Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts

Flint Water Crisis -- Snyder a scapegoat for mass failures

Via Reason, on Flint MI water crisis:

This Flint Lead Poisoning: The Anatomy of Government Failure - Hit 
"A dissection of the events... suggests that it isn’t government austerity that  is responsible for the debacle but the government itself. And at every level: local, state, federal, elected officials, administrative agencies, you name it..."
and this The Flint Water Crisis Is the Result of a Stimulus Project Gone Wrong


 - jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Dude, it's like genocide or something! Flint water crisis brings out the worst and best in celebrity dullards

Thank you, music industry, for allowing such an idiot to prosper. It proves what focusing on specialized skills can do for a person. Too bad this idiot – P Diddy Combs or whatever he's calling himself this year – thinks his entertainment skills make him worthy to stand at the podium of social commentary. And fling turds from it.

Flint Michigan – run by Democrats since 1973 or something – only switched their water source from a Detroit water system to a local river in 2014. Problems ensued. The CITY water system and everyone else involved were slow in reacting to BLATANTLY obvious water issues. Like, the water was coming out of the tap brown. Not even beige – BROWN!

But it is not local elected officials' stupidity to blame, it is not horrible local managers, or even a failed environmental bureaucracies. It's RACISM.

More than that – it is not the fault of anyone... EXCEPT for the Republican governor. Who should be arrested.

I don't want to make bold assumptions, but I suspect this tragedy is being  used as a political tool. By idiots. For idiots.

  


P Diddums isn't the first to make the disgusting water problem about fostering feckless, heartless, brainless political divisiveness against a governor who had nothing to do with the decision to change sources of Flint's water. Piddle Dee Dumdum also won't be the last. 

Thankfully, the rapper-actor-producer-jerk is using his $$$ for good in the Flint situation, even if he cannot use his brains for it. 

See Breitbart for more on the happier side of the story

--

J Ruse 


Like, Totally Political, Dude! 
The LTPD blog on Blogger
Follow on Twitter: @airfarceone

Defense: most Muslim nations, Israel & U.S. far more heavily armed than others

Below is an edited version of a post I originally shared in 2010. It still reflects 2010 numbers. I revised and highlighted the material for this post.

Since the Syrian civil war and the alleged Arab Spring gave the world a bunch of broken states (to add to the generally iffy Iraq and Afghanistan), I think this general review of militarization of nations, though it's now outdated, is worth posting again as food for your thoughts. World security and peace relies on a mix of freedom and security (military and otherwise) where the "good guys" have the balance. America and NATO allies do not need to be the world policeman forever, do they? Many of these highly militarized countries were thrown into a revolution or civil war of some sort during the so-called Arab Spring. The Arab Spring felt more like an Islamist Chill to some, including me, except for Tunisia.

I'm not trying to suggest that just because a nation is Muslim it is dangerous, because some are modern and positively aware of ideas such as women's rights and tolerating a diversity of religions, such as wealthy, civilized little Brunei.

What this list does suggest is that many Muslim nations have been very well armed. In some cases, that's not good news for the West, but in other cases, you have to ask questions such as: "When was the last time Eritrea attacked a neighboring country, or was attacked by another country?"

"... most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab and/or Muslim-dominated nations."

The CIA World Factbook provides many bits of information about the world we live in, such as the discernible numbers for a variety of subjects, such as population, average income and GDP - gross domestic product. (Think of GDP as similar to being all household annual income before expenses, but for a whole country. That's perhaps not exactly right, but you can read up on GDP on your own.)

An interesting thing gleaned from the information provided on military expenditures is that most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab and/or Muslim-dominated nations (the Muslim nations in the top 20 are bolded). In the top 20 is Israel, too. There are 14 predominantly Muslim countries in the first 20, 12 of which are essentially Muslim states (as in, I see them as being run by Muslim religious law).

So are these nations insulating themselves from the non-Muslim world, concerned about their safety from enemies who would come at them from the outside, or are they more worried about some internal enemies?

The world average for military spending is 2% of GDP. The U.S. is just over double the average, at 4.06%. The U.K., by contrast, matches India and Iran, at a mere 2.50%.

The US military commitment is massive, of course. So is its GDP. So the US military outlay far outweighs these much smaller economies, pound-for-pound. In 2011, US production output was about three times that of China, our closest economic competitor. Even though China's population is three times larger than the U.S. headcount. China's military outlay is 4.60% of its GDP.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rawdata_2034.text


Raw Data: 

1    Oman        11.40
2    Qatar        10.00
3    Saudi Arabia        10.00
4    Iraq         8.60

5    Jordan         8.60
6    Israel         7.30
7    Yemen         6.60

8    Armenia         6.50
9    Eritrea         6.30

10    Macedonia         6.00
11    Burundi         5.90
12    Syria         5.90

13    Maldives         5.50
14    Mauritania         5.50

15    Kuwait         5.30
16    Turkey         5.30
17    Morocco         5.00
18    Singapore         4.90
19    Swaziland         4.70
20    Bahrain         4.50

