There really is no other way to say it: THE REPUBLICANS WON, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS LOST, and the president sided with the Republicans. The subject, of course, is AN AGREEMENT TO EXTEND ALL THE BUST TAX CUTS. The president tonight announced a "bipartisan framework" for agreement on, among other things, to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years. A REPUBLICAN HOUSE AIDE TELLS ME TONIGHT IT IS "A DAMN GOOD DEAL." AND SO IT IS, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CONSERVATIVES…..
So you can see why liberals are morose. A Capitol Hill aide described Sen. MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID'S DEMEANOR upon returning from the White House: "HE LOOKED LIKE SOMEONE SHOT HIS DOG."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2010/12/obama_sells_out_the_left_a_rep.html
As a conservative the outcome was a good one. It is the first time in two years the Republicans have actually been included in the decision making in Washington. Far from trying to be bipartisan as a lot of liberals like to say, Obama was hyper partisan not needing to include Republicans. That the Republicans did so well in this negotiation bodes well if you are a conservative for the next two years.
Rhetoric Rides Again
Let's face it, POLITICS IS LARGELY THE ART OF DECEPTION, and political rhetoric is largely the art of misstating issues. A classic example is the current debate over whether to give money to the unemployed by extending how long unemployment benefits will be provided, or instead to give "tax cuts to the rich."http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/12/07/rhetoric_rides_again_108171.html
First of all, NOBODY'S TAXES-- WHETHER RICH OR POOR-- IS GOING TO BE CUT IN THIS LAME DUCK SESSION OF CONGRESS. The only REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER OUR CURRENT TAX RATES WILL GO UP IN JANUARY, whether for everybody or nobody or somewhere in between……
Well said by Dr. Thomas Sewell. He has nailed the real situation vs. the phony arguments. It is my belief that the left doesn’t really care about the amount of money the tax increase on the “rich” would bring in. They are just dedicated to punishing these people.
Will Obama face a primary challenger?
And while he didn't address the subject of a primary challenge, Frank Rich did use his Sunday New York Times column to blast Obama as "so indistinct no one across the entire political spectrum knows who he is."
This discontent, to be sure, is completely genuine and, in many cases, well-grounded. But given that columns like these feed one of the media's favorite storylines (Who will be the Democrat who takes on Obama in '12), a reality check is probably in order: Obama is actually well-positioned to avoid a serious primary challenge in 2012. There are four main reasons why:
1. Obama is actually not that unpopular with Democrats.
2. There's no great ideological divide in the party.
3. There's no big-name challenger waiting in the wings.
4. This is the season for primary challenge chatter.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/06/oabam_2012_primary_challenge/index.html
An interesting look at how the other fifth thinks. But I actually think he will get a challenge. The question is whether it will be a serious challenger like Hillary Clinton or a laughable challenger like Dennis Kucinich.
The Tax Deal
It’s quite a turn of events. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS MORE OR LESS DEFINED ITSELF OVER THE LAST DECADE BY OPPOSING THE SUPPOSED IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUSH-ERA INCOME-TAX RATES. Now, President Obama has turned his back on the liberal wing of his party and endorsed those very same rates for the duration of his current term in office…..http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254644/tax-deal-james-c-capretta
Still, it’s an important victory to keep the Bush-era tax regime in place for another two years. The DEMOCRATS HAD DOMINANT CONTROL OF THE 111TH CONGRESS, including a supermajority in the Senate, as well as a president committed to pushing federal tax collection higher to finance a supersized government. AND STILL THEY COULDN’T GET IT DONE. Remarkable.
The tide has definitely turned. The Republicans need to know we are watching them closely. I’m looking forward to see what they do about the out of control spending we’ve seen in the past four years. We don’t need freezes, we need cuts.
Why didn’t the Democrats use Reconcilation to thwart the Republican Tax Cut Extensions?
So why not try reconciliation? If it was used to pass the Bush cuts in the first place, couldn't it have been used to extend them? That way, DEMOCRATS, WHO HAVE 58 VOTES, COULD HAVE PASSED THEIR BILL WITH JUST 51 AND WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO WORRY ABOUT A GOP FILIBUSTER. Taxes on the "rich" would go up, and progressives everywhere would be celebrating today.
Alas, it didn't happen. And, although the details are complicated, the DEMOCRATS HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME.
