TCS Daily


Cave Man Bush

By Jerry Bowyer - December 22, 2008 12:00 AM

George W. Bush has come full circle. He started his public career as the beneficiary of a government bailout, and he ends it as the benefactor of another a thousand times it size.

George W. Bush, private citizen, purchased a financially shaky business firm, called the Texas Rangers, in 1989. Using his political connections, he was able to convince taxpayers to fund a new stadium. This taxpayer-funded bailout boosted the value of Bush's investment from $800,000 to $15 million in nine short years. Not bad for government (funded) work.

I've been a Bush supporter over the past eight years. Yes, I was a Steve Forbes supporter during the primary, but after Bush won the nomination, I set aside the stadium corporate welfare and Papa Bush's tax hike apostasy and gave the nominee the benefit of the doubt.

The results were always mixed. Bush caved to the liberals in 2001, abandoning the supply-side tax cuts he had promised during the campaign. Over the years, Bush caved on Sarbanes-Oxley, McCain-Feingold and Medicaid drug benefits. He caved on pork barrel spending. He threw Cheney under the (natural gas powered) bus and caved on fuel-efficiency mandates and alternate energy. Other than the supply-side tax cuts of 2003--which reportedly originated in Cheney's office--Bush has caved on virtually every domestic economic issue on which he was pressured.

The bailouts are just the latest examples.

Instead of heeding the advice of men like Larry Kudlow, Steve Forbes and Brian Wesbury, the administration simply refused to recognize the dangers which regulations such as "fair value accounting" posed to credit markets. Many of us warned the White House repeatedly about the dangers of overreaction, overregulation and a "mortgage Sarbox" in response to the credit disruptions. Instead of eliminating the regulatory burdens which were strangling the banking sector, the administration concocted an enormous transfer of money from us to the banks.

Privately, some of us warned them that they money would not work without deregulation; privately, they assured many of us that they were aware of the problems. They got their money, and have done none of the things which they needed to do to erase the financial burdens government tinkering had imposed.

Ditto for "Bailout II: The Rise of the Autos." I got off the phone with the White House minutes before writing this article. They are no more teachable this morning than they were last summer. Instead of relaxing the fuel-efficiency mandates that have wreaked havoc on the industry, they are reaffirming them. Perhaps it seemed like a good idea last year for Bush to make SUVs more expensive to make, but it hardly looks that way now. At the top of their non-negotiable list are prohibitions against corporate jets and limits on CEO pay. Yes, that's what we need--stupider CEOs standing in long lines at airports rather than running their companies.

The arguments for this bailout are lame--beyond lame. The only stuff that may have any chance of working (for instance, rationalizing wage scales and getting rid of pay-to-not-work job-banks) are in the "optional" section of the plan. The next administration will decide whether to enforce them, and the next administration is headed by, oh yeah, a hyper pro-union community organizer from Illinois. There will be no car czar, just periodic reports to the incredibly busy Treasury Secretary.

The administration says that once the recession ends, the car companies will be able to survive without further aid. The only problem? GM lost money even during the boom years. When the economy was expanding rapidly after the supply-side tax cuts of 2003, they were spouting red ink. Is anyone seriously convinced that we're likely to see better economic conditions than those over the next year or two?

The administration and congress say that people will not buy cars from a bankrupt company, even if the bankruptcy is just of the restructuring sort. On what basis do they conclude this? People deal with bankrupt companies all of the time. Large airline companies and steel manufacturers have run for years while in bankruptcy, decades even. I've had clients like that in the past. Forget the warranty problem; Warranties are maybe a billion dollars altogether for GM, and those funds can be restricted, even guaranteed, during a Chapter 11.

The President has left his party no choice. They must say no to the remaining funds for the bank bailout, and no to the auto bailout. Let Bush and Obama and the Democratic leadership collectively own the coming stagflation. Let them defend the Japanese-style zombie corporations--not really alive but not allowed to die either--that these bailouts create. Let them defend the inflation Bernanke stokes in his attempt to overcome the stagnation which bad policy creates.