21    Bosnia & Herzegovina         4.50
22    Brunei         4.50

23    China         4.30
24    Greece         4.30
25   United States         4.06
26    Libya         3.90

27    Russia         3.90
28    Tajikistan         3.90
29    Cuba         3.80
30    Zimbabwe         3.80
31    Djibouti         3.80
32    Cyprus         3.80
33    Namibia         3.70
34    Angola         3.60
35    Colombia         3.40
36    Turkmenistan         3.40
37    Egypt         3.40

38    Algeria         3.30
39    Botswana         3.30
40    Guinea-Bissau         3.10
41    Lebanon         3.10
42    United Arab Emirates         3.10
43    Australia         3.00
44    Sudan         3.0045    Solomon Islands         3.00
46    Pakistan         3.0047    Indonesia         3.00
48    Cambodia         3.00
49    Rwanda         2.90
50    Comoros         2.80
51    Kenya         2.80
52    Chile         2.70
53    Korea, South         2.70
54    Azerbaijan         2.6055    Sri Lanka         2.60
56    Lesotho         2.60
57    France         2.60
58    Bulgaria         2.60
59    Congo, Democratic 

        Republic of the         2.50
60    Iran         2.50
61    Vietnam        2.5062    
62      India         2.5063    
63      United Kingdom         2.4064    
64      Croatia         2.3965    
65      Portugal         2.3066    
66      Sierra Leone         2.3067    
67      Uganda         2.2068    
68      Taiwan         2.2069    
69      Burma         2.1070    
70      Malaysia         2.03
71      World 2.00 < avg
72      Seychelles           2.00
73      Uzbekistan           2.0074 
74      Estonia           2.0075
75      Finland           2.0076
76      Afghanistan           1.9077 
77      Mali           1.9078 
78      Norway           1.9079 
79      Romania           1.9080 
80      Fiji           1.9081 
81      Slovakia           1.8782 
82     Guyana           1.8083 
83      Zambia           1.8084 
84      Thailand           1.8085 
85      Italy           1.8086 
86      Hungary           1.7587 
87      Poland           1.7188 
88      Brazil           1.7089 
89      Chad           1.7090 
90      Ghana           1.7091 
91      Slovenia           1.7092 
92      South Africa           1.7093 
93      Nepal           1.6094 
94      Netherlands           1.6095 
95      Uruguay           1.6096 
96      Togo           1.6097 
97      Cote d'Ivoire           1.5098 
98      Sweden           1.5099 
99      Peru           1.50100 
100      Nigeria           1.50101 
101      Germany           1.50102 
102      Albania           1.49103 
103     Czech Republic           1.46104 
104     Belarus           1.40105 
105     Belize           1.40106 
106     Kyrgyzstan           1.40107 
107     Papua New Guinea           1.40108 
108     Tunisia           1.40
109    Ukraine         1.40
110    Senegal         1.40
111    Mongolia         1.40
112    Bangladesh         1.30
113    Cameroon         1.30
114    Denmark         1.30
115    Liberia         1.30
116    Niger         1.30
117    Malawi         1.30
118    Bolivia         1.30
119    Belgium         1.30
120    Burkina Faso         1.20
121    Spain         1.20
122    Venezuela         1.20
123    Ethiopia         1.20
124    Lithuania         1.20
125    Latvia         1.20
126    Canada         1.10
127    Guinea         1.10
128    Benin         1.00
129    Switzerland         1.00
130    Paraguay         1.00
131    Panama         1.00
132    New Zealand         1.00
133    Madagascar         1.00
134    Bhutan         1.00
135    Central African Republic         0.90
136    Congo, Republic of the         0.90
137    Ecuador         0.90
138    Gambia, The         0.90
139    Ireland         0.90
140    Luxembourg         0.90
141    Tonga         0.90
142    Somalia         0.90
143    Philippines         0.90
144    Kazakhstan         0.90
145    Gabon         0.90
146    Argentina         0.80
147    Sao Tome and Principe         0.80
148    Mozambique         0.80
149    Japan         0.80
150    Austria         0.80
151    Barbados         0.80
152    Bahamas, The         0.70
153    Malta         0.70
154    Dominican Republic         0.70
155    Costa Rica         0.60
156    Honduras         0.60
157    Suriname         0.60
158    Nicaragua         0.60
159    Jamaica         0.60
160    El Salvador         0.60
161    Georgia         0.59
162    Antigua & Barbuda         0.50
163    Mexico         0.50
164    Laos         0.50
165    Cape Verde         0.50
166    Guatemala         0.40
167    Haiti         0.40
168    Moldova         0.40
169    Mauritius         0.30
170    Trinidad & Tobago         0.30
171    Tanzania         0.20
172    Bermuda         0.11
173    Equatorial Guinea         0.10
174    Iceland         0.00


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Very American, Tea Party Republicans


This 2013 shutdown showdown is like a Charles Dickens story, except in this story the thing that represents the controlling, mean old man is the protagonist, not the outnumbered, mocked and chastised orphan



MORE FAKE BLAME: It's almost entirely the Republicans' fault we have political discord and federal economic problems. Oh yeah?
Aside from the helping-nothing partisan bias and rampant mass media affection for sloppy budgeting, the tragically disinterested and ignorant (the nanny state lovers among which the Democrats are fully invested in pandering to), and the feckless "I wanna be on the smooth talkers' side" fanboy-ism among otherwise seemingly healthy population, there's this:

Obama called GW Bush's efforts to lift the debt limit "un-American" in a lengthy lecture about how terrible it is back when he was a senator and our fiscal situation was far less dire -- thanks to the Bush and Obama agendas, however, it is worse.

