Donald Lambro offers what I think is a simple compare and contrast between Romney and Obama in terms of their economic plans.
let's look at what Romney is really proposing and why it is far more effective way to make our economy healthy again.
First, he would make the Bush tax cuts permanent and thus end the last four years of business uncertainty that's paralyzed our economy. Risk-taking doesn't happen when you don't know from year to year if your taxes are going to shoot up to job-killing, profit- cutting levels.
That would not only encourage economic expansion but employer hiring as well. It would unlock capital investment that has been tepid at best under Obama's plan to raise the 15 percent capital gains tax to 20 percent or higher.
Second, Romney wants to cut tax rates further, both for businesses and the middle class.The 35 percent corporate income tax is the highest in the industrialized world and makes us less competitive in the global economy. He'd cut it to 25 percent.
Obama rejects Romney's tax cut plan, saying it will favor the rich at the expense of the middle class and would drive up the budget deficits. But there are really only two ways to effectively cut the budget deficits, and raising taxes --as Obama proposes -- is not one of them.
One is through stronger economic growth and sharply reducing the unemployment rate. Putting tens of millions of workers back on the income tax rolls, along with millions of new businesses, will boost federal revenues. The other is to reduce federal spending. Romney's plan does both.
You do not hear Obama talk about economic growth. It's a foreign language he doesn't understand and never will.
His approach from the beginning is that, as in the New Deal's failed policies in the 1930s, government can create jobs by spending a lot money. But his $800 billion-plus infrastructure spending plan was a spectacular and costly failure.
Why? Because the politically-chosen list of federal, state and local projects he invested in touched only a relatively small part of the economy. And when each contract ended, and the money ran out, so did the jobs.
Permanent tax cuts are the most effective way to reach every nook and cranny of the nation's economy. Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars borrowed from China and driving our government deeper into debt, lower tax rates are designed to flow throughout our economy's blood stream, like a fast-acting antibiotic.
Obama and his Democratic allies insist that they will not work, but we have at least three examples where they did work with spectacularly good results -- two of them under Democratic presidents.
President Kennedy's across-the-board income tax cuts in the 1960s met with strong opposition from naysayers who insisted, like Obama, that they would worsen the deficits. But by the end of '60s, increased tax revenues led to a budget surplus and a stronger economy.
Like Obama, President Reagan inherited a recession-battered economy, though he faced higher unemployment (10.8 percent at its peak). He, too, cut taxes across-the-board, and the economy began to recover after two years. When he sought reelection in 1984, the economy was growing at 6.3 percent and the unemployment rate had fallen to 7.3 percent. He carried 49 states.
Bill Clinton never utters a word about the GOP capital gains tax cut bill he signed in his second term to spur new investment, but it is widely credited by economists for the soaring tech-driven economy that followed -- driving the unemployment rate down to 4 percent.
Romney's recovery plan also contains other pro-growth components, too. Among them: A doubling of U.S. exports by ending Obama's moratorium on new trade agreements; lifting Obama's blockade of the oil pipeline from Canada that would have created 20,000 jobs; and ending offshore limits on oil and gas exploration to boost energy supplies and flatten gas prices.
Meantime, does anyone know what Obama's agenda would be in a second term? He certainly did not offer any specific plans in his convention address to get the U.S. economy growing again. "If Mr. Obama has a plan, Americans who listened [last] Thursday don't know how he would achieve it," the Washington Post said in an editorial.
Instead, Obama offers us more of what we've seen in the last four years: a mediocre economy and ever higher unemployment. Had enough?
Friday, September 14, 2012
September 11 Attacks, 2012
The UMC Discipline says in ¶165 "The Church must regard
nations as accountable for unjust treatment of their citizens and others
living within their borders. While recognizing valid differences in
culture and political philosophy, we stand for justice and peace in
every nation." Clearly, such unjust treatment occurred in September 11, 2012. Much controversy has arisen since.
Here is an account from the recent documents released about the attack in Benghazi.
According to Reuters, here is the timeline of information give to Washington:
On September 11—the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed—the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
· Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape … The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”
“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”
· By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.
Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”
· After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.’”
“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”
· In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”
From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chris’s own laptop about which diddly was done—and that being after prior bombings of the Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable.
If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I don’t know what is.
Here are some some posts from an earlier time.
It is reasonably clear that the attacks in Egypt and Libya, and later Yemen, are part of coordinated attack. Therefore, the reference to a "movie" is not particularly significant. It was a pretext to do what the organizers wanted to do, which was to attack the United States, commit an act of war, on their own soil. The Embassy is officially American soil. Apparently, they could not launch another major attack in America, so they chose another 9/11 to attack American soil on their own territory. We need to remember that 9/11, a day of mourning in the USA, is a day of celebration in the Muslim world. "We are all Osama bin Laden," the crowd said. He is the hero of this revolution. Which raises an interesting question. If the President is so concerned with the religious feelings of Muslims, why does he keep celebrating that he made the decision to kill bin Laden, the hero of so many Muslims?
Here is the full response of the Cairo Embassy:
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
As one author commented: Apologies by the innocent victims of violence are acts of submission that stoke demands for greater acts of submission, even in US culture. To some Muslims, including groups in Pakistan, the very existence of the US or Israel is an affront to their interpretation of Islam and "hurts their religious beliefs." There is no way to avoid hurting their religious sensibilities.
Further, does freedom of speech have a limit at what might offend someone? I trust not. I am sure that for some people, my belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior is an offense. What disturbs me about this statement is that it is politically correct, but has nothing to do with the events of that moment. Regardless of their reason for storming the Embassy, they had no righ to do so. The continuing support by the Administration of this statement, in light of later events, is disturbing. It appears that the Administration is apologizing for the fact that we have freedom of speech. When on a news release I heard one of the demonstrators in Libya say that the President "allowed" the offensive movie, and another saying that killing is what happens if you speak against the Prophet, I knew that these people are not ready for genuine democracy.
Hilliary Clinton responded in the following way:
"I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack. ... Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."
Later, she said:
“The U.S. government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,” Clinton said at a meeting in Washington with a delegation from Morocco. “We absolutely reject its content and messages. But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.”
Over at MSNBC a consensus broke out when contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch as well as University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler all agreed that the people behind the video should be indicted as accessories to murder. "Good Morning," declared Butler, "How soon is Sam Bacile [the alleged creator of the film] going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now."
Barnicle set his sights on Terry Jones, the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran a while back and who was allegedly involved in the video as well. "Given this supposed minister's role in last year's riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where ... at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact."
