Comments



  • Mike, I agree, we both want the best for our country and our children and grand children, they are going to need all the help we can give them because we are leaving them a he11 of a mess.

    February 12, 2009 at 10:43 a.m.

  • Rollingstone
    I want to apologize for my out of line characterizing. ..I really liked your “climate change” posting on Kenneth’s blog, I was so impressed I copied to use it against my anti-change friends outside the Advocate forum…You are way over my head when it comes to uranium mining but it is evident you do your homework and have a high level of intellect. That is the reason it was embarrassing for me to engage in the ad hominem attacks with someone that doesn’t really participate in the constant liberal-conservative battle that has no end.
    Do I believe in a culture of dependency? No, exactly why I think we should start to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Think about it; the same people that are preaching that for the poor at home are saying a different thing overseas. The Clinton Administration (to the anger of his party) and the GOP came up with welfare reform to say two years in and then you are out. Perhaps we should revisit that and make it more restrictive.
    Liberal, conservative, democrat, or republican each have their faults and it comes down to the splice of the pie. You may think we need more Star Wars defense weapons to fight 9th century enemies and I think a prosperous country should provide a safety net for its poor.We both pay taxes and are entitled an opinion.
    It is not only regulation and taxes making big business go overseas, greed also plays a part but to me that is business. The bottom line. Realistically if we reduce the corporate tax rate to zero and them let them go unfettered they would still go overseas where they would not have to succumb to public scrutiny or bad publicity and $6 a day for each employee without benefits or EPA, OSHA, or civil rights.
    I watched the congressional hearings yesterday and was surprised that the CEOs know that the public is mad at them but they don’t know the reason why. For instance I am sure you heard about the CEO that told his managers that they would no longer be receiving bonuses’ but they would still be receiving incentive pay and calling it something else. Congress should not be grandstanding or getting on their high horse because it happened under many of their noses. I am against Obama setting the CEO pay at $500,000 because banks should be allowed to do with what made them successful but they should not reward failure. I bet 5 out our 6 major banks are failing.
    All I am asking for is consistency. I will continue to say; a post here and there might lead to a differ meaning than what I intended, that is the reason I try to remain consistent. I slip now and then.

    February 12, 2009 at 9:47 a.m.


  • Hungry children, point to them, show me who is starving.  A lot of people are being kicked out of their homes because they got in over their heads.  Who's fault is that?  Who encouraged this type of behavior?  I do not want to deprive people of food and shelter who need it.  
    "Holier than Thou", I took lessons from you.  What I'm concerned about is young people starting out, being able to get a job.  Your liberal friends are crushing opportunity by over burdening businesses with taxes and regulations.  Regulations that by the way do create employment for a lot of bottom feeding lawyers.
    If we restrict the creation of real jobs in this country I believe there is no hope for the poor.  Everyone cannot be dependent on the government.  Many of the poor in this country are the result of the break up of families, school drop outs or drug abuse.   The federal government has been battling these problems for decades.  They have accomplished little except for filling our prisons.

    February 12, 2009 at 7:55 a.m.

  • Oh and the TOTAL cost of 73 months of the Iraq war is still less than than the just passed "stimulus" package.

     HMMMMM,

    February 11, 2009 at 6:49 p.m.

  • Hmm Mike, you made me curious

    As of a few minutes ago Iraq war cost
    $633,327,134,740
    Free Clock

    $633,327,134,740
    Free Clock

                                                                                                                                                                                           So Jan. Of 2003 to Jan. of  current date , thats a lil over 73 months do the math, mine comes out to a little under 8.8 B a month ( still lots of $) but no where near your 10 to 12 B.
    http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

    February 11, 2009 at 6:41 p.m.

