This article cites a report (you can get a free copy here - need to register, then they e it to you) that discusses the impact of a flu pandemic on coal supplies (link to article), but it’s the report itself presents more interesting information.
Let’s recall Bambi’s coal position first: So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
Yeah, yeah, yeah he wants clean-coal technology. Son, you gotta dig it out first! I come from a line of coal crackers. I get pissed off just thinking about this simpleton flatlander. OK, back on point.
How reliant are we on coal? From the linked article: In 2007, the nation's 620 coal-fired power plants supplied 48.6% of the nation's electric power, the report says. The reliance on coal varies by region, ranging from 74% in the Midwest to 5% on the West Coast.
Check your state to see how reliant you were on coal in 2007:
How much coal do we produce in the US? From Appendix C of the report, we learn that we had 1,374 active mining operation producing 1.146 b-b-billion short tons of coal in 2007.
To put coal into perspective, there is the allocation by source for our electrical generation for 2007:
Here’s a hard fact from the report: In 2007, the electrical power sector generated 4,006,482 megawatt hours of power in the United States (EIA 2008d). More than 71% of this power was derived from a fossil fuel, including coal or natural gas.
So Bambi is going to carbon-tax out of existence half of our electrical supply, and switch another 23% to be wholly from here – and this is just our electrical system needs. The rest of the imported natural gas and oil needs to switch as well. All in ten years.
And replace it with what? Sure ain’t gonna be nuke plants. Ten years from today, they will not be online. So it’s going to come from that footnote on the pie chart that reads “3% Other.” Yeah, right. Thank you, MSM, the Vetting Goddess.
So, are we planning to decrease our reliance on coal? Report: Coal is projected to supply 54% of the nation’s electricity by 2030. In accordance with this projection, currently 28 new coal-powered plants are being built in the United States,
Hey, Bambi! There’s 28 in-your-face new coal plants. Better get those carbon-taxes up and running. Thank you, MSM, the Vetting Goddess.
But why are we cranking so much coal? From the report: One of the primary reasons the United States relies so heavily on coal for the generation of electricity is that it has the largest known reserves of the fuel in the world (EIA 2007c). At current usage rates, known coal reserves in the United States could provide well over 200 years' worth of fuel …
Oh. It’s domestic and we have more of it than anyone. You listening, Bambi?
When Bambi talks about offing coal and the MSM sits silently, it’s because neither of them know what the hell they are talking about.
Poor Hillary can’t catch a break. It seems that the increase in pay for the Secretary of State job – an emolument of that civil office – during her tenure as a US Senator makes her ineligible for the job.
The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."
In fact, it seems that the problem should not be limited to just Hillary, but to anyone from the current roster of the House or Senate. Section 3(a) of the EO states that it is making an adjustment to the “Executive Schedule.” Note the use of that phrase here, along with “Level I.” The list of positions in Level I is here. It’s the entire Cabinet and more.
So the issue becomes whether a simple adjustment to pay should disqualify anyone. That would seem to be overly punitive.
The articles linked above make the collective argument that the clause is broadly written yet clear. They also cite (and question the authority of) a similar situation which was resolved by merely returning the salary (the emolument) to its previous state.
The Constitution seems clear: the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased. That does not give the option to withdraw the increase. History cannot be rewritten. “Shall have been” is clearly a past-tense construction. Apparently, however, the plain meaning has been blown through in the past.
The first correction to pay-scale was under Taft in 1908 so that Sen. Knox could become his SoS. More recently (and the only other instances that I am aware of) were for Nixon and Sen. Saxby (to become AG) and for Clinton and Sen. Bentsen (to become Secy. of the Treasury).
Side note - Here’s the interesting life of Sen./SoS Knox.
So is this just a simple pay increase that no one should get worked up over? Aren’t the three examples above enough precedent for us sweep the issue away?
Revisit Article I, section 6: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."
There are two operative parts: A federal legislator – during the time he was elected – cannot be appointed to a civil office; and the emoluments clause.
No one seems to have a problem with expecting a Senator or Representative to resign their seat in order to sit on the President’s Cabinet. Sen. Muskie did it – Rep. Kemp did it – the list is probably long. The list of federal legislators that did not resign their seats has no entries.
So can Hillary simply resign her seat, have the pay increase rolled back, and conform to the Constitution? First, she must resign to satisfy the first part of Article I, section 6. Second, the Emoluments Clause speaks of increases in the past tense. History cannot be rewritten. So the short answer seems to be “No.”
The more thought-provoking answer is in the form of an interrogatory: Since when is it legitimate to pick and chose which portions of the Constitution will be adhered to specifically and which parts will be interpreted liberally (and in the process to ignore their plain meaning)? Further, are we now going to see a lawsuit to enjoin her appointment so that SCOTUS can eventually weigh in?
I thought Bambi was a Constitutional Law guy. Why is he wading into these waters?
Word was supposedly delivered by both diplomats and W telling Israel to hold off: The US has requested that Israel refrain from embarking on any large-scale operations during the last weeks of the George W. Bush administration, Time magazine reported Monday evening.
To which I can hear the Israeli counterpart saying: “Define ‘large.’”
Further, if we publicly ask (or leaked that we asked) the Israelis one thing, we are privately telling them another. And what an odd request. Reword it: We all know you are going to go after Iran. You should. Just, you know, wait until I am out of office.
