So I just showed our 11-yr-old this page demonstrating what a TRILLION dollars looks like.
Her comment: "They're spending that much money to fix the economy? That's just stupid."
H/T to Frank J.
3/07/2009
Give that girl an "A"
3/02/2009
10/15/2008
I'm a little tired
of hearing Barack Obama refer to the current economic situation as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. As if a recession were ANYTHING like a depression.
Besides that, it doesn't appear to be remotely true. The generally accepted definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters (or more) of negative GDP growth.
I've had a little trouble finding officially published monthly GDP data for the third quarter, and the third quarter summary hasn't yet been issued, but:
According to this site in July, the GDP shrunk by 1.9%, grew by 1.1% in August, and shrunk again by 1.0% in September for a net loss of 1.8%.
According to the Department of Commerce:
So how bad was the depression. Heck if I know. I wasn't around at the time. That's true for most of the voter base, and that's why Obama gets away with saying it.
Besides that, it doesn't appear to be remotely true. The generally accepted definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters (or more) of negative GDP growth.
I've had a little trouble finding officially published monthly GDP data for the third quarter, and the third quarter summary hasn't yet been issued, but:
According to this site in July, the GDP shrunk by 1.9%, grew by 1.1% in August, and shrunk again by 1.0% in September for a net loss of 1.8%.
According to the Department of Commerce:
- Q4 '90 and Q1 '91 had 3% and 2% drops in GDP.
- Q4 '81 and Q1 '82 had 4.9% and 6.4% drops.
- Q2 '80 and Q3 '80 had 7.8% and 0.7% drops.
- Q3 '74 thru Q1 '75: 3.8% drop, 1.6% drop, 4.7% drop (3 quarters)
- Q4 '57 and Q1 '58: 4.2% and 10.4% drops.
- Q3 '53 thru Q1 '54: 2.4%, 6.2%, and 2.0% drop (3 quarters)
- Q1 '49 and Q2 '49: 5.8% and 1.2% drops
So how bad was the depression. Heck if I know. I wasn't around at the time. That's true for most of the voter base, and that's why Obama gets away with saying it.
10/02/2008
9/24/2008
So if I were Barack Obama...
What's the harm in calling McCain's bluff?
First of all, I don't think the responsible thing to do is to rush through some half-baked "aid" package which will increase the national debt by hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. I work on the general assumption that neither McCain or Obama trusts the free market enough to let it sort itself out. I'll grant that most of the nation doesn't either.
McCain has tied the credibility of his campaign to the urgent (by definition rushed and poorly considered) passage of a bailout plan - ANY bailout plan. Well, more of an idea really, than a plan. He's reacting to a developing economic crisis as if it's part of the 24-hour news cycle. This isn't a media event that will be forgotten in a week. It needs to be carefully considered as though it will impact the largest economy in the world for the next ten years. And if it demands a response, then we should be very careful that the impacts of the response aren't deeper and longer-lasting than the original problem. You know, like the precedent of nationalizing large swaths of the financial sector.
But what if there wasn't a trillion dollarboondoggle solution before the election? How would that play out? There are only two ways that could happen, and both require large numbers of our congressmen to act more like statesmen, and less like politicians.
One would be for congressional republicans to recognize the value of waiting to more carefully consider any action until after the election. Perhaps a modest and narrowly focused aid bill in the short-term as a goodwill demonstration, with the promise to review the matter more fully when more facts are known. If enough democrats signed on to that idea, it could gain some momentum. Most importantly, it could allow a more carefully considered solution without anyone in congress feeling as though they had a gun to their head. McCain would be free then to declare his goal acheived and resume his campaign. Realistically, I think the majority party has enough leverage to prevent this from happening, and to force the congressional republicans to accept a broad, pork-filled package, stuffed to the gills with over-regulation.
