The future may be made up of many factors
but where it truly lies is in the hearts and minds of men.
Your dedication should not be confined for your own gain,
but unleashes your passion for our beloved country
as well as for the integrity and humanity of mankind.
Li Ka Shing, Chinese Businessman
Well, if the World is Intact Tomorrow, Another Post
Ah, yes, the fabled Mayan prophecy signifying the end of an era--or perhaps the end of the world. I do realize reelection of an incompetent, ineffective, divisive, spendthrift President is one of the signs of the approaching Apocalypse: 6-6-6 is Herman Cain's 9-9-9 on its head...We have already undergone great tribulations, i.e., Obama's first term.
"Government Motors" No More? Romney Wins a Point
Obama has finally given up on the idea of break-even on GM, just like Chrysler's final settlement left taxpayers left the taxpayers over $1B in the hole. GM and the Obama Administration agreed for the Feds to give up 40% of its shares at a premium to current prices at $5.5B by month end. The Feds also agreed to divest themselves of remaining shares by early 2014. Obama, like the incompetent, naive investor he is, was holding onto shares long enough to break even. This deal will leave the taxpayers at minimum billions in the red.
Romney wanted the federal government to divest its ownership. I am happy to see divestment as a matter of principle.
"The auto industry rescue helped save more than a million jobs during a severe economic crisis," said Timothy Massad, Treasury's assistant secretary for financial stability.Disingenuous self-serving crap. First, the auto industry is more than GM and Chrysler. Second, an earlier bankruptcy would have limited taxpayer exposure, and GM would have recovered faster without government meddling and crony unionist stipulations. But even if we assume GM was liquidated, Ford and American plants of foreign companies, using domestic suppliers, would have gained market share and expanded hiring.
As far as I'm concerned, any settlement where the taxpayers are not made whole, GM will be "Government Motors"; selling the ownership stake is a necessary but insufficient step.
From the "Get a Life" File
I do not own a pet, which profoundly disappointed my first niece; my family had a cat when we lived in Florida (until she got pregnant) and my folks finally gave in to my siblings' pleas for a dog while I was in college. (It reminds me of how Mom broke the news of our final sibling: she phrased it like: what would you rather have: a puppy or a baby brother or sister. For the record, I voted for the sibling.) I only saw the dog on visits, but she liked me right away. One endearing moment: I was sprawled out in front of the TV in the living room, and she came in and laid down beside me, resting her head on top of my derrière as if to say I was her human (or maybe she was just looking for a big pillow...) Why haven't I gotten a pet of my own? It's a hassle in finding an apartment or traveling, but mostly I do or have done road warrior work, occasionally having to arrange for same-day flights (leaving sometimes for weeks or even months at a time). Having to deal with a pet was just another hassle--if I had a family or a significant other, it may be a different story. My maternal uncle, a priest, has a cat.
I mentioned in the past when I came home to my former apartment at night I was startled on a number of consecutive nights by a gorgeous black lab brushing against my legs. The apartment building was secure; when I opened the door the first time he/she rushed past me, scampered down the stairs right in front of my apartment door, looking back at me impatiently as if to say, "Well, what are you waiting for?" He actually tried to get into my apartment. It was the oddest experience. He finally stopped after a week; but it was odd, like he was waiting for me to come home, but I had never seen the dog before; I didn't know who he belonged to, why he was loose in my neighborhood. But the experience was so endearing, I know what dog I want to get.
I'm sure that the city councilman has good intentions, but artificially limiting a consumer's choices doesn't work; it is laudable when others adopt hard-to-place animals. But maybe I prefer to buy a particular breed, raise a dog from a puppy and/or don't want to deal with issues of formerly abandoned pets; I don't have to justify myself to an idiotic city councilman any more than I should have to explain why I might prefer to date a younger, never-married woman. Why would a pet store owner stock animals that animal shelters can't give away at nominal costs? I'm not going to buy an animal I don't want.; if I had to, I would work around the law, e.g., procure my preferred animal from outside Los Angeles. This policy puts relevant LA businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
Karl Rove, "Boehner Plays a Weak Hand Well":
Thumbs UP!
