Saturday, June 18, 2011

There never was an anti-war movement

Deep down, I think - most of us knew that anyway. It was an anti-Bush movement. War had nothing to do with it - it was all about the Left finding a way to regain power. By and large, 85% of the "anti-war" movement, with its manufactured International A.N.S.W.E.R./Code Pink rent-a-mob and their bannermen .

No - we knew this already. In case you needed more proof - imagine is GWB did this.

The streets would be filled with large-puppets as we speak.
President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel, Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission unchanged.
...
The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position. Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House, along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.
Who could be President Obama's muse?

81 comments:

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Ayep.

The protests at Ledyard Bridge ceased immediately upon election of BHO, because, of course, the wars instantly stopped and all our enemies rid themselves of nukes and commenced banging swords into plowshares.  And it is all due to Hope and Change. 

A more disingenuous, arrogant, ignorant, ill-mannered group of intellectual dilletantes and moral cowards you will never meet.  Again, the understanding of international relations one would find at a 1968 student union protest.  Which is indeed their intellectual legacy. 

ewok40k said...

Hey, two can play that game!
If Obama attacks hell, I bet there will be soon words of sympathy for the devil from Tea party...
I guess by 2012 campaign we will see "bring the boys form AFG home" as a rallying cry of the suddenly dove'ish Republicans...

UltimaRatioRegis said...

No ewok, you are mistaken (deliberately?).  Obama was given the benefit of the doubt by conservatives to a FAR greater degree than Bush ever was by the Left. 

I don't think you will find "doves" come 2012 on the right side of the aisle.  The cry then, as now, will likely be "make up your mind to try and win, or get people the hell out."  Similar to Goldwater's admonition in 64 that was misrepresented then and since as being a cry for war. He was correct, by the way, when all was said and done.

campbell said...

all other political observations aside.......lawyer Obama chooses to parse "hostilies"....why then, can I not go into the bank, wave a gun around, take $15....and not be culpable?  after all, I only took a measly fifteen bucks, and I didn't actually shoot anyone, ya know.    I coulda blasted away and took a few thou...but I didn't,  so it wasn't that big a deal, huh?  right? okay?

cause, when you parse it out properly according to our glorious Peace Prize example......it wasn't even a REAL bank robbery......

DeltaBravo said...

Ewok, it's more like if Obama attacked hell, first he would have made apology speeches to the devil for the excesses of religion and then he would have attacked hell in a half-hearted way to look like he was actually against sin, but he wouldn't have actually ascertained whether he had the troops to do it or a goal or an exit plan.  (Extinguish the fires, or merely open the gates to let the inhabitants out?) And he would have ignored the better angels who would have warned that he and the troops that are obligated to do his bidding could get sucked in by the backdraft.  And the overarching view of those watching would be puzzlement because he never mentioned any particular antipathy toward satan, fire, or the concept of damnation while he was campaigning.... 

Sheriff Bart said...

It is my own opinion that the hardocre professional anti-war community, by and large, resides in the Anti-Western civ, anti-free enterpirse community (for whom the Democratic party is not aggressive enough (though they are still given a welcome place, as long as they don't make too much grief). That comprised about 5%, maybe 10%. Everybody else was, yep, just anti-Republican (with a helping of instinctual "blame America first" guilt thrown on top, as the usual soft-hearts try to immanentize the eschaton).

Knowing this is important, because it is equally important to realize that this is a cultural issue and if you expect the GOP to win this for you you are a fool. At some point, expecting a vote for the GOP to make everything right is like trying to use a hammer to fabricate a wooden chair. You just need other tools to do the job right (and tools that will actually do what is needed to get the job succesfully done, not just get themselves selected as the tool to use and then not do much else).

butch said...

You keep using that phrase "Constitutional lwayer."  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Has the JEF ever practiced law of any sort?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Well, it all depends.  What is your ethnic/racial background?  Were you robbing the bank at gunpoint as an expression of rage for decades of oppression at the hands of heterosexual white males? 

Skippy-san said...

Actually there is an anti-war movement-the same people who were opposed to Iraq are opposed to the Libyan excursion.

Bush and Obama have actually done exactly the same thing-they have exceeded their constitutional authority for purposes that are not in the overriding national interest. Bush listened to his lawyers on torture and wirelss wiretapping-Obama has listened to his advisors and committed the country to another war of choice-just like Bush did.  He like many other foolish people figured that Libya would be over before May 20th.  Bush did the same mistake in Iraq-he firgured it would be over quickly, and it wasn't.

