same language was introduced in the Senate on December 15, 2000 as S. 3283.^[68] The Senate and House conference that was called to reconcile differences in H.R. 4577 appropriations adopted the “compromise language” by incorporating H.R. 5660 (the “CFMA”) into H.R. 4577, which was titled “Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001”.^[69] The House passed the Conference Report and, therefore, H.R. 4577 in a vote of 292-60.^[70] Over "objection" by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), the Senate passed the Conference Report, and therefore H.R. 4577, by “unanimous consent.”^[71] The Chairs and Ranking members of each of the five Congressional Committees that considered H.R. 4541 or S. 2697 supported, or entered into the Congressional Record statements in support of, the CFMA. The PWG issued letters expressing the unanimous support of each of its four members for the CFMA.^[72] H.R. 4577, including H.R. 5660, was signed into law, as CFMA, on December 21, 2000.^[73]"

On Noam Chomsky

His department at M.I.T. is funded by the Pentagon. He makes people pay for his "property rights". He hangs around and sympathizes with Holocaust deniers. He constantly denigrates Israel while giving Islamic oppressors (this bullshit currently going on in Syria, for instance) a total pass. He's accused our current duly elected President of being a war criminal who should be dragged in front of a Nuremberg caliber tribunal. He often refers to himself as an "American dissident" and compares himself to dissidents of the old Soviet Union. He's expressed admiration for the type of socialism practiced in Vietnam. He was a bald-faced apologist for the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. And he presently lives in a community that has a minority population of 1%. Oh, yeah, the shit's a total national treasure.

Get This, Folks

Even as late as 2007, just prior to the bankruptcy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mr. Bernanke was actually suggesting FURTHER increases in the percentage of CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) loans to be purchased by Fannie and Freddie (this, in an effort to help fulfill their CRA obligations). Seriously, can somebody PLEASE explain to me why this horse's ass is still employed at the FED?......................................................................................P.S. And, no, I'm not accusing Mr. Bernanke of treason. That, my friends, is strictly Governor Perry's insanity.

A Pox Up Both Their Poop-Shoots

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed 90-8 in the Senate and was signed into law by a Democratic President. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (considered by many economists to be the far more deleterious of the two pieces of legislation) passed 292-60 (50 Republicans and 10 Democrats) in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate and was also signed into law by a Democratic President. Ergo, folks, even if you've committed yourself fully to the deregulation argument pertaining to what in fact caused the financial crisis, the reality remains the inconvenient same; i.e., that the financial meltdown of 2008 was a completely and totally BIPARTISAN fiasco. I mean, I'm sorry about it and all, but it is what it is.

Fair Thee Not

If you listened strictly to mainstream blogs and the media, you'd think that it was only the Republicans who were being intransigent these days. And to a certain extent, they'd be right (the Republicans' boneheadedness regarding taxes, for instance). But, I'm telling you here, I saw something on C-Span the other night in which the Democrats looked like the unreasonable team.........................................................................................The Republicans, folks, are putting forth a proposal in which people who get a subsidy for health insurance (at a rate determined by the Affordable Care Act), if in fact their income goes up precipitously during the year, have to pay a small percentage of that subsidy back. For example, if a family starts off at $50,000 a year and gets a $8,000 subsidy, but one of the family members goes back to work and/or gets a huge raise up to, say, $80,000 a year (in which the subsidy goes down to $1,000 - approximately), under the Republicans' proposal, that family would have to pay $700 back to the government (a paltry 10%)..........................................................................................I mean, I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here. But how, pray tell, is it fair for a family that makes $80,000 a year for 11 months to get a significantly better subsidy than a family that makes $80,000 a year for 12 months? The Democrats are always talking about fairness, no? How in the hell is that frigging fair?

Noam Comsky on President Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790&feature=related..............Oh, this (the responses) is gonna be good, really good.

Top 5 All-Time Favorite Jethro Tull Songs

5) Living in the Past.............4) Hymn 43.............3) Nothing is Easy.............2) Locomotive Breath.............1) Teacher.