And then, let us offer the American people a genuine choice in 2010, and in 2012. I think they'll want one.


Jerry Bowyer is chief economist of Benchmark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.

This article originally appeared on Forbes.com.

Categories:

50 Comments

The current crop of Republicans
Are ***** sell-outs to the Dems like McCain is.

As things stand now, there will be no real choice in 2010. If Palin runs for the nomination in 2012, then we'll have a real choice in THAT race. But, some other McCain-ite ends up getting nominated, forget it.

another choice?
They had a choice in Dr No the last time. But Americans have been brainwashed into longing for a return to the womb of the nanny state, and they're getting it. The old commies from the USSR days must be laughing at the self-inflicted demise of the US.

I disagreed with Paul
The RINOs also 'demonized' many other worthy candidates in the primary.

No battle plan survives the first shot
I know of a Libertarian in Tuscon, AZ who won election to the Pima Community College board.

He may still be on the board, but many of his votes were not in line with Libertarian principles.

When I asked him why he basically replied reality has a way of slapping you upside the head.

If Paul was such a strong Libertarian, why is he a Republican? He needs them to be elected.

The first power listed in the Constitution for the president is being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces suggesting the president's first responsibility is national defense.

Paul never projected that opinion to me and I am not willing to wait for OJT.

The thinking ape's choice
Why am I not surprised you're a Palin man?

Famously, she recently told an interviewer that men and dinosaurs co-existed 6,000 years ago.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28

Not only will there be no stem cell research.. if elected, there will be no such thing as stem cells! The Bible told her so. :)

Mind and behavior modification
Interestingly, it was John McCain who has been suspected of being our true Manchurian Candidate. Well, not exactly Manchurian but Vietnamese.

Brainwashed in a hell hole for years, he is suspected in some quarters of having transferred his allegiances to those of his handlers. Here's Ted Shackley:

"Within days of McCain's shoot down and after being told the identity of his famous father, the Vietnamese rushed him to Gai Lam military hospital (U.S. government documents), a medical facility normally unavailable to treat U.S. POWs. McCain was kept at Gai Lam for six weeks under the control of Soviet medical specialist anxious to test the use of their "mind and behavior modification" drugs on such an important prisoner."

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mar08/mccain_manchurian.htm

Such BS

You were brainwashed by living in DC so long?

No need to kill babies for stem cells.
The narcissistic boomers were so worried about dying they are willing to kill babies to maintain their pitiful lives.

If you have noticed, others sources have been found for stem cells.

"Activists such as Christopher Reeve have it backward when they say that restrictions on ESC research funding will prevent him from walking again. ASC studies already have enabled quadriplegic animals to walk again, and human trials should be right around the corner. But the chance of ESCs helping people such as Reeve in the next 10 years is practically nil. Reeve should know about this: Many of the amazing ASC studies, including Ira Black's, have been funded by something called the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation.

Moreover, to the extent that breakthroughs with ASCs are confused with ESC technology, it harms public support for ASC research. ESC propagandists are hoping for a seesaw effect; that by exaggerating ESC research and denigrating ASC research they'll push up their side of the board. But, to the extent they succeed, they're only delaying the stream of miracles coming from adult stem cells."

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142855/posts

Reminds me of the global warming scam.

BDA morphs to PDA
Those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome have contracted Palin Derangement Syndrome.

They must not have confidence BHO and their socialist friends can keep Congress and the White House.

Thinking Apes
There was this idiot named Michael calling the Sean Hannity show today, called himself Michael, said Noam Chomsky would be his ideal President.. as Michael used to be your handle....

Thinking (free of the power of chemical or political narcotics) would be a good New Years resolution for you Beano..

Thinking of...Planet of the Apes
Sci-Fi ran a marathon of the old Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowell, James Fransiscus, Kim Hunter POTA movies..

The Simians, thinking they were the pinnacle of creation, organized with clear class lines (Chimps and Orangatangs postulating and pontificating, but dependent on mindless Gorilla thuggery), the fusion of government and false belief systems..Cornelius killing because somebody called Zira a "monkey".