But Obama has seen to it that it got much more worse, while he and the Democrats had all the cards. In Jacksonville, Fla., recently, as Sunshine State News spelled out, "Obama boasted of 'halving the deficit.' That means every year [of his administration] the government has spent FAR MORE than it took in but now the OVERspending has diminished yet STILL IS MUCH HIGHER than the highest deficit that occurred under [GW Bush]. That's his (OBAMA'S) measure of success?"

Uh, yes it is? 

What else is there to brag about, but backing out of Iraq (leaving a mess: how very hopey changey and caring that was, Mr. President) and killing bin Laden (ooo, no other president would have signed off on that, what a big man)? What else: ObamaCare? That isn't a success and probably won't be, because the very propaganda about it deceives everyone and the nearly all the mass media IGNORES THE GORILLAS PANTING IN THE CORNERS.

One example: the WH and nearly every story I stumbled across does not mention -- and certainly aren't doing it clearly, if they do -- that the deductibles under Obamacare's "low-cost" health coverage plans are ENORMOUS. Like, around $3500 or $6000 per year, to start. So, are we just wanting to have the poor to pretend they have insurance that means something, like the poor were allowed to pretend they could afford to buy a house under a horrendous 1990s federal mortgage program?

The unseemly propaganda machine behind ObamaCare seems to me to be simply a multilayered, purposefully confusing pressure sales effort to badger anyone who's breathing, a citizen, and not insured (or insured and looking) into getting this subsidized insurance. As if those who use ERs for general medical care will no longer do so, just like that, in a matter of years. Problem solved.

Nope. Still going to happen.

We need to change the system, and Obama deserves respect for being idealistic enough to put health care reform out front back in 2008-09. But too much about ObamaCare is just bureaucratic and regulatory carpet-bombing of the medical industries, hurting professionals, certain types of jobs, various providers, small businesses, and even the economy as a whole. Health care is often claimed to be 1/7 to 1/5 of the entire economy.

Yet, Obama and the Democrats REFUSE to consider adjustments to that one-party law -- no Republican voted for ObamaCare. The Democrats are casting outrageous names and phrases against those who have refused to accept no for an answer from the White House, regarding fiscal compromise. That is the White House and Democratic leaders compromising? How so, exactly??!

ObamaCare's estimated costs have risen so fast, and it's tie-in with the growth of the IRS (what's the IRS got to do with health care otherwise, for crying out loud?) is so ominous, that it seems obvious that it is more a government growth plan than a help to citizens. It will mostly build federal and state bureaucracies and burden a chunk of medical industries and not really "save money" for government or industry, or help poor and uninsured people. Why is this OK with people? Lack of awareness? Is it the desire to adore the U.S. President, no matter what? Is it a blind belief it will help the poor?

Don't discard all that is ObamaCare, but work it into something... less pro-government.

But maybe too many Americans are no longer in favor of America. A recent poll showed that the huge majority of people in the U.S. think government is supposed to control the people. Guess what: America was founded on the idea that government isn't supposed to do that. Ever heard of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Look it up if you haven't. Government is supposed to be servant, not master, in America. Kinda the reason why we busted Britain's chops in the 1700s -- too much elitism in government. 

There's no reason to stop piling regulations onto private industry if the public and the industries don't push back. So, who's pushing back?

In the case of ObamaCare, it looks like it's primarily some House Republicans who are treated like the unwanted stepchildren of a miserable dysfunctional home, by the crusty, nanny-state bureaucrats they are acting out against. This 2013 shutdown showdown is like a Charles Dickens story, except in this story the thing that represents the controlling, mean old man is the protagonist, not the outnumbered, mocked and chastised orphan.

Tea Party Republicans are traditionalists, not radicals, not extremists, except by contrast to the sad state of politics in America today. Their views are simple: limited government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility. In other words, more freedom for the people, not for the government to control the people. That's radical? I would think desiring MORE government would be the extremist leaning in America. 

If there were something big worth celebrating out of the Obama White House, why would the Democrats' top echelon of leaders -- for starters, Obama, Reid and Pelosi -- be tossing around half-arguments, practice in so much schoolyard name-calling and peddle in such outright untruthful propaganda about Obamacare, the shutdown and the fiscal realities of today?