Really? You mean world events – the very existence of Israel, to whom W has been devoted – should just chill for a bit because we have this office-change thingey coming up? It reeks of Bambi invoking Rodney King in the Georgia/Russia cage match, “Can’t we all just get along?” This is remarkable, but consider the source: Time Magazine is just stupid enough to consider it real. And so are the Bambites - Israel will toast Iran, and W will just shrug his shoulders. Plausible deniability.
Now for the rest of the chatter.
The Brits, rarely one to speak internationally without purpose, tossed a log on the fire: Britain's foreign policy chief said on Monday that Iran's nuclear programme presents an immediate threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world.
That diplomatic code for – Hey, Israel, lock and load.
How immediate? Seems the IAEA is about to go public: Iran has now produced enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to a report leaked by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, due for presentation next week. While the dramatic development was headlined by the New York Times and Bloomberg news service, Israel had no official comment nor was the report given prominence in the Israeli media.
When Israel has “no official comment” I don’t expect them to be in good humor. If the idiots at IAEA confirm their expectations for a bomb, then there clearly is a target-rich environment for the Israelis. They are not going to let this progress much further.
DEBKAfile (yeah, I know, “the sky is falling” site) adds a little more information to the mix: The most up-to-date intelligence predictions of US nuclear experts is that by the end of 2009, Iran will have stocked enough weapons-grade fuel to build three nuclear bombs. / The first will be ready for assembly by the time Barack Obama is sworn in as US president on January 20, 2009; the second shortly after Israel’s February 10, 2009 general election produces a new prime minister, and the third by the end of the year.
If IAEA estimates January 20, then the true date is different. Only problem in estimating is that the Russians in Iran know how to do it. If it was just the Iranians, I think we could expect a Homer Simpson level of competence – so more like 2016 if all goes well. China's too busy right now planning the succession in North Korea. We can bet the Israelis have their own date in mind.
The issue is that once the bomb is assembled it theoretically becomes mobile. Israel needs to end the threat before that happens. Hence, a strike will occur, and I'b bet the “under” of whenever the nuanced people in this world think the operative date is.
Is Israel sitting quietly? Seems they have some folks in Iran: Iranian state radio reported Monday that the country has dismantled an espionage network that allegedly was linked to the Mossad. / The report featured the chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, who said the Guards' intelligence department recently discovered the network. / Jafari said the alleged network was trying to collect information on Iran's nuclear program and the Guards' military operations as well as details on military and security officials.
Back to DEBKA for some clarification: Jaafari said equipment was confiscated; but DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources note that he did not mention arrests, which officials were targeted, when the ring was discovered, whether it operated in Iran or outside or its number. He said more information would be forthcoming later.
Good points. I think the Iranians would have enjoyed marching some faces out there if they had any. At the very least, they would have mentioned numbers. So Israel probably has dozens of cells in Iran, and the Iranians stumbled upon one - but Israel knew so they the warm bodies left.
But what about the retaliation? EMET News helps us there: Meanwhile, the radar system which the United States agreed in July to deploy in Israel to counter a perceived missile threat from Iran, is to go operational in mid-December, army radio reported on Shabbat. The radar system, which has a range of more than 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles), has been installed in the Negev desert in southern Israel. Some 120 US troops have been deployed to Israel to set up and operate the system, public radio reported in late September. [Other reports have stated that the radar will be used by the US to spy on Russia, and will not be aimed at Iran. Because of US control of the project -- Israel will only receive information as deemed necessary by the US -- its actual use may never be known. The US had previously asked Jordan and Turkey to place the radar there.--ed]
You know what that means? It means the radar system is already operational. But there's a date.
That locks the Under/Over at “mid-December.” I'm betting the Under.
I wonder if W smiled without comment when he was asked to define “large.”
Well, that’s a bit of an overstatement, but in light of Bambi’s fawning over Lincoln (and ipso facto, the MSM), let’s remind them all of just what Lincoln meant by “freeing the slaves” in the Emancipation Proclamation. I am always surprised that my students (even at the Master's level) have never read it.
The Red States were “Slave Importing States” and the Pink States were “Slave Exporting States.” Slave trade is, no matter the direction, slave trade. So the pink states are just as culpable as the red states.
Because of the words of the Emancipation Proclamation, which we’ll visit in a little bit, let’s focus on a few states: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. We’ll add the District of Columbia.
That’s a total of 432,586 slaves, representing almost 11% of the entire slave population in the United States at that time.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a two-step dance. Lincoln issued a preliminary version meant as a warning shot. Here’s the operative part of us:
That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. [Emphasis added]
Did you see that? He wrote by implication that if a state was not “in rebellion against the United States” then the right to have slaves would not be curtailed. That is where Delaware, WDC, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri come in.
Let’s be fair, however, to Abe. Maybe he was doing all he felt that he could do. About a year and a half later, in March 1864, he wrote his personal feelings: I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.
In the final Proclamation, Lincoln sets out the “freedom of slaves” jurisdictions with specificity:
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
The Proclamations were issues in late 1862 and early 1863. His personal thoughts were written as late as March 1864.
If he felt that he could exercise presidential power to free the slaves in rebellious states, it seems to follow that he made an equal political calculation to stay silent on those states that were a part of the Union. Freeing those slaves, perhaps he felt, could have resulted in additional states rebelling.
Politics is full of compromises. That is it’s most repugnant quality.