I submit there is in both Presidencies a credible case that can be made for impeachment. The power to declare war belongs to Congress. If they were really upset about what Obama has done in Libya they should prepare Articles of Impeachment and make their dispelasure known. Certainly prosecuting a stupid war is a lot better reason than a blow job. If Andrew Johnson could be impeached for violating the Tenure of Office act, Obama can be impeached for violating the War Powers act. Just as Bush could have been for violating the 4th, 5th and 8th amendments. At a minimum, Congress should cut off funding for Libyan operations until a resolution authorizing the country to go war is passed.

We started down this road when we got away from actual declarations of War. If Iraq was such a threat to us national security, then the President should be able to go in front of Congress and request a declaration of war. And once war is declared-the full weight of the United States military should be brought to bear. Certainly that would have paid dividends in Iraq and in Libya. If Libya was a threat to national security we should have declared war on Libay and leveled Tripoli.  The Powell Doctrine needs to be brought back.

This is a serious Constitutional issue. Better to have it out now-than when some bonehead decides to invade Iran downstream. If Congress is really upset-they should impeach the President. I'm serious.

Skippy-san said...

If I could see a Republican running on an end the war(s) platform-he might be worth voting for. Sadly the only Republican who has that issue right is Ron Paul.

Bring the boys (and girls) home from the that worthless Muslim hell hole!

UltimaRatioRegis said...

It is a muslim hell-hole, all right.  But if we are going to make it worthless, then we should have the seeds to begin serious development of domestic energy production.  Oil, coal, hydro, nuclear power, natural gas. 

Funny, the same cabal who doesn't want US intervention in the Middle East is the very self-same group of anti-capitalist environmental nut jobs who have made such development orders of magnitude more expensive than it should be, and that provided there can be a successful outcome to the endless court challenges those very same groups have promised, in order to halt each and every construction of power generation in this country.

Ironic, that, innit?

LT B said...

Will somebody PLEASE show me proof that douche nozzle in the White House was ACTUALLY a Constitutional lawyer?! I never saw any evidence of that.

prschoef said...

Isn't it strange that the house Liberal (Skippy) clarifies so well what right-thinking Conservatives should be saying (and some do).

ewok40k said...

<span>When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite, on formal declaration of war ~ </span><span>Winston Churchill</span>

DeltaBravo said...

I'm still confused why we are in Libya.  Qhaddafi, while a jerk, had actually gotten rid of his turkey farm nuke program (after we made an example of Saddam... and yes, didn't Bush and his people go before Congress and wasn't Congress right behind him all the way...err...till the winds shifted?)

A real argument could be made that Saddam was a clear and present danger.  Not so with Libya's tyrant.

I'm still confused why we are there... except Obama wants to help the Arab street (after ignoring the Persian street.)

The Usual Suspect said...

It all boils down to the warning given by Washington in his farewell address - beware the parties.  These people's loyalties do not lie with the United States, but with their party and that is a major problem.  The United States matters to them only insofar as they are physically living here.  Move them to any other country and their pattern of behavior does not change.  It is just like the Left's view of communism in this country - "it would work if only we had the right people in place" and the Clintons and now Obama think that they are those people. 

DeltaBravo said...

Phib, I'd also note an amazing similarity toward the folks that burst an aneurysm over the Patriot Act under Pres. Bush who are suspiciously silent now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110617/ts_yblog_theticket/republicans-unite-against-autopen-ask-obama-to-re-sign-patriot-act

And constitutional scholar indeed!  President AutoPen found a way to vote present and yet not show up once again...

You can't make this stuff up....

Anonymous said...

You do recall that President Bush did in fact go to Congress and receive an authorization for the use of force? It was de facto, if not de jure, a declaration of war (as near as I can tell, the only difference would be in the legal status of detainees, but even then, illegal combatants are illegal combatants). 

Contrast that with the actions of President Obama, who committed us to action in Libya, and even when pressed by Congress to explain himself, feels he has no need to answer to the body with the power to declare war. 

I'mma leave Yemen outside the discussion, as a reasonable case can be made that the original AUMF against Al Queda covers a wide range of operations in that theater. 

xbradtc said...

Oops. ^that was me^

Surfcaster said...

And they ate still at - they just killed the rail gun & fe laser

DM05 said...

A one-war, budget shrinking, diversifying military fighting 2.5 wars, and hope & change guy's legal team parses words that put more precious $$ and resources into a no-win. It's well past his hiding behind "Buuushe's fault". Protestors? Not so much, it's all power baby.

Salty Gator said...

Well said, DB.  You could add the left's willingness to engage in mysoginistic speak when attacking republican women as well.

Salty Gator said...