  • Please that's poetic but so superficial....Now I would put my knowledge of Iraq any time any day..Before,durning, and present day...against yours so don't patronize me.
    You complain of my assumptions but you ignore the ones you deliver..On the same blog.
    Peddle your selective parable's to someone else...The poor  and unemployed do not need lectures as the right thinks..The holier than thou will not feed their hungry children.
    No assumptions you have posted right -wing theories and they are all alike.
    For the record I have never called anyone a Nazi...Right-winger is as far as I go as far as name-calling or labels.

    February 11, 2009 at 6:08 p.m.


  • You make many assumptions about what I think. I supported the war in Iraq because our President and Congress authorized, voted for the war. Many Democrats voted for it. Once our young men and women are committed to fighting a war you can bet that I will support it. But when things don't go well, you just can't say, ahhh I think I made a mistake, ahhh, I was tricked blah, blah, blah - let's run for the exits. I know this is history you like some history and hate the rest.
    Who said I wanted to reduce government to a Radio Shack outlet? Our government needs to adhere to the Constitution. Right now it is unrestrained. There is no cause no matter its size that the federal government will not take on. It physically can't do everything and prevent people from paying the consequences for bad decisions. We just don't have enough resources to do that.
    You keep wanting to paint me as a Nazi of some kind. I am concerned as much about the poor as you are - probably more. They need opportunity, not hand outs. It's give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish you feed him for life. Explain to me what the program to make housing "affordable" did for the poor or for that matter anyone.

    February 11, 2009 at 6 p.m.

  • Kennedy,Reagan and New deal are just becoming talking points substituting for saying all I want to do is reduce the size of government to the size of a Radio Shack outlet.
    I believe government has a role and a prosperous country has amoral obligation to take care of its disadvantage...Pulling yourself up by boot straps does  not work for a person that does not have boot straps.
    It was the free market banks that went to the government for a bailout(you supported that on one of my blogs) it was the Big Three that went to the government....Government and the free market can coexist.
    I keep getting a lecture from someone that supported the war in Iraq ($10-$12 billion a month) but that is not spending..Selective memory?No one loves a government run economy.
    You exaggerate Rollingstone ,I love history(even thou it was boring to my friends) it's probably the only subject I excelled in  but it's distorted or a slanted version of history I don't recognize. I hear talk radio ,they are beating that horse to death..

    February 11, 2009 at 4:52 p.m.


  • Anti-government, hmmmmm? Let's say I'm not for a government controlled economy. If that's anti-government then I guess I'm guilty. What would you call someone like yourself who wants a government controlled economy? I can think of several names.

    February 11, 2009 at 4:24 p.m.


  • Tax cuts are stimulating, very stimulating.  Ask John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. I know that is history, something you hate, but that's where data, "raw data" comes from. This current stimulus package is saddling us with more entitlement spending for now and far into the future. We simply can't afford it. It's like trying to swim with an anchor, it will drag everyone down with it.

    February 11, 2009 at 3:56 p.m.

  • Rollinstone
    I am not much on abstract more of a meat and potatoes (raw data)…I like data rather than history lessons that might or might not apply.
    "Liberal, socialist bill" is like "right wing tax cuts"…..At some point it comes down to doing nothing and being criticized for not doing anything, cutting taxes only and being criticized for following the failed policies of the past, or a hybrid of all of the above and call it a stimulus bill.
    I know you are anti-government but even well known conservertives say the government is the only one with the liquility to pull this off..

    February 11, 2009 at 2:46 p.m.


  • Excuse me these are not right wingers, these are college economics professors. Hardly a rabid group of radicals. They are telling us a mistake is being made, a big mistake. Hope, whether audacious or not is not going to cut it. This stimulus package is just a liberal socialist wish list being crammed down our throats. I'm sorry we don't like it, not a bit.

    February 11, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.