I had to read this NPR article twice to be sure I had it right. Obama says his economic stimulus plan will be A, B, and C. NPR quotes two guys that say – A, B, and C. are the standard remedy – but it’s not right this time.
Whoa. The thrill is gone, eh, NPR?
What is your plan, Bambi? "We'll be working out the details in the weeks ahead, but it will be a two-year nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy," he said.
So you don’t really know. OK.
Well, what do you know? "We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead," he said.
So you are going to get Congress to approve money. State contributions, Bambi? You know – unfunded mandates? Then the roads and bridges need to identified – all union jobs, of course. Then the bidding process kicks in, which is months and months long according to law. Then the engineering needs to be done. Few more months. Then the slow work actually begins. If the first contract is awarded before 2010 rolls along, you’ll be lucky.
But that’s just my opinion. Someone else out there? Business and economics historian John Steele Gordon says the discussion of infrastructure investments and government programs rings familiar. / "That's the standard remedy for this illness," he said. "Now whether it's the best remedy or not is another question." / Gordon argues it isn't. He says the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, World War II did. He says building bridges and painting schools won't provide a quick fix. / "That's all very good, but you can't start that on Jan. 21 even if Congress agreed," he said. "It's going to take a long while to plan it and decide who gets what and where and how and when."
Let’s not leave out the Great Society – it doubled inflation.
But you’re just one guy. Anyone else? Economist Lakshman Achuthan agrees that government-funded job creation alone won't solve the problem. Atchuthan is director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute and as he sees it, there are two other elements needed: extending jobless benefits, which Congress just did, and some sort of direct economic stimulus. / "Rebate checks or food stamps or payroll tax holidays or tax breaks for specific businesses — whatever," he said. "The content is less important than the timing."
I get your point, but you don’t mean that a 7-week extension of unemployment benefits will have a deep macroeconomic impact, do you? It extends the ability to pay bills to buy the economy time to recover. But point taken – do something, do it now, and don’t tell us about creating union jobs as the cure.
Corporate Buggery. The invasion of a corporate host through the lower sphincter orifice with a rod-like device through which the coffers of said host are accessed and depleted until the host can no longer survive without said device implanted.
Will the Employee Free Choice Act rise in the 111th? If so, the new mantra of labor unions will be “Either your signature or your brains will be on this card.”
Let’s just be clear: Union organizers are no more than a bunch of girls from the hood; they are cheap thugs that define success through achieving ends regardless of means; and their actions over the decades make abundantly clear that they collectively and individually lack either an intellectual or moral core. If we could peer inside a union organizer’s brain and heart, we would find that there just ain’t no there, there.
Girls. From. The. Hood.
Now that we have that clear, let’s look at one of their latest attempted scams, one that is certain to be attempted again in the 111th Congress. No, I’m not going after the Big 3 hearings in WDC. That’s someone else’s problem. The auto execs have been so holed over the years that they perceive it as their natural state: Bankruptcy is not an option, even though it would cleanse them of their union contracts. It would ruin the public’s trust in them, they say. Hunh? Their public statements concerning being out of money makes the filing a distinction without a difference. The public has already lost faith in them. It is profoundly sad to see the abused beg to stay with the abuser. Reminds me of the Patty Hearst case.
Let’s talk about the Employee Free Choice Act. Here’s the Thomas link.
The last action was in June 2007. “Cloture on the motion to proceed not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 48.”
The US Senate dictionary defines cloture as “The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.”
So the bill sits there awaiting the Magic 60. Are there any senators that will vote against their party line on this? Yeah, just one. My own Senator Specter. Every other vote cast was along party lines. Specter has no soul. So if the dems reach 59, they effectively have cloture on any bill they want.
Congress helpfully entitled this Act as “To amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.”
Now what could possibly be objectionable about that? We like efficiency. We like enablers (well, you know what I mean). We like mandatory things – gives us clarity.
The question is how that efficiency is achieved. The bill authorizes a helpful “card-check system.” Instead of a silly, time-consuming secret ballot, union organizers could now go around to employees of a non-union company and collect “cards” that have been signed indicating the employee’s preference on forming a union. How very helpful. I wonder if the AFL-CIO will outsource their union organizer training to ACORN.
Union Boss: Johnny Two Noses, how’d yous git all dem yesses and no nos? Girl: I made dem an offer dey couldint refuse. Union Boss: I don’t wanna know nuthin. Girl: I ain’a sayin nuttin. Union Boss: Yous be smart. Good union man. Girl: Tanks, boss. Hey, I need a couple two tree lines on games tonight. Runnin low on foldin money. Got any NBA games in the bag? Union Boss: Lemme make a call for you. Girl: Tanks, boss. Try to let me know before 5 if’n yous can. I gotta go to da Catlick Mass. Union Boss: If’n I’m late wit dem, I’ll just give dem to the priest. Ask Fader O’Malley if’n yous don’t hear from me.
But it doesn’t end there. The bill also provides for civil penalties if employees are let go because of organizing activities – triple wages and civil fines up to $20,000.
What does this mean? It is brilliant. It is putting the union into a grassroots building mode – control small companies and you control the country. Small companies won't be able to pay the fines, so they will be forced to sit and watch their hard work be spread around through union thugs.
The inverse, unfortunately, is also true: Destroy small companies and you destroy the country.
It reminds me of something a cop friend of mine said: If the bad guy is within range for you to take him down, always remember that you are within range for him, too.