The Democratic Folks in Congress, Um, Not So Much

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJiQRe8Mqao&feature=related

Ron Paul Got it, And so Did Peter Schiff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz_yw0kq3MM&feature=related

On a Bachman Versus Grayson Presidential Race

It would be extraordinarily humorous, I think (not to mention the material reaped by peeps such as Stewart, SNL, etc.).

Top 5 All-Time Greatest Spice Combos (IMHO)

5) Coriander and cardamom (allspice, an alternative).............4) Garlic and turmeric.............3) Cinnamon and star anise.............2) Fenugreek and dill weed.............1) Ginger and cilantro.

On Keynesian Economics 2

Now, is this to say that government spending CAN'T help an economy to recover? Nope, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that we have to shift our paradigm a trifle. Instead of thinking of government spending as something which "primes the pump", you think of it more as something (done intelligently, of course) which gives us a competitive edge...............................................................................................I.E., we invest in such things as infrastructure (I like the Kerry-Hutchinson proposal of an investment bank, myself) and charter schools in an effort to entice prospective investors to build and do business here (this, as opposed to spending willy-nilly, placating the teachers unions, etc.). I mean, I know that it's kind of a subtle distinction (this, as opposed to a full-throated denunciation of Keynes) that I'm making here and all but I also think that it's an important one; intelligent and targeted spending as opposed to this pissing in the desert approach of fellas' like Krugman.

Nancy Pelosi on Medicare

"We have a solution for Medicare. It's called 'Medicare'."

George Will on Medicare

"Paul Ryan isn't killing Medicare. Arithmetic is."

My Top Four Democratic Legislators (As of Today)

Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad, Chris Van Hollen, and Ron Wyden - the first two for their work on and vote for the Bowles-Simpson proposal, the third for his willingness to use said proposal as a good first step in budget negotiations, and the fourth for his reaching across the aisle and working with Paul Ryan on a Medicare compromise..............................................................................................P.S. An honorable mention should probably go out to Senator Kerry for his work with Kay Bailey Hutchison on a proposed infrastructure bank.

On Keynesian Economics 1

The more that I learn about Keynesian economics, the more that it flat-out perplexes me. I mean, just the very notion that massive deficit spending (a lot of it seemingly haphazard at times) can somehow lead an entire nation to prosperity seems itself quite ludicrous (the robbing of Peter to pay Mr. Paul, yada yada).............................................................................................And then, of course, there's the increasingly spotty record of the theory as it's practiced. Herbert Hoover, probably the original Keynesian pol (he of the beneficent hand); that blankety-blank practically taxed and spent the United States into oblivion. FDR (who actually WASN'T a disciple of Keynes) continued along these lines and actually added to it with his own brands experimentation, micromanagement, etc. (the NRA, his act to make bank branches illegal, his insanely high increasing of excise taxes, etc.). The end result was a 12 year long depression (it wasn't until Truman came along and loosened up price controls, trade restrictions, taxation, etc. that the American economy truly recovered)..............................................................................................A much more recent example of Keynesianism failing to deliver would obviously be the Japanese fiasco. From 1990 to 2005, Japan had no less than 10 fiscal stimulus programs (infrastructure, etc.) at a cost of over 100,000,000,000,000 yen and the only thing that they had to show for it was a massive debt (at one point, a 130% of GDP!) and countless boondoggles............................................................................................Of course, you always have the usual suspects/apologists such as Krugman saying what they always seem to say, "The Japanese just didn't spend ENOUGH money." But, really, folks, I ask you, isn't that getting just a little lame; that whole "it just wasn't massive enough" argument? I mean, it's certainly getting lame from my perspective.

To George Jefferson or Not to George Jefferson, That is....