I know the book was supposed to be an indictment of racism, but it seems to be an apt allegory about the dangers of the lower order primates that inhabit the left being allowed to take over.








Roy doesn't even read the articles he cites as evidence for his Palin lies
"Famously, she recently told an interviewer that men and dinosaurs co-existed 6,000 years ago."

I read the article. Instead of an article written by someone YOU CLAIMED interviewed her, it was about unsubstantiated hearsay that has been disproven a while ago.

Here's a couple:

1)http://www.watchfreeepisodes.com/sarah-palin-dinosaurs-fake-quote-sarah-palin-did-not-say-dinosaurs-were-here-4000-years-ago/3005/

2)http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Sarah_Palin_believe_that_dinosaurs_were_alive_4000_years_ago

Why...that last one rips apart the LA Times! Well whaddya know!

You know what I like best about Palin, Roy? How she drives you Libs so bonkers you lose whatever remaining vestiges of reason left. That hasn't happened like this since Reagan.

And in case you haven't noticed, Roy. You come across as being even more of a moron than you accuse Palin of being when you peddle this tripe.

Calls for speculation
This is as much evidence as we have on the Palin comment:

>Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

After conducting a college band and watching Palin deliver a commencement address to a small group of home-schooled students in June 1997, Wasilla resident Philip Munger said, he asked the young mayor about her religious beliefs.

Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

The idea of a "young Earth" -- that God created the Earth about 6,000 years ago, and dinosaurs and humans coexisted early on -- is a popular strain of creationism.

Though in her race for governor she called for faith-based "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution in Alaska's schools, Gov. Palin has not sought to require it, state educators say.

http://www.fightthepalinsmears.com/articles/headlines/?hl=2008-09-28-253

We don't have a tape of the quote. Nor has Palin seen fit to qualify the quote, or offer her position on men and dinosaurs. Until then, the comment stands.

I for one would be very interested in what she'd say in front of a camera on the subject.

I'm less interested in what you have to say. If you have better evidence, let's see it.

Let Assume (Pale in Comparison)
That Palin believes in the young earth theory. So what? Shall we respect freedom of religion or not? We have a specific constitutional prohibition against tests of religion.

On the other hand, lets be honest, the PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) was never about qualications, it was this emotional, visceral reaction that liberals get everytime they encounter somebody that they can't box into a stereotype, primarily because leftist politics is inherently about group think.

On the other hand, we can see the hypocrisy. Caroline Kennedy, who has no personal accomplishment that wasn't directly and substantially attributable to the circumstances of her birth. Yet the hysterical isn't asking about "gravitas" or "qualifications". Ditto for the thin resume of Obama. True the primary qualifications for Semator are egomania and bloviate but the passes given left-wing pols are obvious signs of their cognitive dissonance.

Talk about emotional reaction...
Someone criticizes Palin for something she said and now we have the birth of PDS and group think and stereotypes. For one silly little comment she made.

Can we officially hyphenate "conservatism" with "projectionism"? I swear its THE most common tactic used by the right. Oh well, some people never learn. As annoying as it is, its probably better conservatives don't figure it out. Better for everyone. Stay in your box.


Yes superheater, lets respect freedom of religion, thats fair. Can we also respect intelligence and knowledge? As in, Palin lacks both to be the most powerful leader in the world, let alone VP or even a Senator. The House, that might a place for her! Not her house, cooking and cleaning, I mean the House of Reps. ha! I don't hate her by any means... She's just too "normal", which means not smart. I disagree with her on issues/philosophy, so what, I can still respect her even though she's pretty wholly wrong for us in that regard.