Deutsch helpfully added: "I was thinking the same thing, yeah."
It's interesting to see such committed liberals in lockstep agreement with the Islamist government in Egypt, which implored the U.S. government to take legal action against the filmmakers. Interestingly, not even the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian government demanded these men be tried for murder.
Clinton is apologizing for American free speech. MSNBC contributors want to silence speech. This is what the leader of Egypt wanted Americans to do. According to the Washington Post, Morsi also denounced the film and called on “the American people” to “declare their rejection” of such provocations. His Muslim Brotherhood movement joined other groups in calling for major but peaceful anti-U.S. demonstrations Friday.
Here is the problem. America defends its nut jobs to have the right to be nut jobs. Morsi would have already had them killed because they offended Islam. We should not apologize for our position. In fact, we should "defend to the death" the right of people to hold such positions.
Mitt Romney had the following statement:
This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous. It's disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served, during their lives, the cause of freedom and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.
The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached; protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values; that instead -- when our grounds are being attacked and being breached -- that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America's values is never the right course.
The White House also issued a statement saying it tried to distance itself from those comments and said they were not reflecting of their views. I had the exact same reaction. These views were inappropriate. They were the wrong course to take. It's their administration. Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth, but also for the words that come from his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. The statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology, and I think was a severe miscalculation.
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," it says. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
This statement, seeing it on television, reminds me of what a President of America is supposed to say in a time like this. Romney "looked Presidential," as some have said. I concur. For those who think he should not, I would remind of past Democrat criticism of the Bush foreign policy during the election, in which the theme was something like criticism being the highest form of patriotism.
Obama responds:
"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. ... They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives. I have directed my administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe.'"
I am not predicitng the effect of all of this on the election. However, a review of what led to the defeat of Jimmy Carter and the election of Ronald Regan will reveal that the Iran hostage crisis made a significant contribution. I am more concerned with the way America relates to the Muslim world, but the events of the past few days has the potential of being a Jimmy Carter moment for this President.
Here is an account from the recent documents released about the attack in Benghazi.
According to Reuters, here is the timeline of information give to Washington:
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."On October 25, 2012, I heard John McCain call it a "dereliction of duty."
The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."
The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."
A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.
Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.
It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.
Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.
By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda's faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.
Dereliction
1. Willful neglect, as of duty or principle.
2. a. The act of abandoning; abandonment.
b. A state of abandonment or neglect.
None of us knows at this point, of course.
· Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape … The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”
“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”
· By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.
Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”
· After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.’”
“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”
· In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”
From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chris’s own laptop about which diddly was done—and that being after prior bombings of the Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable.
If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I don’t know what is.
Here are some some posts from an earlier time.
It is reasonably clear that the attacks in Egypt and Libya, and later Yemen, are part of coordinated attack. Therefore, the reference to a "movie" is not particularly significant. It was a pretext to do what the organizers wanted to do, which was to attack the United States, commit an act of war, on their own soil. The Embassy is officially American soil. Apparently, they could not launch another major attack in America, so they chose another 9/11 to attack American soil on their own territory. We need to remember that 9/11, a day of mourning in the USA, is a day of celebration in the Muslim world. "We are all Osama bin Laden," the crowd said. He is the hero of this revolution. Which raises an interesting question. If the President is so concerned with the religious feelings of Muslims, why does he keep celebrating that he made the decision to kill bin Laden, the hero of so many Muslims?
Here is the full response of the Cairo Embassy:
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
As one author commented: Apologies by the innocent victims of violence are acts of submission that stoke demands for greater acts of submission, even in US culture. To some Muslims, including groups in Pakistan, the very existence of the US or Israel is an affront to their interpretation of Islam and "hurts their religious beliefs." There is no way to avoid hurting their religious sensibilities.
Further, does freedom of speech have a limit at what might offend someone? I trust not. I am sure that for some people, my belief in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior is an offense. What disturbs me about this statement is that it is politically correct, but has nothing to do with the events of that moment. Regardless of their reason for storming the Embassy, they had no righ to do so. The continuing support by the Administration of this statement, in light of later events, is disturbing. It appears that the Administration is apologizing for the fact that we have freedom of speech. When on a news release I heard one of the demonstrators in Libya say that the President "allowed" the offensive movie, and another saying that killing is what happens if you speak against the Prophet, I knew that these people are not ready for genuine democracy.
Hilliary Clinton responded in the following way:
"I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack. ... Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."
Later, she said:
“The U.S. government had absolutely nothing to do with this video,” Clinton said at a meeting in Washington with a delegation from Morocco. “We absolutely reject its content and messages. But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.”
Over at MSNBC a consensus broke out when contributors Mike Barnicle and Donny Deutsch as well as University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler all agreed that the people behind the video should be indicted as accessories to murder. "Good Morning," declared Butler, "How soon is Sam Bacile [the alleged creator of the film] going to be in jail folks? I need him to go now."
Barnicle set his sights on Terry Jones, the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran a while back and who was allegedly involved in the video as well. "Given this supposed minister's role in last year's riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where ... at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact."
Deutsch helpfully added: "I was thinking the same thing, yeah."
It's interesting to see such committed liberals in lockstep agreement with the Islamist government in Egypt, which implored the U.S. government to take legal action against the filmmakers. Interestingly, not even the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egyptian government demanded these men be tried for murder.
Clinton is apologizing for American free speech. MSNBC contributors want to silence speech. This is what the leader of Egypt wanted Americans to do. According to the Washington Post, Morsi also denounced the film and called on “the American people” to “declare their rejection” of such provocations. His Muslim Brotherhood movement joined other groups in calling for major but peaceful anti-U.S. demonstrations Friday.
Here is the problem. America defends its nut jobs to have the right to be nut jobs. Morsi would have already had them killed because they offended Islam. We should not apologize for our position. In fact, we should "defend to the death" the right of people to hold such positions.
Mitt Romney had the following statement:
This attack on American individuals and embassies is outrageous. It's disgusting. It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served, during their lives, the cause of freedom and justice and honor. We mourn their loss and join together in prayer that the spirit of the Almighty might comfort the families of those who have been so brutally slain.
The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached; protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values; that instead -- when our grounds are being attacked and being breached -- that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America's values is never the right course.
The White House also issued a statement saying it tried to distance itself from those comments and said they were not reflecting of their views. I had the exact same reaction. These views were inappropriate. They were the wrong course to take. It's their administration. Their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth, but also for the words that come from his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. The statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology, and I think was a severe miscalculation.