To pass a measure by reconciliation, the Senate must pass a budget that contains what are called reconciliation instructions. But this year, as they faced an angry electorate and grim prospects in the midterm elections, the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP MADE THE SPECIFIC DECISION NOT TO PASS A BUDGET. Revealing their spending priorities to voters already unhappy with out-of-control federal expenditures was just too risky, so Sen. Harry Reid and party leaders punted, even though passing a budget is one of Congress' core constitutional responsibilities.
WITH NO BUDGET, THERE COULD BE NO RECONCILIATION. And no possibility of using reconciliation to extend the Bush tax cuts -- which were originally passed with bipartisan support -- on the Democrats' terms. Shirking your constitutional responsibilities can have consequences.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/12#ixzz17S599Dsq
Sometimes you can be too shrewd for your own good.
Basic Economics
SO WHAT MAKES THE ECONOMIC PIE BIGGER? There are two sides to this. The supply side: lower marginal tax rates mean the more that people get to keep from each additional dollar that they earn, the harder that they will work and the more that they will produce.
The other view, THE KEYNESIAN VIEW, also often called "the demand side view" or "the multiplier," is that giving the money to the right people to spend which will create wealth. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made this claim earlier this year when she advocated more UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS: "it injects demand into the economy and is job creating. IT CREATES JOBS FASTER THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER INITIATIVE YOU CAN NAME. Because again it is money that is needed for families to survive and it is spent."……
Even when a poor person spends his money at the local grocery store, that business is going to either spend it or put it in the bank. Taking money from wealthy people and giving it to poor people doesn't create more spending. IT JUST ALTERS WHO GETS TO CHOOSE WHERE THE MONEY IS SPENT.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/07/does-president-obama-understand-economics/
I always tell my liberal friends, rich people aren’t like Scrooge McDuck who had a huge money bin where he would swim around in his money. They can spend it or invest it and both of those are good for the economy. Of course if they are the Senior Senator from Massachusetts they can buy a yacht from New Zealand and then try to dodge taxes by keeping it in Rhode Island. But other than that, rich people help the economy.
Obamacare and Severability
If you are like most people, the term "severability" probably doesn't come up much in your water cooler conversations. But the concept does play a role in your life. As Ken Klukowski of the American Civil Rights Union puts it, "If you have a lease, or an employment contract, or service agreement, or even a product warranty, you're likely to find some sort of severability clause toward the end of it." THE OBJECT OF SUCH LANGUAGE IS TO ENSURE THAT, IF SOME PART OF A LEGAL INSTRUMENT IS DECLARED INVALID IN COURT, THE REMAINING PROVISIONS STAY IN FORCE. For obvious reasons, severability clauses ARE ROUTINELY INSERTED IN MOST IMPORTANT PIECES OF LEGISLATION. But in their headlong rush to ram "reform" down America's throat, THE DEMOCRATS NEGLECTED TO INCLUDE ONE IN OBAMACARE.http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/07/of-severability-and-sins-of-om
Predictably, there has been much speculation concerning how they managed to commit such a blunder. One congressional aide told the New York Times IT WAS JUST AN "OVERSIGHT," a plausible explanation considering the haste and procedural skullduggery with which this particular piece of sausage was produced. Like everything else that happens in Washington, however, the episode has generated a variety of CONSPIRACY THEORIES. The most popular of these among conservative conspiracy buffs posits that the clause was deliberately left out to protect the mandate. In other words, the subtle schemers who wrote the bill knew that FEW JUDGES WOULD BE WILLING TO DECLARE THE MANDATE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF THAT DECISION ALSO REQUIRED THEM TO STRIKE DOWN THE ENTIRE LAW. Progressive paranoiacs, on the other hand, suspect a dark plot by the perfidious Blue Dogs.
Another problem with Obamacare, but this time it’s a good one. And this is an important issue ( I thought about quoting Joe Biden on this, but decided not to).
How Liberalism is like a Disney Movie
Disney movies are aimed at kids. They use children's sense of powerlessness as a key plot device.
Liberals have cultivated that same feeling of powerlessness to the point that it has become an entire narcissistic, victim-centric worldview.
So, here are the ten top ways the liberal view of reality resembles a Disney movie:
10) Liberals' entire universe is divided into Good Guys and Bad Guys, Nice People and Mean People, Us. vs. Them.
9) Liberals are powerless; their puny little lives are controlled by big ugly mean monsters or corporations that don't care and want to hurt them.
8) Birds and animals and fish and trees can think and feel and talk.
