I have a strong hunch that the Obama administration is only
moving as fast as the slowest constituents of the republic.
You have to remember that a lot of the US populace is stuck in the
19 th century, and they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into
the 21 th century. In the end it'll all be good.

One only has to realize that American Liberty prevails no matter what.
The proof of this freedom is demonstrated on a daily basis by none other
than Rush limbo, a voice of dissent against anything and everything
the present US administration stands for, without any regard for merit.

I could say that this dissonance stems from ideological differences
but I'd be wrong. Rush's diatribes have nothing to with either truth
or relevance, but with "words per minute", $5-$50/word no matter what he says,
and usually it ain't much. There are however a great deal of cpmercials.

People of the USA, my enlightened neighbors to the south, you have
in Barack Obama a truly visionary leader.

"Don't Screw it Up".

#1 IMHO - The slowest constituents seem to all congregate their offices in D.C. regardless of party affiliations. As for being stuck in the 19th century - most of us are well aware of being in the 21st century and are kicking and screaming BECAUSE OF IT.
#2 IMHO - The name is I believe Rush Limbaugh - and his diatribes are probably based on the current administrations lack of standing behind Anything promised. I haven't seen or heard about much they've done that deserves honorable mention much less merit. Besides - I preferr Lou Dobbs.
#3 IMHO - If he should be replaced, I'll volunteer FOR FREE (sans commercials).
#4 IMHO - It is all well to be a VISIONARY as long as you do something with meaning to make the vision a reality. So far, all I see is a plate of waffles.
#5 IMHO - How can we screw up a Gordian Knot?

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

People of the USA, my enlightened neighbors to the south, you have
in Barack Obama a truly visionary leader.

I've got news for you. He is a Chicago Politician.

The only change will be the names on the indictments.

I feel you're a pain brother!

Things sure be hard back there in the 19 th century.

:O)

guido, FYI: The average Chicago Politician makes tricky Dick look like an angel.

While the US stimulus plan is helping, it is not doing what Obama said it would. I really hope it does start working, there are a lot of people out there looking for jobs.

By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times
Published: June 14, 2009

The debate over economic policy has taken a predictable yet ominous turn: the crisis seems to be easing, and a chorus of critics is already demanding that the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration abandon their rescue efforts. For those who know their history, it’s déjà vu all over again — literally.

For this is the third time in history that a major economy has found itself in a liquidity trap, a situation in which interest-rate cuts, the conventional way to perk up the economy, have reached their limit. When this happens, unconventional measures are the only way to fight recession.

Yet such unconventional measures make the conventionally minded uncomfortable, and they keep pushing for a return to normalcy. In previous liquidity-trap episodes, policy makers gave in to these pressures far too soon, plunging the economy back into crisis. And if the critics have their way, we’ll do the same thing this time.

The first example of policy in a liquidity trap comes from the 1930s. The U.S. economy grew rapidly from 1933 to 1937, helped along by New Deal policies. America, however, remained well short of full employment. Yet policy makers stopped worrying about depression and started worrying about inflation. The Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy, while F.D.R. tried to balance the federal budget. Sure enough, the economy slumped again, and full recovery had to wait for World War II.

The second example is Japan in the 1990s. After slumping early in the decade, Japan experienced a partial recovery, with the economy growing almost 3 percent in 1996. Policy makers responded by shifting their focus to the budget deficit, raising taxes and cutting spending. Japan proceeded to slide back into recession.

And here we go again.

On one side, the inflation worriers are harassing the Fed. The latest example: Arthur Laffer, he of the curve, warns that the Fed’s policies will cause devastating inflation. He recommends, among other things, possibly raising banks’ reserve requirements, which happens to be exactly what the Fed did in 1936 and 1937 — a move that none other than Milton Friedman condemned as helping to strangle economic recovery.

Meanwhile, there are demands from several directions that President Obama’s fiscal stimulus plan be canceled.

Some, especially in Europe, argue that stimulus isn’t needed, because the economy is already turning around.

Others claim that government borrowing is driving up interest rates, and that this will derail recovery.

And Republicans, providing a bit of comic relief, are saying that the stimulus has failed, because the enabling legislation was passed four months ago — wow, four whole months! — yet unemployment is still rising. This suggests an interesting comparison with the economic record of Ronald Reagan, whose 1981 tax cut was followed by no less than 16 months of rising unemployment.

O.K., time for some reality checks.

First of all, while stock markets have been celebrating the economy’s “green shoots,” the fact is that unemployment is very high and still rising. That is, we’re not even experiencing the kind of growth that led to the big mistakes of 1937 and 1997. It’s way too soon to declare victory.

What about the claim that the Fed is risking inflation? It isn’t. Mr. Laffer seems panicked by a rapid rise in the monetary base, the sum of currency in circulation and the reserves of banks. But a rising monetary base isn’t inflationary when you’re in a liquidity trap. America’s monetary base doubled between 1929 and 1939; prices fell 19 percent. Japan’s monetary base rose 85 percent between 1997 and 2003; deflation continued apace.