Skippy, I think that you are using too broad of a brush stroke trying to capture Bush and Obama together.  While neither is my ideal president, President Bush did do a fantastic CYA job on all of his major decision points.
As for enhanced interrogation, I don't think that he exceeded his constitutional authority, but then again, it all lies in symantics.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"Rules for thee, but not for me."

Ted Kennedy comes to mind.  Full support of NOW.  Patsy Schroeder once called him a "loyal friend to womens' rights".

Mary-Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

<span>Rules for thee, but not for me."  
 
Ted Kennedy comes to mind.  He always had the full support of NOW.  Patsy Schroeder once called him a "loyal friend to womens' rights".  
 
Mary-Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span><span>Rules for thee, but not for me."    
   
Ted Kennedy comes to mind.  He always had the full support of NOW.  Patsy Schroeder once called him a "loyal friend to womens' rights".    
   
Mary-Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.</span></span>

campbell said...

Why, Sir.....I wasn't "robbing" the bank.  No siree...that, why, would be "hostile", neh? O:-)

Squidly said...

Mary Jo should get a posthumous medal for ensuring Teddy would never be Prez...

DeltaBravo said...

It goes without saying that at their very core liberals loathe women.  Not just Republican women... all women.  It's hidden behind a veneer of meaningless supportive verbiage.  In the liberal's world women are to be used and discarded and let someone else foot the bill.  Their real rights and dignity are shunted aside.  And the fathers and husbands who would support them are pickpocketed and pink-slipped and quotaed into economic oblivion.

It's the same game, different playing field as the anti-war mob.  The protests and verbiage is all show.  Ignore what they say.  Look at what they do.  Once you crack that code, the rest falls into place.

/rant

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Tell the judge you were promoting "economic justice" and that you were making sure the "rich" paid "their fair share".  Oh, and that you got the gun from the ATF. 

You'll walk, and probably find yourself on the ballot as a candidate for alderman in Chicago's 17th Ward.

Stu said...

While I appreciate the "de facto, declaration of war" (not to mention that Bush actually did get something from Congress), that wasn't enough.

Such things need to be blunt and formal so as to ensure everyone involved understands what WE are doing and that the more weasel-like types within Congress don't try to run from it at the first sign that it appears as though things aren't going well.  

Stu said...

At times, I think it i deeper than "ironic" URR.  I begin to think their actions don't support their words but at the same time they continue to get richer.  (Anyone who thinks the Democrats aren't in bed with Big Business as well needs to really take another look.)

Skippy-san said...

What is it with IE9 and JS comments? You cannot type them in.

You will notice I referred to Bush's playing fast and loose with the Constitution with respect to extraordinary renditions, toture and his santioning acts that clearly violate 4th amendment and 8th amendment protections. Yes Bush did go to Congress-to get sanction for a stupid war of choice that was of not in the national interest. But you are correct he did go to Congress-albeit using falsified documentation to prove his case. I'm quite sure Congress did not sign up for the expanded war without end that the GWOT has morphed into.

Obama started a stupid war too-assuming it would be over with quickly-and that's clearly blown up in his face.

Actually Obama has essentially been Bush II in his prosecution of the wars-and his failure to reverse the questionable and illegal tactics and methods utilized under Bush I. They are more alike than they are different.

Skippy-san said...

How much oil does Afghanistan export?  The Iraqis-assuming they have the guts to do so will make us adhere to SOFA and boot us on as they should.

Skippy-san said...

<span>The protests and verbiage is all show.  Ignore what they say.  Look at what they do.  Once you crack that code, the rest falls into place.  
</span>

Kind of like the Tea Party. If they were really concerned about government spending-they would be leading the charge to end all of the wars, yesterday.

CDR Salamander said...

Get a Mac.

Retired Now said...

IE 9.0 just refuses to let me enter any comments on this fine blog.  Frustration...

No matter what Security and Privacy settings I use, IE 9.0 is just terrible.

So, I use my brother's old laptop while he's (mostly) living with us.  My wife is going to buy an i-PAD-2 next week.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span>they would be leading the charge to end all of the wars, yesterday."</span>

And that would account for, after ten years, of about $100 billion less than Obama's "stimulus package". 

Drop in the bucket.  Try again, Skippy.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Are you going to try and convince me that destabilizing forces in the Middle East don't affect oil supply and price?  Besides, wasn't Afghanistan our "necessary war" in the 2004-2008 anti-Bush rhetoric from King O? 

Point being, if we make the Middle East far less relevant with our own production, we have less and less reason to care or be nice to the people that hate us.  And we do it without destroying what is left of our industry with government-subsidized pipe dreams of ethanol, solar, and wind as major sources of "affordable" energy.

CDR Salamander said...

