Keynes - Who Cares?

The economic policies of the present administration have been referred to as Keynesian Economics.  I know too little about Keynes and about economics to sort out details to determine if the current policies are totally in line with Keynes' theories.

However, Keynes was in favor of big government spending, and that seems in line with what has been practiced by BO and buddies.  They say this policy will improve our economy.

"But," we ask, "What about the payback?  What about the debt our children and grandchildren will inherit?"

Seems there were similar concerns in Keynes time.  Reportedly, he was asked about the effects of the policy in the long run, to which he replied, "None of us lives forever."

A pretty flippant reply.  Not as bad as, "Who cares about our children and grandchildren as long as we have what we want?"  But same meaning, same very selfish and uncaring attitude.

Certainly today we're spending our children's and grandchildren's future, but our economy is not thriving.  All that debt for our grandchildren and nothing to show for it.

Well, BO and buddies, got any Keyesian cracks for this situation?

Former President Carter

Former President Carter says his actions as Ex-president are superior to those of the other Ex-presidents.  Someone please lock up or at least gag the man.  He is diminishing the office of ex-president!

Whether it is impending dementia or just old age crankiness, gagging him would be doing him a favor.

Guilt and Worse

Bad behavior precipitates a vague guilt on its own, but apparently many feel that the Christian religion, just by existing, causes the guilt, even if the sinner doesn't believe in it.  The attacks of conscience are behind the anti-Christian movement. 

Separation of state and church, which is not of the constitution but from a later date, does not mean eradication of history, eradication of Christian symbols in our government buildings, or eradication of Christianity itself.  But some people willfully distort the meaning  to justify their anti-Christian mission.

Now, interestingly, the same persons interested in eradicating Christianity are bleating about freedom of religion, but not of course, in regard to the Christianity they want to eradicate.  No, this is in defence of a religion that believes in forcing their idea of law onto the state.  No separation of state and church for them.

I'm all for freedom of religion, but it does not justify everything. 

If a new religion sprang up that believed you would go to heaven if you killed a neighbor and you were that neighbor, would you be crying freedom of religion?  If that new religion believed in slavery, would you condone it because of freedom of religion?  If that religion believed in castrating their children and eliminating all homosexuals, would you defend that as freedom of religion?  If that religion harbored violence and destruction within its ranks, would you defend that in the name of freedom of religion?

Shari'a law will do more than just instill the guilt that so enrages the anti-Christian.  Women are castrated and forced into life under a burka, which is merely a symbol of their slavery status.  Homosexuals are not only unacceptable clergy, but punished.  No more bikinis and no more gays.

"Death to the Infidel" is more than a battle cry; it is a belief.  Who is the infidel?  Not just the woman or the homosexual or the civilian lawbreaker.  Oh, no, it is the non-believer neighbor. 

"Thou shalt not kill" seems like a better idea.

The Christian church may resist the gay clergy and look askance at the outrageous sinner, but when is the last time they castrated a woman and put her under a burka?  When is the last time they physically punished a gay?  When is the last time they stoned anyone? 

OofDah!

All Are Created Equal?

I've been thinking about the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights and thinking in particular about the "created equal" clause.  It seems it is often misinterpreted, or intentionally misused to push a political agenda.

Of course, looking at the clause in terms of created with equal physical or mental capability, handsomeness or ugliness, or birth into a family of means or not - well, then, it makes no sense.  But is that what the founding fathers meant? No.

Or does it mean the government should play "Robbing Hood" and take from the working and give to the idle?  No.

Does it mean the government should seize all jobs and all property and hand back equality -  equal food, equal clothing, equal housing, equal possessions? No.

So what did they mean?

They were talking about equality under the law.  You know, justice is blind, the theme the founders and early statesmen promoted.  Whether nobility or common man, rich or poor, handsome or ugly, physically weak or strong, or mentally astute or handicapped, everyone would be equally protected under the law.

Inequality under the law was one of the reasons the early citizens of this country fled England and came to the New World.