The other possibility for a delayed financial package would be that congressional democrats would delay any bill themselves. They, too, could claim the wisdom of delaying action until more facts are known. They could follow John McCain's lead by holding hearings to show the nation how serious they are about getting to the bottom of the mess. They could abandon their own campaigns to call witness after witness to demonstrate how the rich have caused this problem, but it's the middle class Americans who are suffering for it. They could save the last five weeks worth of campaign funds and continue to add to their lead in public opinion polls, guaranteeing a continued lock on both houses of Congress. And John McCain's campaign would be faced with the no-win choice of sitting the campaign out to demonstrate his non-partisan concern for the economy or abandoning Senate deliberations he stressed the importance of in order to return to his campaign.
The right thing to do is not to react too quickly, and John McCain has unfortunately failed this test.
First of all, I don't think the responsible thing to do is to rush through some half-baked "aid" package which will increase the national debt by hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. I work on the general assumption that neither McCain or Obama trusts the free market enough to let it sort itself out. I'll grant that most of the nation doesn't either.
McCain has tied the credibility of his campaign to the urgent (by definition rushed and poorly considered) passage of a bailout plan - ANY bailout plan. Well, more of an idea really, than a plan. He's reacting to a developing economic crisis as if it's part of the 24-hour news cycle. This isn't a media event that will be forgotten in a week. It needs to be carefully considered as though it will impact the largest economy in the world for the next ten years. And if it demands a response, then we should be very careful that the impacts of the response aren't deeper and longer-lasting than the original problem. You know, like the precedent of nationalizing large swaths of the financial sector.
But what if there wasn't a trillion dollar
One would be for congressional republicans to recognize the value of waiting to more carefully consider any action until after the election. Perhaps a modest and narrowly focused aid bill in the short-term as a goodwill demonstration, with the promise to review the matter more fully when more facts are known. If enough democrats signed on to that idea, it could gain some momentum. Most importantly, it could allow a more carefully considered solution without anyone in congress feeling as though they had a gun to their head. McCain would be free then to declare his goal acheived and resume his campaign. Realistically, I think the majority party has enough leverage to prevent this from happening, and to force the congressional republicans to accept a broad, pork-filled package, stuffed to the gills with over-regulation.
The other possibility for a delayed financial package would be that congressional democrats would delay any bill themselves. They, too, could claim the wisdom of delaying action until more facts are known. They could follow John McCain's lead by holding hearings to show the nation how serious they are about getting to the bottom of the mess. They could abandon their own campaigns to call witness after witness to demonstrate how the rich have caused this problem, but it's the middle class Americans who are suffering for it. They could save the last five weeks worth of campaign funds and continue to add to their lead in public opinion polls, guaranteeing a continued lock on both houses of Congress. And John McCain's campaign would be faced with the no-win choice of sitting the campaign out to demonstrate his non-partisan concern for the economy or abandoning Senate deliberations he stressed the importance of in order to return to his campaign.
The right thing to do is not to react too quickly, and John McCain has unfortunately failed this test.
9/03/2008
Really didn't want to talk about politics.
But I just couldn't resist.
I just can't help but be amazed at how FREAKED OUT the media are about McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
It's pretty much common knowledge now that just about the entire media establishment is in the tank for Obama. Maybe subconsciously, somewhere deep in the reptilian part of their brains, they have some fuzzy awareness that Obama's most excellent quality - his ability to speechify - might not be enough to carry him through to victory in November.
But her candidacy obviously scares them, or they wouldn't be offering up so many objections to her candidacy:
- Won't have time to care for her (too large) family and (special needs) baby. Never mind that Obama has a family of his own, and is running for a much more demanding job.
- Not experienced enough, or old enough. Of course, she's only a couple years younger than Obama, and as has been noted elsewhere, she has been governor of Alaska, which has a 40 billion dollar economy.
- Wasn't really vetted by the McCain campaign. Supposedly, this is because they were surprised by the news of her daughter's pregnancy, but somehow I think they would have brought that charge in any event after being surprised by her pick.
- Not even a very good parent, letting her teenage daughter get pregnant.