Black racism, does it exist? One side of the argument asserts that groups such as African-Americans who've consistently been the objects of prejudice and discrimination de facto cannot be racist. The other side asserts that basically anybody can be a bigot and that prior career contingencies are quite immaterial........................................................................................What's my assessment on it? I would probably have to lean more toward the latter opinion if pressed. I mean, yeah, I could see how certain African-Americans of a specific age (the Jeremiah Wrights of the world) and/or socioeconomic status (inner-city kids with limited options) might have some justifiable hostility toward white people. But when you have a guy like Roland Martin (a man who's frequently accused other people of bigotry) making anti-gay comments and African-Americans, en masse (57-70%), voting for Proposition 8 in California, it's majorly difficult to explain away THAT. It's like, really, what in the hell did gay people ever do to Roland Martin to make him be so insensitive to THEM.....................................................................................Yeah, folks, I'm afraid to say that bigotry doesn't have any hard and fast boundaries.

How 'Bout THESE "Dots", Rachel Maddow?

1) From 1990 to 2009, Steven Rattner contributed more than $800,000 to Democratic candidates/the Democratic National Committee.............2) In 2004, Mr. Rattner contributed heavily to Mr. Obama's Senate campaign.............3) In 2008, he donated the maximum to Mr. Obama's Presidential campaign.............4) After the election, he contributed an additional $5,000 to Mr. Obama's transitional team.............5) Mr. Rattner is selected to be President Obama's "Car Czar" (seriously, a car czar) - this, despite the fact that the man had had no experience running an industrial company/building autos.............6) Mr. Rattner's wife, Mo, just happens to be the DNC's Finance Chair.............I'm just sayin'.

Thoughts From One "Moderate Extremist" About Another

I like Juan Williams. I do. I find him to be reasonable and about as nonpartisan as you can get these days. But I also think that the fellow takes a dive from time to time. Like on Hannity the other night. He had Mr. Hannity on the ropes when he quite correctly told the host that you really couldn't blame Mr. Obama for the heavy job losses during the first 6-8 months of his Presidency (this, in that they occurred prior to his programs being enacted and were probably the result of an inexorable downturn that no doubt would have also occurred under a President McCain). He had him there and then he let him off. Now, granted, perhaps Mr. Hannity's shouting of him down had a little something to do with it and all but, still, you gotta get your point across. You gotta........................................................................................P.S. I suppose that I'd be remiss here if I didn't include at least a mention of just how wickedly that the left has treated this guy, Mr. Williams; the fact that he's been called a traitor and an Uncle Tom, etc.. This and, yes, folks, all because the dude has had the unmitigated audacity to not feel the need to tow the party-line and to somehow think for himself (some blogger named "Kid" said that he didn't like Williams because he was friends with - yes, people, friends with - Clarence Thomas). Morning in America again? Yeah, right!

On Roland Martin

Living proof that an African-America (a liberal one, at that) indeed CAN be a bigot (this in reference to his recent disgusting anti-gay "tweets").

On Rachel Maddow 2

Sean Hannity with a half-baker's-dozen more neurons.

The New Bart Conner of Politics

It's officially become excruciating for me to watch Mitt Romney. The shear volume of mental and verbal gymnastics that the fellow has to go through just to make himself seem palatable....TO HIS OWN FRIGGING PARTY is scary.........................................................................................One of the more recent examples of this is his "explanation" for his having voted for Paul Tsongas in 1992 (Republicans and Independents were able to vote in the Democratic primary). Instead of simply saying, "Yeah, I liked Paul Tsongas. He was a moderate Democrat who was pro-business and who also had some interesting ideas about reforming entitlements and defense spending", he put forth this cockamamie and absolutely ludicrous line about how he was only trying to stick it to Bill Clinton (at that point, still a relative newcomer). I mean, it was almost frigging laughable........................................................................................Of course, the entire situation has as well a rather sad component. And that's the fact that the Romney of 1994 and 2002 would more than likely be a reasonably decent general election candidate. Not only would the fellow get the rank-and-file Republican vote, he'd also quite possibly get a fair amount of Independents and Democrats. Granted, the religious-right and tea partiers would probably bolt but, still.....

Another Rough Night for the Newtster, Eh?

Let's see here, folks, a third-place finishing in Colorado, a fourth-place finishing in Minnesota, and a did not participate in Missouri. Is it safe to say NOW that, if Mr. Gingrich doesn't get out of the race, he is in fact running strictly out of spite? Have we ultimately and finally reached that threshold?