Equality under the law meant that government officials, teenage stars, and football celebrities should receive the same kinds of protection and punishment as everyone else. 

Sadly, this does not seem to be happening. Lately, justice seems to have lost its blinders, noticing some are stars or celebrities, noticing some are rich and influential, and noticing some are politically connected to the "correct" views. 

Justice is not only determining type of punishment, but even guilt or innocence, based on the the very factors to which it should be blind.

OOFDAH!

Stephen Colbert Testifies to Congress

So they ask a clown to testify before Congress.  Appropriate.  Congress is a joke.

What would a sissy like Colbert know about illegal aliens?  He spent a day with them and found it grueling work?  Means nothing.  Soft, non-working Colbert would find any "real" job grueling, including office work, teaching, and flipping burgers. 

He makes jokes about his inability to do manual labor. He suggests manual labor is okay for Manuel, but not for whites.  What rot! If anyone else intimated that, the press would fall over themselves calling, "Racist!"

It seems Colbert and friends think the only reason for illegal Mexicans to be in this country is that employers can pay them very little.  Of course, they ignore the reality that taxpayers get to supplement those wages with "free" social benefits. 

Who is actually benefitting?  Why, the employer, of course.  We taxpayers are subsidizing his business so he can pay lower wages and gain higher profits.  Meanwhile, citizens who would be willing to work for decent wages get shafted. 

Enforce the laws, prosecute illegal entry and make the employers pay decent wages. Both LEGAL Mexicans and whites will be better off. 

OofDah!  This issue is NOT funny and even Congress should realize it!

Fat Cats

DC denizens surely have been howling a lot over the "fat cat" Wall Streeters.  Too much skimming off the top and too many big bonuses, they assert.

Who is "they."  Well, it seems "they" are politcos whose net worth grows faster than that of skimmers and big bonus guys. 

Now, I know the politcos get outrageous salaries but from whence cometh all that wealth?  "They" do not get paid enough to multiply their net worth to that extent - you know, by millions each year.  That is, unless they are taking bribes and pay-offs, essentially selling their votes. 

OofDah!  At least the "fat cat Wall Streeters" pay out dividends occasionally;  "fat cat politicos" merely take money and cheat America.

Dog Catcher

Apparently the main-stream media is demanding that O'Donnell (Delaware candidate) produce every document down to birth, kindergarten, and all. 

I'm thinking, if a professed non-Democratic candidate ran for dog catcher in Dinkytown, the press would demand documentation down to birth, kindergarten, and all.

Yet Obama has not released his full medical records, nor his college transcripts, nor any of his undergraduate work.  His dissertation at Columbia has mysteriously disappeared! Many of the records of his Illinois state representative term have mysteriously disappeared! And where are the articles written for the Law School paper? Have they mysteriously disappeared or they on lock-down with his transcripts?

OofDah! The dog catcher might win the election but would never be allowed to serve a term under those circumstances.

Since BO reputedly is soooo intellectual, don't you wonder why his college stuff is locked down tight or lost? What's to hide?

Also, do you wonder why the IMPARTIAL press demands documentation from only one party.

And, do you wonder why the press makes a big deal of inexperience only if candidates are not from that one party?

News service or propaganda press?

We Don't Need the Jobs

In the wake of the BP oil spill, the administration shut down much of the American-associated oil drilling in the Gulf, in the face of court disapproval.  The move also shut down thousands of jobs, both direct oil rig employment and ancilliary jobs.

Think it is all about environmental concerns?  Apparently not.

The US is subsidizing both Brazilian and Mexican drilling in the Gulf to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars.

Are we sacrificing US jobs so Brazil and Mexico can have them?  

OofDah!

Questions About Insured Children

How long are children, well, children? 

Obama Care says they are children to the age of 26 and covered by their parents' insurance.  I have questions.

When my son marries, is his wife covered under my policy or is my son covered by her parents' policy?  When the grandchildren come along, which policy covers them?

