Tuesday, November 16, 2010
QE2 Expansion: Explained With Puppies To Ease the Shock
More refreshing news to make you feel outright chipper about the future!
[Warning: The previous sentence is sarcasm.]
~David Morris~
Friday, November 5, 2010
State Legislators. Don't count them out.
One thing being under-reported in the post election aftermath is the number of state legislators that have gone republican. As of the 2010 election, 34 State Legislators are now of the GOP, more than they've ever had since the 1920's.
This is extremely significant for a number of reasons beyond the simple short term. Of course, the greatest stab in the heart for democrats lies on how these losses occured with the worst possible political timing. The fact that this landslide occurred on a census year could have Democrats in the wilderness for yet another decade.
Then you consider that consider that it takes 36 State Legislators to pass a Constitutional Amendment...
~David Morris~
This is extremely significant for a number of reasons beyond the simple short term. Of course, the greatest stab in the heart for democrats lies on how these losses occured with the worst possible political timing. The fact that this landslide occurred on a census year could have Democrats in the wilderness for yet another decade.
Then you consider that consider that it takes 36 State Legislators to pass a Constitutional Amendment...
~David Morris~
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Failed 2010 Election Mantra of the Democrats
The day of the 2010 election arrives.
Remember, Democrats would like to remind voters that it was the failed policies of Bush that got us into this mess, and that we should stick with them in order to get us out of it.
Yet this raises an interesting counter question. Accepting their premise of "the failed Bush policies of the past" one has to ask, where were these oh-so-trustworthy career politicians in stopping these "failed policies?"
Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and many others were there for decades. They could have been able to stop these so called failed policies. Yet evidently, they stood on the sidelines and allegedly let Bush bully them into enacting such failed economic policies such as...I'm not quite sure (democrats never seem to specify what Bush did that's directly correlated to the recession).
They were there to witness it though, even if they did nothing! So for that reason alone, we the people should send them back to Washington, where they can sit around and do nothing about the failed policies of Obama.
Such is the electoral message of the Democrats this day. Is it any wonder why so many choose to stay home?
~David Morris~
Remember, Democrats would like to remind voters that it was the failed policies of Bush that got us into this mess, and that we should stick with them in order to get us out of it.
Yet this raises an interesting counter question. Accepting their premise of "the failed Bush policies of the past" one has to ask, where were these oh-so-trustworthy career politicians in stopping these "failed policies?"
Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and many others were there for decades. They could have been able to stop these so called failed policies. Yet evidently, they stood on the sidelines and allegedly let Bush bully them into enacting such failed economic policies such as...I'm not quite sure (democrats never seem to specify what Bush did that's directly correlated to the recession).
They were there to witness it though, even if they did nothing! So for that reason alone, we the people should send them back to Washington, where they can sit around and do nothing about the failed policies of Obama.
Such is the electoral message of the Democrats this day. Is it any wonder why so many choose to stay home?
~David Morris~
Monday, September 13, 2010
Both Sides to Find Their Parties' Pooped
Ever since the era of the Great Depression, from 1930 to 1992, democrats had been an unshakable force that could not be moved as far as the House of Representatives is concerned. Only following the politically transformative presidency of Ronald Reagen would republicans ever again experience control over the House. Now, having been ousted already in 2006, democrats apparently presumed that they could solidify in the House for generations once more in following the wave of anti-Bush sentiment and a promised to be transformative presidency of Barack Obama, who would shift the nation left in the same manner that Reagan shifted it to the right.
However, as we grow closer to the November elections polling data over the generic ballot indicates republican advantages for the first time in decades. What went wrong?
Legitimacy. For the United States Federal Government to remain legitimate, the people must feel that they have a say in the process of policy. Given the present crisis, people no longer feel that either party in Washington listens to them, with elitist arrogance on the left, and attitudes of cowing to that very elitists on the right.
With this lost of hope in the government's capacity to listen, fear for their personal liberty and those of their children appears to be a prime force of motivation for formally apolitical independents now as tea partiers. 2010 shall not be remembered as the normal election year of "who can bring home the bacon." Given the wake of the stimilus, healthcare, cap and trade and government takeovers, for most people its about saving the entire country as a whole
This year all are witnessing the power of the tea party movement as people grow motivated through frustration with tone deaf government. New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts appears to be only the beginning. The traditional GOP finds itself no exception to being shocked as well, as a list of Tea Party endorsed candidates continues to upset establishment candidates.
Rand Paul in Kentucky, winning his primary by 10 points. Tea Party endorsed.
Angle in Nevada, 5 points above Reed. Tea Party endorsed.
Then there is O'Donnell of Delaware. With but little funding and a Sarah Palin endorsement, she defeats the establishment GOP candidate Mike Castle, whose primary was well funded over a million. Castle had held his seat for 12 elections despite his RINO (republican in name only) tendencies, and had the full backing of the GOP as they took a haughty attitude to the Tea Party endorsed underdog. A RINO voting record such as Castle would not hold in this climate of anger however and responses such as the above on whether he'd repeal healthcare no doubt sealing his fate.
As O'Donnell won her primary on the 14th of September, we nonetheless saw an insightful response from the RNC. Before she could even accept her nomination formally, an alleged statement by republican aides to Fox News is made claiming that she would not receive party support. Meanwhile, top republican analysts such as Karl Rove would react with scathing pessimism on her electability, adding fuel to the fire of resentment for the republican establishment.
Naturally, the backlash against such attitudes causes the RNC to retract and deny such pessimism on O'Donnell as we move forward. It is nonetheless telling from this episode that "moderation" as usual will be unacceptable for the GOP. The hostile takeover of the republican party by people who read their constitutions appears to have begun.
~David Morris~
However, as we grow closer to the November elections polling data over the generic ballot indicates republican advantages for the first time in decades. What went wrong?
Legitimacy. For the United States Federal Government to remain legitimate, the people must feel that they have a say in the process of policy. Given the present crisis, people no longer feel that either party in Washington listens to them, with elitist arrogance on the left, and attitudes of cowing to that very elitists on the right.
With this lost of hope in the government's capacity to listen, fear for their personal liberty and those of their children appears to be a prime force of motivation for formally apolitical independents now as tea partiers. 2010 shall not be remembered as the normal election year of "who can bring home the bacon." Given the wake of the stimilus, healthcare, cap and trade and government takeovers, for most people its about saving the entire country as a whole
This year all are witnessing the power of the tea party movement as people grow motivated through frustration with tone deaf government. New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts appears to be only the beginning. The traditional GOP finds itself no exception to being shocked as well, as a list of Tea Party endorsed candidates continues to upset establishment candidates.
Rand Paul in Kentucky, winning his primary by 10 points. Tea Party endorsed.
Angle in Nevada, 5 points above Reed. Tea Party endorsed.
Then there is O'Donnell of Delaware. With but little funding and a Sarah Palin endorsement, she defeats the establishment GOP candidate Mike Castle, whose primary was well funded over a million. Castle had held his seat for 12 elections despite his RINO (republican in name only) tendencies, and had the full backing of the GOP as they took a haughty attitude to the Tea Party endorsed underdog. A RINO voting record such as Castle would not hold in this climate of anger however and responses such as the above on whether he'd repeal healthcare no doubt sealing his fate.
As O'Donnell won her primary on the 14th of September, we nonetheless saw an insightful response from the RNC. Before she could even accept her nomination formally, an alleged statement by republican aides to Fox News is made claiming that she would not receive party support. Meanwhile, top republican analysts such as Karl Rove would react with scathing pessimism on her electability, adding fuel to the fire of resentment for the republican establishment.
Naturally, the backlash against such attitudes causes the RNC to retract and deny such pessimism on O'Donnell as we move forward. It is nonetheless telling from this episode that "moderation" as usual will be unacceptable for the GOP. The hostile takeover of the republican party by people who read their constitutions appears to have begun.
~David Morris~
Friday, September 3, 2010
Honor and values proved to be the main theme of Glenn Beck's speech on the Lincoln Memorial last saturday. This blogger happened to have the opportunity to attend and found the event and found the rhetoric to be quite refreshing from the usual firebranding of today's politics. Rather than be a political pep rally, Mr. Beck, along with such speakers as Aveda King (the niece of the late Dr. King Jr.) focused their subject on topics that stand the test of time in terms of relevance, rather than on short-term political campaigning.
The mall was jam packed with people from all across the nation. Black speakers and singers also were center stage of the event, along with other black conservatives on the steps of MLK. Regardless of how one may wish to look at the racial composition, the message was one that was distinctly American and evangelist in its theme. No mentioning of Democrats or Republicans was uttered, as American traditional values of were of top focus.
~David Morris~
The mall was jam packed with people from all across the nation. Black speakers and singers also were center stage of the event, along with other black conservatives on the steps of MLK. Regardless of how one may wish to look at the racial composition, the message was one that was distinctly American and evangelist in its theme. No mentioning of Democrats or Republicans was uttered, as American traditional values of were of top focus.
~David Morris~
Thursday, September 2, 2010
BP Oil Explosion: The Sequel.
Another BP Oil Rig Explosion. Owned by BP.
I wonder what makes BP so special? At least no one was hurt this time.
Again which begs the question, why aren't we drilling on land, here in the good 'ol western hemisphere.
~David Morris~
I wonder what makes BP so special? At least no one was hurt this time.
Again which begs the question, why aren't we drilling on land, here in the good 'ol western hemisphere.
~David Morris~
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Tea Parties and the Mosque: Where is the Force?
Concerning the mosque controversy, some liberals and libertarians out there wish to demonize and/or chastise anyone who protests the mosque on the grounds that they are bigoted against freedom of religion. The mosque doesn't affect them they say, and true freedom lovers would get up in arms supporting the building.
Personally, I don't care whether this mosque gets built. If they have the local property right on that lot with the proper legal zoning permits and funding, then they may construct what they wish there.
At the same time however, I personally don't care if a bunch of so-called "bigots" as defined by mosque supporters gets uppity about it and protests. They have a right to be offended and speak their mind about a mosque that doesn't directly affect them. There is only one litmus test I have for the mosque protesters: Is there any kind of force involved?