On Why Electric Cars Might Not be the Panacea that Bureaucrats and Well-Connected Crony Capitalists Constantly Make Them Out to Be

1) The fact that a large percentage of the electricity will probably come from coal-fired power-plants (one of the dirtiest forms of energy).............2) Nearly half of the world's known lithium reserves resides in one country, Bolivia. Their President has said that, while he would be willing to sell the lithium, the Bolivian government in fact would a) continue to legally "own" it, b) seize 60% of the earnings before the lithium has even left the country, and c) insist that the batteries and cars be made only in Bolivia.............3) The fact that they'd be a major inconvenience for people who don't a garage.............4) The fact that they would drive up the price of electricity and drive down the cost of gasoline and thereby negatively impact upon the poor and elderly.............5) The fact that they will drive up the price of lithium and therefore the price of other products; lap-top computers, cell-phones, glass, ceramics, and concrete.............6) The potential damage caused by the mining of lithium to an environmentally sensitive area; Bolivia's Unuyi salt-flats.............7) The fact that the American people apparently don't care for them.............8) Two words; crony capitalism (the constant push by big businesses for more and more subsidies)...........................................................................................P.S. This, of course, isn't to say that electric cars don't have a potential future. Maybe they do. But the fact that the government is continuing to play the role of kingmaker here, without as much as even a nod to the unintended consequences of their actions, is, at the very least, troubling. I mean, seriously here, how many more things do they have to get wrong?

Green with Craziness

Darryl Hannah is no doubt a very charming, talented, and decent woman. And I don't doubt for a second her commitment and sincerity as a staunch environmentalist. But what the woman said on O'Reilly recently was about as close to bat-shit crazy as you can get. According to Hannah, T. Boone Pickens failed (to the tune of two billion dollars, mind you) intentionally with solar energy in an effort to push forward his true agenda, natural gas. I mean, I know that Mr. Pickens is a shrewd businessman and all; a man who isn't afraid to lose money in order to make MORE money but, come on! I don't think that even HE would want to fritter away two BILLION............................................................................................P.S. One of the reasons that Mr. Pickens failed in his solar endeavor was a lack of sufficient power lines. My question is, why in the hell wasn't this addressed in the stimulus package? $862,000,000,000 and they couldn't even think to do this basic thing. Unbefrigginglievable, huh?

A Prism of Her Own Making

Why is it that Rachel Maddow only likes to connect some of the dots and not all of the dots? I mean, is it simply because she's a partisan stooge? Or is it more the fact that she's a lunatic and/or a bald-faced liar? I mean, there's gotta be something going on here..........................................................................................Let me provide you an example. Back in 2009, Ms. Maddow made a big deal over the fact that Dick Armey (admittedly, an asshole) and his group, Freedom Works, were opposing Mr. Obama's health-care bill. She also noted that Mr. Armey's law firm, DLA Piper, had done some work for a pharmaceutical firm called Medicine's Company. Her assertion (absent even a scintilla of evidence, mind, you) was that somehow the drug companies were calling the shots here and that Mr. Armey was more than likely shilling for them.........................................................................................Yeah, well, guess what, people - WRONG! Not only was Medicines Company not opposing the heath-care bill, they actually supported it to the tune of causing a breakup between Armey and the law firm. If Ms. Maddow had done even a modicum of research on this issue, she would have concluded that the health-care bill was actually a bonanza for the drug companies and that Mr. Armey's views on health-care reform were NOT those of his by then FORMER law firm and their big corporate client. Nope, folks, those folks were on President Obama's side. Go figure, huh?..........................................................................................P.S. How 'bout this for a radical suggestion? Instead of putting these partisan ramrods like Maddow, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. into the positions of hosting these shows, we put some, you know, ACTUAL JOURNALISTS AND REPORTERS into them? I mean, sure the lackeys can still come on and spew their drivel and shit but, no, not to the point where they can continues to dictate story-lines/content and spred conspiracy theories. We'd be controlling the mayhem, in other words.