Name-calling, you ask? Yes, name-calling. How about the terms "anarchists" and "extremists", and the phrases "taking hostages" and "gun to the head"? It that meant literally? Of course not. Is it still absurd to use? Yes, it is. Apparently, Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (of "just die, and die quickly" ObamaCare rhetorical infamy from his first Congressional term) has opened a school for crazy-talk. Or is it Ed Schultz? Maybe Reverend Wright?

If you don't think that these fringe-worthy phrases from the heart of the Democrats are desperation, then you should just return to your previous state of apathy, distraction and unawareness, because you're just not paying attention. How about "Jihad"? A Democratic congressman (who I won't name because I never heard of him before and hope I don't hear of him again) called Tea Party Republican actions to fight stubborn Obama with equal stubbornness a jihad against ObamaCare. At least he said  an intangible not that it was a jihad against people -- the congressman was more civil than Obama, Reid and Pelosi, as a result.

People elected Obama because they wanted change. But it seems they didn't want healthy change, just more of the nanny state, irresponsible spending, un-American (as Obama himself put it years ago) deficit spending that will turn America into the next has-been world power in another generation or two.

Let Obama be the one to blink for a change. Force him to bend for a change. Instead of claiming he's trying to compromise in silly, baseless sound bites, actually have Obama sit at the table to really, truly compromise, in the spirit of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and other less rabid political dogs. Obama's easily agitated ego won't allow him to do this without a full-force, duck-and-cover excuse to cover him, but that will at least be fun to watch.

Seeing Obama be a tad fiscally conservative will be a lot more fun than seeing the political orphans in the House GOP get beat up and kicked to the street by their less principled party members and Democrats.

Let the insanity continue, and pray that each sides relents a bit so our fiscal mess won't become even worse. Go on, play chicken with the debt limit, use fiscal conservatism to push some of the left's buttons. Let Obama think about being the president under whom America failed to pay its bills, if he so chooses. Because it won't matter who we blame today. He'll be remembered for it. Let the most stubborn one, Obama, be forced to bend to some of what the political minority in the federal government wants. Other, less cynical and shrill presidents have done so. No reason to Obama should win every time in his chosen game of highly cynical political tactics where tax dollars are concerned.

This country was designed the way it was so that a simple majority rule is weakened by the lesser force of minority opinions. That's part of how the Founders assured that a monarchy would never take hold so long as we didn't reject the essence of the Constitution. America is not designed from a true majority rule concept -- which is often, in effect, mob rule -- as partisan Democrats so often insist. This is a checks and balances design with an ear for the minority, no matter who's in charge.

Like it or not, the POLITICAL MINORITY in this country's federal government isn't the black president, but the Republicans. The GOP ought to get the same regard of any minority. Funny how all the liberals' talk of pandering to minorities disappears when it comes to political choices while they are the majority. Suddenly, the minority is petulant, radical, extreme and threatening to the country. 

A small group of Republicans, the Tea Party Republicans, are trying to make the proven self-absorbed, egotistical cynic in the White House blink. If it doesn't actually reach the point of being honestly dangerous to the country (read: legitimately extremist, not bullshit political name-calling extremist), it isn't to destroy the country, it's trying to make a principled, reasonable minority voice heard amidst a din of pro-government misdirection and hysterical rhetoric.

That is very American.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

ObamaCare: best of intentions, awful law, let's make that awfully clear

Patience is a virtue. For government, patients would be a gold mine. 




Via someone I follow on Twitter (and stupidly forgot who it was), I found this essential guide to the health care law.


(Revised Sep 26, 2013) What else do you need to know but how many initial claims about ObamaCare have been proven WRONG? With the best of intentions (or not, if you're totally skeptical about them), Democrats took a terrible approach to reform the United States' health system, in the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. Intentions aren't worth a damn if you ignore everyone affected by a law. The supporters of ACA all but ignored whole groups of people affected by the law, including: independent professionals, medical professionals and other small business owners, and many employees. It's one thing to try and help the needy, or to try and give the poor better health care, but it's another to spit in the face of those who would, effectively, pay for it. It is not good to effectively hurt employees through the resulting cuts in hours. ACA, like other government medical reimbursement plans, ignores the legitimate work of medical professionals, who will do the services, as they would get bargain basement returns from government plans that appear to be not at all interested in reasonable compensation for services rendered. 

ObamaCare is not a bible for a health care cure, it is a bible for centralized medical decision-making, whether by intent or not. Solzhenitsyn wrote of the failures of large-scale centralized health care in the former superpower, the Soviet Union, and while ACA is only a step in the same direction, Obama is on record as supporting a "one-payer" health care system (which means government health care for all). 

The U.S. government started out in the spirit of doing exactly the opposite of what ObamaCare wants. The American Experiment is going in reverse, thanks to ObamaCare (it is in addition to the impacts of Homeland Security measures and other big government expansions of recent years). 