Its not coercion until force enters the equation, be it direct physical violence or the implied threat thereof via legal interference. If Tea Parties manage to shut the mosque down via bad publicity alone, so be it. If they fail, so be it. Until they get violent, I am in complete respect to their enumerated rights of assembly and speech.
~David Morris~
Personally, I don't care whether this mosque gets built. If they have the local property right on that lot with the proper legal zoning permits and funding, then they may construct what they wish there.
At the same time however, I personally don't care if a bunch of so-called "bigots" as defined by mosque supporters gets uppity about it and protests. They have a right to be offended and speak their mind about a mosque that doesn't directly affect them. There is only one litmus test I have for the mosque protesters: Is there any kind of force involved?
Its not coercion until force enters the equation, be it direct physical violence or the implied threat thereof via legal interference. If Tea Parties manage to shut the mosque down via bad publicity alone, so be it. If they fail, so be it. Until they get violent, I am in complete respect to their enumerated rights of assembly and speech.
~David Morris~
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Case for a Pentagon Watchdog
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that is vulnerable to being labeled as "anti-military."
To clear the record, libertarians are very pro-defense in many the same ways as conservatives. They are not a strawman of weak-kneed commie pinko appeaser hippie pacifist types.
The thing with libertarianism is that its consistently anti-horsecrap when it comes to the government; even moreso than vanilla conservatism supposedly is. The military - God Bless the men and women in uniform - is still a part of the government. My father has retired career officers for friends, and they truthfully inform us that the higher in rank one goes, the more inefficient bureaucracy you will start to observe, particularly in the Pentagon.
Its not that libertarians are anti-military. Not at all. They are consistently anti-bureaucracy, and unlike straw conservatism, the Pentagon is not given a special pass. Here are some examples that make a case for why one should pay attention to big government. Even to one of the few arms conceded in having a justifiable existence.
---
Boeing YAL-1
Projected Research Cost: 60 Billion.
Real Research Cost: 9 years overdue and $4 billion over-budget.
Cost per Unit: $700 Million+
Operating Costs: 92,000 per hour.
----
A laser on a plane? With the sole purpose to shoot down missiles? At the cost of nearly 4 F-22s? Is there nothing better to do with that kind of money? More successful concepts of pilot training it can go towards?
Here are further samplings of how even the Pentagon proves to still be a Washington bureaucracy.
I have a sister in the Navy. I have a cousin in the Marine Corps. I'm proud of them. I do not have to be proud of their upper management accountants however.
~David Morris~
To clear the record, libertarians are very pro-defense in many the same ways as conservatives. They are not a strawman of weak-kneed commie pinko appeaser hippie pacifist types.
The thing with libertarianism is that its consistently anti-horsecrap when it comes to the government; even moreso than vanilla conservatism supposedly is. The military - God Bless the men and women in uniform - is still a part of the government. My father has retired career officers for friends, and they truthfully inform us that the higher in rank one goes, the more inefficient bureaucracy you will start to observe, particularly in the Pentagon.
Its not that libertarians are anti-military. Not at all. They are consistently anti-bureaucracy, and unlike straw conservatism, the Pentagon is not given a special pass. Here are some examples that make a case for why one should pay attention to big government. Even to one of the few arms conceded in having a justifiable existence.
---
Boeing YAL-1
Projected Research Cost: 60 Billion.
Real Research Cost: 9 years overdue and $4 billion over-budget.
Cost per Unit: $700 Million+
Operating Costs: 92,000 per hour.
----
A laser on a plane? With the sole purpose to shoot down missiles? At the cost of nearly 4 F-22s? Is there nothing better to do with that kind of money? More successful concepts of pilot training it can go towards?
Here are further samplings of how even the Pentagon proves to still be a Washington bureaucracy.
I have a sister in the Navy. I have a cousin in the Marine Corps. I'm proud of them. I do not have to be proud of their upper management accountants however.
~David Morris~
Job well done
Good job to the men and women of the United States Military.
It is in their hands now. We can only pray that they do not reject the opportunity of liberty America has given the Iraqi people. It was a rather expensive (in more ways than one) act of humanitarian aid.
~David Morris~
It is in their hands now. We can only pray that they do not reject the opportunity of liberty America has given the Iraqi people. It was a rather expensive (in more ways than one) act of humanitarian aid.
~David Morris~
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Awhile back, I asked if there was a single issue on which Obama stands with the vast majority of Americans.
Well, according to Gallup, it looks like I have have my answer for now.
At least he's good at racial relations. 52%. Touche and Bravo Mr. President.
~David Morris~
Well, according to Gallup, it looks like I have have my answer for now.
At least he's good at racial relations. 52%. Touche and Bravo Mr. President.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Concerning the Proposition 8 annulment by Judge Walker, I must say that I have a fascinating amount of mixed feelings within me, considering that part of me is conservative, while part of me is libertarian.
I've always reconciled any differences by preferring that civil issues be principally settled by the 10 Amendment of the Constitution; that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I don't like the government slinking around in controversial moral gray areas such as abortion, religious practices, or gay marriage. Hence, my first reaction to the California decision knee-jerked towards the fear that my favorite amendment had been usurped in a classic case of liberal judicial activism. In gaining some context however, I learn that Judge Walker is in fact more of a libertarian persuasion (appointed by Ronald Reagen in fact). To my surprise, what I find instead of a argument rooted in pseudo-psychology notions of fairness, is indeed a logical, valid and truly compelling argument that grounded in the Constitution of the United States, namely, the equal protection of under the 14th.
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
After some research however, I've come to learn of where this argument of equal protection comes from as I better understand that what the conservative in me has long pondered: why are civil unions considered unsatisfactory for homosexuals. As it turns out, a civil union is not treated by the Federal Government in the same manner that a full marriage license is.
So I can somewhat see where the judge is coming from. Nonetheless, the lingering sense of distrust over a court taking sides in the debate still permeates, as I am sure it does for many constitutional conservatives in the nation.
~David Morris~
I've always reconciled any differences by preferring that civil issues be principally settled by the 10 Amendment of the Constitution; that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I don't like the government slinking around in controversial moral gray areas such as abortion, religious practices, or gay marriage. Hence, my first reaction to the California decision knee-jerked towards the fear that my favorite amendment had been usurped in a classic case of liberal judicial activism. In gaining some context however, I learn that Judge Walker is in fact more of a libertarian persuasion (appointed by Ronald Reagen in fact). To my surprise, what I find instead of a argument rooted in pseudo-psychology notions of fairness, is indeed a logical, valid and truly compelling argument that grounded in the Constitution of the United States, namely, the equal protection of under the 14th.
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
After some research however, I've come to learn of where this argument of equal protection comes from as I better understand that what the conservative in me has long pondered: why are civil unions considered unsatisfactory for homosexuals. As it turns out, a civil union is not treated by the Federal Government in the same manner that a full marriage license is.
So I can somewhat see where the judge is coming from. Nonetheless, the lingering sense of distrust over a court taking sides in the debate still permeates, as I am sure it does for many constitutional conservatives in the nation.
~David Morris~
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Another Tone Deaf Vacation
No surprise. After all, they do conduct themselves as though they were our rulers. Here is yet the latest example of the Obama's rendering themselves as unrelatable to the rest of the nation.
Seriously though, how many vacations do these people need? There was the Chicago vacation incident. The Air Force One over the Stature of Liberty incident. All the golf that was played while the gulf was spilling oil. It appears that these decisions to go play while the nation is in pain is made without any consideration for political capital.
~David Morris~
Seriously though, how many vacations do these people need? There was the Chicago vacation incident. The Air Force One over the Stature of Liberty incident. All the golf that was played while the gulf was spilling oil. It appears that these decisions to go play while the nation is in pain is made without any consideration for political capital.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
An EXCELLENT resource for Comparitive Obama Progress.
Discovered this wonderfully convenient flash by the good people at Gallup that enables you to compare each president's historical data in job approval, on a day by day basis. Very useful in allowing you to compare Obama to other presidents. Or any president to any other president, all the way back to Truman.
~David Morris~
~David Morris~
Monday, August 2, 2010
Just how more corrupt can this congress get?
So, not only is Rangel on the ropes for his tax evasion, Maxine Waters also finds her feet to the fire on charges of swindling bailout funds in a manner that was biased towards assisting her husband.
Is it only just these two that are in trouble however? I would like to get further into the potential ethics problems of the democrats right now, if not short for time. Needless to say, I cannot imagine a more corrupt time for congress.
~David Morris~
Is it only just these two that are in trouble however? I would like to get further into the potential ethics problems of the democrats right now, if not short for time. Needless to say, I cannot imagine a more corrupt time for congress.
~David Morris~
Friday, July 30, 2010
Unpresidential President Indeed
The view huh? Mr. Obama, you're going on the View as president of the United States to discuss what exactly?
...
I fear that "..." is sadly all that was truly discussed. There was nothing of substance. Why this medium, no one can answer.
It is very belittling of himself. That's all anyone seems to know.
~David Morris~
...
I fear that "..." is sadly all that was truly discussed. There was nothing of substance. Why this medium, no one can answer.
It is very belittling of himself. That's all anyone seems to know.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
GOP Youth Convention - A personal case study for proper framing.
Along with some of my other libertarian co-workers, I attended a GOP Youth Convention. The mission was to design an official party agenda on a variety of issues from the perspective of young people. The process involved splitting us into subcommittees (such as economics, foreign policy, etc) where we'd draft an proposed stance on a specific topic. We would then vote on the wordings of our drafts before making such stances official. Participates could make calls to reword the stance if found disagreeable, and we would hence vote on the alternative proposal.
While much of the economic and health care issues were agreeable, nominally, libertarians and conservatives are capable of disagreement when it comes to immigration, defense spending, and certain other social issues. With three libertarians in the crowd (including one who was particularly eager), most of the deadlock took place here.
Specifically, on immigration and gay marriage. It appeared that one of my co-workers was unintentionally stirring a hornet nest in the manner she made her proposals on such issues, leading her be be labeled as a "democrat spy" by certain individuals who found her disagreeable.
