Comments Posted By CDOR
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 110 Comments
After having just gotten out of the hospital, I bopped in over here to see what you and your gang were up to, Mr Rick. I am sure glad I did, as your negativity was thoroughly uplifting.
Let's see, I'm trying to remember the last time I went to a protest. Being as it was directly on my way home from work on a sunny spring afternnon, I pulled over and checked out an anti illegal immigration protest. It was pretty goofy. Before that, I believe it was 1967 and I was chasing some cute girl in a short skirt with a reefer.
My conclusion differs somewhat from what seems to be yours. I would say that public demonstrations aren't generally the meandering behavior of adults, especially moderate to conservative ones...the type who are actually busy earning a living (maybe I'm being too harsh).
I just mentioned that anti "comprehensive" immigration bill demonstration. It was very small with quite a few nut jobs in attendance. Yet wasn't something like 75% of the country against that bill?
Hooray for those that made the effort to show up at these demonstrations. The fact that they aren't well attended yet doesn't bother me because I still believe the sentiment runs deep in this country against these Obama Spendaramas.
But keep up the good work tough guy.
Comment Posted By cdor On 1.03.2009 @ 11:06
EXPLOITING TAXPAYER RAGE NOT THE WAY BACK FOR GOP
Sara and Lurk, why bother? Reynolds, the Junkie, and Tiny Tim wouldn't vote for a Republican even if his name were Obama. They would just throw Oreo cookies at him, like they did to Michael Steele. Screw them and move on.
I believe there is a significant majority ( a silent one, if you will) that are outraged at rewarding failure, whether from the top or the bottom. How anyone can deny the basic unfairness of taking hard earned taxes from honest, play by the rules, Americans and giving it away in bushels to the 7 to 10 percent that f'd up,is beyond me and most of us. This is an emotion the GOP could harness.
I absolutely agree that a positive message is needed. Obama has significantly exposed Hope and Change to his real belief, along with his wife, that America is a bad country. Our economy is worse than the Great Depression, according to him. He said it explicitly in his campaign. We can't continue to use the majority of the world's resources (even though we create the majority of the world's wealth). The socialist view is to bring the producers down to the level of the takers. Conservatives want to raise all people according to their abilities. Yet when people see the way these elitists live, it's not them who have to sacrifice, it's us. I believe common people of good sense understand this and despise the hypocricy more than they succomb to jealousy.
Comment Posted By cdor On 22.02.2009 @ 20:24
CPAC AGENDA SHOWS CONSERVATIVES STILL IN DENIAL
Rick, you write many well thought, exquisitely executed posts. Please forgive my simplicity, but I have a really difficult time wrapping my mind around what seems to me to be not much more than an intellectual circle jerk when you start discussing what is wrong with the conservative movement.
Conservatism is (as its name implies) what it always was...an acknowedgement of man's eternal desire for freedom, independence, and liberty. Whether you wish to ascribe these traits as having been endowed by a creator or deity or just having evolved from the Ape doesn't matter to me.
Why don't we talk about the positive and natural aspects of conservatism as it relates to government and societal problem solving?
Who cares about Frum or Douthat or Chris Buckley or David Brooks or Peggy Noonan? If even half of these folks voted for Obama, even with a weak cnadidate like McCain, they have been doing way too much of the same intellectual circle jerking as you seem to be doing in this article.
Comment Posted By cdor On 18.02.2009 @ 09:45
IF IT WASN'T SO FRIGHTENING, I WOULD LAUGH
Hey, I thought these bankers were the epitome of Democratic elitists. Didn't most of them graduate from Yale, Harvard, Princeton, or Wharton? I'll bet 75% of them voted for the One.
And how many trillions have we spent on welfare since the Great Society? So does one wrong make another wrong right? Bankers and welfare queens, who'da thunk the similarity abounds? Yet they all vote for Obama. What a great country this used to be.
Comment Posted By cdor On 13.02.2009 @ 22:37
THE STIMULUS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD
Obama has never run as much as a popsycle stand. I'm not sure Rick Moran has either.
There should be absolutely nothing in this bill that does not create stimulous (jobs) in the next 24 months. We plainly cannot afford to waste anything. Money to help states with unemployment benefits, yes, because we are a caring people. And even poeple using unemployment benefits spend money.
Government payroll jobs cost taxpayers...they don't produce. However, if we build power plants and modernize electrical grids, we can at least see something for our money 10 or 15 years from now.
We need to build confidence in our markets. Cut capital gains to 0 for 3 years, then ease it back up to 15% after 5 or 6 years. Cut corporate taxes to 15% for 5 years, raising it back to a maximum of 25% in 10 years. These things must be engraved in stone. Business loves certainty. Global corporations will come to the U.S. bringing good American jobs with them. We are still the largest, most important economy in the world. If the markets start to improve, people feel their wealth coming back. They will spend their cash. But we need to stress prudence. Borrow only for major long term capital, homes and home improvement...not flat screen tv's. Pay for fun with cash.