I almost never use IE for anyting ..... so download free Firefox on Chrome if you can go Mac/Safari. 

Sorry - but IE is so buggy and picky.  Firefox and Chrome won't give you any trouble.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

The "ironic" comment was to intimate anything but  >:o . 

Like Al Gore's book, "Earth in the (Savings Account) Balance".

DeltaBravo said...

Skippy is a smart man.  I keep waiting for that lightbulb moment when he finally "gets" it.  We'll throw him a big party....

Stu said...

Al Gore is the perfect example.

I also like the recent words form the CEO of GM encouraging higher taxes on gasoline so the masses (the rest of us) would then find buying his new line of cars attractive.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Gummint Motors.  Nothing like having your federal government as a major stakeholder. 

But hey, Obama isn't socialist. 

True enough.  He is a communist.

Anonymous said...

Well, well, well, take a pill, president-haters... it is not like GWOT was declared for nothing, 9/11 anyone? The wording was poor due to PC, as it should be GWOIT (guess what I stand for, it ain't Iraq...)  Non - state actors do pose a challenge to conventional war customs, but US isnt first time encountering attacks on its soil from non-state actors operating from failed country (Villa anyone?).
Questionable and illegal tactics have been used by the likes of Lincoln and Roosevelt before. Constitution isnt a suicide pact... etc.
re: browser, Firefox works fine with me, just sometimes jumps cursor all over the text.

ewok40k said...

that was me :)

Retired Now said...

Old bumper sticker I saw in 1980,

TED KENNEDY FOR LIFEGUARD !

Skippy-san said...

I "got it" about six years ago, when I understood that Bush's foreign policy was going to derail the country both economically and militarily.  URR the facts (and the stats) are against your thesis. So I will say it again with feeling: Repeat after me-the stimulus is not the cause of our debt problems. Three wars, charged to the national credit card without corresponding increases in tax revenue are. Just about all of the deficit that our tri-corner friends is attributable to three things: the wars, the Bush era tax cuts ( which did the most damage to the deficit of any thing) and the loss of tax revenue due to a recession/global slowdown and 9% unemployment. To simply have done nothing as the simpletons in the Tea Party suggest, is not only unconscionable from a moral aspect, it would have been destructive to the very people the GOP wish to protect, the wealthy.

The stimulus was temporary and self limiting, so was TARP and in the end we got most of that money back. The wars on the other hand are not self limiting, they are self perpetuating and so the direct expenses associated with them ( 1.3 trillion to date) and their indirect costs ( higher energy costs, degradations of readiness, and most importantly the ancillary costs they do in areas where we can't trade or focus on other areas) is probably the same amount over eleven years and increasing.

Tell you what-I'll throw you a party when the Bush tax cuts are finally repealed. Just that alone would pretty much fix our deficit "problem". Even better if we had never had them-or abandoned them on Sept 12, 2001.

DeltaBravo said...

Skippy... you ignore the fact that there is a threshold beyond which people won't work if you take away their incentives.  That puts a self-limiting cap on incentive and economic growth.  I've seen it happen.

come back to America and watch how the economy really works.

And no, the stimulus didn't create the deficit... but it was a symptom of the stupid philosophy at work that has extended and grown the deficit beyond belief.  (Where are the libs who were ranting about Chimpybushmchitler's $4TRILLION deficit?   They're awful quiet out there.)

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Skippy,

Are you telling me $880 billion for wars over ten years (CBO's closest estimate) is more of a problem for the deficit than $987 billion (and growing) in a single sweep of an auto-pen?   Those are some pretty hard stats to try and rationalize around. Temporary and self-limiting?  Egads, what a crock.  We just finished two sessions of PRINTING MONEY because they weren't.  We are contemplating a third "quantitative easing".  That will make the dollar fall faster than Weiner's trousers.

Even if we use your $1.3 trillion, over ten years, the deficits for 2009-2011 are projected to be nearly $4.8 TRILLION dollars.   So, if you took three years worth of the GWOT, even with your projections, that is $390 billion, give or take my tax returns.  Which represents a whopping 2.73% of Obama's $4.8 trillion deficits for those three years.   And you are blaming Bush and the GWOT for the other 97.27%. 

Skippy, the facts and the stats are pretty plain.  How about I throw YOU a party when you acknowledge that Obama has taken a grim situation and made it infinitely worse by attacking incentive and business success, in the name of "Hope and Change", and neo-communist redistribution of the wealth?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

As for "repeat after me"?  That is how our secondary education system indoctrinates school children on the far-left ideology.  Won't work on a grown-up who knows the score. 

Skippy-san said...

Regretablly, I am back in the US-although I may be heading over to Europe very soon.

