#1
Regardless of the motives or lack thereof on the part of Chief Justice Roberts or the potential precedent that may or may not be set, the fact of the matter is that the curtain has been drawn back on the hypocrisy, outright lies, and devious tactics that unfolded during the entire process, as well as the unsustainable cost and loss of individual liberty -- all of which Obama must now openly defends.
#3
gorb, I fear a majority of our people have come to realize their inferiority, and lacking ability to excell on their individual merits are banding together to claim uniformity and mediocrity for all. Of course, being inferior, they fail to realize that their state of being in the collective will be lower than their individual state would have been without the collective (for most, anyway.) It's a strange alliance between the sheep and their 'shepherds' - the 'elite' who are so supremely (and wrongly) confident that they know all the answers.
#4
Nice article, however: The past six weeks have sealed his fate, as American citizens concerned about the future of the nation will turn out in massive numbers to vote in November. I'm not aware of any vast number of potential American voters who are actually THAT concerned about the future of the nation.
Looking from outside in, it seems to me that Justice Roberts is saying "Stop hiding behind SCOTUS like a scared kid hides from a playground bully behind a teacher. Go out there and take back your government. 'Drive the Democrats before you, and hear the wailing and lamentation of their Public Employee Unions!'"
#12
Part of the discussion about the Obamacare decision is based on the assumption that Champ would have accepted an adverse Supreme Court decision as binding. There's nothing in Champ's record to support that assumption. I certainly would have preferred the decision coming down the other way, but sooner or later we were going to be about where we are now.
I think Justice Roberts is an honorable man who lost sight of the fact that he was dealing with thugs. Scalia never makes that mistake.
Posted by: Matt ||
07/03/2012 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
President Obama should put Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" at the top of his summer reading list.
Don't be silly. The man doesn't read, he merely carries around the right sort of books with his finger marking a random page, and the title carefully turned toward the cameras.
This was clear after listening to his 54-minute list of economic excuses and policy proposals delivered earlier this month on the campus of Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland.
The economists he parrots misread Keynes, so no point in going there, either.
At times Mr. Obama suggested that the profit motive is somehow ignoble, an opinion shared by many on the far left. But every student learns in introductory economics class that the pursuit of profits is essential to a successful economy, allocating resources to the use consumers value most.
The honourable gentleman studied got degrees in poly sci and law, not economics, so he missed those intro econ lessons, poor dear.
This is not exactly a new insight. Writing in 1776, Adam Smith noted, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
The president spent nearly an hour demonizing his Republican opponent Mitt Romney's economic policies and doubling down on his own failed agenda. He called for higher taxes on our most productive citizens and successful small businesses, more government spending and debt, and Washington micromanagement of wide swaths of the economy.
Instead of doubling down, Mr. Obama could have seen his party's 2010 midterm defeat as a message from voters to move to the center, announcing that his vast expansion of government was temporary and necessitated by the financial crisis and deep recession.
That's similar to what President Clinton did after his 1994 midterm rebuke that swept Republicans to control of Congress and led to bipartisan agreement to balance the budget and reform welfare. Mr. Clinton won re-election handily.
Here are four things the president could have proposed (but didn't) to remove headwinds to growth and instill confidence in the economy:
1) Avoid the 2013 "fiscal cliff," which the Congressional Budget Office says would put us back in recession, by extending all the Bush tax cuts for one year (leaving him free to pursue his tax hikes on the "rich" later).
He can always do that after he's reelected -- the bill will be popular on both sides of the aisle. And if the voters choose otherwise, the punishment for their temerity will be swift and painful.
2) Approve the Keystone pipeline and speed up oil and gas drilling approvals, with appropriate environmental safeguards, back to the levels they were before the 2010 moratorium following the BP oil disaster.
But before the BP incident, weren't they slow walking the paperwork? How would that be better?
3) Enact long-run entitlement and tax reform with lower rates and a broader base, using the proposals of the Simpson-Bowles Commission--which the president appointed, but has so far ignored--as a starting point for negotiations.
4) Invest political capital to energize the moribund Doha Round of global trade liberalization and bilateral free-trade agreements.
By taking these four steps, the president would have given the recovery a greatly needed boost and encouraged more businesses to invest and hire. He may well look back on this missed opportunity to move toward the middle as the mistake that ultimately cost him re-election.
More likely he will reflect on the stupidity of the voters who completely failed to appreciate his peculiar genius.
Mr. Obama constantly reminds us, with justification, that he inherited a recession. But the recession ended over three years ago, while the recovery has been distressingly anemic. He also blames an "obstructionist" Congress. But Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House his first two years. Republicans couldn't obstruct anything. He's even blamed the Japanese tsunami and the European debt crisis.