The Democrats appear to have been quite wrong about ObamaCare. Or, cynically, they were intentionally misleading us about what was in it. Yet they are still convinced, or at least trying to convince us, that this gigantic addition to the cost of government and health care is a good thing for the country. How? I don't know. I can't see anything that's good about it any longer. The good intention to fix the system no longer exists in the enforcement. It is not fixing the system, it is making it worse, it seems to me. 

I applauded Obama for bringing health reform to the forefront of national discussion in 2008-09. To broach the subject was laudable, but it was only a start. Yes, the intent to fix health care was noble. But the approach? It was not just bad, but to me it was, and is, disturbing. It is the way Democrats handled it from the beginning, all but cutting out Republicans and others (maybe they included socialists and the Green Party), and the resulting law, that has been calamitous. Three years later it is being trashed by some once-convinced Democrats, leaders of unions and businesses. 

In light of national spending negotiations (Sept. 2013), ObamaCare is being defended, breathlessly, by Obama and some other Democratic politicians and sycophantic pundits, as if it's the only thing that'll assure a decent life for millions. Alternately, they claim that the (pick your cowardly labels given by leftists:) racist, poor-hating, greedy, selfish, angry, ignorant, dumb redneck conservatives are trying to destroy the country by way of refusing to fund ObamaCare. 

Democrats are accusing GOP House of trying to close government, of ruining the country out of political greed, by defunding the Affordable (not) Care Act. The House is not preventing the funding of anything else, really, but yet the supposedly (self-appointed) "more reasonable" White House and Democrats are accusing House Republicans of horrible political maneuverings. The political selfishness seems truly to be driven, hard, from the left. The far left. The few remaining supporters of ObamaCare on the left. 

Meanwhile, even some union leaders, and many employers, rail about how it'll hurt families, because it'll hurt jobs. That, because it will force companies to make cuts to retain their profitability (which doesn't matter to liberals, because many are too dumb to realize that profits should even matter at all to regular Americans). 

The briefly all-controlling Democrats -- in early 2010 having the WH, Senate and House they barely passed ACA -- cannot today force us all to follow their bidding. So, the most power-drunk among the Democrats still turn to absurd, desperate rhetoric defending a tragically, pro-socialist, anti-liberty law that would force most employers and employees and the medical industries into a corner, in the long run. They fight for ACA out of ego, not leadership: it is they who will lose if ACA loses funding, therefore loses its place in government. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and more, will all be seen, by more people, as failed leaders when it fails. So as Obama said recently, the argument isn't about the American people. He's leaving one of his biggest concerns out of his discussion of the matter, though. Who's name is on the bill, and who is okay with that? Obama. He is desperate to have a legacy, and Obamacare may be his only big domestic "success." The argument from his side is about retaining greater government control over health care, not about saving the middle class, as he claims it is. His goals may seem to be about American people, but if so, it is a very different America where the government rules with a bureaucratic supremacy. Some citizens foolishly support that. But with such a foolishness, the American Experiment is dying. Liberty is fading. The control of government over greater parts of everyone's lives is succeeding. That's not the America that a freedom pursuing populating wants. So I have to conclude that too many Americans have been lulled into believing government is the solution to their problems. Which, of course, is a pathetic fantasy. But when such fantasies are believed, even partially, we see government expanding its control. People are dreaming that government is a caretaker. I am not asleep with that dream, nor are many others. It's a tough effort to wake others to it. Gotta keep at it.

What else do you need to know but how many initial claims have been proven WRONG? There were the best of intentions, but a terrible approach, in ObamaCare. And the promises have been proven to be a lie. I don't see why it should be funded, and I don't see a reason to even recognize the ridiculous language from the chief architects (and posers) behind ObamaCare. They've lost the war of reason, because all their claims are shown to be lies. Don't fund the damned thing!


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Forbes token lefty: Republicans don't care about the poor because they take care of more poor

Media_httpblogsimages_cudvn
Per "UPDATE: My old friend, Jon Vein, brings to my attention the greatest irony of all – the states with the greatest number of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes …lean Republican."
So, what you're saying is, it turns out that areas which lean Republican do, in fact, take better care of people who can't, for whatever reason, do as much for themselves as others?
Oh no, that cannot be what you're saying. What you're saying is that people who vote Republican don't pay their taxes! Right? They are also not into donating to the needy (not), or being charitable (not), or encouraging people to succeed (not), or ...
Thanks for pointing out all the spots on those who wish to push for individual liberty and effort over government pandering and suck-up-itude. That would be the Republicans, right?
Clown.

The Economic Asteroid Plan

The federal government failed to sort out a budget again, many months after the supposed due date, which was OCTOBER 2010. Just a little late now that it is April.

To budget or not to budget, that is the problem, it seems. It is way beyond WHEN.

I am already good and tired of the scare tactics by the leftists. They gave the same emotion-based proclamations over ObamaCare. Not surprisingly, these are the same "leaders" who in recents decades have always insisted on adding more and more government, Now they are insisting it will all be paid for with magic pixie dust or something. To the very brink, these folks had also insisted there was nothing wrong with certain federal financial programs, such as the CRA that allowed loans to the unemployed, and Fannie and Freddie, which were the nonsensical housing debt twins by the time 2008's economic fall happened. 