I watched her speeches and interviews and my impression is that she is not qualified, smart or informed enough to be on a national stage. Not yet anyway. I'll go a little further and point out how midleading and downright false she was with many of her "talking points" in those speeches. Her convention speech was full of it - but it was good delivery, it gave you guys the red meat you craved. But a lie is a lie, and several of her comments were inaccurate or misleading. Thats just the fact, you don't have to care, which is what makes you a cheerleader, but it is the simple truth. And maybe it was her handlers that put those words in her mouth for those speeches, I believe it. Its a fact also it was a poorly run campaign. Not her fault, I suspect it wasn't McCain's choice either to go so negative and misleading with the campaign, but he did and thats water under the bridge. We'll see if Republicans learn the lesson for next time. I think you and Zyndryl love her so much because she is so pro-life and pro-religion and uses words like "free markets", etc. Seriously, do you think she has a clue about economics? I mean, this guy Bowyer who wrote this article, he talks like he has communication with the WH, yet his views in this article are clueless as well. Its from an alternate universe... but thats another post.

I'm sure this won't make a difference, I just want to make the point that not everyone who criticizes Palin does it because their emotional panties get in a bunch. It is indeed about qualifications, and character.

Hey, Obama lacks experience too, I agree with that. But when you watch him speak you know he is smart and thoughtful. We could sure use some of that about right now. And yes, his positions are what we need too. You guys use his past to build your strawman, thats politics, but time will tell the truth. As I expected and wanted, he is building an Administration with a variety of viewpoints and seems to be building a culture where dissent is welcomed, debate is hardy, and in the end he is the decider. Thats the good stuff.
On other side of the coin, I think he is wrong about the bailouts. I don't like to hear how government is going to provide jobs, etc. and save our economy.

For example, on Palin
I was just reading an interview she gave with Human Events editor Gizzi.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29994

This jumble apparently came out of her mouth:
"When you talk about rewarding for work ethic and good management decisions and then consequences are the results of the opposite of that, and those decisions lead to some mistakes that are made in some industries, taxpayer bailouts should not be looked to as the be-all, end-all solutions."

Huh? I get her position on it, but what the heck is she saying? Besides not answering the question.

In the previous question she is being misleading about Alaska's role in America's energy independence. Drilling for oil in Alaska is a very small part of America becoming energy independent. Her comment only serves red meat to the sycophantic idiots who adore the chant "Drill Baby Drill". Very little realistic application. Is that all that matters to conservatives?

PS. Kudos to the GOP for the torpedo of the auto bailout. Unfortuately Bush is a socialist and he is giving them our money anyway.

I find it rather interesting she thinks the biggest mistake of the campaign was not letting her talk to the media more. Her interviews are what killed that shooting star that started burning on Convention night. She's still a celebrity, but her dismal interviews were a big reason the GOP turned on her. Come on, it was an embarrassment. Funny thing, it wasn't her fault, it was the MEDIA. The right's second favorite scapegoat.

Talk about emotional reactions...on the left.
Google Palin and young earth and you will find pages of lefty blogs parroting the LA Times article.

Dig a bit deeper and you many find...

"Here is the full quote:

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides."
"
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/185.page

Many believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible are ridiculed.

Many do NOT believe in the literal interpretation of global climate models and are ridiculed.

The 'intellectuals' who follow the prophet Gore and condemn Palin are, to say the least, hypocrites.

" I just want to make the point that not everyone who criticizes Palin does it because their emotional panties get in a bunch. It is indeed about qualifications, and character."

Who are these people? She IS better qualified than Biden AND BHO in executive experience, AND she has DEMONSTRATED character.

Assessing a person's depth of understanding
I know you won't believe this.. but there do exist people, like me, who judge a candidate for high office according to the level of their understanding of how the world works.

We would not elect a president who believed the earth was flat. Or one that thought we're being regularly visited by extraterrestrials. Or one that thought that God created man with souls, as opposed to animals who have none. And the reason we wouldn't elect such a person is that they don't know how to proceed from the evidence. They proceed instead from what they've been taught.

So what we like to do is find someone we think has a good head on their shoulders. Palin, while a lot of fun as a soccer mom, is not one we would choose to lead the country. At all.

Re Obama's youth and relative inexperience.. I think you will recall a time when most major corporations decided to chuck out their old fossil leadership and employ instead young whiz kids with big brains and impressive degrees? Do you remember that?