I know how the ecomomy works very well-a lot of people here in Dullsville are the victims of "austerity" in action. For incentives to work-the intended reciepients actually have to take advantage of them. The performance of the top 1% who have "incentivized" in the past decade is  proof positive to the contrary to any of Mr. Laffer's predictions. Furthermore, even if the Bush tax cuts were repealed the US would still rank way down in terms of overall tax rate. ( Even without the Bush Tax cuts-pesonal income tax rates are at a 50 year low). For the average person on this comment stream the change in their income taxes would be minor. ( I know it would be for me-I've done the math), but the overall increase in revenue would make a big dent in the deficit.  It would stabilize the patient so you could then make a meaningful reform of the tax code along the line suggested by the deficity commission. ( Which in the end would give you and I a lower tax rate-but probably less in the way of deductions).

And if the banks would actually lend money again and companies would actually worry about production instead of share price, the economy would start growing again. The key to that is consumption and so far tax cuts are not causing that. The demand side of the equation is important too. During the 90's taxes were raised, particularly on top earners. Some people like to call that class warfare, but guess who benefited? Everybody. Including the wealthiest Americans.



Go back and look at historical rates of growth,

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I hear Greece is looking for an economist.  Oh wait, they have already tried the "Skippy Model". 

Worked like a charm.

Skippy-san said...

URR-the total costs for all the wars is 1.2 trillion through 2011. 880 billion is just for Iraq.  That is just direct dollar costs-the opportunity cost and direct resultant costs will be twice as much. As for the stimulus, even if McCain had won the election there would have been a stimulus. It would have been smaller and more misdirected and the snap back on the economy would have happened even faster than it has. The difference is that it would have been against a backdrop of a much higher unemployment rate-especially when he would have let the American auto industry and other major industries collapse simply to be a slave to the "invisible hand". Maybe the effect on the debt would have been less, , but we'd also have even higher unemployment.

You still are getting the to real problem though-the effect of the Bush tax cuts when combined with the wars. Not repealing them or letting them expire as they were supposed to is the MAJOR FACTOR in the debt ballooning.

Skippy-san said...

So what is your excuse? :)

DeltaBravo said...

Skippy... it isn't just taxes that are killing the economy...

We have an economic IED buried in the middle of everything that is putting everything into stop mode.   The health care stuff... Socialized medicine... free aspirin for everyone...  the problem is, it doesn't go into effect completely for a few years.  Businesses know it's out there in their path.  They don't want to hire because the person they take on their payroll today becomes an unknown quantity of extra expense in a few years.  You can't do that to a business model unless the business owner is a complete moron.  So that has killed jobs too.

People get their tax cuts.   They're not spending it.  Because they're not sure if they have a job in a few months/years.  They're paying down debt and banking it for the expected rainy day.

Obama has injected nothing into the economy that has given hope to workers and consumers.  Just that it might actually get worse when his crappy plans take full effect down the road. 

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"Opportunity cost and direct resultant cost".  Huh.  Get that from the Ecommunist, did you?  And without paying a trillion mostly to unions, we would have had much higher unemployment. 

You aren't getting to the real problem.  Bloated government, out of control spending, and an entitlement system that dwarfs any Ponzi scheme ever run by Madoff or anyone else. 

The war in Iraq, the war in AFG, miniscule contributors.  The War on Poverty, and the Great Society and its legacy of government handouts to tens of millions in the Democrats' voting block?  Now you're getting somewhere. 

But your solution?  More taxes, so that even MORE money can be given to the takers and non-earners who will vote for Obama and other super-left socialist-communists who promise them more of my money.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

<span>"Opportunity cost and direct resultant cost".  Huh.  Get that from the Ecommunist, did you?  And without paying a trillion mostly to unions, we would have had much higher unemployment.   Rationalization ex post facto at its finest.  Even taking your highly faulty numbers into account, plus the 200% increase you attribute to Bush's evil (which has ZERO validity), you still have more than 75% of the 2009-2011 OBama deficits unaccounted for.  Where d'ya spose all that came from?
 
You aren't getting to the real problem.  Bloated government, out of control spending, and an entitlement system that dwarfs any Ponzi scheme ever run by Madoff or anyone else.   
 
The war in Iraq, the war in AFG, miniscule contributors.  The War on Poverty, and the Great Society and its legacy of government handouts to tens of millions in the Democrats' voting block?  If you mentioned those, you'd be getting somewhere.   
 
But your solution?  More taxes, so that even MORE money can be given to the takers and non-earners who will vote for Obama and other super-left socialist-communists who promise them more of my money.</span>

Skippy-san said...