Is it any wonder that recent polls show the majority of Americans disapprove of the president's economic policies and are asking why his explosion of spending and debt has done so little good. Mr. Obama claims that when he took office nobody knew just how deep this recession really was. Not so. I and other economists said it was going to be the worst recession in a generation, and immediately after the 2008 election urged him to temporarily set aside his big-government social-engineering agenda, from energy to health-care reform. Whatever their pros and cons, it was the worst possible time to add such a cost burden and uncertainty to the economy. He was mistaken in the hope the economy could withstand his change.
In 2009, 2010 and 2011, the administration forecast average economic growth of 4% in the next two years. But the economy has not had even one quarter of 4% growth during Mr. Obama's stewardship. Rather, our economy has experienced its longest string of consecutive quarters of economic growth below 4% since World War II. Growth has averaged 1.4% in Mr. Obama's first 13 quarters as president.
His record on jobs is just as bad. Mr. Obama's initial forecast claimed unemployment would never reach 8% if his $800 billion stimulus bill passed in early 2009 (as it did) and would now be below 6%. That's off by 3.9 million unemployed workers, millions more if we include those who have given up looking for work.
Perhaps we should not have expected more from the eloquent apostle of hope and change. Mr. Obama had little experience in or respect for the "for profit" part of the economy. Of his one brief sojourn in the business world, he says in his autobiography he felt "like a spy behind enemy lines."
He now says that Mr. Romney's business career--which former President Clinton describes as "sterling"--is not a qualification to be president. How would he know? Before becoming president, he had no executive experience of any kind--private or public.
Ouch.
Mr. Obama's most recent statements reveal a strange disconnect from basic economic reality. In a press conference on June 8 he said, "The private sector is doing fine," adding that we needed more federal spending subsidizing state and local government jobs, where he claims the jobs problem is centered. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 11 unemployed private-sector workers for every unemployed government worker.
Last month Mr. Obama said, "Since I've been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years." But it turns out he was quoting a blogger who did not count the massive 2009 stimulus spending. Careful administration fact-checking served former presidents well. Is this administration's standard no longer facts but anything on the Internet?
Double ouch. It doesn't sound like the writer will be voting to reelect the president in November.
#1
Mr. Obama's most recent statements reveal a strange disconnect from basic economic reality.
"Strange" to some possibly, but entirely in keeping with his goal of dissestablishment of The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, of Federalism and the Republic.
"Strange" to some possibly, but entirely in keeping with former [Harvard University professor and Current Obama adminstration official Cass Sunstein, a leading advocate of delinking liberty and property rights - and President Obama's likely future nominee to the Surpreme Court.] Levin, "Liberty and Tyranny" March 2009.
#2
The reason everybody in Obama's circles believes in socialism is because they have achieved the socialist ideal: to each according to their needs---never mind ability; for themselves.
p.s. They also despise the suckers who pay for it.
#3
The Champ studied poly sci in college. Poly sci is considered the bonehead curriculum among students. That said, he probably voted "Present" at his classes if he showed up at all. We don't know, he was never really vetted; his college records have not been available. At the time he was getting high with his Choom Gang and being cool. Not so sure that is not still going on. An economist or a capitalist he is not. He does not have a clue about creating jobs for others. He does not understand the U.S. economy. It is foreign to him. He is not about to read the Cliff Notes version of the "Wealth of Nations" or any other book between now and election time. When was the last time the media reported of him reading any books. Most other presidents had stories about them reading this book or that book. Bummer is too busy golfing, gloating, being narcissistic, and running for election. I would contend that he never stopped running for office--that's what he does. He is p!ss poor at governance in a Republic.
#4
You won't like all you read in the Wealth of Nations.
Adam Smith was a strong proponent of property (Land rent) based taxation.
Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent.
Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses
#7
The big dude on that show El Cinco, with a straight face said an increase in demand does not lead to an increase in price. Now, this lesson predates ECON101 and goes right back to the playground with kids auctioning gum and such.
Now gordo does not come across as a dummy but is one of them tru believers. It makes me believe the official playbook for business talking points is to just flat out lie to you and fish for enough ignorants and persuadables.
(to be fair, though I hardly watch the show, I had Bob in the head category but turns out he is at least part muppet with that just dipshit statement, way to blow you cred)
I run into this while looking for something else (antonym for "bully"). And I just had to post it.