Obama's our whiz kid. We're a little worried about some of his appointees. But we're prepared to like him one hell of a lot better than the oaf he's replacing.

What did BHO do to end corruption in IL politics?
You are prepared to like him based upon what 'understanding'?

What do you 'understand' about BHO and how did you come by that 'understanding'?

".. I think you will recall a time when most major corporations decided to chuck out their old fossil leadership and employ instead young whiz kids with big brains and impressive degrees? Do you remember that?"

I think a lot of Wall Street firms did that recently and they are now all bankrupt asking the old graybeards for bailouts.

What Palin has done is shown character by solving the problem instead of whining about it. She ran for public office, convincing her neighbors she could solve problems, demonstrated she could solve those problems and earned more votes into higher office.

When SHE witnessed corruption, she didn't go along, she challenged it by winning elections ending corrupt political careers. (I wonder if BHO ever 'understood' the corruption in Chicago politics? He is supposed to be intelligent. Why did he do nothing?)

Jack Ryan, ex-husband of Jeri Ryan (7 of 9) was BHO opponent until he was forced to drop out because someone violated their divorce decree and leaked intimate details both wanted quiet. Just another fine example of IL politics BHO used to step ahead. What character!

No Good Title for A BJ post
Can we also respect intelligence and knowledge? As in, Palin lacks both to be the most powerful leader in the world, let alone VP or even a Senator.

But when you watch him speak you know he is smart and thoughtful.

The only way to measure intellect is with an IQ test, which is accepted in spite of its limitations for lack of alternatives. In any case, the bottom line-the left routinely accepts intellectually deficient candidates without question. When I see a gush of experiential questions about Caroline K, I'll believe the criticism of Palin was principled. Until then, I'll have no evidence that its any more thoughtful than regurgitation.

Watching Obama speak proves nothing. His rhetoric about "hope and change" isn't exactly deep thinking. I'm not too impressed with the incessant use of "uh" either. He appeals to stooges and the big bucks creeps (amazing how much money Wall Street gave him-but I suppose that was for the inspiration, not because they saw "for sale, cheap" sign).

In any case, you haven't demonstrated any ability to sit in judgment of anybody's intellect. The rest of your assertions are just so unfounded as "debate will be hardy" (sure as long as it doesn't involve pro-lifers, second amendment advocates, free market adherents, et al)


"Whiz Kids" (Whiz has another meaning)
ut there do exist people, like me, who judge a candidate for high office according to the level of their understanding of how the world works.

Roy, you've haven't demonstrated the most superficial grasp of "how the world works". Your "arguments" are riddled with errors and misinformation. You speak in cliches, because you lack any knowledge on matters you pontificate endlessly upon.

My five year old niece has a better grasp of "how the world works". Your positions on economics should be written for all to see-in crayon.

Try not to be so juvenile
Your mental processes appear to be degenerating. If you can come up with a substantive comment, let's hear it. Otherwise you're just clogging up bandwidth on a discussion board that presumes to be intelligent forum for ideas.

Here's a thought: don't drink and post.

What was he supposed to do?
There's not much anyone can do to transform an entrenched system. Both Illinois and Chicago have run on machine politics for the past sixty years or more. I don't think any single player is about to put that tradition to an end.

But blame Barack for it? In the first place he didn't rise through the machine. He came up from the wards, as a populist in a black (that is, non-machine) district. And then he left Illinois politics for the national scene.

While we're at it, can we blame all the ills of Texas politics, notoriously of the Good Ole Boy variety for the past century, on George Bush?

Let's be consistent. Are they really to blame for the entire political past of their respective home states?

Second, exactly how does anyone end a long-established culture of corruption? I suppose BHO could have gone for the job of prosecutor instead of Senator. But it would seem he was aiming a little higher than just fixing Illinois.

As for your example of dirty politics, I think you debase yourself by savoring such trifling scraps of dirt as your Jack Ryan tidbit. Look at the 2008 presidential campaign. Who ran the more high-minded campaign, the Ds or the Rs?