I think they've got a number of reasons for being so afraid of her. The popular assumption is that she'll carry the disgruntled Hillary voters (and that most of those voters women, and are only disgruntled because they won't get to pull the lever for a woman in November). It's a pretty shallow assumption of people, that they vote only based on how many things a candidate has physically in common with them: gender, skin color, what kind of adult beverage they drink, or what kind of car they drive. There may be a small percentage out there who will vote for another woman just because she's a woman (and maybe that will make the difference in another close election year). But I think Obama and his adoring fans in the MSM have much more to fear from Sarah Palin than her chromosomes.
Obviously, she gives McCain a way to connect with the conservative base of the republican party. Pro-life - and lives it. Also, it will be very hard for them to tar her with an anti-gay brush, when she's come out with essentially the same position Obama has. Also, it's going to be very hard for them to debate her without it looking like they're beating up on a girl.
But the biggest thing, in my mind, is that she's running against the supposed candidate of Hope and Change. Change, I get - sort of. Still struggling with the hope thing. But that could be a whole other post, and this one's already getting long. Anyway, he picks as his running mate a six-term senator who's never held a non-government job, and has been in Washington since January 1972. Palin has worked in and has experience owning a private business, and has never worked in Washington.
Change? Where? Oh wait, it looks like it just blew in from Alaska.
8/12/2008
So seriously
Am I the only one that thinks this whole Mark Penn kerfuffle isn't just a leak by the Obama campaign to try to weaken the McCain campaign?
Have I missed something here?
Have I missed something here?
Things I've done and said that have surprised people in the last couple months
- Publicly commented that the Clinton administration wasn't a disaster. Taken as a whole, I'd take four more years of WJC over four more years of Jimmy Carter.
- Bush was something of a disappointment as a president. I should have expected it, though - the whole "compassionate conservatism" thing really rubbed me wrong.
- I switched my voter regisration to the Democratic Party this year. I'm in good company there, I know. Still, it surprised me.
- Refused to give John McCain more support than at the ballot box. I don't want a yard sign or a bumper sticker, and have no plans to contribute to his campaign. This after going to see Bush in person in 2004, and sporting a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker and pin for four years.
8/11/2008
Woo-hoo (Or, watch this space please)
A personal record: six months without posting.
I'm not dead. I'd like to think this site isn't either. This is me developing the motivation to come back and post.
2/22/2008
10/18/2007
10/10/2007
Why don't we just tax the poor and give it to the middle class?
If a republican came up with that gem of an idea, he'd get the kind of press that... republicans usually get. But when a democratic congress comes up with it, they're courageous for standing up for the underprivileged. Yeah, right.
S-CHIP is the supposedly state-funded children's health insurance program. But the fact is it's supported very heavily by the federal government, and - I believe - administered by the states. The program is used to pay for health care for children whose families are above the poverty level but still have trouble buying insurance. The program has been around since 1997, and was authorized by Congress then as a 10-year program. But it's a program designed to make the states - and the citizens - increasingly dependent on Washington.
States receive a 2:1 (or better) match in federal funds for every dollar spent, encouraging them to spend the maximum in fat years and making it extremely painful to cut in lean years. This is a reasonable compromise for most people, when you consider two details:
First, the bill more than doubles the federal budget for the program over ten years, to $60 billion. At the same time, it raises the income cap to 4x the federal poverty level, which would make a family of 4 making $82,500 eligible for government assistance.
That's not even the kicker. The plan is to add a 61-cent tax to a pack of cigarettes to pay for the increase, and the cost of that tax will be disproportionately borne by the poor. So the idea here - as I understand it - is to expand the program by making it available to people who are less needy and by raising taxes on the poor. I guess you can justify anything with the phrase "but it's for the children".
So a veto for this bill is exactly what it deserved as a matter of good fiscal policy and good politics. But as I said earlier, this is just the opening salvo in the war. The House vote was 15 republican votes short of overriding the veto, virtually guaranteeing that it will die - in which case the spin will be that the evil republicans killed a bill to give health care to people who don't have it, regardless of the details. And they will take that spin straight into the election season. If enough republicans cave to the pressure to pass the bill, then the narrative will be that The People overwhelmingly want government-provided health care, without regard for cost or quality.