The Corporate Buggery Act - that's the law we should be introducing.
JFK was assassinated 45 years ago today. Eleven months earlier he gave a speech on the economy at the Economic Club of New York (December 14, 1962, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel). The text and audio of the speech are here.
As Obama ranges from tweaking to re-engineering the economy, He may want to reflect more on Kennedy’s thoughts that on FDR’s. Our situation is similar to both periods, but as a UCLA pointed out four years ago, FDR’s policies extended the Great Depression for 7 years.
What did FDR do? Quoting from the UCLA link:
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
In short, he introduced the government directly into the economy. Just like Clinton did when he compelled the granting of subprime mortgages. Just like the democrat Congress did when they refused to compel Fannie and Freddie to publicly report their finances like every other company has to. Just like the democrat Congress did when they allowed labor unions to have special organizing rights. How long is the list of government intervention in the economy?
The length is not important, it is the players. The same ones that took over $600 million in labor union donations over the past 10 years. The same ones that took donations from Freddie and Frannie, and placed their friends (or themselves) on the boards or in lucrative positions in those companies. The same ones that deny that they received special privileges from Countrywide Mortgage – even though a person reporting to the president of the company has stated that it was his full-time job to inform these recipients (you reading Sen. Dodd?) that they were receiving special privileges. The same people that are accused of taking bribes, have $70,000 in cash found in their freezer, and then cry racism.
The issue is this: The democrat party took a significant blow when JFK was killed; it died when Bobby was killed. The party lost its core. It became a collection of interest groups. Bill Clinton did not redefine or reconstitute the party – he was just a superb maestro. The party has driven towards socialism without deviance since LBJ entered office. Bobby could have changed that but was denied.
Let’s spend some time with what the democrat party used to be.
As Kennedy was being inaugurated, the economy was at the bottom of a recession, the third since 1953. The unemployment rate was 7 percent, compared to 3 percent at the end of the Korean War and 4 percent at the peak of the expansion in the mid- 1950s. Improving the disappointing performance of the economy was the most urgent challenge to the new administration.
Some observers today credit the New Economics and its influence on the policies of the Kennedy-Johnson years for the sustained prosperity of the 1960s, and thus regard them as an example worth emulating. Others see the legacy of those policies in the 6 percent inflation rate at the end of the decade, when unemployment fell to 3.5 percent-a level too low for stability.
Bottom of a recession and high unemployment going in; high inflation going out. Clearly a mix of good and bad outcomes. It took until Reagan to get Inflation under control. But the economy did get back to work, even absorbed LBJ’s Great Society, and didn’t crash land until Carter got his hands on it.
Kennedy set the tone when at the opening:
I am glad to have a chance to talk to you tonight about the advantages of the free enterprise system.
“Free enterprise” is private business. It is not government ownership of banks and automobile companies and equity in private homes. “Free” means free from government intervention.
To Kennedy, free enterprise was not limited to our shores:
But a leading nation, a nation upon which all depend not only in this country but around the world, cannot afford to be satisfied, to look back or to pause. On our strength and growth depend the strength of others, the spread of free world trade and unity, and continued confidence in our leadership and our currency. The underdeveloped countries are dependent upon us for the sale of their primary commodities and for aid to their struggling economies. In short, a prosperous and growing America is important not only to Americans--it is, as the spokesman for 20 Western nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as he stressed this week, of vital importance to the entire Western World.
Kennedy supported what we now recognize as “free-trade agreements,” those agreements that Presidents Clinton and Bush have put into place, but that Senator Reid refers to those yet to receive approval as “dead on arrival.” Columbia is the most recent example.
Kennedy understood – or at least could talk the talk – the issues that drive our economy: This economy is capable of producing without strain $30 to $40 billion more than we are producing today. Business earnings could be $7 to $8 billion higher than they are today. Utilization of existing plant and equipment could be much higher; and if it were, investment would rise. We need not accept an unemployment rate Of (sic) 5 percent or more, such as we have had for 60 out of the last 61 months. There is no need for us to be satisfied with a rate of growth that keeps good men out of work and good capacity out of use. The important issues are production, earnings, P&E utilization, and rates of growth.
He cited problems that I assert – regardless of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent – targeted – in the 46 year since this speech still exist in eerily the same measure:
You have seen the tragedy of chronically depressed areas upstate, of unemployed young people, and I think this might be one of our most serious national problems, unemployed young people, those under 20, one out of four is unemployed, particularly those in the minority groups, roaming the streets of New York and our other great cities, and others on relief at an early age, with the prospect that in this decade we will have between 7 and 8 million school dropouts, unskilled, coming into the labor market, at a time when the need for unskilled labor is steadily diminishing.
What does this single paragraph instruct us? Nothing that we have tried works. Not the ever expanding social safety, not increased investment in education, not supply-side or demand-side economics. Nothing. Perhaps we need to face a reality: Maybe it’s structural. Maybe it is the same recognition that we have hold of unemployment – somewhere from 3% to 5% of the workforce will always be out of work. If this problem which Kennedy cites is structural, then that is a bitter reality indeed.
Kennedy lays out three paths for government involvement: Bolster education and develop our natural resources; increase government expenditures; and cut taxes on people on businesses. He supports the first and third. He states that the second is not appropriate:
There are a number of ways by which the Federal Government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth. We can and must improve American education and technical training. We can and must expand civilian research and technology. One of the great bottlenecks for this country's economic growth in this decade will be the shortage of doctorates in mathematics, engineering, and physics; a serious shortage with a great demand and an under-supply of highly trained manpower. We can and must step up the development of our natural resources.