I recall the deadlock on the definition of marriage in particular. Singularly it appeared, my co-worker was advocating against the original proposal of the societal subcommittee of simply pre-defining marriage as between a man and a woman. However, her framing had more of an appeal tailored to civil liberals and proved agitating to many. As temperaments flared, I quietly thought of means to reword the manner in a way that everyone could be satisfied with.
It is here that I was thankful for heeding some of the lessons learned at Cato in regards to relating to one's audience. I've always believed libertarians can create more common ground with conservatives than not, if they are mindful of proper framing. Recalling the Ransberger Pivot, I employed it in a manner that was able to end the deadlock by making an appeal to the constitution, a document that everyone in the room could appreciate. In the end, rather than stand for federal involvement on marriage, I subtly took things in a direction of allowing the 10th Amendment to settle the issue.
It was nice to play peacemaker.
~David Morris~
While much of the economic and health care issues were agreeable, nominally, libertarians and conservatives are capable of disagreement when it comes to immigration, defense spending, and certain other social issues. With three libertarians in the crowd (including one who was particularly eager), most of the deadlock took place here.
Specifically, on immigration and gay marriage. It appeared that one of my co-workers was unintentionally stirring a hornet nest in the manner she made her proposals on such issues, leading her be be labeled as a "democrat spy" by certain individuals who found her disagreeable.
I recall the deadlock on the definition of marriage in particular. Singularly it appeared, my co-worker was advocating against the original proposal of the societal subcommittee of simply pre-defining marriage as between a man and a woman. However, her framing had more of an appeal tailored to civil liberals and proved agitating to many. As temperaments flared, I quietly thought of means to reword the manner in a way that everyone could be satisfied with.
It is here that I was thankful for heeding some of the lessons learned at Cato in regards to relating to one's audience. I've always believed libertarians can create more common ground with conservatives than not, if they are mindful of proper framing. Recalling the Ransberger Pivot, I employed it in a manner that was able to end the deadlock by making an appeal to the constitution, a document that everyone in the room could appreciate. In the end, rather than stand for federal involvement on marriage, I subtly took things in a direction of allowing the 10th Amendment to settle the issue.
It was nice to play peacemaker.
~David Morris~
Friday, July 23, 2010
Mosque across Ground Zero. Oh well. Can I have a cross then?
Response to this article at Washington Examiner.
I'm a Christian libertarian with traditional values. Sure, I can claim mixed feelings on the controversy of a mega-mosque on Ground Zero.
However, unless there's some hidden form of legal foul play, I can't really care enough to be up in arms about it. I understand after all, that Islam is composed of different denominations just as Christianity is. Its not as if al Qaeda is funding this. Again, I don't necessarily endorse the mosque. I would still appreciate it were they not to build the mosque.
I would also appreciate it if someone gave me a quarter right about now. Oh well, its no big deal if I don't get what I want on this one. This is a red herring to more important things.
Besides, I perceive no true threat to my religious freedom on account of this Islamic building anyway. Nay, that remains the purview of ignorantly intolerant anti-Christian activists, who oft speak of "separation of church and state" as though the term "state" was synonymous with "public display."
So how about the following compromise?
Muslims get their mosque across the street of ground zero, and Christians get to put a cross or religious plaque somewhere ON ground zero. That is, whenever they decide to put something there.
Nah, that's probably attract the ACLU.
~David Morris~
I'm a Christian libertarian with traditional values. Sure, I can claim mixed feelings on the controversy of a mega-mosque on Ground Zero.
However, unless there's some hidden form of legal foul play, I can't really care enough to be up in arms about it. I understand after all, that Islam is composed of different denominations just as Christianity is. Its not as if al Qaeda is funding this. Again, I don't necessarily endorse the mosque. I would still appreciate it were they not to build the mosque.
I would also appreciate it if someone gave me a quarter right about now. Oh well, its no big deal if I don't get what I want on this one. This is a red herring to more important things.
Besides, I perceive no true threat to my religious freedom on account of this Islamic building anyway. Nay, that remains the purview of ignorantly intolerant anti-Christian activists, who oft speak of "separation of church and state" as though the term "state" was synonymous with "public display."
So how about the following compromise?
Muslims get their mosque across the street of ground zero, and Christians get to put a cross or religious plaque somewhere ON ground zero. That is, whenever they decide to put something there.
Nah, that's probably attract the ACLU.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Debt Metaphors To the Moon.
I decided to go hunting for some debt metaphors today. Imagine the engineering achievements would could obtain!
---
Big numbers: As a point of reference, if 11.4 trillion $1 bills were stacked on top of each other, they would stretch all the way to the moon. And back. And over halfway to the moon again. Put another way, if you brought $1-trillion in crisp one-dollar bills to the bank and you handed the teller a dollar every second, it would take 32,000 years to completely transfer the money. [source]
---
23.5 Trillion Dollars Is 23.5 Football Fields Stacked 2 Stories Deep With Packed $100 Bills: That’s the Size of USA Federal Debt. [source]
---
If you had a nice neat stack of $100 bills 40 inches high, you would have a million dollars.
A billion dollars is a thousand million. If you could keep it from falling over, a billion dollars in $100 bills all in one stack or on one helluva spindle would be more than 300 stories high. More than three Sears Towers stacked one on top of the other. It would be 3,333 feet high, a hazard to air traffic requiring beacons flashing day and night.
The amount that the Bush administration borrowed from investors last month, October 2002, was ironically 33.3 times as much as the above and if stacked all together in $100 bills would reach 21 miles into space. That's not feet or inches, but 21 statute miles of 5,280 feet to the mile.
And that's not all. The Bush administration ran up the entitlement side of the national debt another $20.9 billion which means that the total national debt went up $54.3 billion last month, October 2002. Now, our monthly stack of $100 bills would reach 34.2 miles into space. And that's only what your government added to the tab in one month.
If you took the entire national debt and it was possible to stack it neatly in $100 bills, that stack would extend 3,966 miles into space. "One of these days Alice, to the moon."
If our hypothetical spindle was based in New York City and it fell to the east, we could have a narrow bridge across the Atlantic to Berlin. If it fell to the west, the top would land more than 900 miles offshore from San Francisco in the Pacific.
From another direction.
If you set aside $7 million a day from the birth of Christ, from the beginning of the Gregorian calendar 2,002 years ago, you would be able to pay off the national debt by November of the year 2458. That's only 456 years from now. Of course, right now the national debt would have to stop going up.
There are nitwits who tell us that the United States can easily afford a debt of this size because our Gross Domestic Product is more than $10 trillion a year. At $6.3 trillion, the national debt is only about 60 percent of the GDP.
The implication here is that all we have to do is stop spending money for six or seven months of the year, send everything we make to the government, and everything will be hunky dory. It really means we would all be dead in a matter of weeks.
Don't buy medicine. Don't buy gasoline or groceries. Don't go to Starbucks or McDonald's. Of course, there wouldn't be anybody there anyway because they would all be doing the same thing. How long do you think you could last that way, even if we didn't start killing each other over what's left on the shelves?
We all know what the sensible solution is. Set up a payment plan within our means.
Unfortunately, the most we've ever paid against the national debt was $230 billion in fiscal 2000 and that wasn't enough to keep the debt from going up another $18 billion that year due to interest and the theft of entitlement surpluses.
If you go to any mortgage lender or any of the plug-in mortgage models on the Internet, you will find that paying off the national debt in anything less than 50 years requires annual payments of at least $350 billion a year. And that's with interest as low as 5 percent.
However.
There is one thing we could do that would be of benefit to all of us. We could get rid of the bogus bonds that our crooked government has awarded us while they played a con game called "borrowing" entitlement money—actually stealing our surplus Social Security, Medicare, gas taxes, and other excessive overpayments.
We don't need these phony securities. The entire "Intragovernmental Holdings" side of the national debt, currently standing at $2.7 trillion, is fraudulent. Worse than anything Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossings, Arthur Andersen, or any of the corporations under investigation by the Justice Department and SEC have done.
Wipe that fraudulent $2.7 trillion from the crooked books and we've only got $3.6 trillion in honest debt to investors to pay off.
We would all be better off if the crooks had the integrity to simply take the money and run in the first place instead of tricking us with their double taxation scam.
[source]
---
~David Morris~
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Conservatives vs Libertarians. Solution? The Limbaugh Libertarian Virus.
Original respons to this article over whether conservatism is to be considered a "dirty word."
---
I think this sounds like an interesting strategy for converting liberals.
Do not break away from conservatives when it comes to dealing with conservatives. The neoconservative brand of Bush is dead most certainly. Its just as dead as Nixon. But the Reagan conservative brand is still very much alive. It is not to be forsaken on the grounds of a single heretic.
So I suppose when dealing with liberals, start the process on social issues and teach them about economics. Bam, a new libertarian. If dealing with conservatives, teach them about the 9th and 10th amendment. Bam, new libertarian.
It all really depends on your audience.
As a movement though, like it or not, the first pure-strain libertarian president will be a republican. I hear you out until you get to a point of speaking of third parties. I don't know of Palin's model. I don't trust Hannity's blueprint. However, I am continually fascinated by Limbaugh as I screen him for anti-liberty gaffes. For when you listen, it is soon apparent that he's a "conservative" with a libertarian infection.
Could his libertarian substitute hosts have a hand in this? We need to repeat what I shall henceforth deem the "Limbaugh libertarian virus" for all the other conservatives and hijack their party.
Ah yes. Another caveat we must be aware of is that not everything associated with "liberal" is necessarily socially tolerant.
Fairness Doctrine, affirmative action, jealously guarded ban on alternatives to evolution, infringement on the *private* right to associate and disassociate, hostility to public displays (not state displays, but public displays by private citizens) specifically of Christianity, etc. One should take care in broadly painting contemporary liberalism as socially untainted.
Certainly, libertarians call for a secular government. Many "liberals" however are known for going further in calling for a forcefully secular culture. Just a word of warning.