<span>They don't want to hire because the person they take on their payroll today becomes an unknown quantity of extra expense in a few years.  You can't do that to a business model unless the business owner is a complete moron.  So that has killed jobs too. </span>

Well aside from the fact that this line of thinking shows how heartless the business owner is, they have that problem right now. Their solution has been simply to work harder to find ways to screw people out of benefits with the government doing nothing to offset the result. A system which provides universal access to health care-such as Singapore's or Japan's or Switzerland's solves the problem by making health care not a problem of business but of society as a whole.

Ask you self what will really hurt those consumer's down the road. Obama can do nothing right now-and worse yet, is not even trying to do the things he should be able to do. But if the full range of the proposed "austerity" goes through-they are going to get hurt a lot worse than they are now. Just implemting the Ryan plan will double out of pocket costs for people like me who are in their mid 50's right now And insurance companies are getting a free pass to do so.Eventually we will wake up and realize that some sort of health insurance reform is not just nice to have-it is a necessity. The ACA was at least a start-the current crop in the GOP offer nothing.

Republicans theorize that a deficit deal would increase confidence in the business sector and financial markets, spurring economic growth all by itself. But there’s ample reason to suspect this ”expanding by contracting” theory. Sadly, the Obama Administration appears to have swallowed it. Last week, several White House officials, including Director of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling, stressed deficit reduction as the primary component of their economic-growth strategy, and repeatedly claimed that reducing the deficit would generate “confidence.”

“I think it’s bogus,” said Mishel, of EPI. “And it reflects what happened in the Clinton era, when you elevate a tactic to the level of principle. They feel politically forced into shifting to deficit reduction. And they now rationalize this as good for jobs. And I think they all know better.”

DeltaBravo said...

C'mon, Skippy, now you're being deliberately obtuse.  There is a continuum for business owners between being a Scrooge McDuck and firing workers who get cancer and being such a squishy marshmallow that you provide everything but cotton balls to your workers for their health care and end up out of business with everyone fired and everyone SOL.

The societies you cite as wonderful health care providers also have a very homogeneous base and different priorities and smaller numbers to provide for than the US of A. 

Apples... meet oranges!

Any REAL insurance reforms have had the round-house stuffings kicked out of them by those who want universal coverage all the time for everybody (until mandatory rationing will kick in once all other options are kaput.)

How about insurance reform, tort reform, portability of coverage beyond state boundaries and a few other things to make insurance companies competitive.

Have you been to your local social security office recently?  Egads... sharp fork in the eye before I ever do that again.  You want that attitude running your medical coverage?  It's coming with the ideas you espouse....

Skippy-san said...

Really? When unions are only 11.9% of the labor force-the blame for the recession can be laid solely at their feet?  Those over leveraged banks with literally trillions in toxic debt had nothing what so ever to do with it?

Jay said...

URR - Google the votes for Authrization for force vs. Terrorists (18 Sep 2001), HUGE bipartisan support. Less so for the vote authorizing action vs. iraq (especially in the House), and the jury will be out for that action (and the effect on the Afghan campaign) for some time to come. If by "The Left" you mean protesting groups - who likely get more press coverage in today's 24/7 news cycle than they used to merit (as do attention grabbing groups on the right), what of it? Pres Bush had strong support after the 9/11 attacks (as would have Pres Gore, or whoever held the office at that time). He subsequently squandered it.

Jay said...

No President supports the War Powers Act...many *candidates* for the office do, but once they are elected, their point of view changes. I doubt you'll see a serious impeachment attempt over it, and I am unsure that a War Powers Act violation lawsuit would ever go anywhere, it it got to the SCOTUS level - the Act might be found uncostitutional.

Skippy-san said...

I've got Firefox and Safari on my computer. The problem is though that for many of the portals I have to work in they only work right under IE. JS Kit. is the ONLY comment plugin that does not work under IE.

Wordpress and your own domain are calling you!

Skippy-san said...

Then at least we would have a legal decision-and a forcing function for Congress to address its rightful powers under the Constitution. But getting back to the original point-the big mistake here is Obama's. He made the decision to intervene in Libya-and sluffing it off on NATO does not excuse the flaws in his decision making. I do not support intervention in Libya and any problems that occur with the Congress as a result-he has brought on himself.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Didn't blame the unions.  Your words.  What I did intimate was that the unions benefitted greatly by the spending of $1 trillion in stimulus money.  Some of that benefit was somewhat less than legal (See: UAW/General Motors bonded shareholders). 