But the most direct and significant kind of Federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand--to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing Federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the Government and our economy. If Government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency. I shall say more on this in a moment.
The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system; and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.
“The final and best means” is a weighty phrase.
Kennedy explains his views of the tax system in more detail:
I am not talking about a "quickie" or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last 5 years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking.
Kennedy did not see tax cuts as a manipulative force to be used when economic times warranted. He believed that the path to lasting economic strength lay within them.
Kennedy summarizes the role of government:
In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.
To whom should tax cuts go?
For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.
Everyone and every entity.
Kennedy understood that tax cuts resulted in taking a smaller piece of a larger pie:
In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve--and I believe this can be done--a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.
John Kennedy understood economics. He understood the role of government in the economy.
My Secret BFF on the net has posted a wonderful grounding in the "Bambi is From Away" saga. Well worth reading and spreading:
This issue has gone from being silly to tinfoil hat to making me arch an eyebrow and wonder about the Media Blackout of the subject. I think we officially have a smoldering fire that is ready to hit flashpoint with a little help from the American public that is finally so pissed off that they are not going to take it anymore and will stand up and fight for our Constitution and the American Way! Are you sick of corrupt politicians and biased media? I know I am!
The presumption of a kid is that a parent can step in and solve everything. I know this from both sides – I looked to my dad that way; I’ve seen my kids look to me that way. But while being a parent doesn’t come with a handbook, it does confer wisdom after a while: It’s the kid that has to change; if s/he doesn’t, today’s problem will simply resurface tomorrow.
Who are the players as applied to the current economic challenges?
The kid is the mishmash of private and quasi-private entities with their hands out: The automakers, Fannie & Fannie, the banking industry, the investment community, and whoever is yet to come with cup in hand.
The parent is us – the voter, the resident, the taxpayer, the citizen.
So where does the government with its coffers hemorrhaging money fit in? They’re the new spouse – the one that likes to party, the one that likes presents, and the one that pouts when something/anything is denied to it. It’s the one with access to the checkbook and credit cards, and that undermines our discipline of the kids.
We’ve got a real problem, and it is not Corporate America: It’s Congress.
The present “credit crunch” is disturbingly similar to the 1930’s fiasco of credit depletion. The solution – the new spouse marching in with open coffers – is also too close to Depression-Era economics for comfort. A 2004 UCLA study asserted that FDR’s program actually prolonged the Great Depression by several years. A money quote from the UCLA Newsroom is chilling as we watch the actions of Congress today:
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
The next problem is the slow socialization of private industry in the form of labor unions. Unions had their time. It’s over. I suggest a new white-collar crime: Corporate Buggery.
We’ve learned recently that automobile wages are significant higher in The Big 3 than their foreign competitors for comparable production facilities located in the US. The assertion has been made that GM, et al., are more pension and health-care providers than manufacturers of vehicles. If labor unions want a piece of the action, then it is time that they ride the risk as well as the reward. Flush the existing contracts, and replace them with market-competitive wages and incentive bonuses.
We can’t stop looking at the new spouse’s malfeasance without considering energy policy. Two observations: We send billion of dollars a day to countries like Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, and assorted Middle East countries with opinions and policies concerning us that range from usury to hostile; we spend billions of dollars a day on homeland security and defense, a significant portion of which is used to counter the hostile activities of these countries that is ironically funded with the energy money we put in their pockets.
Why these silly numbers? Because Congress would rather preserve a frozen tundra than keep our citizens and armed forces out of harm’s way; because Congress would rather bend to the will of the Vocal Minority (who happen to donate to campaigns more regularly) than to follow a logical energy policy. Congress tells us that drilling now won’t result in energy for ten years – they said the same thing ten years ago.
Sen. Reid, I have questions for you: Pirates just seized a supertanker full of crude oil. Are our national-security interests at stake? Should we deploy the US Navy to take control of that lawless stretch of water? Would it be better if the area of exposure to hostile takeover of our sources of energy were limited to Wall Street?
What should we do? The solution is for Congress to stop play-acting like they understand and want to help. In short: Go away.
Don’t help me rewrite my subprime mortgage by taking an equity stake in my home. Don’t take ownership positions in banks, investment firms, and perhaps automobile manufacturers.
Nothing is more embarrassing than watching Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) grill auto execs. Over 90% of the more than $600 million in campaign money from labor unions over the last ten years went to democrats. It reminds me of when I was 12 years old and my dad preached to me about the evils of smoking, all the time with a cigarette in his hand. The labor unions know Dodd’s theatrics are just that: A play he is staging. We deserve better. We need better.
Drill here, drill now? I don’t care where you drill – just get it on. We have domestic resources. Stop getting in the way of developing them. I think that saving my son from a terrorist attack funded by foreign-oil payments outweighs the rights of an owl and a pink flower.
We need the economy to do what it always does: Flush out the broken pieces through bankruptcy and merger. Allow competition to fill the gaps. The government’s role should be limited to supporting us directly through extended unemployment benefits and other short-term assistance measures. They need to keep their hands off the economy. It is a ship that rights itself.