The 9th and 10th Amendment is the key. Be we educating liberals or conservatives, our message must provide that people have the right to associate with those who hold their beliefs. Federalism.
~David Morris~
---
I think this sounds like an interesting strategy for converting liberals.
Do not break away from conservatives when it comes to dealing with conservatives. The neoconservative brand of Bush is dead most certainly. Its just as dead as Nixon. But the Reagan conservative brand is still very much alive. It is not to be forsaken on the grounds of a single heretic.
So I suppose when dealing with liberals, start the process on social issues and teach them about economics. Bam, a new libertarian. If dealing with conservatives, teach them about the 9th and 10th amendment. Bam, new libertarian.
It all really depends on your audience.
As a movement though, like it or not, the first pure-strain libertarian president will be a republican. I hear you out until you get to a point of speaking of third parties. I don't know of Palin's model. I don't trust Hannity's blueprint. However, I am continually fascinated by Limbaugh as I screen him for anti-liberty gaffes. For when you listen, it is soon apparent that he's a "conservative" with a libertarian infection.
Could his libertarian substitute hosts have a hand in this? We need to repeat what I shall henceforth deem the "Limbaugh libertarian virus" for all the other conservatives and hijack their party.
Ah yes. Another caveat we must be aware of is that not everything associated with "liberal" is necessarily socially tolerant.
Fairness Doctrine, affirmative action, jealously guarded ban on alternatives to evolution, infringement on the *private* right to associate and disassociate, hostility to public displays (not state displays, but public displays by private citizens) specifically of Christianity, etc. One should take care in broadly painting contemporary liberalism as socially untainted.
Certainly, libertarians call for a secular government. Many "liberals" however are known for going further in calling for a forcefully secular culture. Just a word of warning.
The 9th and 10th Amendment is the key. Be we educating liberals or conservatives, our message must provide that people have the right to associate with those who hold their beliefs. Federalism.
~David Morris~
On the Ground View of Afganistan.
---
From a Recon Marine in Afghanistan
From the Sand Pit it's freezing here. I'm sitting on hard, cold dirt between rocks and shrubs at the base of the Hindu Kush Mountains , along the Dar 'yoi Pomir River , watching a hole that leads to a tunnel that leads to a cave. Stake out, my friend, and no pizza delivery for thousands of miles.
I also glance at the area around my buns every ten to fifteen seconds to avoid another scorpion sting. I've actually given up battling the chiggers and sand fleas, but the scorpions give a jolt like a cattle prod. Hurts like a bastard. The antidote tastes like transmission fluid, but God bless the Marine Corps for the five vials of it in my pack.
The one truth the Taliban cannot escape is that, believe it or not, they are human beings, which means they have to eat food and drink water. That requires couriers and that's where an old bounty hunter like me comes in handy. I track the couriers, locate the tunnel entrances and storage facilities, type the info into the handheld, shoot the coordinates up to the satellite link that tells the air commanders where to drop the hardware. We bash some heads for a while, then I track and record the new movement.
It's all about intelligence. We haven't even brought in the snipers yet. These scurrying rats have no idea what they're in for. We are but days away from cutting off supply lines and allowing the eradication to begin.
I dream of bin Laden waking up to find me standing over him with my boot on his throat as I spit into his face and plunge my nickel-plated Bowie knife through his frontal lobe. But you know me, I'm a romantic. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Afghanistan blows, man. It's not even a country. There are no roads, there's no infrastructure, there's no government. This is an inhospitable, rock pit ruled by eleventh century warring tribes. There are no jobs here like we know jobs.
Afghanistan offers two ways for a man to support his family: join the opium trade or join the army. That's it. Those are your options. Oh, I forgot, you can also live in a refugee camp and eat plum-sweetened, crushed beetle paste and squirt mud like a goose with stomach flu, if that's your idea of a party. But the smell alone of those 'tent cities of the walking dead' is enough to hurl you into the poppy fields to cheerfully scrape bulbs for eighteen hours a day.
I've been living with these Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Turkmen and even a couple of Pushtuns, for over a month-and-a-half now, and this much I can say for sure: These guys, all of 'em, are Huns... actual, living Huns. They LIVE to fight. It's what they do. It's ALL they do. They have no respect for anything, not for their families, nor for each other, nor for themselves. They claw at one another as a way of life. They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into human cockfights to defend the family honor. Huns, roaming packs of savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other's barbarism. Cavemen with AK-47's. Then again, maybe I'm just cranky.
I'm freezing my buns off on this stupid hill because my lap warmer is running out of juice, and I can't recharge it until the sun comes up in a few hours. Oh yeah! You like to write letters, right? Do me a favor, Bizarre. Write a letter to CNN and tell Wolf and Anderson and that awful, sneering, pompous Aaron Brown to stop calling the Taliban 'smart.' They are not smart. I suggest CNN invest in a dictionary because the word they are looking for is 'cunning.' The Taliban are cunning, like jackals and hyenas and wolverines. They are sneaky and ruthless, and when confronted, cowardly. They are hateful, malevolent parasites who create nothing and destroy everything else. Smart. Pfft. Yeah, they're real smart.
They've spent their entire lives reading only one book (and not a very good one, as books go) and consider hygiene and indoor plumbing to be products of the devil. They're still figuring out how to work a Bic lighter. Talking to a Taliban warrior about improving his quality of life is like trying to teach an ape how to hold a pen; eventually he just gets frustrated and sticks you in the eye with it.
OK, enough. Snuffle will be up soon, so I have to get back to my hole. Covering my tracks in the snow takes a lot of practice, but I'm good at it.
Please, I tell you and my fellow Americans to turn off the TV sets and move on with your lives. The story line you are getting from CNN and other news agencies is utter bull, and designed not to deliver truth but rather to keep you glued to the screen through the commercials. We've got this one under control The worst thing you guys can do right now is sit around analyzing what we're doing over here, because you have no idea what we're doing, and really, you don't want to know. We are your military, and we are doing what you sent us here to do.
Saucy Jack
Recon Marine in Afghanistan
Semper Fi
"Freedom is not free...but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share".
Send this to ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS so that people here will really know what is going on over there.-
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.' That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.'
From a Recon Marine in Afghanistan
From the Sand Pit it's freezing here. I'm sitting on hard, cold dirt between rocks and shrubs at the base of the Hindu Kush Mountains , along the Dar 'yoi Pomir River , watching a hole that leads to a tunnel that leads to a cave. Stake out, my friend, and no pizza delivery for thousands of miles.
I also glance at the area around my buns every ten to fifteen seconds to avoid another scorpion sting. I've actually given up battling the chiggers and sand fleas, but the scorpions give a jolt like a cattle prod. Hurts like a bastard. The antidote tastes like transmission fluid, but God bless the Marine Corps for the five vials of it in my pack.
The one truth the Taliban cannot escape is that, believe it or not, they are human beings, which means they have to eat food and drink water. That requires couriers and that's where an old bounty hunter like me comes in handy. I track the couriers, locate the tunnel entrances and storage facilities, type the info into the handheld, shoot the coordinates up to the satellite link that tells the air commanders where to drop the hardware. We bash some heads for a while, then I track and record the new movement.
It's all about intelligence. We haven't even brought in the snipers yet. These scurrying rats have no idea what they're in for. We are but days away from cutting off supply lines and allowing the eradication to begin.
I dream of bin Laden waking up to find me standing over him with my boot on his throat as I spit into his face and plunge my nickel-plated Bowie knife through his frontal lobe. But you know me, I'm a romantic. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Afghanistan blows, man. It's not even a country. There are no roads, there's no infrastructure, there's no government. This is an inhospitable, rock pit ruled by eleventh century warring tribes. There are no jobs here like we know jobs.
Afghanistan offers two ways for a man to support his family: join the opium trade or join the army. That's it. Those are your options. Oh, I forgot, you can also live in a refugee camp and eat plum-sweetened, crushed beetle paste and squirt mud like a goose with stomach flu, if that's your idea of a party. But the smell alone of those 'tent cities of the walking dead' is enough to hurl you into the poppy fields to cheerfully scrape bulbs for eighteen hours a day.
I've been living with these Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Turkmen and even a couple of Pushtuns, for over a month-and-a-half now, and this much I can say for sure: These guys, all of 'em, are Huns... actual, living Huns. They LIVE to fight. It's what they do. It's ALL they do. They have no respect for anything, not for their families, nor for each other, nor for themselves. They claw at one another as a way of life. They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into human cockfights to defend the family honor. Huns, roaming packs of savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other's barbarism. Cavemen with AK-47's. Then again, maybe I'm just cranky.
I'm freezing my buns off on this stupid hill because my lap warmer is running out of juice, and I can't recharge it until the sun comes up in a few hours. Oh yeah! You like to write letters, right? Do me a favor, Bizarre. Write a letter to CNN and tell Wolf and Anderson and that awful, sneering, pompous Aaron Brown to stop calling the Taliban 'smart.' They are not smart. I suggest CNN invest in a dictionary because the word they are looking for is 'cunning.' The Taliban are cunning, like jackals and hyenas and wolverines. They are sneaky and ruthless, and when confronted, cowardly. They are hateful, malevolent parasites who create nothing and destroy everything else. Smart. Pfft. Yeah, they're real smart.
They've spent their entire lives reading only one book (and not a very good one, as books go) and consider hygiene and indoor plumbing to be products of the devil. They're still figuring out how to work a Bic lighter. Talking to a Taliban warrior about improving his quality of life is like trying to teach an ape how to hold a pen; eventually he just gets frustrated and sticks you in the eye with it.
OK, enough. Snuffle will be up soon, so I have to get back to my hole. Covering my tracks in the snow takes a lot of practice, but I'm good at it.
Please, I tell you and my fellow Americans to turn off the TV sets and move on with your lives. The story line you are getting from CNN and other news agencies is utter bull, and designed not to deliver truth but rather to keep you glued to the screen through the commercials. We've got this one under control The worst thing you guys can do right now is sit around analyzing what we're doing over here, because you have no idea what we're doing, and really, you don't want to know. We are your military, and we are doing what you sent us here to do.