When I go on Medicare, does it cover my 24-year-old son, his wife, and his children?

What Does Delaware Mean?

Delaware has set the Republican Party on its ear. Many of the high profile Repubs are moaning and twisting in the wind, complaining bitterly and publicly. Seems they were generally accepting of the winning Tea Party primary choices until Delaware.

In Delaware the Repub Party dug in its heels over Mike Castle, a nominee the Tea Party didn't like. So the Tea Party determinedly backed their choice, Christine O'Donnell, and guess what? The Tea Party choice won the Republican primary! Now she will go up against the Democratic choice in November.

The Repub Party's major complaint seems to be that Castle would have had a better chance of winning in November and moaning that O'Donnell has little or no chance. Truly, O'Donnell would be a hard sell in any case, but with her own Party carrying on like that, they are setting her up for failure.

This is not a pretty picture of the Republican Party powers-that-be. They seem more concerned about winning seats than they are concerned about seating people who are the voters' choice. And many American voters are tired of the parties strong-arming THEIR choices on them (and they have been); the voters want choices, real choices.

Castle is a candidate who's voting record seems quite in line with the Democratic Party, so why would the Repub Party want to seat someone who most likely will vote with the Dems? What good would it be to have a majority in name, but a minority in votes? Of course, no one should be expected to vote the party line every time, but on the major issues, major party stances, none of the promised changes could be accomplished without the votes.

I think this incident should make all voters look at the party shenanigans on both sides with a jaundiced eye. No wonder voters are organizing outside the party boundaries.

I'm thinking maybe the Tea Party Movement is only the first grassroots party. I'm thinking people with opposing views may want choices, too.

Will the Antichrist be Female?

In Louisville where Sarah Palin spoke at a rally, a sign carried by a person involved in higher education declared the Bible didn't say the antichrist is a man, then went on to ask "Is she the one?"

Something new to ponder. Not whether Palin is the antichrist, but whether the antichrist could be female. I'll admit such a thought had never before entered my mind, not that I ponder the antichrist regularly. But, still . . .

In the video clip I saw, a reporter asked the aforementioned pillar of higher education if she thought Palin was the antichrist. "Could be," says she (Doris Beeler).

"Why do you think that," asks the reporter.

"Well, she came here and she has all this power and she has a lot of followers," was the edifying answer.

Judging on that basis, it would seem contenders for the role of antichrist are more numerous than there are grains of sand on a beach. Let's see, Barrack Obama, Glenn Beck, Lady Gaga, Perris Hilton . . . Oh, wait they have followers but did they come to Louisville?

Why would a trip to Louisville be requisite for an antichrist contender? Because Doris Beeler made it requisite and Doris Beeler knows*.

OofDah!

*Does Doris really know? In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, the antichrist is described as the "man of sin," or "son of perdition." In this version, the antichrist is described in male terms, however translations could be in error.

The description also includes deceiver (a word used elsewhere in the Bible to describe the antichrist). "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

He is also described as a world leader - and he will rule the world for 42 months.

I can find no reference to Louisville in the Bible. But as I said, translations could be in error.

Global Climate Disruption?

What is it with DC? Everything has a cute little name, new or revised.

I remember when I was young and recently married. It was common to ask a couple what they did last night. When they'd answer "played Scrabble" or "watched TV" or whatever, we'd say, "Yeah, everyone has their own cute little name for it." Wink, wink. Well, you had to be there, I guess.

So we no longer have terrorism but man-made disasters. Remember that one? Or how about overseas contingency operations instead of war against terror?

But here's the funniest one so far - we no longer have global warming. No, instead we have global climate disruption. Well, hey, what better way to counter the public's growing skepticism of the global warming in the wake of scientists admitting to doctoring the data?

What does climate disruption mean, anyway? Isn't that just weather and isn't weather something we've had since the beginning of time? Ah, Silly Wabbit, but it's not about weather; it's about tax.