These kids – the hurting entities of Corporate America – need to pay the price for their own malfeasance, even if the new spouse – Congress – enabled them.
Congress needs to stop thinking like socialists, and more like the capitalists that built this country.
“My values”? How, um, elastic a measure. Thank you, MSM, for vetting this clown.
I read a 2004 interview here and learned more about his Christian values than I ever learned during the election cycle.
Why wasn’t this dug up before? I suspect because his views and those of many in the MSM align quite closely. And they were nuanced enough to know that Obama’s words would cause a firestorm in the Christian community. In fact, the "confused" comment was shared in the MSM - they just didn't give any import to the rest of it. Well, I do.
Let’s go through his words:
Obama tells us that there are many paths to Heaven:
So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith.
On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences.
I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10.
My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim.
And I'd say, probably, intellectually I've drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.
So, I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.
Many paths? The deviations from the Bible are so many in this interview that I am not going to count. John 14:6 (NIV): Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Obama tells us that Rev. Wright’s church has a “good service”:
FALSANI: Do you still attend Trinity?
OBAMA: Yep. Every week. 11 oclock (sic) service. Ever been there? Good service.
I thought he wasn’t paying attention …
I think Obama is saying that talking to himself is the equivalent of praying to G-d:
ALSANI: Do you pray often?
OBAMA: Uh, yeah, I guess I do. It's not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why am I doing it.
OK, not quite that bad – it’s an “inner voice”:
And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I'm having internally. I'm measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I'm on track and where I think I'm off track.
But who’s responding, O?
The Holy Spirit?
FALSANI: What's that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?
OBAMA: Well, I think it's the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.
That's something you learn watching ministers, quite a bit. What they call the Holy Spirit.
Who you calling "they"? Luke 10:21 (NIV): At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
Concerning Jesus, he says:
FALSANI: Who's Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)
OBAMA: Right.
Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.
And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.
Obama quite neatly labels Jesus as a bridge only in the Christian faith. I take that to mean that in the other faiths from which this worldly man draws, Jesus is merely an historical figure. John 11:4 (NIV): When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."
Hunh.
Concerning reading the Bible and praying regularly:
FALSANI: Do you try to take some time for whatever, meditation prayer reading?
OBAMA: I'll be honest with you, I used to all the time, in a fairly disciplined way. But during the course of this campaign, I don't. And I probably need to and would like to, but that's where that internal monologue, or dialogue I think supplants my opportunity to read and reflect in a structured way these days.
There he goes talking to himself again and equating it to prayer. This was also in 2004 when he running for the US Senate. He thinks he was busy then? you need to set some priorities, son.
What about spiritual guidance?
FALSANI: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?
OBAMA: Well, my pastor [Jeremiah Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.
I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.
FALSANI: Those two will keep you on your toes.
OBAMA: And theyr'e (sic) good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what's happening to each of us in ways that are useful.
I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.
All words somehow lost in the most-recent campaign: Enormous respect, interact closely, good friends, dear friends.
Moving onto the Ticket to Hell:
OBAMA: … There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell.
FALSANI: You don't believe that?
OBAMA: I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.
I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.
That's just not part of my religious makeup.
Obama’s words conflict with the Bible. All aboard! Next stop Hell! 2 Peter 4:9 (NIV): For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons[b] to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment ...
And now for a gratuitous slap at conservative media – and a complete ignoring of the recent (and not new) public statements by the Catholic Church concerning denying Communion to followers that support abortion:
FALSANI: Do you ever have people who know you're a Christian question a particular stance you take on an issue, how can you be a Christian and ...
OBAMA: Like the right to choose.
I haven't been challenged in those direct ways. And to that extent, I give the public a lot of credit. I'm always struck by how much common sense the American people have. They get confused sometimes, watch FoxNews or listen to talk radio. That's dangerous sometimes. But generally, Americans are tolerant and I think recognize that faith is a personal thing, and they may feel very strongly about an issue like abortion or gay marriage, but if they discuss it with me as an elected official they will discuss it with me in those terms and not, say, as 'you call yourself a Christian.' I cannot recall that ever happening.
So as a conservative, I am “confused.” You cannot recall someone ever challenging the disconnect between your political positions (when you’re not voting “present” that is) and your claim to be a Christian? Must be nice to tune out such a large segment of the voting population.
So was he actually paying attention to Rev. Wright as he spoke his, um, sermons:
I spend a lot of time in the black church. I have no qualms in those settings in participating fully in those services and celebrating my God in that wonderful community that is the black church.
I guess so.
We talked about the apparent non-existence of Hell. Let’s try Heaven:
FALSANI: Do you believe in heaven?
OBAMA: Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?
FALSANI: A place spiritually you go to after you die?
OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.
So the measuring rod is him – how good he does – it has nothing to do with a standard set by G-d. He also seems to think that anything in the Bible concerning Heaven is not be relied upon because it seems that the whole “life after death” bit is above his pay grade. Just so we're clear on this concept - 2 Corinthians 5:1 (NIV): Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.
Let’s talk sin:
FALSANI: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
FALSANI: What happens if you have sin in your life?
OBAMA: I think it's the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment.
His values? There's a money quote. No external standard here? G-d’s words in the Bible are second to his standards? Whew!
We also get another view of Heaven and Hell – it’s here! Good and bad acts are their own reward and punishment. Must be a South-Side of Chicago thing. I might be wrong, but I think sin is measured by an external standard - Galatians 5:17 (NIV): or the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.