Saucy Jack
Recon Marine in Afghanistan
Semper Fi
"Freedom is not free...but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share".
Send this to ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS so that people here will really know what is going on over there.-
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.' That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.'
FUBAR Afganistan? Redefine the Mission.
As I read the editorial from Gene Healy on Obama's war, I can't help but recall a certain letter from a recon marine floating around, in which he described the populace as essentially "cavemen with AK-47s" for whom improving the quality of life is a hopeless concept.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Which begs the question, what exactly is our mission over in Afghanistan again?
Supposedly, a painful and expensive “long war” of nation-building may yet be touted as ultimately successful a generation from now in Iraq. Afghanistan it seems, will require far more than a single generation. Given the crippling levels of underdevelopment and fractured tribal cultures hostile to civility, perhaps we need to reevaluate our terms of "victory" in Afghanistan.
EDIT: Though it wasn't published on paper, it seems my point makes an honorable mention on the Washington Examiner.
~David Morris~
Which begs the question, what exactly is our mission over in Afghanistan again?
Supposedly, a painful and expensive “long war” of nation-building may yet be touted as ultimately successful a generation from now in Iraq. Afghanistan it seems, will require far more than a single generation. Given the crippling levels of underdevelopment and fractured tribal cultures hostile to civility, perhaps we need to reevaluate our terms of "victory" in Afghanistan.
EDIT: Though it wasn't published on paper, it seems my point makes an honorable mention on the Washington Examiner.
~David Morris~
Friday, July 16, 2010
Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Bible
Rant as a following reaction to the reason debate of where conservatives belong.
I see liberalism as fundamentally statist by comparison to conservatives and libertarians, as it appears to be more emotive and reactionary. Not about freedom, its about equal outcomes for all under welfare. I just don’t agree with it. The hope is for libertarians and tolerant conservatism. Unlike some libertarians, I do not hold all conservatives as fundamentally statist either however. Libertarians who do some tend to be alienating to me, considering that I live as a conservative on the personal level. I do not endorse extramarital affairs. I don’t endorse homosexuality. I do not endorse dangerous substances. I do not endorse abortion. I do endorse Christianity. My children shall be subject to these values.
But I also endorse the 9th and 10th amendment, which encapsulates an adult’s decision to choose his own path. Knowledge of them is what refines conservative values on the realm of public arena, by reminding us that we are not He. After all, am I not to have faith that God is on top of things? Be ye are a murderer, adulterer, homosexual or yes, even a politician, am I not to have faith that Jesus already provides for redemption? Give unto God what belongs to God. My neighbors are his children after all, not mine. He loves them all. He has offered them a choice. That is enough.
Am I not to be called to? As His intent, Adults are best left free do make their own decisions, and by extension, communities are best left to develop their own cultures. The Lord will oversee consequences. It is immoral to extort. Nay, the Holy Spirit calls for kindness over coercion. It is truth, it is eternal. It requires not the force of flawed human law. Live, let live, and educate.
Many mainstream brands of modern Christianity understands this fundamentally. Some perhaps, do not. Therein lies the difference between the “pure strain” conservatives, and the conservative libertarian. My teaching of Christianity never calls for coercive activism. Apparently, some churches do. Therein lies the difference between the church goer unaware of his libertarianism, as I was, and the pure strain “social conservative” who, misguided in his understanding of God’s law, attempts to create human laws to emulate them.
Such is the conceit. For God designed his Laws simply to demonstrate them as useless. Faith is all that matters. It must be made as a personal decision.
Jesus is a libertarian.
~David Morris~
I see liberalism as fundamentally statist by comparison to conservatives and libertarians, as it appears to be more emotive and reactionary. Not about freedom, its about equal outcomes for all under welfare. I just don’t agree with it. The hope is for libertarians and tolerant conservatism. Unlike some libertarians, I do not hold all conservatives as fundamentally statist either however. Libertarians who do some tend to be alienating to me, considering that I live as a conservative on the personal level. I do not endorse extramarital affairs. I don’t endorse homosexuality. I do not endorse dangerous substances. I do not endorse abortion. I do endorse Christianity. My children shall be subject to these values.
But I also endorse the 9th and 10th amendment, which encapsulates an adult’s decision to choose his own path. Knowledge of them is what refines conservative values on the realm of public arena, by reminding us that we are not He. After all, am I not to have faith that God is on top of things? Be ye are a murderer, adulterer, homosexual or yes, even a politician, am I not to have faith that Jesus already provides for redemption? Give unto God what belongs to God. My neighbors are his children after all, not mine. He loves them all. He has offered them a choice. That is enough.
Am I not to be called to? As His intent, Adults are best left free do make their own decisions, and by extension, communities are best left to develop their own cultures. The Lord will oversee consequences. It is immoral to extort. Nay, the Holy Spirit calls for kindness over coercion. It is truth, it is eternal. It requires not the force of flawed human law. Live, let live, and educate.
Many mainstream brands of modern Christianity understands this fundamentally. Some perhaps, do not. Therein lies the difference between the “pure strain” conservatives, and the conservative libertarian. My teaching of Christianity never calls for coercive activism. Apparently, some churches do. Therein lies the difference between the church goer unaware of his libertarianism, as I was, and the pure strain “social conservative” who, misguided in his understanding of God’s law, attempts to create human laws to emulate them.
Such is the conceit. For God designed his Laws simply to demonstrate them as useless. Faith is all that matters. It must be made as a personal decision.
Jesus is a libertarian.
~David Morris~
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Question for Supply Siders - Bush Tax Cuts
This following comment was made in response to someone's inquiry on economicsinfo.com. I thought it'd be a quick piece, but I suppose it inadvertently warped into something blog worthy:
----
Question for Supply Siders- Why didn’t Bush’s tax cuts bring in more revenue? We’ve heard this would be the case (Laffer Curve) but it appears to have failed in practice. Any thoughts?
First of all, keep in mind that the Bush Tax Cuts were of the *income* type. It did increase revenues (as brought in by the income tax). Over the long run that is.
Over the short term up until around 2003, TOTAL tax revenue appeared to be dropping. It may be argued however that this is more attributable to the short recession due from the internet bubble bursting and 9/11. That's were the confusion comes from. Total government revenue (when you consider every type of government revenue source) dropped, but the income tax was bringing in more money than it was before.
The laffer effect is not always immediately apparent or applicable. Increased revenue from a tax cut can sometimes take awhile, if not at all. Around minute four of this video helps make such a point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw7LtVwDCbs&feature=channel).
So be sensitive to how the data is presented. One could say that Reagan's tax cuts dropped revenue as well, if you make a graph that covers only the first year after his opening cuts in '82 This ignores that his cuts were slowly implemented, and that recovery was still occuring, but a a graph "proving" that they failed could be made if you look at his policy in the short term. This video illustrates for me however the empirical case that there was still positive feedback from when considering all entire eight years of his presidency. Other cases of the effect, as well as caveats are also explored (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08&NR=1).
Speaking of caveats allow me to reiterate: Not every tax cut "pays for itself." Again, what type of tax we're discussing is very important. Sometimes the cut will simply boost private sector growth without boosting state coffers (and sometimes that boost may be relatively small anyway). Reducing taxes, yet boosting spending on the excuse that the government will automatically be seeing more money from that private sector growth this ill advised.
Nonetheless as a broad-brushed concept, its generally agreed that a "low" tax rate will work better than a "high" tax rate. No one be they left or right, argues that government coffers would be better off were rates returned to upwards of 70% (a la pre-Reagan years). The gray area of what defines a "low" tax rate and whether it affects people's behavior is where the partisanship still lies.
Hence, why everything would far less confusing if we'd only simplify to something like a flat/fair tax. Effects would then be far more transparent.
~David Morris~
----
Question for Supply Siders- Why didn’t Bush’s tax cuts bring in more revenue? We’ve heard this would be the case (Laffer Curve) but it appears to have failed in practice. Any thoughts?
First of all, keep in mind that the Bush Tax Cuts were of the *income* type. It did increase revenues (as brought in by the income tax). Over the long run that is.
Over the short term up until around 2003, TOTAL tax revenue appeared to be dropping. It may be argued however that this is more attributable to the short recession due from the internet bubble bursting and 9/11. That's were the confusion comes from. Total government revenue (when you consider every type of government revenue source) dropped, but the income tax was bringing in more money than it was before.
The laffer effect is not always immediately apparent or applicable. Increased revenue from a tax cut can sometimes take awhile, if not at all. Around minute four of this video helps make such a point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw7LtVwDCbs&feature=channel).
So be sensitive to how the data is presented. One could say that Reagan's tax cuts dropped revenue as well, if you make a graph that covers only the first year after his opening cuts in '82 This ignores that his cuts were slowly implemented, and that recovery was still occuring, but a a graph "proving" that they failed could be made if you look at his policy in the short term. This video illustrates for me however the empirical case that there was still positive feedback from when considering all entire eight years of his presidency. Other cases of the effect, as well as caveats are also explored (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsB_rnzBA08&NR=1).
Speaking of caveats allow me to reiterate: Not every tax cut "pays for itself." Again, what type of tax we're discussing is very important. Sometimes the cut will simply boost private sector growth without boosting state coffers (and sometimes that boost may be relatively small anyway). Reducing taxes, yet boosting spending on the excuse that the government will automatically be seeing more money from that private sector growth this ill advised.
Nonetheless as a broad-brushed concept, its generally agreed that a "low" tax rate will work better than a "high" tax rate. No one be they left or right, argues that government coffers would be better off were rates returned to upwards of 70% (a la pre-Reagan years). The gray area of what defines a "low" tax rate and whether it affects people's behavior is where the partisanship still lies.
Hence, why everything would far less confusing if we'd only simplify to something like a flat/fair tax. Effects would then be far more transparent.
~David Morris~
Well, that's certainly interesting.
My sister brought this comment from some random Washington Examiner reader on NASA.
Huh.
Welp, can't say that I argue with the guy.
David Morris
Leesburg
Huh.
Welp, can't say that I argue with the guy.