Well, the neighborhood bully, hes just one man
His enemies say hes on their land
They got him outnumbered about a million to one
He got no place to escape to, no place to run
Hes the neighborhood bully
The neighborhood bully just lives to survive
Hes criticized and condemned for being alive
Hes not supposed to fight back, hes supposed to have thick skin
Hes supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in
Hes the neighborhood bully
The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land
Hes wandered the earth an exiled man
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn
Hes always on trial for just being born
Hes the neighborhood bully
Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad
The bombs were meant for him. He was supposed to feel bad
Hes the neighborhood bully
Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That hell live by the rules that the world makes for him
Cause theres a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac
Hes the neighborhood bully
He got no allies to really speak of
What he gets he must pay for, he dont get it out of love
He buys obsolete weapons and he wont be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side
Hes the neighborhood bully
Well, hes surrounded by pacifists who all want peace
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease
Now, they wouldnt hurt a fly. To hurt one they would weep
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep
Hes the neighborhood bully
Every empire thats enslaved him is gone
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon
Hes made a garden of paradise in the desert sand
In bed with nobody, under no ones command
Hes the neighborhood bully
Now his holiest books have been trampled upon
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health
Hes the neighborhood bully
Whats anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin, they say. He just likes to cause war
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed
Hes the neighborhood bully
What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers? Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill
Running out the clock, time standing still
Neighborhood bully
#1
Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad
The bombs were meant for him. He was supposed to feel bad
Ah yes, a classic from His Bobness. Released soon after the Osirak bombing. The "old woman" refers to Margaret Thatcher who fired a blistering verbal attack on Israel from parliament. I've hated Maggie for that; so did Bob it would seem.
Key points below. See link for further details, among them Vladimir Putin in a yarmulke praying at the Wailing Wall.
Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir famously lamented that Moses led the children of Israel for forty years of wandering in the desert until he found the only place in the Middle East where there wasn't any oil.
But could Moses have been smarter than believed? Apparently the Canadians and the Russians think so, as both countries are moving to step up energy relations with a tiny nation whose total energy reserves some experts now think could rival or even surpass the fabled oil wealth of Soddy Arabia ...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in their national face... Actual production is still miniscule, but evidence is accumulating that the Promised Land, from a natural resource point of view, could be an El Dorado: inch for inch the most valuable and energy rich country anywhere in the world. If this turns out to be true, a lot of things are going to change, and some of those changes are already underway.
OPEC's power to dictate world prices is likely to decline as Canadian, US, Israeli and Chinese resources come on line. In fact, the Gulf's most powerful oil weapon going forward may be the ability of those countries to under-price rivals; expensive shale oil isn't going to be very profitable if OPEC steps up production of its cheap stuff.
Iran can't -- their extract able oil reserves are running out using current technology, and they haven't the money or the skill to upgrade...
Another big loser could be Turkey.
An outcome devoutly to be wished.
For years the Kemalist, secular rulers of Turkey worked closely with Israel, and the relationship benefited both sides. Under the Islamist AK party, that relationship gradually deteriorated.
But if Israel really does emerge as a great energy power, and a Russia-Greece-Cyprus-Israel energy consortium does in fact emerge, Turkey's ambitions to play a larger role in the old Ottoman stomping ground of the eastern Mediterranean basin will have suffered a significant check.
The US-Israeli relationship will also change. Some of this may already be happening. Prime Minister Netanyahu's evident lack of worry when it comes to crossing President B.O. may reflect his belief that Israel has some new cards to play.
Or at least will soon have new cards. In the meantime, he knows exactly what President Obama is, and how the honourable gentleman is constrained by an Israel-loving Congress. While he may personally feel less constrained to appease the electorate after the election -- win or lose -- he will still have to work with or around Congress.
An energy-rich Israel with a lot of friends and suitors is going to be less dependent on the US than it has been -- and it is also going to be a more valuable ally.
#2
Putin has really made some strong advances lately. Big push for some time. This could change things in this area of the world. I have read that Israel my become a world banking center like Switzerland.
I'd like to see Romney slim down and do a photo op with Putin riding a horse. That would stir things up in the world. Get some of that gravitas.
People like Cher, Babs and Looney Clooney would cry foul. They hog the market on ham bones.
#4
The stakes are not small: the offshore Levantine Basin (which Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Israel and even Gaza will all have some claim to) is believed to have 120 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and considerable oil.
Syria, Greece, Gaza,Lebanon, Turkey? Syria is too busy killing citizens. Greece is broke and trying to figure out how to reclaim the good life--retirement at age 52. Gaza is too busy hating the Jews and waiting for Iran to fulfill its promises of wiping out Israel. Lebanon always has Hezbollah working in the background. Turkey is too busy moving away from secularism an towards fundamentalism. Looks like it is Israel's game.
It was just one well (the Shimshon- hebrew for Sampson) at this time. However, the hydrocarbon zone was pretty big. They will have a first actual estimate of the recoverable resource as soon as they redo their geo and seismic modeling. However, later estimates will require other wells and measurements during production testing.
Still, given that Europe needs natural gas badly (the high cost of nat gas in Europe is one of the things holding back the economy of several countries), this is a big deal.
Posted by: lord garth ||
07/03/2012 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
#9
What will the Marxist EUSSR economies produce that the Israelis will want to buy?
(1) Security for gas fields. If it's owned solely by Israel, there will be shahids in motor boats buzzing around like flies. That's before we consider what the crazy pasha of Istanbul might do. But, if part is owned by Russia...
(2) Maybe we'll want to buy Russian planes---sans electronics/software, of course. Maybe their AA rockets---to combine with Green Pine.
(3) We should bet Obama won't get reelected?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
President Obama should put Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" at the top of his summer reading list.