As far as the banks are concerned, mark to market needs to be adjusted immediately. Just because the value of these securitized traunches can't be readily determined, doesn't mean they are worth nothing. There are homes and properties backing these derivatives. Let the banks value them at 50% on their books. the Feds can assume 25% collateralized by bank stock and the banks collateralize the remaining 25%. If they can't even do that, they should fail.
Some of these percentages would be adjusted for accuracy, but this is a business way of helping our economy. What we have been given is a politicians boondogle. It is disgusting.
Comment Posted By cdor On 9.02.2009 @ 22:10
Reynolds, it sounds to me (remarkable brainiac that you fancy yourself to be), that bi-partisanship is exactly your way or the highway. I personally question whether a stupid (a word you seem to like) spending spree by the government isn't exactly the wrong thing to do in the first place. Professor, why don't you prove to me exactly how many jobs this current proposal will produce. What are the potential pitfalls? What other shoe or shoes are about to drop? Is sky rocketing inflation better than depression? Why? How do we avoid it. Who will buy this debt and at what price? Is it possible, per chance, that spending and over spending is exactly what got us here in the first place? The only people, Mr smartypants that are getting money under my suggestion (only made because everyone seems so thoroughly convinced that we must have a stimulus) are the unemployed. When government taxes less, they aren't giving people money, they are taking less. The liberal mind seems to have a difficult time with that seemingly elementary concept.
Comment Posted By cdor On 6.02.2009 @ 17:19
Michael Reynolds, congratulations for being successful and making a lot of money. If you don't want a tax cut, please don't take it. As a matter of fact, why don't you just sit down right now and write an extra big check to the government, any government will do, after all, it's your money. I think you should be free to do with it as you would like.
Most people however are in the position you used to be. If they are allowed to keep more of their hard earned money, they will probably spend most of it. And if they chose to save some, good for them.
I own a small business. Most small businesses are run like extensions of family. Laying off employees is the last thing they want to do. Cash flow is always critical. I can tell you for sure a tax cut could very possibly save a job at my business.
Yes indeed I am idealogical. The principal that the individual who has earned his money can and should determine how to spend it and will do a better job of spending it than the government is definitely idealogical, at least to you. To me it is just natural.
I noticed you didn't complain about the 30% for unemployment benefit extension or the same for real infrastructure jobs, so it seems under my proposal you get 60% of what you want and I get 40% of what I want. That isn't good enough for you (and your great leader)?
Comment Posted By cdor On 6.02.2009 @ 13:22
Where's your spirit of bi-partisanship?
Bi-partisan stimulus package of $900 billion:
1) 30% goes to states to extend unemployment benefits and
medicaid
2) 40% to cut taxes on individuals and businesses
3) 30% to start immediate shovel ready infrastructure
projects that will have long term positive function. I
suggest focusing on our energy grid and power plants.
There must be plant projects planned, but tabled for
lack of resources or environmental wacko nuts. Over-
ride the objectors and build them.There is no immediate fix for housing. As inventories slowly diminish, housing will come back. Allowing people to keep more of what they produce will help them to save for downpayments.
With this formula you cover human suffering, put money in peoples hands to spend immediately, help small business to maintain their current employees, and create jobs with long lasting benefits for our country.
Eliminate everything else from the bill. That is bi-partisan. What we have now is bullshit.
Comment Posted By cdor On 6.02.2009 @ 08:04
OBAMA IS FUMBLING HIS FIRST SNAP FROM CENTER
Sara in va, what's absolutely frightening is that they had no shame in proposing it to begin with. And remember, the bill haspassed the House. We are now relying on Rick's positive assessment that the Senate will stomp it down. The best that can happen is delay, filibuster, and expose. Continue to shine the light of day as public support dwindles into the low 30% range. At that point it might be possible to develope a real stimulus bill of lower taxes and energy grid upgrades only.
One can dream.
Comment Posted By cdor On 31.01.2009 @ 13:59
IF GOVERNMENT MAKES LIFE EASIER, DOES THAT MAKE IT BETTER?
#34 Chuck And Rick
I said it was a short answer. We all know the legal arguments are extensive pro and con. we also know prescedent has been set through many Presidents for many years for these actions. And I hope we all realize that no other President had to deal with the instantaneous nature of todays world wide communications. By requiring court approval prior to tap, no information could be gleaned. A review board after the fact to separate the wheat from the shaft prior to questioning the individual tapped could prevent error.
I just think government intrudes on our privacy and freedom in so many other ways that we each experience every day, and for much less salient purpose than national security, that the biggest objection to this program is actually "THAT BUSH DID IT".
Comment Posted By cdor On 31.01.2009 @ 08:20