David Morris
Leesburg
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
A paraphrasal explanation of Iraq.
While I'm on the subject of Bush, I may as well also talk about my own understanding of how we got into Iraq specifically. This was written a long time ago in response to a silly what-if forum war, but the writing conviently allows me to edit and post it here.
----
Go back to before we had the hindsight of today. Recall that there was substantial fear following 9/11 that our neglect of middle east foreign policy may have meant our gravest threat. In 2002, there was stacks of evidence from unaccounted for weapons that gave the entire global community the impression that Iraq was a rogue state with the will to potentially proliferate their weapons.
As it turned out, Saddam Hussein only thought he had WMDs, hence why he was acting like he had something to hide during the UN Inspections. He was attempting to pay his own internal scientists off so that they'd secure him WMDs, but unbenowst to him (and everyone else), internal corruption within Saddam's own bureaucracy was scamming Hussein out of his money.
Like any do-nothing special interest group, Saddam's own lackey's were giving him false reports of "progress" to the tone of how "we will certainly have toys like nukes and dirty bombs within 5 years Mr. Hussein, provided your continued patronage." These reports would ultimately end up in the world's intelligence community from the CIA to the KGB and, not realizing they were faked by sycophants, ended up putting such intelligence on Bush's desk.
When UN Inspectors arrived, Saddam's lackey's were forced to put on the show of acting like they had research to hide in order to continue Saddam's personal delusion of holding a stockpile of deterrents, fearing his wrath were he to discover that his bureaucracy was essentially doing nothing for the past 13 years. Hence Saddam's arrogant attitude, of speeches pertaining to how he was going to bath Baghdad with American blood by the thousands when they'd attack (using the non-existent WMDs that Saddam thinks he's purchased).
Since every American was pissed off, paranoid, and the thought of kicking some other state's behind was an overwhelming popular sentiment in 2002, I don't blame any president for making that decision. It was not a war over oil (there's plenty of oil on this side of the planet we could tap into if we wanted, its not like all oil in the world exists in the middle east), it was a paranoid war over alleged WMD's that Saddam and the entire Intelligence community thought he had.
~David Morris~
----
Go back to before we had the hindsight of today. Recall that there was substantial fear following 9/11 that our neglect of middle east foreign policy may have meant our gravest threat. In 2002, there was stacks of evidence from unaccounted for weapons that gave the entire global community the impression that Iraq was a rogue state with the will to potentially proliferate their weapons.
As it turned out, Saddam Hussein only thought he had WMDs, hence why he was acting like he had something to hide during the UN Inspections. He was attempting to pay his own internal scientists off so that they'd secure him WMDs, but unbenowst to him (and everyone else), internal corruption within Saddam's own bureaucracy was scamming Hussein out of his money.
Like any do-nothing special interest group, Saddam's own lackey's were giving him false reports of "progress" to the tone of how "we will certainly have toys like nukes and dirty bombs within 5 years Mr. Hussein, provided your continued patronage." These reports would ultimately end up in the world's intelligence community from the CIA to the KGB and, not realizing they were faked by sycophants, ended up putting such intelligence on Bush's desk.
When UN Inspectors arrived, Saddam's lackey's were forced to put on the show of acting like they had research to hide in order to continue Saddam's personal delusion of holding a stockpile of deterrents, fearing his wrath were he to discover that his bureaucracy was essentially doing nothing for the past 13 years. Hence Saddam's arrogant attitude, of speeches pertaining to how he was going to bath Baghdad with American blood by the thousands when they'd attack (using the non-existent WMDs that Saddam thinks he's purchased).
Since every American was pissed off, paranoid, and the thought of kicking some other state's behind was an overwhelming popular sentiment in 2002, I don't blame any president for making that decision. It was not a war over oil (there's plenty of oil on this side of the planet we could tap into if we wanted, its not like all oil in the world exists in the middle east), it was a paranoid war over alleged WMD's that Saddam and the entire Intelligence community thought he had.
~David Morris~
President Bush probably disappointed Candidate Bush more than any other.
In response to this commentary of the hubris of President Bush, I could not help but to deeply reflect on my own thoughts concerning the man.
When I think of President Bush in retrospect to my current understanding, my puzzled emotional response is not of scorn or ridicule. No. When I think of Bush, I think ultimately of a sad man who once wished to do right by his country, yet caved to the forces of political pressure.
As I became politically awake following 9/11, President Bush -or namely, the baneful, spiteful press that he would always receive- would prove to be the principle reason why I could never develop into a liberal democrat. I couldn't analyze with clarity yet, but I knew that in there was an intelligent mind that understood basic economics, regardless of his bashers. I'm sure that in his honest heart is one that genuinely wishes nothing more than for the prosperity of his fellow man.
His pursuit of ANWR, his tax policy, his once anti-war rhetoric, his references towards reforming freddie mac and fannie mae, his list of vetos, and his call to address (at least marginally) social security reform before it was too late are all the reasoning behind why I speculate this. Additionally, his justice appointees Alito and Roberts, his lifting of the presidential ban on off shore oil drilling on July 14th 2008, and his later commitment to the principle of national security gives me confidence that within the man (and not the politician) himself, beats the heart of a true American who should have known better -or at least be retrospective- of such mistakes such as NCLB, the patriot act and the house of cards structure of the Department of Homeland Security.
The pity stems that despite it all, he would ultimately surrender his principles in a manner that resulted in the overall expansion of government. Deficits on account of his war spending is naturally among the first outcrys against him. Still I keep in mind that the man did not ask to become a wartime president. Candidate Bush did not run on the concept of nation building. Personally I hold our wars to be attributed to two other reasons. The emotional, nationalistic demand for someone's head following 9/11, and Saddam's own foolishness in painting himself the perfect scapegoat to vent our frustration upon.
Despite the warnings, the decision to go into Iraq was overwhelmingly popular. We the American people would have been in demand for demonstrating our superpower status regardless of who was president, regardless of which infamous nation was to be our victim. Al Gore could have targeted North Korea given 9/11 and the support would've been there. The fear of what a terrorist could do with a bomb was overwhelming, and perhaps only a full scale war would've satisfied our desire to go back to sleep at night. One can at least argue that despite America's present war fatigue, Al Queada has been dealt with crippling blows. To be fair, none can also deny Bush's attempt to get Saddam to comply and alleviate our paranoia of WMDs, prior towards going in; paranoia that the Baath party could have curtailed given better transparency on their part. I do not believe Bush gave the order to strike out of hawkish bloodlust, but of tempered, dutiful concern that we'd be struck again. In personally interacting with those who have lost loved ones, it is difficult to doubt that Bush carries his war decisions as a lifetime personal weight.
Weight. Remorse. Again I hold a level of pity for Bush, as I cannot help but ponder how things may have been different if not for 9/11. Given his statements during his farewell address, if there was anyone that President Bush least popular with, it was probably with a man known simply as Mr. Bush. With overwhelmingly negative press and the pressure of neoconservative policy pushers advocating against wise policy, I see a man who would finally crack in attempting to satisfy all. Did he honestly agree to prescription drug entitlements as he allowed it to pass? Did he personally agree to bailouts as the subprime crisis occurred (a crisis he brought attention to on deaf ears)? I speculate that he did not. But this was no longer the same man. By the point in his second term, all I saw in President Bush was just another victim.
A victim of the transforming power Washington can have on a man's spirit. Does this give him a pass on his mistakes? No. This American however can at least give him a break.
He was not malicious. Merely misguided. A house of compassionate conservatism torn apart by the winds of politics, for lack of a strong enough foundation in liberty.
The Obama administration on the other hand...
~David Morris~
When I think of President Bush in retrospect to my current understanding, my puzzled emotional response is not of scorn or ridicule. No. When I think of Bush, I think ultimately of a sad man who once wished to do right by his country, yet caved to the forces of political pressure.
As I became politically awake following 9/11, President Bush -or namely, the baneful, spiteful press that he would always receive- would prove to be the principle reason why I could never develop into a liberal democrat. I couldn't analyze with clarity yet, but I knew that in there was an intelligent mind that understood basic economics, regardless of his bashers. I'm sure that in his honest heart is one that genuinely wishes nothing more than for the prosperity of his fellow man.
His pursuit of ANWR, his tax policy, his once anti-war rhetoric, his references towards reforming freddie mac and fannie mae, his list of vetos, and his call to address (at least marginally) social security reform before it was too late are all the reasoning behind why I speculate this. Additionally, his justice appointees Alito and Roberts, his lifting of the presidential ban on off shore oil drilling on July 14th 2008, and his later commitment to the principle of national security gives me confidence that within the man (and not the politician) himself, beats the heart of a true American who should have known better -or at least be retrospective- of such mistakes such as NCLB, the patriot act and the house of cards structure of the Department of Homeland Security.
The pity stems that despite it all, he would ultimately surrender his principles in a manner that resulted in the overall expansion of government. Deficits on account of his war spending is naturally among the first outcrys against him. Still I keep in mind that the man did not ask to become a wartime president. Candidate Bush did not run on the concept of nation building. Personally I hold our wars to be attributed to two other reasons. The emotional, nationalistic demand for someone's head following 9/11, and Saddam's own foolishness in painting himself the perfect scapegoat to vent our frustration upon.
Despite the warnings, the decision to go into Iraq was overwhelmingly popular. We the American people would have been in demand for demonstrating our superpower status regardless of who was president, regardless of which infamous nation was to be our victim. Al Gore could have targeted North Korea given 9/11 and the support would've been there. The fear of what a terrorist could do with a bomb was overwhelming, and perhaps only a full scale war would've satisfied our desire to go back to sleep at night. One can at least argue that despite America's present war fatigue, Al Queada has been dealt with crippling blows. To be fair, none can also deny Bush's attempt to get Saddam to comply and alleviate our paranoia of WMDs, prior towards going in; paranoia that the Baath party could have curtailed given better transparency on their part. I do not believe Bush gave the order to strike out of hawkish bloodlust, but of tempered, dutiful concern that we'd be struck again. In personally interacting with those who have lost loved ones, it is difficult to doubt that Bush carries his war decisions as a lifetime personal weight.