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," it says. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
This statement, seeing it on television, reminds me of what a President of America is supposed to say in a time like this. Romney "looked Presidential," as some have said. I concur. For those who think he should not, I would remind of past Democrat criticism of the Bush foreign policy during the election, in which the theme was something like criticism being the highest form of patriotism.
Obama responds:
"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. ... They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives. I have directed my administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe.'"
I am not predicitng the effect of all of this on the election. However, a review of what led to the defeat of Jimmy Carter and the election of Ronald Regan will reveal that the Iran hostage crisis made a significant contribution. I am more concerned with the way America relates to the Muslim world, but the events of the past few days has the potential of being a Jimmy Carter moment for this President.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Charity, Religion, and Party Affliliation
Thomas Sowell had this to say about the Democrat Convention of 2012:
The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another -- and that Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick and the helpless.
All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.
Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.
Nor is this notion confined to Democrats in America today. Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.
When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.
I would supplement his observation with another.
A new study produced by the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that 14 out of the top 20 states in charitable giving are red, or Republican states, while 12 of the bottom 15 are blue, or Democrat states.
“The nation's sharp political divide can provide a clue to fundraisers,” writes the Chronicle. “The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.” The study also found that the more religious states- which also happen to be more Republican- tend to give more than the less religious states.
Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it's wrong to link a state's religious makeup with its generosity. People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said. And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college's Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life. Wolfe said people in less religious states "view the tax money they're paying not as something that's forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they're citizens in the common good. … I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they're being altruistic."
http://philanthropy.com/article/Sharing-the-Wealth-How-the/133605/
The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another -- and that Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick and the helpless.
All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.
Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.
Nor is this notion confined to Democrats in America today. Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.
When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.
I would supplement his observation with another.
A new study produced by the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that 14 out of the top 20 states in charitable giving are red, or Republican states, while 12 of the bottom 15 are blue, or Democrat states.
“The nation's sharp political divide can provide a clue to fundraisers,” writes the Chronicle. “The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.” The study also found that the more religious states- which also happen to be more Republican- tend to give more than the less religious states.
Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it's wrong to link a state's religious makeup with its generosity. People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said. And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college's Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life. Wolfe said people in less religious states "view the tax money they're paying not as something that's forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they're citizens in the common good. … I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they're being altruistic."
http://philanthropy.com/article/Sharing-the-Wealth-How-the/133605/
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Overheard at Democrat Convention 2012
Democrat Party Platform:
We can see the polemical tone, and the view they have of their opponents:
The Republican Party has turned its back on the middle class Americans who built this country. Our opponents believe we should go back to the top-down economic policies of the last decade. They think that if we simply eliminate protections for families and consumers, let Wall Street write its own rules again, and cut taxes for the wealthiest, the market will solve all our problems on its own. They argue that if we help corporations and wealthy investors maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, whether through layoffs or outsourcing, it will automatically translate into jobs and prosperity that benefits us all. They would repeal health reform, turn Medicare into a voucher program, and follow the same path of fiscal irresponsibility of the past administration—giving trillions of dollars in tax cuts weighted towards millionaires and billionaires while sticking the middle class with the bill. But we've tried their policies—and we've all suffered when they failed.
We can see its communitarian approach:
Democrats know that America prospers when we're all in it together. We see an America where everyone has a fair shot, does their fair share, and plays by the same rules.
Concerning the middle class, its polemical tone is present again:
The Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have a very different idea about where they want to take this country. To pay for their trillions in additional tax cuts weighted towards millionaires and billionaires, they'll raise taxes on the middle class and gut our investments in education, research and technology, and new roads, bridges, and airports. They'll end Medicare as we know it. They want to let Wall Street write its own rules again and allow insurance companies to once again deny health care to working families.
It celebrates Obamacare and the bail out of the auto industry.
On entitlements: Democrats adamantly oppose any efforts to privatize or voucherize Medicare, which is unfortunate.
On Deficits: Democrats took decisive steps to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington. - Is anyone laughing yet? Further, In order to reduce the deficit while still making the investments... In other words, to reduce the deficit, we will spend. Their view of the opposition: The Republican Party has a different vision—instead of asking everyone to do their fair share and making investments we need for an economy built to last, they would slash taxes for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, let Wall Street once again write its own rules, and balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.
On Energy: We can move towards a sustainable energy-independent future if we harness all of America's great natural resources. That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America's many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas. - We know from the past four years that this is not true.
On government accountability: Looking to make our government leaner, smarter, and more consumer-friendly, ... We are committed to the most open, efficient, and accountable government in history, and we believe that government is more accountable when it is transparent. - Anyone laughing yet?
Here is the prayer that the Greek Orthodox prelate Metropolitan Nicolaus of Detroit offered:
Oh God, most pure and author of all creation, as You spoke to us of old, speak to our hearts anew. You, who had fellowship with Abraham and Sarah, come and stay in our midst. As you led your people through the wilderness lead us now as the Democratic National Convention open its deliberations for the benefit of the people and the land of these United States. You have brought us here from every place on earth that Native Americans and immigrant Americans, people of color and of every tongue, might find not just hope but a land which seeks life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Grant to all here a deep and abiding respect for the task at hand so that our common efforts will perfect our desire that law and government be for and by and of the people. Assist us to set aside personal differences so that the unity of purpose that we have will rise above us all as an enduring symbol of freedom and let freedom so reign in our hearts that we would never fear to lead the oppressed to freedom, never fear to give shelter to the homeless and displaced, never fear to treat our neighbor as ourselves. To give dignity and opportunity, as in Detroit and elsewhere in America, to the struggling unemployed and less fortunate brothers and sisters in this great land, let us never be afraid!
While our prayers and assistance are with those affected by Hurricane Isaac, we trust in You Oh Lord, that Your gracious love will be with our President, Barack Obama, with our Vice President, Joseph Biden, with all of our public officials, and those who serve the good of this nation. We ask also that You preserve and protect those who stand in harm’s way as they defend and serve for the benefit of all. Come and be with us Almighty God, as fortress and deliverer, that through You, and by the faithful and strong leadership of our government, we shall rejoice knowing that our children and our children’s children will know peace and every blessing, to You be glory forever. Amen.