I'd like to see a real reason, not some emotion-charged twaddle that explains why a tightened budget shouldn't happen. Not just some 5% haircut that hurts education and the poor, but broad pay cuts (to put public employees on par with private!), nonessential program slimmings, defense project trimmings, etc. Barring that, how about a good reason -- emotion and threat-free -- why a shutdown should not happen, from leftists. 

Maybe I have it wrong, perhaps it is better to continue pretending that government is not too large and it is paid for, that the majority of citizens and our futures aren't getting a raw deal by the feds, that poor habits and waste are virtually gone from government, that loopy politicians and interest groups are not bent on further betraying the basic concepts of the republic. 

Yeah, it will aaaaall be OK so long as we keep putting off the tough trim-down. The US seems to be no longer the Eagle, instead the 500-lb man who refuses to see his doctor for a checkup. (You gonna eat that?) How very American and exceptional it is to pretend necessary decisions away! 

We can always hope an asteroid hits the planet and that solves the economic problems for us. Party till the planets bursts! 

jR

Enhanced by Zemanta

Amid the Schwartz/Soros furor, a major Jewish group defends Beck

The wacky hedge fund, god-fantasizing, ethically two-faced Hungarian rambler George Soros doesn't have every Jewish group, and human rights group, adoringly -- half-blind, politically correct and sheepishly, in my view -- at his side.

I did not see Glenn Beck's series about Soros, and I am sure something he said has been taken out of context by knee-jerk liberal groups, Jewish groups and missing-the-point apologists for Soros. I am also sure that Beck probably upset some people for being blunt in his characterization of Soros' actions during the Nazi regime's control of his homeland, and his activity today. Well, suck it up, people. Soros is not your local charity group. He's a bit melted in the head, loaded with cash and awfully eager to shut up his opponents through his funded groups -- like any good god-fantasizing autocrat would be.

Beck may be some things, but in pursuit of world power he is not. That's the other guy, Soros. So, right there, Soros must prove that concern wrong. And I don't think he will. So, Beck has the handicap in this battle of public personalities. People seem to spend a lot of time shooting down Beck, while getting many facts wrong. Is he ever incorrect? Duh, yeah. Not so often as those who attack him by habit wish he were. And he's hardly dangerous. Also, take whatever you want away from him, but at least Beck's books are coherent, unlike the Soros drivel I have tried to read.

I have educated myself and seen enough, often through personal experience, half-twisted people with some good intentions but very bad traits (Soros, I mean, not Beck, dammit), the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, Hitler, anti-Semitism, world parity groups, utopian fantasies, and other stuff. That Soros does not regret doing what he did to his fellow citizens -- helping to turn Jews over to the Nazis -- is a step too far in the direction of amoral to meet acceptable criteria in the survival game. Survival is a solid instinct. To not regret what was done is akin to the rest of the placation and apathy that allowed the Nazis to flourish for a while.

Major Jewish Group Defends Beck Amid Soros Furor | The Blaze :
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/major-jewish-group-slams-attacks-on-beck-over-soros-programs/
In a three-part series on Beck's Fox program last week, Beck portrayed Soros as the "puppet master" behind, among other things, world financial collapses. While describing Soros, Beck told how, during the Holocaust, the 14-year-old Hungarian Jew "used to go around with this anti-Semite and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off."

The "anti-Semite" was Soros's fake grandfather, who was paid off by his real father in an effort to conceal the young Soros's Jewish identity. He has not shown remorse or regret for those actions.

"A number of American Jewish leaders condemned Mr. Beck for these remarks," ZOA's statement says, "yet a 1998 interview with Soros conducted by Steve Kroft on '60 Minutes' shows that Beck did not misstate the facts."

The group goes on to detail a litany of "anti-Israel, anti-American" remarks made by Soros over the years....
George Soros is what is wrong with making money off of other people making products and services while we bet against them. He creates influence with his cash the way some James Bond antagonist holds the world hostage with satellite-born death lasers.

Investment success is not wrong -- I am not against informed investing, just the opposite -- but an apparent underlying kookiness, which Soros seems to have (ever tried to read one of his rambling, poorly edited books?), no matter the person's success, or half of his stated goals, is not to be lauded. How anyone could have faked their way through the Holocaust in the manner that Soros -- originally Schwartz -- did and not feel remorse is a sign of very distorted emotional/ethical wiring. It does not deserve reward, as some Canadian group (Canadian International Council) bestowed upon Soros (see this link) nor some absolutist appreciation. It needs to be looked at carefully, not set aside. I am glad Beck and ZOA, among others, can see that.

It is shameful that some Canadian blind mice chose to reward Soros for one thing while overlooking a glaring problem: he has an obviously autocratic, anti-liberty intent in his approach to economics, politics and media. He wants to control the money and the message. Seems like a kind of thinking ripe for regret down the line. Not the regret of Soros, but of the Canadians.