7) Transportation can be effected with little or no fuel consumption, via vehicles such as broomsticks, magic carpets and pixie dust. Much like the cute little hybrids and electric cars liberals love.
6) There is no God, just an unreasoning faith in some inchoate force you might as well call "The Circle of Life."
5) Reality revolves entirely around what they are thinking, feeling and experiencing, as if the universe were a movie in which they had the starring role.
4) Nobody understands or appreciates them. And this fact is somehow of the utmost importance.
3) Collapsing in a puddle of tears is an effective coping strategy; they expect someone to turn up who actually cares.
2) There's no hope at all for a happy ending unless someone more powerful than they magically comes and saves them. In their case, though, it's not a fat genie or a fairy godmother. Instead, it's some heroic and compassionate government initiative.
And the Number One way that liberals view the world as a Disney movie...
1) To get something, they don't think they should have to plan for it or work for it or sacrifice. Instead, they should only have to want the thing a whole, whole, whole, whole lot. (Wishing on a star optional.)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/how_liberalism_is_like_a_disne.html
I think we saw a lot of #4 before and after the election in November.
MSM and the Climate
The annual Climate Catastrophe Party is marching along in Cancun, Mexico, making for a lovely all-expenses-paid vacation.
At this latest doom fest, some 20,000 delegates from around the world are doing their best to keep THE SCARY STORY OF MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE ALIVE. I’ve been around long enough to remember a time when global warming was a non-issue — in fact, it was the very real threat of another ice age making headlines in the 1970s. With that in mind, I did an investigation into the comings and goings of predicted environmental cataclysm in modern history. WHAT I FOUND IS THAT THIS HAS ALL HAPPENED BEFORE — the reporting of climate catastrophe has been going on for over 120 years……
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/msm-inertia-what-we-can-learn-from-120-years-of-climate-catastrophe-reporting/
A little history lesson for you.
Southern Poverty Law Center: Social conservative organizations are hate groups
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says IT WILL NOT BACK DOWN FROM ITS DECISION TO LABEL THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL AND OTHER SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE GROUPS AS HATE GROUPS, on par with the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations, for their views about homosexuality.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins recently asked SPLC to retract the hate group designation, but SPLC Intelligence Project Director Mark Potok told The Daily Caller that will never happen.
SPLC’s Winter 2010 edition of its “Intelligence Report” magazine lists the Family Research Council as a hate group alongside the American Family Association, the Traditional Values Coalition, and 11 other social conservative groups. THE REPORT, TITLED “18 ANTI-GAY GROUPS AND THEIR PROPAGANDA,” also lists five other organizations as being anti-gay – such as Concerned Women for America and the National Organization for Marriage — but refrains from classifying them as hate groups.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/southern-poverty-law-center-social-conservative-organizations-are-hate-groups/#ixzz17Q8grlB3
Hmmm, so what does it make you when you are making charges like this? Perhaps the old saying that every time you point a finger and someone, three fingers are pointing back at yourself applies in this case.
You know the TSA is in trouble when
A former “BAYWATCH” BEAUTY IS FEELING OVEREXPOSED after going through what she says was a humiliating body scan by Transportation Security Administration agents at Los Angeles International Airport. Donna D’Errico, who was the Playboy Playmate in September 1995, SAYS SHE GOT A FEW LEERS ALONG WITH THE SCAN and isn’t happy about it.http://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed
If a former Playboy Playmate feels like this how does your 80 year old Aunt from Pittsburgh feel?
Man’s Search for Meaning
There are many quotes from this book and they are worthwhile reading even if you don’t read the whole book.
Between 1942 and 1945, Viktor Frankl SPENT TIME IN FOUR DIFFERENT NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS. The experience was every bit as miserable as you'd imagine and then some. His family died, he suffered horribly, and he spent years watching everyone around him suffering and dying. Out of this came Man's Search for Meaning.http://rightwingnews.com/2010/12/the-best-quotes-from-viktor-frankls-mans-search-for-meaning/
In the first half of the book, FRANKL TALKS ABOUT LIFE IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMP. He reveals a lot of details about the daily trials, humiliations, and misery that you may not have heard before. The second half of the book features Frankl TALKING ABOUT HIS PHILOSOPHY/THEORY OF PSYCHOLOGY.
It's an extraordinarily powerful and insightful book. I'd recommend it to anybody and after you read these quotes, you'll begin to see why.
No comments:
Post a Comment