Let’s go back to his pew-sitting in Wright’s church:
FALSANI: Where do you find spiritual inspiration? Music, nature, literature, people, a conduit you plug into?
OBAMA: There are so many.
Nothing is more powerful than the black church experience. A good choir and a good sermon in the black church, it's pretty hard not to be moved and be transported.
Am I wrong in remembering that he said he wasn’t paying too much attention? That Wright’s sermons contained things he never quite heard before – even though he sat there for 20 years? What’s going on here?
This is a Christian? Obama is the most openly non-Christian we’ve ever had as president. At least Clinton shut up about it, as he went to church on Easter Sunday and then to Monica’s kneepads afterward.
Obama – you can’t redefine the Bible and say that the “new definition” means you’re a Christian.
It. Doesn’t. Work. That. Way.
What some more? "If I could talk to Jesus Christ, I would want to know if I was going up or down":
Interesting guy, this President-Elect of the United States.
Aversion therapy is a form of behavior therapy in which an aversive (causing a strong feeling of dislike or disgust) stimulus is paired with an undesirable behavior in order to reduce or eliminate that behavior.
Continuing … As with other behavior therapies, aversion therapy is a treatment grounded in learning theory—one of its basic principles being that all behavior is learned and that undesirable behaviors can be unlearned under the right circumstances. Aversion therapy is an application of the branch of learning theory called classical conditioning. Within this model of learning, an undesirable behavior, such as a deviant sexual act, is matched with an unpleasant (aversive) stimulus. The unpleasant feelings or sensations become associated with that behavior, and the behavior will decrease in frequency or stop altogether.
You like to smoke? Try aversion therapy. Woof 50 or 60 cigarettes nonstop with your face in the ashtray. If you ain’t puking towards the end, it’s probably because you’re dead. How someone around to check your pulse.
You like liberalism? Elect Obama with a full dem Congress.
Hold onto your ass – we’re about to go deep into Liberal Aversion Therapy. We’ll call it what it is: Obama Economics – Socialism – O’nomics.
Decades ago, the UAW and similar organized criminal enterprises took over the auto industry. Paying workers more than they are worth is socialism. How bad has the industry got it? They won’t use the colonic irrigation tool designed into a capitalist system: They refuse to file bankruptcy. They want help paying their bills? They are blaming Wall St. for their malfeasance? Time to grow up, boys. Daddy’s all tapped out. But probably not. O’nomics supports giving them the money.
The Hope for Homeowners program is out there just reeking of O’nomics. How deep into socialism is it? You want your mortgage reconfigured to meet “your ability to pay”? The feds will own part of your house – and the appreciation on the part they take (download the specs in the link in Step 1 marked “Equity and appreciation sharing with the Federal government”).
Ted Kennedy discharged himself from the Brain Tumor and Chronic Alcoholics Clinic to work on a single massive bill to take over one-seventh of the economy through taking over healthcare. Since is it going to be based on O’nomics, we can expect small businesses to be smaller since they won’t be able to afford either giving their employees healthcare or the fines for failure to do so.
Will we pull out of this nosedive? Watch how long it takes for O’nomics to stop the shale oil authorization W just did. Ignoring, of course, that our shale oil triples the reserves of Saudi Arabia. O’nomics will kill it because of the carbon footprint.
Companies no longer looking to bankruptcy when appropriate. Government owning a part of private property. Government taking over large industries. Government killing profitable businesses while funding unprofitable ones.
O’nomics will fully take over. It is America’s aversion therapy for liberalism.
My dad smoked three packs a day. I calculated it once – at 16 waking hours a day and 3 minutes per cigarette, he had 5 minutes 20 seconds in between each one. The calculation is a little bit off because he’d get up during the night to have another one or three. He never tried aversion therapy. Maybe he should have. He’s been dead 6 years.
If Obama and the dem Congress don’t cure liberals, the country will have the same fate.
“But it’s got a news theme!” he pathetically rejoined.
You’re still a slut, I said.
Scott, from Conservatism Today, was curiously quiet during this exchange. Robert from Prepare to be Offended? Vanished. He was in the military. Knows when to avoid conflict. Smart man. I felt out numbered. I stuck to my guns.
“Look,” Bill said, “sometimes we need to break the cycle. It can get pretty intense.”
Slut, I said.
“Look at this,” he said, imploring me forward. He showed me his hits on the post.
Fine. I’ll show him. I can be, well, I can be a slut, too. Here’s the Top Ten NFL Cheerleaders. A link at the end will get you to every team.
Daschle’s unusually early endorsement of Obama last February [2007] gave the newcomer desperately-needed instant clout among insiders who were resigned to the inevitability of Hillary Clinton, but praying for an alternative. “What Daschle brought was credibility,” said an insider close to both men, “and now they have developed a good personal relationship.” The two men share a similar approach to both the process and substance of politics: a certain soft-spoken meticulousness, and a desire to blunt the sharp edges of partisanship.
It seems that Obama is stocking himself full of dems. So much for post-partisanship. This, too, is not a basis for surprise.
His position on dems was made clear in a PAC he created in November 2005 called the Hopefund. The website became a redirect to his presidential site a year or so later, but the Internet Archive has the old pages – this one included (quoting the About Us link):
At Hopefund, we believe that to cultivate hope, to place it within the grasp of every American, we must elect more Democrats to public office. That is why Senator Obama formed Hopefund -- a political committee whose purpose is to elect Democrats, in both red and blue states, who share these beliefs.