Weight. Remorse. Again I hold a level of pity for Bush, as I cannot help but ponder how things may have been different if not for 9/11. Given his statements during his farewell address, if there was anyone that President Bush least popular with, it was probably with a man known simply as Mr. Bush. With overwhelmingly negative press and the pressure of neoconservative policy pushers advocating against wise policy, I see a man who would finally crack in attempting to satisfy all. Did he honestly agree to prescription drug entitlements as he allowed it to pass? Did he personally agree to bailouts as the subprime crisis occurred (a crisis he brought attention to on deaf ears)? I speculate that he did not. But this was no longer the same man. By the point in his second term, all I saw in President Bush was just another victim.
A victim of the transforming power Washington can have on a man's spirit. Does this give him a pass on his mistakes? No. This American however can at least give him a break.
He was not malicious. Merely misguided. A house of compassionate conservatism torn apart by the winds of politics, for lack of a strong enough foundation in liberty.
The Obama administration on the other hand...
~David Morris~
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Biblical Relevance
Just a little reminder of God's attitude towards big government that I cannot help but to find relevant when it comes to crying out for human messiahs.
I may as well use this opportunity to sneak in a very ironically worded bible verse as well.
~David Morris~
I may as well use this opportunity to sneak in a very ironically worded bible verse as well.
~David Morris~
Friday, July 9, 2010
NASA - "National Allah Science Appreciation" Department
Regarding this “new mission,” I merely found myself shaking my head at the latest line in this administration’s flops. Once again I find myself asking the same question: Is this guy even interested in a second term? With a political ammo cache like this, even Bush could theoretically beat him in a landslide come 2012, let alone any other hypothetical candidate.
Just when you thought he couldn’t dig himself a deeper political hole. After all, was there anything we could cite as being redeeming in the eyes of the American people? Corporate welfare? No. “Stimulus?” No. National Security? No. Justices? No. Oil spill? No. Immigration? No. Health Care? Triple No.
Now this. Somehow, he now manages to find a way to mess up NASA? Unprecedented. Truly, he is proving himself to be a president who will go down in history like no other, just as promised. And to think, we still have a minimum two years more with the guy.
~David Morris~
Just when you thought he couldn’t dig himself a deeper political hole. After all, was there anything we could cite as being redeeming in the eyes of the American people? Corporate welfare? No. “Stimulus?” No. National Security? No. Justices? No. Oil spill? No. Immigration? No. Health Care? Triple No.
Now this. Somehow, he now manages to find a way to mess up NASA? Unprecedented. Truly, he is proving himself to be a president who will go down in history like no other, just as promised. And to think, we still have a minimum two years more with the guy.
~David Morris~
Thursday, July 8, 2010
That's good satire.
This was shared with me at work today. Its an relatively old video by this point, but its humor I found worth archiving.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888086
~David Morris~
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888086
~David Morris~
Friday, July 2, 2010
Following up on how I was an example of government waste...I regret to say that...I've suffered my first termination in my life.
I received the letter yesterday. The United States Census Bureau has terminated me from my position as a 2010 Enumerator. What have I ever done to deserve this? Woe is me. :(
Included in the census letter ironically, were instructions on how to obtain unemployment benefits. -_-
~David Morris~
I received the letter yesterday. The United States Census Bureau has terminated me from my position as a 2010 Enumerator. What have I ever done to deserve this? Woe is me. :(
Included in the census letter ironically, were instructions on how to obtain unemployment benefits. -_-
~David Morris~
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Palidrome of True Hope
When comparing myself to my elders, I realize that its always unfair due to age gap advantage. Hence, I routinely have a dream of the man I hope to be in 2036 (the year I turn 50 years old myself; a year in which my generation is firmly in charge of the world). In this vision includes a loving family, children whom I am most proud of, and a world in which the promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continues to be delivered even more ideally than what the current middle-agers felt with Reagan.
By almighty God, I pray that I will make an impact on preserving the American Dream. I haven't met my kids yet (not even interested in looking for their mom as of right now), but I already know that I love them very much, and I already resent that which would threaten them. Especially as I now get to witness fascism with my own eyes.
So is the vision I have for my generation. That we reject the notion that we will be content with inferior living standards than the generation before us, and we will leave a superior legacy for the next.
~David Morris~
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Obama and the Oil Spill
We need to give Obama a chance with the oil spill. He's doing the best he can they say.
Really? You mean to tell me that this wouldn't be a past issue already, if anyone other than Obama was in the office? That Obama is pursuing the spill with all the tenacity that he gave to his pet project of healthcare reform?
As though Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been done with this after 58 days already?
Heck, take either of the Bush presidents or even Clinton. Any president that's demonstrated a modicum of competency would have long rallied a response that included declaring a state of emergency, the dispersion of troops, and the granting of federal permits to those states in the way of being most affected, into establishing sea bars. The damage wouldn't be over, but Americans would surely have confidence that the situation is contained. The only president I can think of who'd have been this incompetent would've been Carter. We're talking Carter levels incompetency here.
So why the slow deal? My theory on this is simple. Obama, reeling from the political fallout of a health care debate that he didn't "win" so much as "cheat the scorecard," rolled a political gamble and loss. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste afterall. In the same vein that FDR permitted Pearl Harbor to be unnecessarily tragic in order to morally justify a call to war, by permitting this catastrophe to happen as badly as its happened, Americans would rally behind a new environmentalist wave to cap and slash oil drilling.
Hence the calm, cold demeanor towards the crisis. Ever the demagogue, he expected us to look at the damage "evil enterprise" has done, and upon a knee-jerk emotional driven response, jump on a bandwagon of "never forget, never again" for domestic oil drilling, resulting in a new era of windmills! His miscalculation comes from two things:
1. The damage from the oil well was not immediate, leaving plenty of time to take preventive measures to minimize the damage. Preventative measures that local officials such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was denied of.
2. This is not the 1930s, and we certainly are not all socialist now. Part of FDR's success was in his monopolistic control of the media. With an populous that is better educated in general thanks to having far more media outlets, Americans today are significantly less sheep-like than their 1930s counterparts. Translating to less patience with demagoguery. This is one of his central miscalculations in attempting to emulate FDR: That his audience is too ignorant to see through his attempts at camouflaging his ulterior motives.
The American Spirit is still center right (as has been ever since Carter/Nixon/Johnson created the backlash for big government that people like RR and Gingrich was able to climb upon). With the toxic mood generated by the accumulation of a "spendulus" bill, multiple near-miss terrorist attacks, apologetic foreign policy, delays and compromise over Afghanistan, no jobs, mounting debt, and generally no light at the end of the tunnel for a suffering economy, the ideology of the nation is only being pushed further to the right.
In an environment whereas such an ideology is given prominence, allowing an oil spill to happen will not spark a socialist rally for more private sector punishment as he had hoped. Obama was likely hoping that that this would be his "Jungle*" rather than his Katrina. The big government catalyst effect of a propaganda victory this is not.
Cap this off with a health care bill that passes by a mere 7 votes out of a total of 431 representatives, whereas the only bi-partisanship is in opposition to the bill, and you do not have a formula for people viewing you as the hero squaring off against the demon of "private enterprise." President Clinton to his credit, would've known that this is a situation where you show some competency to reassert yourself as capable of the "3 am" call, any scorn generated by other issues be darned. Rather than take the street cred now, Obama gambled on having a wave of public outrage to ride on later. Problem is, he never expected it directed at him.
~David Morris~
*The 1906 propaganda novel by Upton Sinclair which "aimed for the heart and hit in the stomach," nonetheless paving the way for big government expansion over food and drug processing.
Really? You mean to tell me that this wouldn't be a past issue already, if anyone other than Obama was in the office? That Obama is pursuing the spill with all the tenacity that he gave to his pet project of healthcare reform?
As though Ronald Reagan wouldn't have been done with this after 58 days already?
Heck, take either of the Bush presidents or even Clinton. Any president that's demonstrated a modicum of competency would have long rallied a response that included declaring a state of emergency, the dispersion of troops, and the granting of federal permits to those states in the way of being most affected, into establishing sea bars. The damage wouldn't be over, but Americans would surely have confidence that the situation is contained. The only president I can think of who'd have been this incompetent would've been Carter. We're talking Carter levels incompetency here.
So why the slow deal? My theory on this is simple. Obama, reeling from the political fallout of a health care debate that he didn't "win" so much as "cheat the scorecard," rolled a political gamble and loss. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste afterall. In the same vein that FDR permitted Pearl Harbor to be unnecessarily tragic in order to morally justify a call to war, by permitting this catastrophe to happen as badly as its happened, Americans would rally behind a new environmentalist wave to cap and slash oil drilling.
Hence the calm, cold demeanor towards the crisis. Ever the demagogue, he expected us to look at the damage "evil enterprise" has done, and upon a knee-jerk emotional driven response, jump on a bandwagon of "never forget, never again" for domestic oil drilling, resulting in a new era of windmills! His miscalculation comes from two things:
1. The damage from the oil well was not immediate, leaving plenty of time to take preventive measures to minimize the damage. Preventative measures that local officials such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was denied of.
2. This is not the 1930s, and we certainly are not all socialist now. Part of FDR's success was in his monopolistic control of the media. With an populous that is better educated in general thanks to having far more media outlets, Americans today are significantly less sheep-like than their 1930s counterparts. Translating to less patience with demagoguery. This is one of his central miscalculations in attempting to emulate FDR: That his audience is too ignorant to see through his attempts at camouflaging his ulterior motives.
The American Spirit is still center right (as has been ever since Carter/Nixon/Johnson created the backlash for big government that people like RR and Gingrich was able to climb upon). With the toxic mood generated by the accumulation of a "spendulus" bill, multiple near-miss terrorist attacks, apologetic foreign policy, delays and compromise over Afghanistan, no jobs, mounting debt, and generally no light at the end of the tunnel for a suffering economy, the ideology of the nation is only being pushed further to the right.