On election night I watched in fascination as Karl Rove on FNC got into an argument with FNC's technical team that called Ohio for Obama. I'm a big fan of Rove, in terms of political street smarts (not as a political operative). To be honest, all election night I kept looking at county votes in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio. I knew Ohio was lost long before the call: Romney was running out of favorable counties and precincts. Rove was in a state of denial. Romney never led outside a statistical tie in the state, and Obama had a better ground game. (Rove was arguing the timing of the call, not the likely outcome.)
As I write, the Plan B (basically splitting off a new bracket starting at a million) was pulled because of not enough votes. I understand why my fellow conservatives didn't want to vote for a counterproductive tax increase, instead of allowing people to more efficiently consume, save or invest, require them to pay for wasteful, noncompetitive government spending, but with the Senate and White House stonewalling fiscal responsibility, Boehner is holding a weak hand (and I think the Dems would face a backlash for turning down a deal to keep rates the same for people under a million and letting middle class taxes go up instead):
Now, after winning a second term, Mr. Obama appears content to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 11 days, confident he can blame Republicans and spend the next two years attacking them for the tax hike (while happily spending the new revenue). During his re-election campaign, Mr. Obama had pledged "$2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue increases. Mr. Obama won't agree even to $1 in cuts for every $1 of revenue. His latest offer calls for $1.3 trillion in new revenues paired with the vague promise of $930 billion in future budget cuts. Mr. Obama's offer also wipes out the $972 billion in cuts agreed to in the July 2011 debt-ceiling deal and adds at least $80 billion in new stimulus spending.Here is the contemptible Gray Lady spin:
The refusal of a band of House Republicans to allow income tax rates to rise on incomes over $1 million came after Mr. Obama scored a decisive re-election victory campaigning for higher taxes on incomes over $250,000. Since the November election, the president’s approval ratings have risen, and opinion polls have shown a strong majority not only favoring his tax position, but saying they will blame Republicans for a failure to reach a deficit deal.First of all, this is written incompetently; the expiring cuts also include millionaires--and you could argue that a vote by BOTH Dems and a section of Republicans voted de facto for maintaining the status quo expiration on all the cuts for everyone: the real problem is he couldn't get enough Dems to offset objecting Republicans. Second, Obama's RCP average approval is 53.7, only a 3-point bounce over his election; in contrast he was at 63 four years ago (a 10-point bump) Obama's victory was hardly "decisive": he won Florida, Virginia, and Ohio by an eyelash and won several others by less than 5. Moreover, Romney soundly defeated Obama in the first debate, on economic policy, and exit polls on Election Day showed they preferred Romney on the economy; Obama won for a number of OTHER reasons: a superior ground game, the power of incumbency and saturation negative ads--but NOT tax hikes (certainly the 20% or so of ideological progressives believe this economic nonsense). The idea that a majority of Americans want to stick it to someone else's pocket is not only morally outrageous and proof of economic illiteracy, it's discriminatory theft, unconstitutional at its core. If these hypocrites believe in Big Government, they should pay for it out of their own pockets, not out of others' with no control over how their confiscated income is spent.
Will they really blame Republicans when in fact the Dems voted in Bush's second term against making the tax cuts permanent? I don't think so; If the economy sinks into recession, it won't be the GOP voters blame--it will be Obama: trust me, recessions erode approval ratings. If Obama believes expiration of tax cuts may cause a problem, instead of playing a game of Russian roulette, he would stop playing games and accept Boehner's deal versus score ideological points. Obama is not seriously negotiating; he's demanding capitulation.
At this point, if I was Boehner, I would ask conservatives to pass the bill which puts Reid and Obama on the spot (granted, tax hikes are counterproductive: this has more to do with making the best of a weak hand); will Obama really veto a tax cut extension affecting most taxpaying middle class people? I double-dog dare him. There's no way in hell I support what Rove outlined as Obama's offer, which is not serious.
Musical Interlude: Christmas Retrospective
Classic Christmas Hit Mix: Andy Williams It's The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year - Nat King Cole The Christmas Song - Bing Crosby Do You Hear What I Hear - Bing Crosby The Little Drummer Boy - Frank Sinatra I'll Be Home For Christmas