This whole climate thing is all about forcing an energy tax on us (Cap and Tax). Will the C&T tax change the weather? Nope.

We had an ice age; it was disrupted; now we don't have an ice age. Would taxing energy have changed that weather pattern? Nope.

But the energy tax could make us a lot colder when energy prices go through the roof. See, the fair weather politicians are thinking the peons can forego energy use (just turn off the Air Conditioner); they forget some of us peons live in colder climes where turning off the heat means death.

But don't worry. I'm sure they'll invent a cute little name for freezing to death.

Nanny and the Force

"If I were not in politics I'd probably be in business. I love the markets. I watched them since I was a teenager. I'm fascinated by it and it's a force, it's a force in our economy," Speaker Pelosi told CNBC.

Right-o Nanny-Panny! I can see it now - signing contracts to see what is in them, throwing money at every problem that comes down the pike, and crying when people use "language" to contradict your behavioral edicts. You'd be a great businesswoman.

You think the markets are a force in our economy? Whoa, what tremendous intellectual power! What laser-keen insight!

All I can say is may the Force be with you as you transition from poly-ticks to busy-ness. May you fly away with the speed of light. Into the dark. Away from DC. Gone.

Bye, Nanny-Panny.

Barred for name-calling?

A young British citizen emails the POTUS. He calls him a prick. Uncouth? Yes. Poor behavior? Yes. A dangerous assassin? No, just a kid.

But the kid is now barred from the US for life. Make sense? No. It is just a stupid slang word.

Our country does not bar people who danced in the streets in celebration of the destruction of the Twin Towers and the deaths of thousands of US citizens. Our country does not even TRY to control the influx of people coming across the southern border with death to our children strapped on their backs in the form of drugs. Our country is not interested in apprehending border-jumping murderers who kill ranchers. Our country has not even reprimanded a preacher for calling down the damnation of God on its citizens, and that was REAL cursing.

But our country bars a British teener for calling the POTUS a prick by remote electronic communications?

The kid says he doesn't care if he is barred from entering the country, but reportedly his parents are not happy about it.

Not to worry. Just go to Mexico, call down the wrath of God on the US, strap on a pack of drugs and an assault rifle, or come to our shores preaching jihad (peaceful jihad, you understand, they don't want to kill you; they just want to control you and the law and the country and shut down your place of worship) and you'll be welcomed to this country.

OofDah! Will the insanity never cease?

Who Dat?

"Easygoing and well liked, with a perpetual tan, a low golf handicap and an ever-present cigarette between his fingers" -- of whom are we speaking here?

The president? It sure enough sounds like him, but wrong.

Would you believe the president's newest whipping boy? What's his name again? Oh, yeah, John Boehner (pronounced BAYner). Who's that again? Chances are you didn't know much about him until the president began pulling his name out of the hat to heap criticism upon his head. By now, though, at minimum you probably know he's the House Minority Leader and likely you know a great deal more.

When the president pulls out a name and repeats it six or seven times in one appearance, people sit up and take notice. When he mentions that same name in nearly every subsequent appearance, people begin to ask, "Who dat?" Reporters begin to check him out, interview him, and photograph him.

Soon he is a household name. Voila! Leader Boehner becomes a political hot button. People begin to wonder if he'll run for president in 2012.

Seems he won't need a campaign team or an ad campaign to introduce him to the people. He's had a presidential introduction; he's been flung into the face of the nation. It's as though the president is saying, "You people WILL get to know Mr. Boehner."

You think the president wanted to help him out? Because, well, you know . . .

Maybe there is a sense of brotherhood or kinship since they are both "easygoing and well liked, with a perpetual tan, a low golf handicap and an ever-present cigarette between his fingers."

One problem - one of the tanned, chain-smoking golfers is a Democrat, the other a Repulican.

OofDah!

Not too big to be busted?

Today Bernacke announced that financial institutions "too big to fail" are dangerous to our economy so the feds will destroy them -- huh?

OffDah! When are mouths too big to open?