  • Rollingstone
    It is not a shock that the Wall Street Journal would take an ideological stance against anything the Obama administration does or proposes…Did those economist weigh in on the $1.3 trillion tax cut for the rich while being deployed in two wars?…..Obama said it all when he said” I will not be lectured by those who still preach the failed policies of the past….This will go on for the next four years.
    I am not going to revisit a right-wing version of the New Deal because our world crisis cannot be compared to Japan’s lost decade or what happened 80 years ago…I know that the economic panel (Obama team) are well aware of the pros and cons of those eras; that’s exactly why this bill will have some measures to make this short-term fix better.
    Right-wingers are hanging on to their version of the New Deal. This tunnel vision prevents them from developing a reasonable alternative..All they have is tax cuts.
    Number 199 and counting…” I don’t know if it is a mistake or if it will help” but I do know the basics of “stimulus” requires spending and is not to be confused with fiscal restraint, long-term goals, or any other accepted good sound fiscal policies…It’s as the name implies, a jolt, a boost, or resuscitation and it might not work….What the conservatives are proposing is not a truth certain ;it is just an ideological belief…It didn’t win the election so we will take the Obama approach…If it fails all will pay.

    February 11, 2009 at 11:25 a.m.


  • About 250 economists from almost every major university in the nation wrote the following in the Wall Street Journal:
    Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is the way to improve economic performance.
    More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990's. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.
    To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.
    The language could not be any clearer. What we are doing now is a mistake that will just increase the overall suffering and prolong it. How stupid can we be?

    February 11, 2009 at 8:42 a.m.

  • Alton
    I hope you don’t think I was comparing Obama to Reagan or Kennedy because each were masterful in their own way.
    I was saying Obama is not that far removed from the Illinois state senate and he has already been able to articulate the problems of our nation and how his administration and congress will try to address them.
    Obama’s economists are well known and he just added a few from both sides of the political spectrum and they can easily be goggled.
    You asked
    What are the masses doing after President Obama's speech?
    Well they went to the polls and voted for him……The night after he won I saw thousands of thousands of happy faces as I channeled surfed…..Go to Hastings magazine rack and see how many times his face appears on magazines…You cannot deny him charisma but I hope he gets good advice, listens to it, and acts upon it.
    It’s only been three weeks but before we go comparing him to the great ones, remember Reagan & Kennedy had their enemies but not like this president does in the age of the internet….Every time he says something, Rush, Drudge, and Hannity will twist those words and use them against him..That’s where Joe Biden is saying 30% will never like what Obama is doing.

    February 11, 2009 at 8:31 a.m.

  • Sure wish President Obama will name at least 6 major economist whose charts support this economical stimulus bill will save 400 million jobs or create 400 million new jobs.  Also, would love to see where they got their data. It has been a number of years since my college courses in economics, but I think with limited brushing up I could understand their conclusions.
    I recall many President Kennedy's speeches and President Regan's speeches.
    I actually feel President Kennedy's speeches inspired people more.  We in mass became more physical fit, after his speech on physical fitness and the President's Physical Fitness program.  I recall his call to put a man on the moon.  I recall his speeches on ethics.  People did not only listen , they moved.  He inspired the masses with a vision to move into a high-tech.
    I have seen film strips on FDR's speeches, he new how to inspire the masses.
    What are the masses doing after President Obama's speech?

    February 11, 2009 at 12:06 a.m.

  • Just another reason for why your source says what he does.....

    He is the son of Lois Weisberg, a Chicago social activist and connector celebrated in Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point. Weisberg's father, Bernard Weisberg, was a prominent Chicago lawyer and, later, judge. His parents were introduced at a cocktail party by novelist Ralph Ellison.

     Chicago social activist........... and a Chicago lawyer and judge, all this sounds like I have heard some of it before............. Oh yeah , our new president,. Chicago social activist, Chicago............ political connections maybe?

    February 10, 2009 at 8:12 p.m.

  • And your Slate reference.........