I can only imagine -- for lack of understanding it -- that the Canadian group and the many others who adore Soros on the one hand care nothing of -- excuse or don't even understand -- his other hand. Hopefully the other hand will slap them in the face some day. In the process, I hope some complete sense of his grand scheme will sink in. (Not only the money-making, anti-Communist influence-peddling part, but the part that madly craves what I suspect as a benevolent autocracy of his doing, a worldview of his making.) Fortunately, mad geniuses don't tend to hang onto real power for long. Not against truly free societies, at least. Let's hope Soros run out of time before anyone, in economic desperation, appoints him the chancellor, or god, of anything.

- jR
Enhanced by Zemanta

Vote: Stop raising taxes so we can start raising raises!

On Tuesday, November 2, 2010: VOTE for those who will:

STOP RAISING TAXES - SO WE CAN START RAISING RAISES. 

Or: STOP EXPANDING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SO PEOPLE CAN AGAIN AIM FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM!

Does this make sense? Yes, of course it does, except to those who are convinced that government is the solution to all or most problems. Ronald Reagan famously said: in "today's crisis," government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. His actual quote has been streamlined to "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

That quote has been turned, stunningly, on its head by spiteful, poorly educated (on politics and civic history) left-wingers. They even go so far as to suggest that somehow conservatives think the best government would be nearly no government. Or, so little government that the greedy, violent, criminal, depraved, and any ne'er do wells could ultimately be the insane running the asylum. 

Outside of a sense that the crazies are already running society, the turning of those words of Reagan, and the broad sentiment he conveyed, into something flatly "anti-government" is unproductive to the point of being cruel. 

Saying that a small government sentiment is "anti-government" is akin to saying that those who believe in watching what they eat actually would prefer not eating, and that both will allow you to safely get into better shape. It's not just playing with words, it's wacky. Animaniacs kind of wacky.

Vermont has a senator with this bizarre, seemingly all-or-nothing political rhetoric, by the name of Bernie Sanders. And MSNBC has at least one vocal comrade of Sanders, in Ed Schultz. Both are an embarrassment to anyone seeking a rational discussion on the size of government versus the scale of people's opportunities and liberties.

Excellence and progress comes from the private sector, from R&D and science, and from not bureaucrats, pork projects, and wildly imbalanced pension plans for gov't employees. Don't be fooled by pie-in-the-sky promises. The only reason gov't spending and size gets continually larger is because the ones with the purse strings forgot they work for people, not the other way around. Time to change that. 

Government is not the enemy of the people, but only until it proves to be the enemy. It is hurting us, but only some are truly outraged by it, most notably in recent years, the tea party movement. 

It's hard to live on what was not long ago a good income level, and there's no sign of improvement coming. Better to stop the march toward government dominance now than to weep for the extinction of the American Dream later. One by one it is happening, for a variety of reasons, high among them the high cost of living versus honest, usual incomes. Remember when most middle class families could survive on one full-time income? No? It used to be so. 

Now, and always, vote for the goal of smaller government and, thus, greater opportunity. The issues beyond the question of expanding government are indeed important, but they won't be your concern as a citizen if you're struggling to SUPPORT the government rather than CARING FOR yourself, your family, you business, and your community. It is getting harder every year for most people, and not only because of the recession. It's the trend going back decades, sadly.

It is time to stop raising taxes and to start allowing raises -- for those NOT working for Congress or on Wall Street -- to happen. It is through better family earnings that we get improved tax bases, not through larger and larger government. Doesn't that make honest sense to these so-called leaders?! 

Don't wait for their answers, give them yours on November 2. 

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)  
Enhanced by Zemanta

Raw info: Percent of Nations' GDP that goes to military expenditures

"... most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab nations and Muslim-dominated nations." 


The CIA World Factbook provides many bits of information about the world we live in, such as the discernible numbers for a variety of subjects, such as population, average income and GDP - gross domestic product. (Just think of GDP as similar to household annual income, from all sources, but for a whole country. Before expenses. That's not exactly right, but you can read up on GDP on your own.)  


An interesting thing gleaned from the information provided on military expenditures is that most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab nations and Muslim-dominated nations. In there among them is Israel. In the top, I caught 15 predominantly Muslim countries in the first 20.

So are those nations insulating themselves from the non-Muslim world, mostly concerned about their safety from enemies who would come at them from the outside, or more worried about internal enemies? 

The world average is 2% of GDP, which the US more than doubles, at 4.06%. The UK is matched with India and Iran, at a mere 2.50%.