When asked if he would grade himself on the first four years, President Obama gave himself an ‘incomplete’ grade. What that means, of course, is that he wants to give the country four more years of what he has given the country. Voters will need to decide if they want four more years. Consider the following:
The mayor also said - It’s a choice between a country where the middle class pays more so that millionaires can pay less—or a country where everybody pays their fair share, so we can reduce the deficit and create the jobs of the future. It’s a choice between a nation that slashes funding for our schools and guts Pell grants—or a nation that invests more in education. It’s a choice between a politician who rewards companies that ship American jobs overseas—or a leader who brings jobs back home.
Concerning the speech by Michelle Obama, I would offer two things. One is from Charles Krauthammer, who said he did not believe a word of it, because she painted him as if he were a Gahndi, when in reality, he has been ruthless in his governing and in his campaigning. She managed to drain her husband’s entire first term of any hint of ideological or personal motivation. He is driven by his caring, giving soul — not by a deeply felt ideology developed in youth: redistributionist, government-centered, disdainful of success, committed to his social-democratic view of social justice. Only a wife can turn a ruthlessly ambitious pol, who undid the Clintons four years ago and today relentlessly demonizes Romney, into a care bear. She pulled it off. Two is that I do not think anyone doubts that Barack Obama is a decent man. Most Americans find him likeable enough. The question before the voters is whether he deserves a second term based on his job performance. As already noted in the polls above, many Americans have already decided that question.
Concerning the much discussed GM bailout, a few facts from Michelle Malkin:
GM is once again flirting with bankruptcy despite massive government purchases propping up its sales figures. GM stock is rock-bottom. Losses continue to be revised in the wrong direction. According to The Detroit News, "The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast."
The claims that GM paid back its taxpayer-funded loans "in full" -- a story peddled in campaign ads narrated by Hollywood actor Tom Hanks -- were debunked by the Treasury Department's TARP watchdog this summer. GM still owes nearly $30 billion of the $50 billion it received, and its lending arm still owes nearly $15 billion of the more than $17 billion it received. Bailout watchdog Mark Modica of the National Legal and Policy Center adds: "In addition to U.S. taxpayers anteing up, Canada put in over $10 billion, and GM was relieved of about $28 billion of bondholder obligations as UAW claims were protected. That's an improvement of almost $90 billion to the balance sheet, and the company still lags the competition."
Bill Clinton said that the Republican Party was wrong to say that Obama has gutted welfare reform. Heritage expert Robert Rector, who helped write the 1996 law, answered Clinton this morning in no uncertain terms:
1) Obama "inherited" the worst set of economic conditions since World War II.
False. Based on unemployment, inflation and interest rates, the recession of 1981-82 was worse. Unemployment during the early '80s reached 10.8 percent, inflation 13.5 percent, and prime interest rates reached 21.5 percent. During this so-called "Great Recession," the numbers peaked at 10.2 unemployment, 5.6 percent inflation and 7.25 percent for the prime interest rate.
2) Obama's economic policies "rescued the economy from falling off a cliff."
False. Nearly 350 economists, including several Nobel laureates, publicly urged Obama to following the path President Reagan pursued -- cutting taxes, slowing the growth of domestic spending and continuing deregulation.
Most business economists think Obama's "stimulus" plan accomplished little, if anything, with some academic economists, like Stanford's John Taylor, believing that stimulus actually made things worse: "I just don't think there's any evidence. When you look at the numbers, when you see what happened, when people reacted to the stimulus, it did very little good."
TARP, begun under President George W. Bush, supposedly prevented financial institutions from collapsing. But Neil Barofsky, in his new book called "Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street," argues that TARP completely failed in its mission: to increase liquidity to jumpstart lending.
The reason for intervention in the first place is that banks had become "too big too fail." Not only did the banks park the money and make risk-free profits off the spread, but banks became bigger than ever after TARP.
ObamaCare promises to provide health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans currently uninsured. Obama said it would bend the health care cost curve down, that it would decrease the deficit and that if you like your doctor or your current health insurance plan, you can keep it.
But Jonathan Gruber, the economist who designed both RomneyCare and ObamaCare, now admits some are going to pay more -- and some a lot more -- for their health insurance: "It is true that even after tax credits some individuals are 'losers,' in that they pay more than before (Obama's) reform." Rick Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, testified that it is "false, more so than true" that ObamaCare bends down the cost curve. He also said it is "not true in all cases" that if you like your plan you can keep your plan.
What about the "investments" in the green jobs of the future? At $529 million dollars of lost taxpayer money, Solyndra is one of many money-hemorrhaging "clean energy" flops. Other belly-flops backed by federal loans include Beacon Power and Abound Solar. A Washington Post investigation traced $3.9 billion in grants and financing to 21 companies that were backed by firms connected to five Obama administration staffers and advisors. Cronyism?
3) Bush's irresponsible tax cuts and "unpaid-for wars" of Afghanistan and Iraq caused the deficit.
False. Obama frequently bemoans the "cost" of $700 billion in tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires." CNN's Fareed Zakaria blames the "Bush tax cuts" for the deficit. But the $700 billion Obama speaks of is spread over 10 years. This comes to a mere 5 percent of the deficit.
As to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, a study by Brown University estimates the costs at between $3.2 trillion and $4 trillion. This, too, is over about 10 years (the approximate duration of the wars), or an average of $360 billion per year. This comes out to about 25 percent of the estimated $1.5 trillion deficit.
4) We are better off now than four years ago.
A new poll for the Washington paper The Hill found 52 percent of likely voters believe the country is now in "worse condition" than four years ago, while 31 percent believe it's in "better condition." After accounting for inflation, median household income dropped 2.6 percent during the 18-month recession. It fell another 4.8 percent from the start of the "recovery" through June 2012. Unemployment stood at 7.8 percent when Obama entered the White House. It is 8.3 percent right now. We've added over $6 trillion in new debt in the last four years -- and the deficit tripled since Bush's last full year in office.
5) The other guys -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan -- are worse: sexist, racist, homophobic and fascist.
The chairman of the California Democratic Party, John Burton, following the Republican convention, gave us this preview of coming attractions: "(Republicans) lie, and they don't care if people think they lie. As long as you lie, (Nazi propaganda minister) Joseph Goebbels -- the big lie -- you keep repeating it."
Clinton Speech:
CLINTON: "I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. ... I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history."
THE FACTS: Clinton is counting on voters to recall the 1990s wistfully and to cast a vote for Obama in hopes of replicating those days in a second term. But Clinton leaves out the abrupt downward turn the economy took near the end of his own second term and the role his policies played in the setting the stage for the historic financial meltdown of 2008.
While the economy and markets experienced a record expansion for most of the rest of Clinton's two-term presidency, at the start of 2000, there were troubling signs. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned in February 2000 that "we are entering a period of considerable turbulence in financial markets."
Sure enough, the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite stock index and the Dow Jones industrial average both peaked in March 2000. The bursting of the high-tech bubble dragged down the economy and markets through the rest of the year. From September 2000 to January 2001 when Clinton left office, the Nasdaq dropped 46 percent. Even now, in 2012, the Nasdaq has not returned to its 2000 peak. By March 2001, the economy toppled into recession.
Also, as president, Clinton supported the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law dating back to the Great Depression that separated banking from high-risk financial speculation. Robert Rubin, who had been Clinton's first treasury secretary, helped broker the final deal on Capitol Hill that enabled the repeal legislation to pass. Some financial historians say the repeal of the law paved the way for banks to invest in risky investments like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations that played a role in the 2008 financial meltdown.
Thomas Sowell offered the following:
Today, he appears in an Obama commercial -- in full “I feel your pain” mode -- saying that Obama “has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up.”
When someone claims anyone can rebuild a society from the ground up, I say he is arrogant and delusional.
Clinton then tries to scare viewers by telling them that Republicans want to “go back to deregulation. That’s what got us in trouble in the first place.”
Ah, the progressives’ George W. Bush deregulation myth: Bush’s anti-regulation crusade caused our problems. This is a lie that seems true because of constant media repetition. In fact, Bush talked deregulation but vastly increased the regulatory state. He hired an astounding 90,000 new regulators. Under Democrats and Republicans, regulation grows.
A rare exception was repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which forbade financial companies from offering both commercial and investment banking services. You know who signed that?
Bill Clinton.
He was right to sign it (backed by Treasury Secretary and later Obama adviser Larry Summers) because outlawing full-service banking put American banks at a competitive disadvantage.
Five years earlier, Clinton supported the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, which finally legalized interstate branch banking. Federal and state laws that forbade intrastate and interstate branch banking -- that is, diversification -- were one of the worst features of American finance. They made banks highly vulnerable to failure of specific business centers and farm communities, helping to make the Great Depression what it was. (By contrast, Canada had no such restrictions and no bank failures.)
So Clinton -- not Bush -- was the bank deregulator. Were those acts responsible for the financial debacle of 2008? No. Bear Stearns, Lehman, etc. were not affiliated with commercial banks.
Banks got in trouble because they filled their portfolios with securities built on shaky mortgages. And here is where Clinton does bear responsibility.
His secretary of housing and urban development was Andrew Cuomo, now governor of New York and apparent presidential wannabe.
Cuomo, as Wayne Barrett wrote in the Village Voice in 2008, made a series of decisions that “helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.”
Barrett goes on: “Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie and Freddie were their instruments, and as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth. ... (Cuomo) did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice.”
Naturally, when Clinton’s HUD secretary became New York’s attorney general, he vowed to prosecute unscrupulous lenders. I’m waiting for him to prosecute himself.
President Clinton happily takes credit for reducing America’s budget deficit and presiding over a period of strong economic growth. But this happened not because of wise leadership. Clinton had the good fortune to reside in the White House just as the high-tech information revolution kicked in and a Republican Congress stopped him from spending what Democrats wanted to spend.
Progressives say that his increase of the top tax bracket did not prevent economic growth, but it never occurs to them that growth would have been even stronger had government not confiscated that money.
His rousing speech at the Democrats' convention told the delegates that Republicans "want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place."
That is world class brass. Bill Clinton's own administration, more than any other, promoted an unsustainable housing boom, which eventually and inevitably led to a housing bust that brought down the whole American economy.
Behind all the complex financial processes that reached to Wall Street and beyond, there is one fundamental fact: many people stopped making their mortgage payments.
Why did that happen? Because mortgage loans were made to people who did not meet the long-established qualification standards for getting a mortgage loan. And why did that happen? Because the Clinton administration threatened lawsuits against lenders who did not approve mortgage loans to minority applicants as often as to white applicants.
In other words, racial quotas replaced credit qualifications. A failure to have racial statistics on mortgage approvals that fit the government's preconceptions was equated with discrimination.
Attorney General Reno said that lenders who "closely examine their lending practices and make necessary changes to eliminate discrimination" would "fare better in this department's stepped-up enforcement effort than those who do not." She said: "Do not wait for the Justice Department to come knocking."
Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had similar racial quota policies, and began taking legal actions against banks that turned down more minority applicants than HUD thought they should.
HUD said that it was breaking down "racial and ethnic barriers" so as to create more "access" to home ownership. It established "goals" -- political Newspeak for quotas -- for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy mortgages that the original lenders had made to "the underserved population." In other words, the original lenders could pass on the increasingly risky mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- and, ultimately, to the taxpayers.
Other federal agencies warned mortgage lenders against having credit standards that these agencies considered too high. And these agencies had many powers to use against banks and other lenders who did not heed their warnings.
What was the evidence for all the lending discrimination that the government was supposedly trying to prevent? Statistics.
In the year 2000, for example, black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants. Case closed, as far as the media and the government were concerned. Had they bothered to look a little deeper, they would have found that whites were turned down at nearly twice the rate for Asian Americans.
Had they bothered to check out average credit scores, they would have discovered that whites had higher average credit scores than blacks, and Asian Americans had higher average credit scores than whites.
Such inconvenient facts would have undermined the whole moral melodrama, reducing it to a case of plain economics, with lenders more likely to lend to those who were more likely to pay them back. Once lending standards were lowered, in order to meet racial quotas, they were lowered for everybody. Deadbeats of any race could get mortgage loans, and most were probably not minorities.
Democrats like to blame the "greed" of business, rather than the policies of government, for problems. But lenders don't make money by lending to individuals who don't pay them back. That is what government forced lenders to do, beginning under the Clinton administration. And the eventual collapse took down the economy.
Obama Speech:
A fact check shows that under President Obama, the U.S. economy has created a net 415,000 private-sector jobs—less than 0.2 percent of the 155million-member American workforce. But even that statistic does not tell the full story, since the workforce itself has shrunk dramatically in size since Obama tookoffice. Labor force participation is at 63.5 percent, its lowest level since 1981. In other words, a large chunk of Americans have simply given uplooking for work. A significant number are collecting disability insurance instead. In fact, the share of the adult population with jobs has remained flat for the past two years. The only reason the unemployment rate edged downslightly in August was that fewer people looked for work and thus no longer count as unemployed. The percentage of people participating in the laborforce dropped by 0.2 percent—the same amount the unemployment rate dropped. As Sherk has explained, we are in the slowest recovery in 70 years, and jobcreation has not recovered since the recession began in 2007.
The Associated Press and others point out that statement is misleading because it counts jobs from the recession's lowest point to where employment began to grow again – excluding jobs lost earlier in Obama's term and masking that overall unemployment has increased over that period. "Overall, roughly 7.5 million jobs were lost during the recession that began in December 2007 and ended officially in June 2009," according to the wire service.
We can see the polemical tone, and the view they have of their opponents:
The Republican Party has turned its back on the middle class Americans who built this country. Our opponents believe we should go back to the top-down economic policies of the last decade. They think that if we simply eliminate protections for families and consumers, let Wall Street write its own rules again, and cut taxes for the wealthiest, the market will solve all our problems on its own. They argue that if we help corporations and wealthy investors maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, whether through layoffs or outsourcing, it will automatically translate into jobs and prosperity that benefits us all. They would repeal health reform, turn Medicare into a voucher program, and follow the same path of fiscal irresponsibility of the past administration—giving trillions of dollars in tax cuts weighted towards millionaires and billionaires while sticking the middle class with the bill. But we've tried their policies—and we've all suffered when they failed.
We can see its communitarian approach:
Democrats know that America prospers when we're all in it together. We see an America where everyone has a fair shot, does their fair share, and plays by the same rules.
Concerning the middle class, its polemical tone is present again:
The Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney have a very different idea about where they want to take this country. To pay for their trillions in additional tax cuts weighted towards millionaires and billionaires, they'll raise taxes on the middle class and gut our investments in education, research and technology, and new roads, bridges, and airports. They'll end Medicare as we know it. They want to let Wall Street write its own rules again and allow insurance companies to once again deny health care to working families.
It celebrates Obamacare and the bail out of the auto industry.
On entitlements: Democrats adamantly oppose any efforts to privatize or voucherize Medicare, which is unfortunate.
On Deficits: Democrats took decisive steps to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington. - Is anyone laughing yet? Further, In order to reduce the deficit while still making the investments... In other words, to reduce the deficit, we will spend. Their view of the opposition: The Republican Party has a different vision—instead of asking everyone to do their fair share and making investments we need for an economy built to last, they would slash taxes for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, let Wall Street once again write its own rules, and balance the budget on the backs of the middle class.
On Energy: We can move towards a sustainable energy-independent future if we harness all of America's great natural resources. That means an all-of-the-above approach to developing America's many energy resources, including wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, nuclear, oil, clean coal, and natural gas. - We know from the past four years that this is not true.
On government accountability: Looking to make our government leaner, smarter, and more consumer-friendly, ... We are committed to the most open, efficient, and accountable government in history, and we believe that government is more accountable when it is transparent. - Anyone laughing yet?
Here is the prayer that the Greek Orthodox prelate Metropolitan Nicolaus of Detroit offered:
Oh God, most pure and author of all creation, as You spoke to us of old, speak to our hearts anew. You, who had fellowship with Abraham and Sarah, come and stay in our midst. As you led your people through the wilderness lead us now as the Democratic National Convention open its deliberations for the benefit of the people and the land of these United States. You have brought us here from every place on earth that Native Americans and immigrant Americans, people of color and of every tongue, might find not just hope but a land which seeks life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Grant to all here a deep and abiding respect for the task at hand so that our common efforts will perfect our desire that law and government be for and by and of the people. Assist us to set aside personal differences so that the unity of purpose that we have will rise above us all as an enduring symbol of freedom and let freedom so reign in our hearts that we would never fear to lead the oppressed to freedom, never fear to give shelter to the homeless and displaced, never fear to treat our neighbor as ourselves. To give dignity and opportunity, as in Detroit and elsewhere in America, to the struggling unemployed and less fortunate brothers and sisters in this great land, let us never be afraid!
While our prayers and assistance are with those affected by Hurricane Isaac, we trust in You Oh Lord, that Your gracious love will be with our President, Barack Obama, with our Vice President, Joseph Biden, with all of our public officials, and those who serve the good of this nation. We ask also that You preserve and protect those who stand in harm’s way as they defend and serve for the benefit of all. Come and be with us Almighty God, as fortress and deliverer, that through You, and by the faithful and strong leadership of our government, we shall rejoice knowing that our children and our children’s children will know peace and every blessing, to You be glory forever. Amen.
When asked if he would grade himself on the first four years, President Obama gave himself an ‘incomplete’ grade. What that means, of course, is that he wants to give the country four more years of what he has given the country. Voters will need to decide if they want four more years. Consider the following:
- 42 – Consecutive months with (official) unemployment over 8%.
- 66,000 – Average number of jobs added per month since recovery started (Below level needed to keep up with population growth.)
- 63.7% – Labor force participation rate (30-year low.)
- 52% – Percentage of voters that say the nation is in worse condition.
- 54% – Percentage of voters that say Obama doesn’t deserve reelection based on his job performance
- 31% – Percentage of voters that say the nation is in better condition today than when Obama took office.
- $16,000,000,000,000 – National Debt will hit $16 trillion today.
- $1,311,000,000,000 – President Obama, on average, has added $1.311 trillion of debt per year.
The mayor also said - It’s a choice between a country where the middle class pays more so that millionaires can pay less—or a country where everybody pays their fair share, so we can reduce the deficit and create the jobs of the future. It’s a choice between a nation that slashes funding for our schools and guts Pell grants—or a nation that invests more in education. It’s a choice between a politician who rewards companies that ship American jobs overseas—or a leader who brings jobs back home.
Concerning the speech by Michelle Obama, I would offer two things. One is from Charles Krauthammer, who said he did not believe a word of it, because she painted him as if he were a Gahndi, when in reality, he has been ruthless in his governing and in his campaigning. She managed to drain her husband’s entire first term of any hint of ideological or personal motivation. He is driven by his caring, giving soul — not by a deeply felt ideology developed in youth: redistributionist, government-centered, disdainful of success, committed to his social-democratic view of social justice. Only a wife can turn a ruthlessly ambitious pol, who undid the Clintons four years ago and today relentlessly demonizes Romney, into a care bear. She pulled it off. Two is that I do not think anyone doubts that Barack Obama is a decent man. Most Americans find him likeable enough. The question before the voters is whether he deserves a second term based on his job performance. As already noted in the polls above, many Americans have already decided that question.
Concerning the much discussed GM bailout, a few facts from Michelle Malkin:
GM is once again flirting with bankruptcy despite massive government purchases propping up its sales figures. GM stock is rock-bottom. Losses continue to be revised in the wrong direction. According to The Detroit News, "The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast."
The claims that GM paid back its taxpayer-funded loans "in full" -- a story peddled in campaign ads narrated by Hollywood actor Tom Hanks -- were debunked by the Treasury Department's TARP watchdog this summer. GM still owes nearly $30 billion of the $50 billion it received, and its lending arm still owes nearly $15 billion of the more than $17 billion it received. Bailout watchdog Mark Modica of the National Legal and Policy Center adds: "In addition to U.S. taxpayers anteing up, Canada put in over $10 billion, and GM was relieved of about $28 billion of bondholder obligations as UAW claims were protected. That's an improvement of almost $90 billion to the balance sheet, and the company still lags the competition."
Bill Clinton said that the Republican Party was wrong to say that Obama has gutted welfare reform. Heritage expert Robert Rector, who helped write the 1996 law, answered Clinton this morning in no uncertain terms:
The Obama Administration will put in mothballs the formal purpose of welfare reform—to reduce the number of people dependent on government benefits. The Administration will abandon the legislative performance goal that encourages states to reduce welfare caseloads. It will weaken the “work participation” standards that require some 30 percent of able-bodied Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients to engage in work activities for 20 to 30 hours per week.Larry Elder has identified what I think are the biggest reasons to give Obama 4 more years, and why each reason is wrong.
1) Obama "inherited" the worst set of economic conditions since World War II.
False. Based on unemployment, inflation and interest rates, the recession of 1981-82 was worse. Unemployment during the early '80s reached 10.8 percent, inflation 13.5 percent, and prime interest rates reached 21.5 percent. During this so-called "Great Recession," the numbers peaked at 10.2 unemployment, 5.6 percent inflation and 7.25 percent for the prime interest rate.
2) Obama's economic policies "rescued the economy from falling off a cliff."
False. Nearly 350 economists, including several Nobel laureates, publicly urged Obama to following the path President Reagan pursued -- cutting taxes, slowing the growth of domestic spending and continuing deregulation.
Most business economists think Obama's "stimulus" plan accomplished little, if anything, with some academic economists, like Stanford's John Taylor, believing that stimulus actually made things worse: "I just don't think there's any evidence. When you look at the numbers, when you see what happened, when people reacted to the stimulus, it did very little good."
TARP, begun under President George W. Bush, supposedly prevented financial institutions from collapsing. But Neil Barofsky, in his new book called "Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street," argues that TARP completely failed in its mission: to increase liquidity to jumpstart lending.
The reason for intervention in the first place is that banks had become "too big too fail." Not only did the banks park the money and make risk-free profits off the spread, but banks became bigger than ever after TARP.
ObamaCare promises to provide health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans currently uninsured. Obama said it would bend the health care cost curve down, that it would decrease the deficit and that if you like your doctor or your current health insurance plan, you can keep it.
But Jonathan Gruber, the economist who designed both RomneyCare and ObamaCare, now admits some are going to pay more -- and some a lot more -- for their health insurance: "It is true that even after tax credits some individuals are 'losers,' in that they pay more than before (Obama's) reform." Rick Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, testified that it is "false, more so than true" that ObamaCare bends down the cost curve. He also said it is "not true in all cases" that if you like your plan you can keep your plan.
What about the "investments" in the green jobs of the future? At $529 million dollars of lost taxpayer money, Solyndra is one of many money-hemorrhaging "clean energy" flops. Other belly-flops backed by federal loans include Beacon Power and Abound Solar. A Washington Post investigation traced $3.9 billion in grants and financing to 21 companies that were backed by firms connected to five Obama administration staffers and advisors. Cronyism?
3) Bush's irresponsible tax cuts and "unpaid-for wars" of Afghanistan and Iraq caused the deficit.
False. Obama frequently bemoans the "cost" of $700 billion in tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires." CNN's Fareed Zakaria blames the "Bush tax cuts" for the deficit. But the $700 billion Obama speaks of is spread over 10 years. This comes to a mere 5 percent of the deficit.
As to the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, a study by Brown University estimates the costs at between $3.2 trillion and $4 trillion. This, too, is over about 10 years (the approximate duration of the wars), or an average of $360 billion per year. This comes out to about 25 percent of the estimated $1.5 trillion deficit.
4) We are better off now than four years ago.
A new poll for the Washington paper The Hill found 52 percent of likely voters believe the country is now in "worse condition" than four years ago, while 31 percent believe it's in "better condition." After accounting for inflation, median household income dropped 2.6 percent during the 18-month recession. It fell another 4.8 percent from the start of the "recovery" through June 2012. Unemployment stood at 7.8 percent when Obama entered the White House. It is 8.3 percent right now. We've added over $6 trillion in new debt in the last four years -- and the deficit tripled since Bush's last full year in office.
5) The other guys -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan -- are worse: sexist, racist, homophobic and fascist.
The chairman of the California Democratic Party, John Burton, following the Republican convention, gave us this preview of coming attractions: "(Republicans) lie, and they don't care if people think they lie. As long as you lie, (Nazi propaganda minister) Joseph Goebbels -- the big lie -- you keep repeating it."
Clinton Speech:
CLINTON: "I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. ... I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history."
THE FACTS: Clinton is counting on voters to recall the 1990s wistfully and to cast a vote for Obama in hopes of replicating those days in a second term. But Clinton leaves out the abrupt downward turn the economy took near the end of his own second term and the role his policies played in the setting the stage for the historic financial meltdown of 2008.
While the economy and markets experienced a record expansion for most of the rest of Clinton's two-term presidency, at the start of 2000, there were troubling signs. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned in February 2000 that "we are entering a period of considerable turbulence in financial markets."
Sure enough, the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite stock index and the Dow Jones industrial average both peaked in March 2000. The bursting of the high-tech bubble dragged down the economy and markets through the rest of the year. From September 2000 to January 2001 when Clinton left office, the Nasdaq dropped 46 percent. Even now, in 2012, the Nasdaq has not returned to its 2000 peak. By March 2001, the economy toppled into recession.
Also, as president, Clinton supported the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a law dating back to the Great Depression that separated banking from high-risk financial speculation. Robert Rubin, who had been Clinton's first treasury secretary, helped broker the final deal on Capitol Hill that enabled the repeal legislation to pass. Some financial historians say the repeal of the law paved the way for banks to invest in risky investments like mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations that played a role in the 2008 financial meltdown.