Oh Yeah, He's Got Fumes Alright

What would be my answer to the question, "So, how did you respond last night when you hearda CNN analyst refer to the present state of Mr. Gingrich's campaign as 'running on fumes'?"

That Ground-Breaking Shoot-'Em-Up at the Beginning of Sam Peckinpaugh's Classic, "The Wild Bunch"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite on-screen violence/mayhem?".........................................................................................P.S. A strong tip-of-the-cap would also have to go to Martin Scorsece's baseball bat bludgeoning of Joe Pesci at the conclusion of "Casino".

A Cartel, Unquestioned

There's one aspect to the health-care problem that nobody, NOBODY, is talking about. And that's the fact that medical doctors (M.D.s and D.O.s) have a virtual monopoly on providing health-care to people. I mean, yes, you can see a chiropractor for a bad back, an optometrist for a vision exam, and a podiatrist for bunions but for most basic medical issues you still have to see a doctor............................................................................................So, why is that a bad thing, you ask? It's bad because for the vast, vast, majority of ailments (colds, backaches, etc.) that you're presently going to a doctor for, you could just as easily (not to mention, effectively) go to a nurse-practitioner, a physicians assistant, a physical therapist, a person trained in in kinesiology and exercise science, etc.. This is especially true when these individuals have doctorates and multiple years of patient experience UNDER A DOCTOR........................................................................................I mean, I know that we're conditioned to think that doctors are gods and that only doctors can cure us but, I'm telling you here, I have worked in human services and health-related fields for my entire career and some of the smartest people in the galaxy are nurse practitioners and doctoral level therapists. I would have absolutely zero qualms about seeing either of them for my medical needs. Seriously........................................................................................P.S. This obviously dovetails into another serious medical issue; i.e., the doctor shortage, a shortage that will clearly become even more pronounced once the health-care bill really kicks in. Hopefully the stars will all align some day and officials connect the dots.

"Zany", Indeed

Mr.s Gingrich and Romney have both put forth a fair number of gaffes. Which of the two has made more of them, I couldn't say (that, and they've both done a lot of flip-flopping, too). What I could say, however, is that Mr. Romney seems to be the far more stable of the two. Like in terms of foreign policy, for instance - yes, Mr. Romney HAS been popping off a little. But in terms of his ultimate action, I really think that he would be far more deliberate and measured. I mean, I obviously could be wrong here and all, but, still, there's just something about this Gingrich fellow - something, yes, that frightens me.

Note to Mr. Gingrich/Resident Historian

Give the money back, Newt. You took 1.6 million from a company that needed $154,000,000,000 worth of taxpayer money simply to stay afloat. That, and the fact that you really didn't do anything for it (or maybe you did and you're concealing it), for Christ! I mean, come on, dude. Do it; the right thing, for once in your life.

Miscellaneous 113

1) I've heard it from a good source that Paul Krugman actually burns incense at the base of a John Maynard Keynes statue.............2) He also chants, I've heard.............3) Harry Truman thought that John Maynard Keynes was full of shit. Hm, let's see here; the crank, Paul Krugman or Harry S. Truman, quite possibly the greatest U.S. President since 1865, yeah, that's a tough one - NOT!!............4) I have to admit it here. I'm getting a little tired of all these people bitching about "negative equity". I frigging had negative equity FOR DECADES (yeah, that's right, I bought my condo at the peak of the condo craze in Connecticut and I still don't think that it's worth what I paid for it in 1987)! And NEVER ONCE, folks, did I even contemplate walking away from my obligation (according to a recent "60 Minutes" piece, that's exactly what a lot of people are presently doing - walking away from the loan and leaving it to the bank). I mean, come on! Have we really and truly become THAT pathetic of a nation in which we think that we're entitled, absolutely, to a return on our investment? Seriously.............5) The Republicans have a golden opportunity to take back the White House AND THEY'RE BLOWING IT. They're putting up these tweedle-dumbs and tweedle-dees and Mr. Obama is looking sane strictly by comparison. I'm telling you, folks, if I wake up on election day all frigging torqued, I just flat-out MIGHT vote for Johnson.............6) Put THAT in your political apple-cart.