Now is the time for the leading republican presidential candidates to begin laying down their specific plans as to how health care can be reformed without nationalizing more of it or over-regulating it. If they're not ready to do that, they might as well save their campaign money for 2012.
S-CHIP is the supposedly state-funded children's health insurance program. But the fact is it's supported very heavily by the federal government, and - I believe - administered by the states. The program is used to pay for health care for children whose families are above the poverty level but still have trouble buying insurance. The program has been around since 1997, and was authorized by Congress then as a 10-year program. But it's a program designed to make the states - and the citizens - increasingly dependent on Washington.
States receive a 2:1 (or better) match in federal funds for every dollar spent, encouraging them to spend the maximum in fat years and making it extremely painful to cut in lean years. This is a reasonable compromise for most people, when you consider two details:
- S-CHIP is capped by law, unlike Medicaid
- The program is meant to protect those left outside the safety net of Medicaid. Currently limited to children in families making 2x the federal poverty level
First, the bill more than doubles the federal budget for the program over ten years, to $60 billion. At the same time, it raises the income cap to 4x the federal poverty level, which would make a family of 4 making $82,500 eligible for government assistance.
That's not even the kicker. The plan is to add a 61-cent tax to a pack of cigarettes to pay for the increase, and the cost of that tax will be disproportionately borne by the poor. So the idea here - as I understand it - is to expand the program by making it available to people who are less needy and by raising taxes on the poor. I guess you can justify anything with the phrase "but it's for the children".
So a veto for this bill is exactly what it deserved as a matter of good fiscal policy and good politics. But as I said earlier, this is just the opening salvo in the war. The House vote was 15 republican votes short of overriding the veto, virtually guaranteeing that it will die - in which case the spin will be that the evil republicans killed a bill to give health care to people who don't have it, regardless of the details. And they will take that spin straight into the election season. If enough republicans cave to the pressure to pass the bill, then the narrative will be that The People overwhelmingly want government-provided health care, without regard for cost or quality.
Now is the time for the leading republican presidential candidates to begin laying down their specific plans as to how health care can be reformed without nationalizing more of it or over-regulating it. If they're not ready to do that, they might as well save their campaign money for 2012.
9/06/2007
Some pet peeves:
- Seeing their, there, and they're used interchangeably.
- Ditto your, you're (and yore?, well maybe not)
- People who don't know the difference between "ten times more than" and "ten times as much as".
and this one, I noticed today:
My wife suggests Christmas letters which don't include spell-check. And newscasters who refer to the police as cops, or refuse to refer to POTUS by his title.
7/31/2007
HP
Took the older kids to see Order of the Phoenix last night. The movies always let me down to a certain extent. Few of the actors carry the roles as well as I hope, and there just isn't time in a commercial feature to give proper attention to the details that make the books worth reading. But that's just me nitpicking. The books are still perceived, I think, primarily as children's literature. The movies are made to keep children's attention. They mostly underestimate the audience.
Regarding the books, my wife scored tickets to the local library's release party for Book 7. I think everyone there got a copy of the book to take home for an unheard of 4 week loan on a new book. I brought the older two, who've been reading them with me for about four years now. (They go back and reread them independently after we've finished each book together. I think our daughter has read the first book a half dozen times.) It was a good time, and the library did a great job building up the mood.
I came down with strep the weekend the book came out, though, and took several days off after the second chapter. Then we had a cousin visiting for several days, so I haven't gotten the book out again yet. I know from history that limiting our reading of a 700-page book to nights when we don't have any other family obligations tends to make it drag on and on. There's no way we'll be finishing that book before it's due. Probably lucky if it's done by Christmas. But yes, I know who dies and who Dumbledore was right to trust. I had to know, and on my own terms, so I went looking for it rather than endure months of having to walk out of the room whenever it came up, only to have it spoiled by someone in the week before I was to finish the book. For the sake of those of you who may still be holding out, I'll respect your choice, and I ask that any readers do the same.