    Weisberg moderated a 2007 debate between Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens. This debate hit the news after Al Sharpton made a comment that seemed to charge that Mormons did not "really believe in God." The moderator, Weisberg, was noted to have also made critical comments regarding Mormons, and in particular presidential candidate Mitt Romney.[3] Weisberg authored an opinion piece on Slate in which he argues it is not bigoted to refuse to vote for a Mormon, especially one who believes in the "founding whoppers of Mormonism."[4] He also stated that he would never vote for a Scientologist or a young earth creationist.
    In August 2008, Weisberg stated on Slate that the only reason Barack Obama would ever lose to John McCain is racism by white Americans against Obama. He stated that "If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth."[5]

     But oh no, he just has to be right he can't he , could he be? a racists in his own right?

    February 10, 2009 at 8:01 p.m.


  • Glass half full, half empty, maybe circling the drain - don't know?

    February 10, 2009 at 7:52 p.m.

  • well gee Mike,

    " President Obama was not in awe of the press' nor did he view them as the enemy. The president admitted that demand will be in a hole for $1,000,000,000,000 this year, and another $1,000,000,000,000 next year. He did not say things will be fine; go shopping."

     Talk about spending money?????  Make up your mind ..............please

    February 10, 2009 at 7:51 p.m.

  • I agree but wasn't it Karl Rove that said it was a permanent campaign and it was his goal to make the GOP a permanent majority party?
    Politcs in the WH? I am shocked.
    Rove is actually the second Republican realigner to stumble in this way in recent years. After the 1994 election, Newt Gingrich had his own visions of political sugarplums. Gingrich's unsuccessful revolution was more libertarian and less moralistic. He thought the new Republican majority would coalesce around shrinking government (a theme Bush has soft-pedaled, preferring to undermine government through neglect and incompetence). Gingrich was also, frankly, a little nuts. But he failed because he made the same basic mistake that Rove did. Gingrich thought he'd won a mandate for radical change and enshrined a new governing majority. He forgot about the country's nonideological majority, which likes Medicare, Social Security, national parks, and student loans. Republicans have retained control of Congress since Gingrich's downfall, but only by reversing his austerity program and spending like a bunch of drunks.
    http://www.slate.com/id/2129292/

    February 10, 2009 at 7:05 p.m.

  • Obama is much like Clinton - always in campaign mode. Like Clinton, it's what he does best.

    February 10, 2009 at 6:57 p.m.

  • Alton
    Barack Obama is just echoing what leading economist are saying…You heard “gloom & doom” I heard an explanation and ways this strategy can be monitored.
    We had 8 years of optimistic speeches and denial..It is time for a little straight talk IMO.
    I don’t think Ronald Reagan or John Kennedy resurrected could give an optimistic speech  that will bring back the economy…I agree with you that this economy will turn around but I think it needs a boost ;you may not but I don’t think anyone knows..We are in uncharted waters.

    February 10, 2009 at 6:48 p.m.

  • Let's face it President Obama is no President Kennedy. He is like everyone on earth, we are all unique, there will never be another person like ourselves. 
    In my opionion he could have done better.
    His speech did not inspire me or give me confidence that this stimulus bill is the fix. He talked about "doom and gloom".  I contend the economy is not going to get better until companies are more confident and the general public is more confident.
    He started out good, but appeared to be running for re-election, more than giving be me confidence in the fix.  He even at times seem to me to softy state his lack of confidence in the fix.
    We needed an inspiration speech that this will correct many problems, get the country moving forward, things may be tough for awhile, but they will be better. We need someone to stop the downward spiral of negative confident factor as described in Behavior Economic Theory.  We may need to reject or abandon some of fix items as time moves on, but we will get out of this mess type of speech is what we needed to hear in my opinion.

    February 10, 2009 at 6:32 p.m.

  • I thought the honeymoon was over...He was grilled over the failed nominations and he took  the blame.
    You do make a good a good point and I hope Obama keeps going into hostile districts instead of the safe venues because it will only make him stronger..Softball questions never help anyone. They are useless.
    It is just the first with many to go.

    February 10, 2009 at 5:02 p.m.

  • Let's see how cool and calm Obama is with the press when his honeymoon is over.

    February 10, 2009 at 4:57 p.m.