Again, root cause.  Mortgages given with exceedingly relaxed collateral requirements.  Why?  Conyers, Cummings, Maxime Waters, Kweisi Mfume, et al, going before Congress in the late 90s and early 2000s and threatening to haul lenders in and have them answer charges of racism for denying minorities the American dream by not having unreasonably high percentages of mortgages go to blacks under Carter's Fair Housing Act of 1978. 

Which, of course, was heartily endorsed by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac beginning in 2006.  Under the leadership of whom? 

NOW, if I don't agree to bailouts of minority homeowners who were taken advantage of by "predatory lenders", I am a racist. 

THIS tells me all I need to know about the basis for your argument"

"<span>Well aside from the fact that this line of thinking shows how heartless the business owner is..."</span>

As if businesses are somehow charity organizations who are evil and selfish (heartless) for maintaining a solvent business model.  Such is the idea of Bolshevism.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I fail to see the relevance to how Obama is handling AFG in 2011. Or to my point above that there will not be a whole raft of Republican "doves" who will be as disingenuous and downright dishonest as the Dems who yelled the loudest in protestation of Bush.

DeltaBravo said...

I agree that Singapore writes the book on free market society.. but how will YOUR business model do when Big Gummint HealthCare Nanny decides you have a mandated level of coverge you must apply to all employees and takes choice out of your hands as a businessman and employer.

If you think there's going to be "choice" in any of this, you give your nanny-state friends and fellow travelers more credit than they deserve.  You're the kind of hope that just doesn't die in the face of grim experience.  I applaud that, but I won't take it to the bank myself.

Skippy-san said...

No=I am trying to convince you that WE are the destabilizing force. And that the Gulf and South Asia are two entirely different regions. With different needs and approaches required.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

We are the destabilizing force.  Huh.  So war between Israel and the rest of the ME is because of the US.  In 1948, 56, 67, 73, 82, and 2006.  War between Pakistan and India in 1965, 71, 84, 87, and 99 was because of the US.  The Iran-Iraq War from 1980-88 was because of the US.  Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was because of the US.  Turkey and Greece fighting over Cyprus in 74 and again in 96 was caused by the US.  We are the destabilizing force.  Good to know.

As for South Asia and the Gulf being different regions, they sure are.  And several powers want to extend their influence from one to the other (Turkey, Iran).  They are close enough to each other to have Pakistani security issues affect the Gulf, and Egypt's issues affect South Asia.

Skippy-san said...

So at the end of the day-you are saying blacks don't pay their mortgages each month like whites? That's certainly not true.

You can tell the effect of Fox News in how it indocrinates people whenver the subject of GM is raised. People whine and whine and whine about the GM bondholders . As a current GM stock holder ( and a Ford stockholder) I think that's a crock.   Screw them. Anyone who didn't bail on GM in the six months preceding  was asking to get screwed. Especially since its share price went from $25 down to $2.50 a share. The bond holders did not lose out entirely. Old GM bondholders got warrants that entitle it to buy about 273 million shares at between $10 and about $18 each which at current prices is worth about 5 billion. Since most of the bond holders are rich-they didn't lose as much as the average worker did. The GM bailout saved a lot of jobs though and kept the economy from tanking even further.

It still does not explain how unions are to blame for the 50% loss in my 401K that occured in 2008. Or Fannie Mae or Freddie-since they held less in the way of mortages than the private banks-who encouraged lenders to go after subprimes after the good credit folks had been essentially tapped out. When it all came tumbling down they still held more in bad mortgages than Fannie or Freddie ever did. Get it through your head-INVESTMENT BANKS are primarily to blame for the crisis in 2008-because they had made tons of money in the years leading up to the crisis. DEREGULATION of those same banks created the preconditions for them to fail. The accusation that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are soley to blame is absurd when the facts are examined.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

No Skippy, I am saying both blacks and whites that were lured into thinking they could afford homes and mortgages they couldn't can't pay those mortgages.  But Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton won't call me racist for refusing to pay a white guy's mortgage. 

And you damned well know that is what I was saying.  So don't try and paint me as being a bigot.  Quit being a weasel. 

And get it through YOUR head that your Leninist theories aren't being bought.

Casey Tompkins said...

Keep waving that red herring, Skippy. The rest of us know how to read the budget, and the GWOT/SE Asia ain't the budget-breaker. :)

Phil said...

Thank goodness NMCI uses IE 6 ;)

Consul-At-Arms said...

It's as if the whole circus of protests, sit-ins, demonstrations, &tc., was nothing but theater.

As someone who did
<span>not</span> favor invading Iraq (but who followed his commander-in-chief's orders anyways), I find this particularly offensive.

(Off with their heads!)

I've quoted you and linked to you here.

YNSN said...

Firefox on the Mac is buggy as well.  But, only in terms of Flash and certain scripts.  Chrome or Opera are the way to go on a Mac.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

YNSN,

You are possibly confusing being against the Iraq War with the very deliberately organized "anti-war movement".  Salamander's post is spot-on.  That "anti-war movement" evaporated on 20 January 2009.  No more loud protests, no more marches, no more prime time news, no more waving flags on Ledyard Bridge. 

Yes, the whole "anti-war movement" was indeed politically motivated from on high, as an anti-Bush movement.  Always was.  The hypocrisy of the sudden and enduring silence of the overwhelming majority of that movement's participants is proof positive.

YNSN said...

URR, Sir.  That is assuming all the variables between IRQ and LBY are the same.  An invasion consisting of over 100k troops and the operations we have in LBY (no BOG) are certainly different, and I would expect a different amount of vitrol to come from anyone opposed to a war. 

Additionally, The Anti-War Movement was no more politically ochestrated than the Tea Party is.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

We will have to agree to disagree.   The very traditional anti-Bush voices dominated the "anti-War movement" to the point that, when he left office, the movement vanished.  Almost without a trace.  Yet, in January 2009, US forces were indeed engaged in heavy combat in Iraq, at the same or higher level than January 2008. 

What is it about Iraq that made it so egregious and terrible in 2008, but no longer worth a single protest or picket sign in 2009? 

Hint: Nothing.  The anti-war movement was nothing more than an anti-Bush movement.  Where is Camp Casey these days, or Cindy Sheehan?  Martin Sheen?  Al Sharpton?  Daniel Ellsburg?  George McGovern?  Dennis Kucinich?  Howard Dean?  Louis Farrakhan?  Ed Asner?  Jeanine Garofalo? Sean Penn? 

In fact, did any of the above lodge a protest, in word or deed, after January 20th, 2009?

None that I know of.  What's that tell you?

YNSN said...

Now we're getting into what the media choses to report on, and what it doesn't.  All those names you mentioned are not the average liberal minded person.  They were the organizers; the people who knew how to grab headlines and demand attention.  Their opinions, and quotes do not convey the sentiment of everyone else. And Dennis Kucinich is one of the few members of Congress that actually sued the President over OUP, so I don't consider him a hypocrite.  If you visit Sheehan's webpage (I did for the first time to make sure what I was saying is correct) she talks about how she is against OEF and the CIA drone program, and shows how many more deaths in AFG have occurred on Obama's watch than Bush, so I don't think she is being a hypocrite either.  There is something more going on here than politico's being hypocritical.   (On a side note, I wonder how it is possible for anyone who follows the constant torrent of events in the US to not seem hypocritical when our collective attention shifts from one hot topic to another.)

I do agree with you that once the political machines get a hold of an issue that is capable of rousing strong sentiment supporting their own causes.  They exacerbate public opinion for their own goals, whether that be getting someone/group elected or anything else.  But, also at the heart of this issue is the dichotomy of political movements and the media that provides the spotlight.  Singling out the organizers doesn't mean anything, it was and is to be expected.  Their words seemed more important and their venom more potent because the media gave them airtime, and will again if they think it can earn them ratings.  Because they aren't front-and-center doesn't mean they ain't out there still saying the retarded things they say.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Do you think that WAPO and NYT, CNN, and MSNBC are entirely unrelated to the anti-war movement?  They were the water carriers for it, unabashedly.  Be he agent, or be he principle, the old Captain tells us. And don't be so naive as to think that the sentiments of those I mentioned do not reflect the median of the anti-Bush movement that was cloaked as anti-war.  They do, and are cited endlessly in order to shape the opinions and views of others to be precisely that.

Kucinich?  Has he raised his voice in protest over Iraq lately?  Loud enough for a microphone to pick it up?  Doubtful.  As for the rest of those names, they WERE the anti-war movement, and they had the following of the mindless lackeys that constitute academia and Hollywood.  The protestors in Hanover NH stopped on 20 January 2009, as well.  Ditto those on the street corners in Burlington and Montpelier and Brattleboro.  Nary a ONE since. 

When Cindy Sheehan demands television coverage to the extent that she did during Bush's term, rather than just posting on her website, then I will not consider her a hypocrite.  She is that, and much more.   As are the rest I named, and many others, including Obama himself.  We heard long and loud from him regarding the War Powers act and how humanitarian reasons were not important enough in Iraq. 

"<span>I wonder how it is possible for anyone who follows the constant torrent of events in the US to not seem hypocritical when our collective attention shifts from one hot topic to another"</span>

How?  By having principles and sticking to them, by educating yourself, by being an informed citizen, and by paying attention to those who shape our children's education and what we see in the news, and how they shape it.