Why Palin is feared
She doesn't owe anyone for her position. She earned it the old fashioned way.

In "The Good Shepard", a Skull and Bones initiation is portrayed. It reminds me of a typical gang initiation where the new guy needs to commit a crime to be member of the gang.

What disturbs me about the Ivy League and similar 'gangs'(like the AMA and the ABA and NEA and...) is they are capable of covering up major character flaws of their membership to keep them all in power.

I recently watched Charlie Wilson's war. He was able to 'persuade' Murtha to support funding for the Afghan rebels because Wilson covered Murtha's butt in an ethics investigation.

So far, Palin has widespread public support and she owes no politician (except McCain) or media outlet.

So if you hate politics as usual and the power of the media, you must support Palin until she is co-opted.

Since I support ending the 17th amendment, I must support the NY governor's decision. I don't support the appointment of Kennedy precisely because she is a Kennedy. Surely there are people who have earned the opportunity to be a senator. While I don't expect she will kill anyone like her uncle Ted or she won't be a drug addict like cousin 'Patches', the USA was not intended to build government dynasties.

Out with the old, in with the new
Me: ".. I think you will recall a time when most major corporations decided to chuck out their old fossil leadership and employ instead young whiz kids with big brains and impressive degrees? Do you remember that?"

You: "I think a lot of Wall Street firms did that recently and they are now all bankrupt asking the old graybeards for bailouts."

There's actually a distinction to be made between "major corporations" and "Wall Street firms". Have you ever heard of such a thing as the Management Revolution?

It was back in the 1970s that America's industrial giants were all disappointed with the performance of their own greybeards. So they decided to change the paradigm. And they all hired 30-something MBAs to run their affairs according to the new state of the art. Do you remember reading anything about that?

For that matter, the old Soviet Union fell from the same kind of thinking. Thirty years of mismanagement by their own greybeards left them in such a state of decrepitude not even Gorbachev could save them.

New kids on the block actually have a very good track record of accomplishments, compared to the grizzled geezers they replaced. The financial world, it's true, is a great exception. Here it was the whiz kids that got them into the trouble they're in now. Their innovations have been a total disaster.

What DID he do?
Nothing but use a corrupt system for his advantage.

Palin DID something yet you condemn her and praise BHO.
Some twisted 'logic'.

But not surprising given your position as a useful idiot for the state.

Is that why BHO is hiring so many Clintonistas?
Out with the old?

Misspent money
"The old commies from the USSR days.." etc.

Colonel,

Your complaint sounds just like the one the old John Birch Society used to have.. that the country is filled up with a bunch of people who don’t think the way you do, and that something should be done about it.

Well, as they say, we’re here, get used to it. This nation was founded on a diversity of people voicing a diversity of opinion. And no one enjoys the right to make the rest of us leave. That’s why we consider ourselves to be living in a democracy.

I do have a comment to make on how you think Obama will be ruining the country. Your vision of Obama-future has us running up unpayable debts for moneys squandered uselessly. And I wonder if you’ve given any thought to the way in which it has been squandered instead by YOUR team.

Take, for instance, the military budget. I presume you’ve talked with people in the military who understand what has become the common wisdom: that we’re spending more now on the military, in terms of constant dollars, than we have at any time since WW Two. And that we’re doing so in the absence of any significant military challenge. Other, of course, than the ones we’ve created ourselves.

The wars we’re now mired down in have been initiated by a member of the defense contracting industry, and have been designed to not achieve any realizable goal. Instead, we’ve caused incalculable harm to the members of two countries where most people began by admiring and respecting us. And by our actions we’ve spent record numbers of dollars in alienating them. So that now in Afghanistan, for example, they’re choosing the Taliban over an extended US presence.

That is, they’re deliberately choosing what’s very nearly the worst, least popular government on earth, and one they’re all too familiar with, over our presence. You have to wonder what kind of return we’ve gotten on our defense bucks. Could Obama possibly do this any worse?

