John

February 4, 2010

comments

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — John @ 10:22 am

From the abcNews political punch column’s comments:

‘Created jobs’ has always been the standard that a growing economy is judged by, not somebody’s guess about ‘saved jobs’.

Obama’s guesses about who ‘mighta’ got laid off is just a smokescreen.

Obama got the stimulus bill he asked for and it was supposed to create jobs.

But over 2/3 of it has never been allocated, let alone spent.

Why?

Well because 2009 wasn’t an election year.

It’ll get spent this year in order to make people feel good about Democrats and re-elect them.

The stimulus bill was never about jobs, it was about politics.

The way this administration has played politics with the economy , crowing about ‘saved jobs’ and holding back money to create jobs is nothing short of scandalous.

no reason to say it myself when someone else has done a better job.

And from Recover.gov:

of the $787 Billion ARRA that was granted by the congress, only $268 Billion (34%) has actually been “spent”. I say “spent” because $92 billion of that is actually tax benefits.

Only from the federal government can you get the rationale that allowing someone to keep money they earned counts as a gift from you. Following this logic, when robberies go down, it’s actually due to “robbery credits” being issued by criminals. We should be thanking the criminals, not the police.

Also, Texas has received $12,422,624,473 that went to a reported 28,456.57 jobs at a cost $436,546.78 per job.

San Angelo (specifically, zip code 76903) received a total of $15,880,785 that went to create/save a total of 7.25 jobs ($2,190,453.10 per job).

I really gotta get me one of these jobs. In the meantime, Obama should get another Nobel cereal-box prize. This time in inefficiency.

January 28, 2010

SOTU

Filed under: micro-blog — Tags: — John @ 5:07 pm

really, the only good things i can say about his entire speech was that someone actually managed to get a tie on him before he walked out the door, and he was able to make it through the entire speech without lighting up.

other than that, it was lies, deceit, mischaracterization, and rhetorical manipulations as per usual whenever his teleprompter is running.

January 24, 2010

Social Security Sucks

Filed under: Life in Corporal — Tags: — John @ 2:26 am

They want it both ways.


The progressive liberals who want to pass heath care want to hold up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as examples of successful government run programs [1]. They say that Social Security has never missed a payment yet [2] (but ignore the fact that it’s trust-fund does not actually exist, the program is soon-to-be insolvent [3], and payments will have to be made from the general fund by 2016).


Social Security, as a retirement system and method to keep people out of poverty, is a failure. The system is a ponzi scheme with new entrants into the system compelled by the threat of force to pay for the benefits of the people who are leaving the system. The extra money that was paid in over the last few generations? Spent on wars, irresponsible social policies, and bridges to nowhere. Read this defense of Social Security [4]. Business Week author Michael Mandel argues that SS isn’t a ponzi scheme because our technology and ability to grow our GDP will always improve enough to cover all future costs.


Sounds like this guy wasn’t paying attention to the last two asset bubbles the Federal Reserve inflated to boost that “always increasing” economy.


What Social Security has done, it has done well. It has destroyed the family unit by destroying the need for it. No longer do husband and wife need to remain together for financial support, they can get a divorce just because their current situation is no longer convenient. No longer do the children feel any need to support their parents, that’s now become the government’s job. And the government has done an excellent job of teaching them this new way of thinking. With the family destroyed and mocked as an archaic institution the government has virtually guaranteed that those people, who historically would support their parents in their old age and in turn be supported by their children when they became old, would now become dependent upon the largess of the government.


It used to be considered shameful to accept charity from your neighbors or welfare from the state. Now it has become a bragging right. The state has gone out of its way to make sure the dependent class it has created feels no shame attached to that dependency. By teaching these people that it is their right to receive these benefits by virtue of having “paid” for them, they removed that stigma. If you are on Social Security or receive Medicare or Medicaid benefits, you did not pay for them. You paid (if at all) for someone else’s benefits. Your benefits are being paid by the generation now working.


The state cannot make money for these programs, it can only move money from one person to another, taking a little bit out on the way for the trouble. As the capital is transferred from productive to non-productive uses the ability of the country as a whole to succeed and prosper is lessened.

[1] http://www.examiner.com/x-4380-Healthcare-Reform-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Republicans-admit-Medicare-is-good-governmentrun-healthcare

[2] http://www.scfl.org/?ulnid=1562

[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051200252.html

[4] http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/12/is_social_secur.html

January 23, 2010

Completely disconnected from reality

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — John @ 10:22 am

from Biden (via Delaware Online):

Biden laments that 60 votes now seem necessary for “every single decision” the Senate makes.

“No democracy has survived needing a supermajority,” he said during a Sunday fundraiser in Florida.

someone hand this guy a history book. People who knew more about politics than he does realized long ago that if a simple “majority rules” was made official policy, that the country would quickly be overtaken by mobs. That’s why in America we don’t have democracy. We don’t even have representative democracy. We have a Republic.

As for the “No democracy has survived needing a supermajority”, no democracy has survived being a democracy. We go around the world in the name of “democracy”, spreading “democracy”, and telling everyone how wonderful “democracy” is.

Democracy is horrible, an absolute failure in every case it has been tried. It reverts quickly to mob rule which means the rule of one or two powerful demagogues able to stir up public sentiment.

A republic based on laws that are designed to limit the powers of government and protect the rights of the individual is what this country was originally set up to be. A lot of those restrictions on government and protections of rights have been eroded, but we are still not a democracy.

Democracy is a disease worse than cancer. I think the country would be much better off if it took at least 2/3rds of any legislative body to pass any motion. I also think that there should be no numerary restriction on the number of members of the House of Representatives. If the only (numerical) restriction on represtatives was that “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand” (US Constitution) then, per the 2000 census (Table 1), we would have about 9,380 representatives.

This would be great!

  • more representatives means that the views of more people would be represented – currently only the views of large bodies of people or people who have a lot of money are represented in the congress
  • more representatives means more parties – the one thing I love about Europe’s political system is the number of parties and candidates available for the public to choose. Here in America, ironically the land of opportunity, you only get 2 choices. Frequently neither good
  • more representatives means less legislation – think getting 50%+1 of 438 is hard? try getting 50%+1 of 9,380! America doesn’t need all the laws being passed. In fact, many of them are plain hurtful to the people. But what do you expect when you have over half a million people living in a city whose sole purpose is generating new laws?

If the system is corrupt, stop trying to change who is in charge…. change the system

January 19, 2010

Brown wins!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — John @ 9:16 pm

from Boston Globe

Republican Scott Brown tonight pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Massachusetts political history, defeating Democrat Martha Coakley to become the state’s next United States senator and potentially derailing President Obama’s hopes for a health care overhaul.

The victory caps a dramatic surge in recent days as Brown, a state lawmaker from Wrentham once thought to have little chance of beating a popular attorney general, roared ahead of Coakley to become the first Republican senator elected from Massachusetts since 1972.

With 73 percent of precincts reporting, Brown had 53 percent and Coakley had 46 percent.

In a race that became the center of national attention, Brown’s win is widely seen as a vote against the president’s agenda from one of the most reliably Democratic states. And in a particularly ironic twist, Brown, in succeeding Edward M. Kennedy — the late liberal lion who deemed health care “the cause of my life” — may well be the 41st vote to prevent the Democratic-led plan from moving forward.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress