January 30, 2010
January 29, 2010
January 28, 2010
Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.
He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”
He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.
He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.
Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.
He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.
He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.
He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.
He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.
He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?
He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.
He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?
Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?
In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.
Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.
Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.
He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.
Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.
- Sarah Palin
January 27, 2010
There is an ongoing trend of pop-up webpages that attempt to simulate anti-virus programs. The nasty thing about these is what they do to a system.
January 26, 2010
January 25, 2010
January 23, 2010
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
January 22, 2010
January 21, 2010
"It's hard to believe President Obama has now been in office for a year. ... And you know, it's incredible. He took something that was in terrible, terrible shape, and he brought it back from the brink of disaster....The Republican Party."
January 20, 2010
I started ThinkOregon to shed light on the economic pain that hard-working Oregonians are dealing with each day. My daytime job provides a unique perspective on a fairly broad cross-section of the state's economy, and how hard the recession has hit Oregonians.
Writing in this journal has also broaden my perspective: I now have a deeper appreciation for how economically interconnected we all are. There is truth in "what happens to one of us, happens to all of us."
I received an email from a reader last night that was very much like all the others. I've sanitized the identity of the author and included the bulk of it below. The theme is all too familiar: a dramatic reductions in revenues, layoffs and an underlying despair that, for some reason, this time, just penetrated me to the core.
Most "Vote Yes" supporters will read the email and immediately take out their calculators to figure out how much, if any, this ThinkOregon reader will have to pay if Measures 66 and 67 pass. They'll proclaim with great joy "see he only has to pay $XXX.XX ... isn't that a small price to pay for schools and social services?"
This myopia seems especially grievous to me. It's a gut wrenching exercise in futility to constantly have to point out the blinding glimpse of the obvious: opposition to Measures 66 and 67 have never been about any one tax bill, but rather the overall negative impact on Oregon's fragile economy.
I've never been concerned about the direct costs of Measures 66 and 67 on my own pocketbook. I am, however, deathly afraid of how it will change the spending habits of my customers... and the customers of other small business owners around the state.
The recession took trillions of dollars of spending power out of the economy and now hundreds of thousands of Oregonians on unemployment and food stamps live that reality each and every day.
Why is it so difficult for the "Vote Yes" campaign to see how Oregon businesses are dependent on the patronage of others? The details in the email below aren't nearly as important as the lesson of how we are so utterly dependent upon the spending habits of others.
The "Vote Yes" campaign's mantra of "it's only $150" is utterly misleading as it takes the focus off the economic disaster that will be caused by $733,000,000 in new, permanent and retroactive taxes. More spending power that will be drained from the customers of Oregon small businesses. More customers of Oregon businesses will change their spending patterns. And ultimately, more Oregon small businesses and their employees will suffer.
Yet the "Vote Yes" campaign seems content to push their way to head of the line -- past the jobless, past those hanging on by a thread -- to demand even more.
As we approach the end of this election, Oregonians don't need a calculator or an advanced degree in economics to decide how to vote... we simply need to see the forest for the trees.
January 19, 2010
Carly Carioli writes:
Boston.com briefly put up this map of the final results of today's election -- some 8 hours before polls closed!
As you can see, over 2 million people voted, with Coakley eking out a 50-49 victory.
The map was fully interactive, so you could roll over and get town-by-town results -- above we show Coakley taking Cohasset 56-43.
They took the map down shortly after I pointed it out on Twitter. But not before we Phoenix troublemakers got the screen shots!
Now, if the final numbers end up matching these, the Republicans may really have reason to question the integrity of the process...
January 14, 2010
- Direct observation of a small sample: "I have a friend who is vegetarian she looks sickly and frail"
- Confusion of nutritional sourcing: "Where do you get protein?"
- Misunderstanding of the concept: "I'm vegetarian too, but I eat fish, chicken and lamb"
- Defensive acceptance: "I don't eat much meat"
- The fallen: "I used to be Vegetarian"
January 13, 2010
January 12, 2010
January 11, 2010
January 09, 2010
And the greatest of these is funding.
Because of this, scientists don't always let things like "the data" get in the way of "the conclusion". Case in point, the link between abortion and breast cancer.