In an environment whereas such an ideology is given prominence, allowing an oil spill to happen will not spark a socialist rally for more private sector punishment as he had hoped. Obama was likely hoping that that this would be his "Jungle*" rather than his Katrina. The big government catalyst effect of a propaganda victory this is not.
Cap this off with a health care bill that passes by a mere 7 votes out of a total of 431 representatives, whereas the only bi-partisanship is in opposition to the bill, and you do not have a formula for people viewing you as the hero squaring off against the demon of "private enterprise." President Clinton to his credit, would've known that this is a situation where you show some competency to reassert yourself as capable of the "3 am" call, any scorn generated by other issues be darned. Rather than take the street cred now, Obama gambled on having a wave of public outrage to ride on later. Problem is, he never expected it directed at him.
~David Morris~
*The 1906 propaganda novel by Upton Sinclair which "aimed for the heart and hit in the stomach," nonetheless paving the way for big government expansion over food and drug processing.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
A Personal Epiphany: The Waste. Its Real.
As of yesterday, I've been shocked by a mighty epiphany.
As I await my summer internship with the Cato Institute, I've been maintaining expenses with two different types of work:
One is at a Macy Retail Store.
The other is as an enumerator for the United States Census Bureau.
---
At Macy's, I must be on time. I start to get paid from the moment I punch into a computer, which records my time on the company clock down to the very second when I punch out, and I get paid me accordingly to their wage rate with precision.
At Macy's I must spend 8 hours a day on my feet, continuously moving, continuously provided exceptional service to consumers whose patronage is purely voluntary.
At Macy's, there is oversight. More than merely relying on my work ethic, pressure not to shirk is present in the form of various management staff to increase the probability that during the whole of 8-hour period, I am actually being productive.
I go home on sore feet on these nights, and for all this I get paid...$8.75 per hour.
Then there is the Census Bureau...
---
At the Census Bureau, they want me to estimate for myself when I began on the clock, starting from the moment I get in my vehicle, and ending on the very moment I am back home. They are assuming that my estimate is going to be perfectly honest, though they naturally do not expect it to be precise.
Most of my "work" has been training. At the training, the first two hours is spent merely waiting for our crew leader to do the paperwork of our timesheets. Rather than moving about, we sit on our rears as he goes through the necessary protocol of reading the training manual to us. We also spend time getting our fingerprints done. This goes on for three days for 8 hours. On the day we finished early, we are encouraged to log in the missing time anyway.
Two days are actually spent "working", after the obligatory time waste waiting for timesheets to be processed, we drive to an area to look for homeless people without actually stepping out of our vehicles. Since this enumeration happens at night, we get paid extra apparently.
I go home with nothing sore other than my rear end. For this I get paid....$18 per hour. Plus 50 cents for each mile I drive.
...
Where I produce, I get $8.75.
Where I produce nothing, I get $18.
...
I am an example of government waste.
~David Morris~
As I await my summer internship with the Cato Institute, I've been maintaining expenses with two different types of work:
One is at a Macy Retail Store.
The other is as an enumerator for the United States Census Bureau.
---
At Macy's, I must be on time. I start to get paid from the moment I punch into a computer, which records my time on the company clock down to the very second when I punch out, and I get paid me accordingly to their wage rate with precision.
At Macy's I must spend 8 hours a day on my feet, continuously moving, continuously provided exceptional service to consumers whose patronage is purely voluntary.
At Macy's, there is oversight. More than merely relying on my work ethic, pressure not to shirk is present in the form of various management staff to increase the probability that during the whole of 8-hour period, I am actually being productive.
I go home on sore feet on these nights, and for all this I get paid...$8.75 per hour.
Then there is the Census Bureau...
---
At the Census Bureau, they want me to estimate for myself when I began on the clock, starting from the moment I get in my vehicle, and ending on the very moment I am back home. They are assuming that my estimate is going to be perfectly honest, though they naturally do not expect it to be precise.
Most of my "work" has been training. At the training, the first two hours is spent merely waiting for our crew leader to do the paperwork of our timesheets. Rather than moving about, we sit on our rears as he goes through the necessary protocol of reading the training manual to us. We also spend time getting our fingerprints done. This goes on for three days for 8 hours. On the day we finished early, we are encouraged to log in the missing time anyway.
Two days are actually spent "working", after the obligatory time waste waiting for timesheets to be processed, we drive to an area to look for homeless people without actually stepping out of our vehicles. Since this enumeration happens at night, we get paid extra apparently.
I go home with nothing sore other than my rear end. For this I get paid....$18 per hour. Plus 50 cents for each mile I drive.
...
Where I produce, I get $8.75.
Where I produce nothing, I get $18.
...
I am an example of government waste.
~David Morris~
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Massachuets Election - Voter Scorn Strikes Obama
63 Years. 63 years.
Incredible.
63 years, the voters of Massachuets were content to elect the democrat party to be their represenatives. Yet after 1 year of the Obama administration, the backlash against his approach to governance has resulted in the famously liberal state to vote republican.
Clearly, Barack Obama underestimated the full effect pushing unpopular policy at the cost of instigating voter scorn, so much so that his decisions are bringing ruin to his own party.
It is here that I hold pity for the democrats, as I ponder how things may have been were the Clintons once again in control. For all their arguable faults, the Clinton's did have a redeemable value in that they knew of and greatly respected the potential of public opinion. Their presidency was successful in part of the fact that they, like many politicians, were incensed by their own probabilities of re-election, and formed policy likely to take themselves (and their party) in such a direction. Overall, this resulted in mostly non-intrusive government during the Clinton years, as the former president was willing to do what it took to maintain consistent pole ratings above 60%. From stepping back and leaving "Wall Street" to the competent hands of Greenspan, to the elimination of trade barriers via the NAFTA agreement (as well as avoiding new barriers via the Kyoto Protocol), from learning to compromise with Newt Gringrich for truly bipartisan policy.
Clinton, whatever his personal ideology may had been, would not be blinded it. Though he may be remembered by many as flawed on a individual level, credit must be given due to his sensitivity in doing that with which a maximum amount of constituents (be they democrat, republican, or independent) would be satisfied with, leaving it no wonder why he would leave office with some of the highest job approval ratings in several decades.
The would-be return of Team Clinton, this time with Hilary at the helm, would have likely been a repeat of the same policies that defined the first Clinton administration, in which public opinion held a strong influence in their decisions. A concept that the Democrats appeared to have lost under Obama's leadership. Barrack Obama it would seem, appears to be a visionary who is too focused on his personal dream of "remaking America" than to react to the will of the people, as we now see what many were concerned with when they accused Mr. Obama of "inexperience." With only a prior two-year term in the senate, the current president appears to have yet learned the number one lesson of public policy - that one will not run policy that is overwhelmingly against the will of the public.
Where the concept of rational ignorance does not exist, it is unwise to pursue any form of policy that is counter to the constituency, and perhaps the upsetting new election will sound a wake up call for Mr. Obama. The future has yet to fully unfold, and the possiblity for learning from one's mistakes is always present. Nevertheless, the Clinton's would have already been familiar with this concept had they stepped into office in '08, and I for one would be regretting the decision to have made him the presidential canidate were I currently Martha Coakley.
Whatever happens, the debate on health-care will truly be remembered as a classic case study on distrusted government reform in a political environment of wide-spread voter scorn. How the recent Supreme Court decision to lift spending caps from corporate entities will surely serve to further the intriguing quality behind the matter matter.
~David Morris~
Incredible.
63 years, the voters of Massachuets were content to elect the democrat party to be their represenatives. Yet after 1 year of the Obama administration, the backlash against his approach to governance has resulted in the famously liberal state to vote republican.
Clearly, Barack Obama underestimated the full effect pushing unpopular policy at the cost of instigating voter scorn, so much so that his decisions are bringing ruin to his own party.
It is here that I hold pity for the democrats, as I ponder how things may have been were the Clintons once again in control. For all their arguable faults, the Clinton's did have a redeemable value in that they knew of and greatly respected the potential of public opinion. Their presidency was successful in part of the fact that they, like many politicians, were incensed by their own probabilities of re-election, and formed policy likely to take themselves (and their party) in such a direction. Overall, this resulted in mostly non-intrusive government during the Clinton years, as the former president was willing to do what it took to maintain consistent pole ratings above 60%. From stepping back and leaving "Wall Street" to the competent hands of Greenspan, to the elimination of trade barriers via the NAFTA agreement (as well as avoiding new barriers via the Kyoto Protocol), from learning to compromise with Newt Gringrich for truly bipartisan policy.
Clinton, whatever his personal ideology may had been, would not be blinded it. Though he may be remembered by many as flawed on a individual level, credit must be given due to his sensitivity in doing that with which a maximum amount of constituents (be they democrat, republican, or independent) would be satisfied with, leaving it no wonder why he would leave office with some of the highest job approval ratings in several decades.
The would-be return of Team Clinton, this time with Hilary at the helm, would have likely been a repeat of the same policies that defined the first Clinton administration, in which public opinion held a strong influence in their decisions. A concept that the Democrats appeared to have lost under Obama's leadership. Barrack Obama it would seem, appears to be a visionary who is too focused on his personal dream of "remaking America" than to react to the will of the people, as we now see what many were concerned with when they accused Mr. Obama of "inexperience." With only a prior two-year term in the senate, the current president appears to have yet learned the number one lesson of public policy - that one will not run policy that is overwhelmingly against the will of the public.
Where the concept of rational ignorance does not exist, it is unwise to pursue any form of policy that is counter to the constituency, and perhaps the upsetting new election will sound a wake up call for Mr. Obama. The future has yet to fully unfold, and the possiblity for learning from one's mistakes is always present. Nevertheless, the Clinton's would have already been familiar with this concept had they stepped into office in '08, and I for one would be regretting the decision to have made him the presidential canidate were I currently Martha Coakley.
Whatever happens, the debate on health-care will truly be remembered as a classic case study on distrusted government reform in a political environment of wide-spread voter scorn. How the recent Supreme Court decision to lift spending caps from corporate entities will surely serve to further the intriguing quality behind the matter matter.
~David Morris~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)