Thomas Sowell offered the following:
Today, he appears in an Obama commercial -- in full “I feel your pain” mode -- saying that Obama “has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up.”
When someone claims anyone can rebuild a society from the ground up, I say he is arrogant and delusional.
Clinton then tries to scare viewers by telling them that Republicans want to “go back to deregulation. That’s what got us in trouble in the first place.”
Ah, the progressives’ George W. Bush deregulation myth: Bush’s anti-regulation crusade caused our problems. This is a lie that seems true because of constant media repetition. In fact, Bush talked deregulation but vastly increased the regulatory state. He hired an astounding 90,000 new regulators. Under Democrats and Republicans, regulation grows.
A rare exception was repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which forbade financial companies from offering both commercial and investment banking services. You know who signed that?
Bill Clinton.
He was right to sign it (backed by Treasury Secretary and later Obama adviser Larry Summers) because outlawing full-service banking put American banks at a competitive disadvantage.
Five years earlier, Clinton supported the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, which finally legalized interstate branch banking. Federal and state laws that forbade intrastate and interstate branch banking -- that is, diversification -- were one of the worst features of American finance. They made banks highly vulnerable to failure of specific business centers and farm communities, helping to make the Great Depression what it was. (By contrast, Canada had no such restrictions and no bank failures.)
So Clinton -- not Bush -- was the bank deregulator. Were those acts responsible for the financial debacle of 2008? No. Bear Stearns, Lehman, etc. were not affiliated with commercial banks.
Banks got in trouble because they filled their portfolios with securities built on shaky mortgages. And here is where Clinton does bear responsibility.
His secretary of housing and urban development was Andrew Cuomo, now governor of New York and apparent presidential wannabe.
Cuomo, as Wayne Barrett wrote in the Village Voice in 2008, made a series of decisions that “helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.”
Barrett goes on: “Perhaps the only domestic issue George Bush and Bill Clinton were in complete agreement about was maximizing home ownership, each trying to lay claim to a record percentage of homeowners, and both describing their efforts as a boon to blacks and Hispanics. HUD, Fannie and Freddie were their instruments, and as is now apparent, the more unsavory the means, the greater the growth. ... (Cuomo) did more to set these forces of unregulated expansion in motion than any other secretary and then boasted about it, presenting his initiatives as crusades for racial and social justice.”
Naturally, when Clinton’s HUD secretary became New York’s attorney general, he vowed to prosecute unscrupulous lenders. I’m waiting for him to prosecute himself.
President Clinton happily takes credit for reducing America’s budget deficit and presiding over a period of strong economic growth. But this happened not because of wise leadership. Clinton had the good fortune to reside in the White House just as the high-tech information revolution kicked in and a Republican Congress stopped him from spending what Democrats wanted to spend.
Progressives say that his increase of the top tax bracket did not prevent economic growth, but it never occurs to them that growth would have been even stronger had government not confiscated that money.
His rousing speech at the Democrats' convention told the delegates that Republicans "want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place."
That is world class brass. Bill Clinton's own administration, more than any other, promoted an unsustainable housing boom, which eventually and inevitably led to a housing bust that brought down the whole American economy.
Behind all the complex financial processes that reached to Wall Street and beyond, there is one fundamental fact: many people stopped making their mortgage payments.
Why did that happen? Because mortgage loans were made to people who did not meet the long-established qualification standards for getting a mortgage loan. And why did that happen? Because the Clinton administration threatened lawsuits against lenders who did not approve mortgage loans to minority applicants as often as to white applicants.
In other words, racial quotas replaced credit qualifications. A failure to have racial statistics on mortgage approvals that fit the government's preconceptions was equated with discrimination.
Attorney General Reno said that lenders who "closely examine their lending practices and make necessary changes to eliminate discrimination" would "fare better in this department's stepped-up enforcement effort than those who do not." She said: "Do not wait for the Justice Department to come knocking."
Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had similar racial quota policies, and began taking legal actions against banks that turned down more minority applicants than HUD thought they should.
HUD said that it was breaking down "racial and ethnic barriers" so as to create more "access" to home ownership. It established "goals" -- political Newspeak for quotas -- for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy mortgages that the original lenders had made to "the underserved population." In other words, the original lenders could pass on the increasingly risky mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- and, ultimately, to the taxpayers.
Other federal agencies warned mortgage lenders against having credit standards that these agencies considered too high. And these agencies had many powers to use against banks and other lenders who did not heed their warnings.
What was the evidence for all the lending discrimination that the government was supposedly trying to prevent? Statistics.
In the year 2000, for example, black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants. Case closed, as far as the media and the government were concerned. Had they bothered to look a little deeper, they would have found that whites were turned down at nearly twice the rate for Asian Americans.
Had they bothered to check out average credit scores, they would have discovered that whites had higher average credit scores than blacks, and Asian Americans had higher average credit scores than whites.
Such inconvenient facts would have undermined the whole moral melodrama, reducing it to a case of plain economics, with lenders more likely to lend to those who were more likely to pay them back. Once lending standards were lowered, in order to meet racial quotas, they were lowered for everybody. Deadbeats of any race could get mortgage loans, and most were probably not minorities.
Democrats like to blame the "greed" of business, rather than the policies of government, for problems. But lenders don't make money by lending to individuals who don't pay them back. That is what government forced lenders to do, beginning under the Clinton administration. And the eventual collapse took down the economy.
Obama Speech:
A fact check shows that under President Obama, the U.S. economy has created a net 415,000 private-sector jobs—less than 0.2 percent of the 155million-member American workforce. But even that statistic does not tell the full story, since the workforce itself has shrunk dramatically in size since Obama tookoffice. Labor force participation is at 63.5 percent, its lowest level since 1981. In other words, a large chunk of Americans have simply given uplooking for work. A significant number are collecting disability insurance instead. In fact, the share of the adult population with jobs has remained flat for the past two years. The only reason the unemployment rate edged downslightly in August was that fewer people looked for work and thus no longer count as unemployed. The percentage of people participating in the laborforce dropped by 0.2 percent—the same amount the unemployment rate dropped. As Sherk has explained, we are in the slowest recovery in 70 years, and jobcreation has not recovered since the recession began in 2007.
The Associated Press and others point out that statement is misleading because it counts jobs from the recession's lowest point to where employment began to grow again – excluding jobs lost earlier in Obama's term and masking that overall unemployment has increased over that period. "Overall, roughly 7.5 million jobs were lost during the recession that began in December 2007 and ended officially in June 2009," according to the wire service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)