The US commitment is massive, of course.  So is its GDP. US production output is about three times that of China, our closest competitor. China's military outlay is 4.60% of GDP. 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rawdata_2034.text

1    Oman        11.40
2    Qatar        10.00
3    Saudi Arabia        10.00
4    Iraq         8.60
5    Jordan         8.60
6    Israel         7.30
7    Yemen         6.60
8    Armenia         6.50
9    Eritrea         6.30
10    Macedonia         6.00
11    Burundi         5.90
12    Syria         5.90
13    Maldives         5.50
14    Mauritania         5.50
15    Kuwait         5.30
16    Turkey         5.30
17    Morocco         5.00
18    Singapore         4.90
19    Swaziland         4.70
20    Bahrain         4.50
21    Bosnia & Herzegovina         4.50
22    Brunei         4.50
23    China         4.30
24    Greece         4.30
25    United States         4.06
26    Libya         3.90
27    Russia         3.90
28    Tajikistan         3.90
29    Cuba         3.80
30    Zimbabwe         3.80
31    Djibouti         3.80
32    Cyprus         3.80
33    Namibia         3.70
34    Angola         3.60
35    Colombia         3.40
36    Turkmenistan         3.40
37    Egypt         3.40
38    Algeria         3.30
39    Botswana         3.30
40    Guinea-Bissau         3.10
41    Lebanon         3.10
42    United Arab Emirates         3.10
43    Australia         3.00
44    Sudan         3.00
45    Solomon Islands         3.00
46    Pakistan         3.00
47    Indonesia         3.00
48    Cambodia         3.00
49    Rwanda         2.90
50    Comoros         2.80
51    Kenya         2.80
52    Chile         2.70
53    Korea, South         2.70
54    Azerbaijan         2.60
55    Sri Lanka         2.60
56    Lesotho         2.60
57    France         2.60
58    Bulgaria         2.60
59    Congo, Democratic 

        Republic of the         2.50
60    Iran         2.50
61    Vietnam         2.50
62    India         2.50
63    United Kingdom         2.40
64    Croatia         2.39
65    Portugal         2.30
66    Sierra Leone         2.30
67    Uganda         2.20
68    Taiwan         2.20
69    Burma         2.10
70    Malaysia         2.03
71    World         2.00
72    Seychelles         2.00
73    Uzbekistan         2.00
74    Estonia         2.00
75    Finland         2.00
76    Afghanistan         1.90
77    Mali         1.90
78    Norway         1.90
79    Romania         1.90
80    Fiji         1.90
81    Slovakia         1.87
82    Guyana         1.80
83    Zambia         1.80
84    Thailand         1.80
85    Italy         1.80
86    Hungary         1.75
87    Poland         1.71
88    Brazil         1.70
89    Chad         1.70
90    Ghana         1.70
91    Slovenia         1.70
92    South Africa         1.70
93    Nepal         1.60
94    Netherlands         1.60
95    Uruguay         1.60
96    Togo         1.60
97    Cote d'Ivoire         1.50
98    Sweden         1.50
99    Peru         1.50
100    Nigeria         1.50
101    Germany         1.50
102    Albania         1.49
103    Czech Republic         1.46
104    Belarus         1.40
105    Belize         1.40
106    Kyrgyzstan         1.40
107    Papua New Guinea         1.40
108    Tunisia         1.40
109    Ukraine         1.40
110    Senegal         1.40
111    Mongolia         1.40
112    Bangladesh         1.30
113    Cameroon         1.30
114    Denmark         1.30
115    Liberia         1.30
116    Niger         1.30
117    Malawi         1.30
118    Bolivia         1.30
119    Belgium         1.30
120    Burkina Faso         1.20
121    Spain         1.20
122    Venezuela         1.20
123    Ethiopia         1.20
124    Lithuania         1.20
125    Latvia         1.20
126    Canada         1.10
127    Guinea         1.10
128    Benin         1.00
129    Switzerland         1.00
130    Paraguay         1.00
131    Panama         1.00
132    New Zealand         1.00
133    Madagascar         1.00
134    Bhutan         1.00
135    Central African Republic         0.90
136    Congo, Republic of the         0.90
137    Ecuador         0.90
138    Gambia, The         0.90
139    Ireland         0.90
140    Luxembourg         0.90
141    Tonga         0.90
142    Somalia         0.90
143    Philippines         0.90
144    Kazakhstan         0.90
145    Gabon         0.90
146    Argentina         0.80
147    Sao Tome and Principe         0.80
148    Mozambique         0.80
149    Japan         0.80
150    Austria         0.80
151    Barbados         0.80
152    Bahamas, The         0.70
153    Malta         0.70
154    Dominican Republic         0.70
155    Costa Rica         0.60
156    Honduras         0.60
157    Suriname         0.60
158    Nicaragua         0.60
159    Jamaica         0.60
160    El Salvador         0.60
161    Georgia         0.59
162    Antigua & Barbuda         0.50
163    Mexico         0.50
164    Laos         0.50
165    Cape Verde         0.50
166    Guatemala         0.40
167    Haiti         0.40
168    Moldova         0.40
169    Mauritius         0.30
170    Trinidad & Tobago         0.30
171    Tanzania         0.20
172    Bermuda         0.11
173    Equatorial Guinea         0.10
174    Iceland         0.00



-jR (AirFarceOne)