Here’s another instance: the Paulson bailout. Could a few hundred billion ever conceivably have been spent with any less return? Wouldn’t you say, in fact, that this was the largest single sum of money wasted utterly than we’ve seen in 230 years of American history?

I know we can’t predict the future. But I would be highly inclined to say we can’t go anyplace but up, from where your guys have gotten us now. Or are you saying you’ve never supported the current administration, or its military and economic policies?

You really owe it to yourself to take a look at a new policy paper put out by Lawrence Korb and a team at the Center for American Progress, called Building a Military for the 21st Century. Those people are at the heart of the defense establishment. Their conclusions are that “runaway cost growth” has “paradoxically failed to create a larger, more ready force”. That is, record costs to the taxpayer have been combined with the decay of our defense forces.

If it had been the Ds who’d been responsible for such a plight, I think you’d have every right to be upset. So is it any different for you, as it's the Rs who are the ones responsible?

Your latest twist
After a moment's thought I was, in fact, able to follow your latest twist. And you should be able to recollect that I was the one who brought Palin's singular accomplishment to light on these pages. She deserves a lot of praise for standing up to Alaska's good ole boys.

She also got very high marks from AK's voters, who've been giving her something like an 80% approval rating. That's because she has greatly increased the tax on the oil and gas companies for doing business in Alaska. Something no one else was willing to do.

I'm glad to see you approve of her approach. Don't have enough operating funds? Why not tax the people who are getting rich from extracting your resources? Very astute position you're taking.

So why didn't BHO do the same thing in Illinois? Well, let's see...

Could it be because he wasn't the governor? Or was it because there are no major extraction industries in Illinois to be taxed?

My team Roy?
It sounds like you're writing to someone else, yet you said colonel. I never said I wanted anyone to think the way I do, or leave the country, or anything at all. So when you said 'your team' who exactly did you mean? I have never give the slightest indication that I favour any Republican party at all, nor even approve of anything they've done. All I was doing was congratulating you on the plain fact that the socialists have won in the US and that it's getting to resemble the old USSR more all the time.

AK returns money to their citizens.
Typically when the state taxes any industry, the state keeps the money and doles it out to their 'friends'.

AK operates like a corporation with shareholders who receive dividend checks.

Since you despise corporations, how can you support such an endeavor?

Harry Browne's plan to save social security.
Harry Browne proposed the US government should sell all the land it owns in the west. Put the money into a real trust fund and it should be used for the social security trust fund.

Surely you must support the concept if you believe the state owns all the resources and should be used for the benefit of 'the people'?

Since US government owns 69% of AK...
maybe it should be sold to the state to pay for the bailouts.

You support the idea that 'the people' should own the resources, no?

Sobriety
Since your posts are vacant intellectually, and fawning don't criticize anybody else. In as much as you've previously admitted to drug use, don't assume everybody else does. I am a teetotaller.

High Minded.
Look at the 2008 presidential campaign. Who ran the more high-minded campaign, the Ds or the Rs?

McCain didn't run any campaign, so I suppose the democrats, but only for lack of an alternative. Then again, I'm not sure McCain isn't a democrat.

My favorite BHO quote:

"I'll put Mr. Burgess up against Sean Hannity, He'll TEAR HIM UP".

Yeah, that's high-minded.

How odd
"..it's getting to resemble the old USSR more all the time."

Let's see.. Obama has yet to take office. So it must be Commissar Bush you're talking about.

A penny for your thoughts. I'd like to know what it is about the way government has been going lately that reminds you of the USSR.

how odd
Yes, and the others before him; Obama will just continue it and expand the process, almost certainly. It reminds me of the old USSR in that the government is taking an ever expanding role in all areas, not just manipulating and distorting the economy on political grounds. So that huge book of Regulations or whatever the proper name is, keeps getting bigger. But you should be happy for all that since you seem like a spokesman for more statism.