Well then, what about all that government borrowing? All it’s doing is offsetting a plunge in private borrowing — total borrowing is down, not up. Indeed, if the government weren’t running a big deficit right now, the economy would probably be well on its way to a full-fledged depression.

Oh, and investors’ growing confidence that we’ll manage to avoid a full-fledged depression — not the pressure of government borrowing — explains the recent rise in long-term interest rates. These rates, by the way, are still low by historical standards. They’re just not as low as they were at the peak of the panic, earlier this year.

To sum up: A few months ago the U.S. economy was in danger of falling into depression. Aggressive monetary policy and deficit spending have, for the time being, averted that danger. And suddenly critics are demanding that we call the whole thing off, and revert to business as usual.

Those demands should be ignored. It’s much too soon to give up on policies that have, at most, pulled us a few inches back from the edge of the abyss.

---

Join the PACK!

While the US stimulus plan is helping, it is not doing what Obama said it would. I really hope it does start working, there are a lot of people out there looking for jobs.

see the post after yours for a glimpse at what has happened in the past and why the rate isn't an overall bad thing right now

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The status quo in this case is goverment's desire say whatever it takes to pass a bill while claiming that all problems can be solved by more government. Both political parties do this and it seems to happen all the time. Go figure...

According to The Wall Street Journal, "[W]hen Mr. Obama says that 'If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,' he's wrong. Period. What he's not telling the American people is that the government will so dramatically change the rules of the insurance market that employers will find it impossible to maintain their current coverage, and many will drop it altogether." But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain -- Obama "will keep government out of health care decisions."

Perhaps columnist Ann Coulter put it best when she quipped, "All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink."

Perhaps columnist Ann Coulter put it best when she quipped, "All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink."

Ah, so Ann Coulter was a self-proclaimed expert on economics and health care last week. This week, I'm sure she'll come forth as an expert on race relations. After all, she is a lawyer.

I'll take that drink. I hope it's a strong one.

---

Join the PACK!

I'll take that drink. I hope it's a strong one.

[ot ramble]Speaking of drinking, I attended a NC State game back in 2000. It was on 9/21 and my team lost in overtime. That was when I was in the GT band playing a baritone, good times![/ot ramble]

Go Tech!

Perhaps columnist Ann Coulter put it best when she quipped, "All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink."

Ah, so Ann Coulter was a self-proclaimed expert on economics and health care last week. This week, I'm sure she'll come forth as an expert on race relations. After all, she is a lawyer.

I'll take that drink. I hope it's a strong one.

Ann Coulter: the answer to the question, "what's the name of the person that can find fault with everything she doesnt agree with and never questions anything she adamantly believes in?"

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Perhaps columnist Ann Coulter put it best when she quipped, "All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink."

Ah, so Ann Coulter was a self-proclaimed expert on economics and health care last week. This week, I'm sure she'll come forth as an expert on race relations. After all, she is a lawyer.

I'll take that drink. I hope it's a strong one.

Ann Coulter: the answer to the question, "what's the name of the person that can find fault with everything she doesnt agree with and never questions anything she adamantly believes in?"

You must mean Obie...

Perhaps columnist Ann Coulter put it best when she quipped, "All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink."

Ah, so Ann Coulter was a self-proclaimed expert on economics and health care last week. This week, I'm sure she'll come forth as an expert on race relations. After all, she is a lawyer.

I'll take that drink. I hope it's a strong one.

Ann Coulter: the answer to the question, "what's the name of the person that can find fault with everything she doesnt agree with and never questions anything she adamantly believes in?"

You must mean Obie...

Nope, definitely Ann.

---

Status Quo: polititions do not even read let alone fully understand the bills they pass. Nothing new here...

"President Obama is pushing Congress to pass health care legislation that could nationalize as much as 10 percent of the economy. Most members of Congress will vote on this bill with no idea what's in it. Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, disparaged lawmakers for even pretending to read the laws they pass. 'I love these members, they get up and say, "Read the bill,"' he said last week at the National Press Club. 'What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've read the bill?' Mr. Conyers might think it's an antiquated notion that congressmen actually read legislation, but it is the most fundamental responsibility of elected representatives to know and understand laws and how they will affect the lives of their constituents. That is especially the case with such a gargantuan bill. The House version creates 53 new federal bureaucracies with everything from a Health Choices Administration to a Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund to a Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Thirty-three entitlement programs are created or expanded. The notion is put to rest that government might cooperate with doctors and patients to work out what is best for providing care. The health care bill uses the assertive word 'shall' 1,683 times. These passages are government mandates that force doctors, consumers and others in the health care profession to do what Congress orders. The word 'penalty' is used 156 times for those who don't follow orders. 'Tax' is referred to 172 times. Mr. Conyers is right about one thing: A legal education would come in handy when reading through this legislation. The bill is 1,018 pages long, very complicated and surely will cause legal disputes about its meaning for years to come." --The Washington Times

10% of the economy and growing. This is called non manufacturing production. This not in anyway productive for the average american family. Lets put it this way. I'd like to keep that 10% and spend it the way I see fit. Unfortunately I need to make reasonably sure that I can stay healthy. With any luck any illness or injury will be covered by my insurance. Let's hope I don't have something life threatening like cancer or that causes me to stay in intensive care for a long period of time because dollars to donuts the insurance company will certainly find a way our of paying for my stay and treatment.