So hope = dems. Very clear. Just as clearly “partisanship” without the antecedent “post.”
I’m trying to find some money for the poor auto companies. I know they’ve been buggered by the unions for decades. Not completely the companies’ fault – extortion is still extortion whether it’s at the point of a knife or printed on paper with the title “Union Contract.” So let’s see if the unions can help this time, instead of their constant drain.
Let’s see, that $325.6 million. “What!” screams the union bitch, “you can’t do that! Those donations are from a bunch of years and different unions!”
Yes, I reply, actually I can. You see all those numbers reading “90%” and higher? That’s the percent that you gave to the dems. No, I don’t understand the line that has 90% and 14%, either – not my source data. But on point, you see, over the past 3 POTUS cycles, you gave over $300 million to dem – and not even 10% of your total donations to the pubs. So it’s time to kiss ass, son.
OK. That’s $325 million. Where now? PACs, yes, PACs – that’s a good place. I’m going to do you a favor. I’m just going to take the money you donated to dems in this area. Yeah, you’re right – you didn’t give much to pubs! Quiet – I’m saving you money. Sucks being you.
Where was I? Here’s the “labor” PACs contributions to dems for 2008: $48,281,589
Here’s the “labor” PACs contributions to dems for 2006: $51,383,455
Here’s the “labor” PACs contributions to dems for 2004: $46,420,851
Here’s the “labor” PACs contributions to dems for 2002: $49,310,198
Here’s the “labor” PACs contributions to dems for 2000: $48,048,586
Here’s the “labor” PACs contributions to dems for 1998: $41,093,782
OK, that’s a total in PAC money to dems of $284.5 million. So far we’ve saved you $610.1 million. I’m excited – are you, Mr. Union Bitch? Now, now, temper, temper! You need the pub votes in the Senate, remember?
Look, you may have the girls fooled – like the junior senator from Pennsylvania, Bobby Casey, Jr., who so helpfully said: "We can't afford to lose thousands of jobs. What is a recession could become a depression if these companies fail in the next couple of months." Yes, OK, Bobby. You can go back to your big office now. Thank you for the lesson in macroeconomics. First, I haven’t seen a contraction of GDP for a couple of consecutive quarters. Now, while you’re in your office, look up “Great Depression.” What? G-r-e-a-t. Yes, just one “t.” You’ll learn that that was a recession, Bobby. There isn’t such a thing as a “depression” unless you’re on meds. No, not time for your meds yet, son. Read up on double-dip recessions, son. Yes! Funny! It does sound like a dessert! Also read up on numbers – we are talking millions of jobs, Bobby. Thousands get laid off all the time. If we lost MILLIONS of jobs, then that could be bad. Bu-bye!
Where were we? Oh yes, we saved you over half a billion dollars. Now let’s drift back in time just a few months. You guys got $25 billion in loans for hybrid-car development. That’s a bu-bu-B, union bitch. Billion. I know you haven’t used it all – practically none of it, I am sure. So let’s presume that some amount is still available. We’ll decide how much in a few minutes. OK? Thanks.
I want to introduce you to a term know as “Market Capitalization.” Befitting your, say we say, moral stature, I am going to refer you to that glory hole of encyclopedic knowledge, Wikipedia. Have at it. Come back when you are done.
Seems pretty simple, doesn’t it? Shares outstanding times market price. Yeah, your sphincter it tightening, eh? Must suck being on the receiving end of anal after all these years of, um, being on top.
As for Chrysler, I don’t know what their market cap is – about 20% seems to be owned here and 80% over here. So let’s be fun and make up a number! Let’s say, um, the average of GM and Ford: $2.89 billion.
Let’s add them all up: $8.67 billion.
Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to use $8 billion of the loan we had out there for you. I’m going to take the $610.1 million you gave to the wrong people over the last 10 years – and I am going to BUY all three companies at their present market capitalizations.
Then I am going to have the biggest yard sale you have ever seen.
If I am feeling gracious, I might give my new buildings to Toyota, VW, and a few other foreign companies – they seem to know how to run a car company.
Wise words: Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has if you count the tail as a leg. When they answered "five," Lincoln told them that the answer was four. The fact that you called the tail a leg did not make it a leg.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Aisling: (Irish: aislinn; pronounced ASH-ling): A vision poem.
In an aisling, the island of Ireland appears to the poet in a vision in the form of a woman, sometimes young and beautiful, sometimes old and haggard. This female figure is generally referred to in the poems as An SpÊirbhean (the sky-woman). ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Words should be scattered like seed; no matter how small the seed may be, if it has once found favorable ground, it unfolds its strength. —Seneca, Roman rhetorician, 65 A.D.
stuff i wrote
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used. —Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Towne v. Eisner, 245 US 418, 425 (1918)
"I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, sir," said Alice, "because I'm not myself, you see." Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures Under Ground (1864).
"Begin at the beginning," the King said gravely [to the White Rabbit], "and go on till you come to the end: then stop." Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865).
''Expressing the will of the people, the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian Republic declares and solemnly proclaims the restoration of the exercise of sovereign powers of the Lithuanian state, which were annulled by an alien power in 1940. From now on, Lithuania is once again an independent state.'' -Resolution approved by the Lithuanian parliament, March 12, 1990
Posts