Code of Federal Regulations
"Proponents of the modern welfare/regulatory state often claim that state intervention promotes the common good and benefits ordinary people. Markets allegedly fail to deliver maximum prosperity, so governments must intervene to promote the common good. Advocates of free markets have always had evidence to counter the arguments for government intervention, and this evidence is mounting."

http://mises.org/story/2654#

What a hypocrite!
You believe in an economic system based upon wishful thinking in spite of centuries of evidence that proves it fails to increase prosperity.
BHO also believes in the same fantasy as you.

Addendum: Faith
Here is a great piece about how Christian faith has improved the lives of Africans.

"Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

For thousands of years people have resisted faith in God. This has nothing to do with organized religion as that organized religion is little different than a secular organization that wants to coerce its members.

Faith is personal, something that is between God and the individual. Frankl touched on this his his book Man's Search for Meaning. Palin and millions of other people of faith try to keep their attention focused on what God wants them to do and be instead of what those around them want them to do or be.

If all but one in your clique are doing something 'naughty', most feel uncomfortable with THAT ONE around. Just as Eve was uncomfortable with disobeying God, she had to tempt Adam to spread some of her guilt. Why did the people of Sodom not respect Lot and his family? Why did they try to force them into their debauchery?

Palin made those who aborted Down Syndrome babies uncomfortable. She makes anyone who aborted a baby uncomfortable because she did not encourage her daughter to abort, but instead to marry the father!

Human nature hasn't changed for thousands of years. Those who try to have principles, who try to have faith are continuously attacked. Of course this a test from God and we all fail to meet His expectations, but we know that we only truly fail when we give up.

Socialism caters to the lowest common denominator. Capitalism encourages and rewards individuals to excel and to help others excel. Those in business won't stay in business if they don't satisfy their customers. (Unless they have the power of government being them to force their customers to buy from them. Then they won't have satisfied customers.)

Palin and all others who have faith in God and the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution must be attacked as such individualism threatens the existence of socialism.

AK operates like a corporation
Marjon, I'm proud of you. Maybe there's hope. Yes, I agree that taxing major extractive industries and giving the dividend to the citizens is a sound idea.

I would go one step further. Instead of just handing out the cash, an intelligent state could use part of the dividend to improve its public schools, job training and other essential services. Also, comprehensive healthcare would be a worthwhile step. What's left over could be just donated to each taxpayer.

"Since you despise corporations, how can you support such an endeavor?"

That would be a simplistic view. Let's instead look at the notion of corporations as a banding together of many individuals in support of a single common cause. Thus some causes, like the Red Cross, are innately good.. although of course vulnerable to corruption, absent the proper vigilance. Other causes, like the National Socialist Party, are bad.

It makes no sense, any more than to say all people are basically good, or bad.

That's where you fall off the wagon. Let the government keep the money.
There will be NOTHING left over because there will always someone like you who wants to 'provide' more 'essential' services.

Consult thou a dictionary!
Hypocrite: 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

What you think of me: "You believe in an economic system based upon wishful thinking in spite of centuries of evidence that proves it fails to increase prosperity."

Is there any possibility you are misusing this word?

That's what Saudi Arabia does.
The king funds all sorts of infrastructure projects (that's how bin Ladin became wealthy), education, food (they have the world's largest dairy and their own wheat fields), medical care, and countless other subsidies, including fuel and labor.

The result is a population explosion and children who do not now how to work. But they are swayed by the radicals because their 'benevolent' king didn't apply tough love and teach them how to work. They are spoiled brats and the world pays.

Maybe irrational is a better word.
Thanks.

another leftist Palin lie, way to go roy
the article plainly states that Philip Munger, a music teacher and L-I-B-E-R-A-L political blogger who is regularily critical of Palin, made that statement. Palin has never told an interviewer any such thing.

And, without some further background, this should have never been printed; it is pure gossip column journalism. Considering the source (LA Times) it is neither surprising or all that interesting. To their credit, they did interview others who claimed they have never heard Palin make such a claim or statement.

Of course, roy quoting yellow journalism articles is also a yawner; it is the purpose of his existance on earth. However, quoting it wrong is also his speciality.

TCS Daily Archives