The term insurance is such a lie nowadays. the word insure means to guarranty. This doesnt happen with insurance.

I have prescription coverage that doesnt cover things that are being used in the way they are intended. Why you ask? because they have determined the item to be "non-formalary". This term is used when something is used for purposed other than what it was intended. Now it means anything is expensive and the insurance doesnt want to pay for it.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The administration has fulfilled a promise?!?!? Now, if they could only cut $1.79999 trillion more... Which is about as likely as when Bush was president.

Didn't we vote for change?

"The administration has fulfilled a promise to cut spending by trimming $100 million from the 2009 budget. That's right -- $100 million with an 'm,' an imponderably small slice of this year's expenditures. Back in April, the White House stressed that President Obama, during his first Cabinet meeting, 'made clear that relentlessly cutting out waste was part and parcel of their mission to make the investments necessary for recovery and long-term stability.' Department heads were 'to identify at least $100 million in additional cuts to their administrative budgets.' Three months later, he has gotten his wish: The White House announced on Monday that the goal has been reached. To say such a cut is negligible is an exaggeration in the extreme. To fit that description, a cut first has to be visible. Though it was initially promoted as a seminal moment, this cut doesn't come close to meeting even the most reachable of benchmarks. In fiscal 2009, our federal government will spend nearly $4 trillion, according to the Office of Management and Budget's historical tables. The $100 million cut represents 0.0025% -- less than one one-hundredth of 1% -- of those outlays. ... Now, thanks to the administration's 'relentless' belt-tightening, the deficit will be $1.79999 trillion rather than $1.8 trillion." --Investor's Business Daily

cutting taxes and spending would be cutting the governments throat when its in a recession/depression/war. Bush made sure the spending was kept up on military operations and he made sure the Uber-rich received major tax breaks. Tax reductions during a war is always a good way to lose money. For now we get to deal with some necessary deficit spending while the country gets back on its feet from its 8 year drunken spending spree.

As far as the cash for clunkers part of the recovery spending. BRAVO!!! That was just ingenious. What better way to get people spending money and getting rid of thousands of gas guzzling junk SUVs/trucks/Luxury cars. On top of that demand for vehicles will increase. This puts thousands back to work making cars. They in turn spend money locally. which means others will be producing more. Now think about all those people put back to work and all the tax money the goverment gets to collect on their earnings. I estimate that for each dollar given away 3-4 will be collected for the effort. That and people will be working again.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The BIG Lie: "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter..." --President Pinnochio, who, as we noted last week, was caught on tape more than once advocating single-payer health care

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” - Obama

I have to admit he makes a convincing argument for a single payer system. I do not see how our current system can sustain itself.

The BIG lie #2:

"We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. ... AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" --Barack Obama

Scratch that. AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued a statement saying, "While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

More on Obamacare:

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." --Barack Obama, in a rare moment of truth-telling, arguing that a public option won't force private insurance out of business

So let's see: Government-run health care = the Post Office. And this is supposed to make us feel good about the idea?

So let's see: Government-run health care = the Post Office. And this is supposed to make us feel good about the idea?

It's really something to watch. If he keeps "advocating" for HC reform like this, we'll end up losing Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid as well as HC reform.

---

The BIG lie #2:

"We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. ... AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" --Barack Obama

Scratch that. AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued a statement saying, "While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

More on Obamacare:

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." --Barack Obama, in a rare moment of truth-telling, arguing that a public option won't force private insurance out of business

So let's see: Government-run health care = the Post Office. And this is supposed to make us feel good about the idea?

try and send a stamped envelope from any other country than the US for less money than the USPS charges for a letter. YOu can't THe post office attempts to run as a not for profit organization. when things that are out of their control cause their costs to rise significantly,like gas prices, then you get a rise in the cost for stamps. UPS and fedEx don't advertise that they are forced to raise prices. THe USPS is, if i'm not mistaken, made to request to raise prices from the government this makes news. UPS and FEDEX raises prices as they need and that doesnt make the news

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The BIG lie #2:

"We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors. ... AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" --Barack Obama

Scratch that. AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued a statement saying, "While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

More on Obamacare:

"UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." --Barack Obama, in a rare moment of truth-telling, arguing that a public option won't force private insurance out of business

So let's see: Government-run health care = the Post Office. And this is supposed to make us feel good about the idea?

try and send a stamped envelope from any other country than the US for less money than the USPS charges for a letter. YOu can't THe post office attempts to run as a not for profit organization. when things that are out of their control cause their costs to rise significantly,like gas prices, then you get a rise in the cost for stamps. UPS and fedEx don't advertise that they are forced to raise prices. THe USPS is, if i'm not mistaken, made to request to raise prices from the government this makes news. UPS and FEDEX raises prices as they need and that doesnt make the news

So there is nothing wrong with the way the post office is managed? How about their customer service (or lack thereof)?