Regarding the books, my wife scored tickets to the local library's release party for Book 7. I think everyone there got a copy of the book to take home for an unheard of 4 week loan on a new book. I brought the older two, who've been reading them with me for about four years now. (They go back and reread them independently after we've finished each book together. I think our daughter has read the first book a half dozen times.) It was a good time, and the library did a great job building up the mood.
I came down with strep the weekend the book came out, though, and took several days off after the second chapter. Then we had a cousin visiting for several days, so I haven't gotten the book out again yet. I know from history that limiting our reading of a 700-page book to nights when we don't have any other family obligations tends to make it drag on and on. There's no way we'll be finishing that book before it's due. Probably lucky if it's done by Christmas. But yes, I know who dies and who Dumbledore was right to trust. I had to know, and on my own terms, so I went looking for it rather than endure months of having to walk out of the room whenever it came up, only to have it spoiled by someone in the week before I was to finish the book. For the sake of those of you who may still be holding out, I'll respect your choice, and I ask that any readers do the same.
7/10/2007
Eight things
I was tagged by Scott over at Ah, Shoot!. And I don't usually do these at all, but for as infrequently as I post it was nice to be remembered at all, so in no particular order:
I am
1. something of a technophile. I like more of those things than I can afford. The ones that cost money and the ones that waste time.
2. a formerly avid comic book collector/reader. Never bought them for value, just for entertainment. I still have about three big boxes in the basement, I think, for when the kids show some kind of interest (and are old enough).
3. a major math geek. Probably not so different from Defiant Infidel, but my tool of choice is Mathcad.
4. an insufferable procrastinator (which you know if you've been here twice in a month and seen that I haven't posted in between).
5. a huge political and economics junkie. I believe firmly that the American experiment has been as successful as it has due to the unique combination of laissez-faire economics, democratic thought, plus belief in a divine Creator.
6. stubborn. Wow. Yes, I am.
7. at a new employer as of last month. Twelve years at the old place, but I got an opportunity that was too good to pass on.
8. going on vacation in a few weeks, but don't worry. Irregular posting will not be noticeably affected.
6/14/2007
My personal favorite suggestion:
So Nancy Pelosi apparently has asked people to submit alternative neutral connotation words which could be substituted for earmarks.
Over at Captains Quarters, Ed Morrissey held a poll to determine the best word to convey the meaning, though something tells me Madam Speaker wouldn't have liked any of the alternatives the CQ readers had put forward.
The winner was Congressional Resource Allocation Protection (CRAP), but my vote went to Timely House Endorsed Payments Hidden from Taxpayers (THEPHT).
Over at Captains Quarters, Ed Morrissey held a poll to determine the best word to convey the meaning, though something tells me Madam Speaker wouldn't have liked any of the alternatives the CQ readers had put forward.
The winner was Congressional Resource Allocation Protection (CRAP), but my vote went to Timely House Endorsed Payments Hidden from Taxpayers (THEPHT).
Whaddya know!
The other night I got the all-too-rare opportunity to spend a little time with the older son: lobbing some pitches to him and helping him work on his swing. He's in coach-pitch this year, and he's spent a few games now feeling like he'll never be able to hit the ball. I know, because I've been there.
We spent about the first half-hour working off a tee, practicing good swing mechanics and showing how a good stance can make a big difference in the swing. We kept working on his swing until I thought he looked comfortable and appeared to know what he was doing. Turns out he knew better than I'd given him credit for.
After I started lobbing him some pitches, he asked if he could switch hands. I was a little bit reluctant, since we had spent all that time on the right side, but we had time, and it couldn't hurt.
So I helped him line up with the "plate" and quickly reviewed the stance and mechanics of the swing. He swung the bat a couple times, and we were ready to go. Not only was he suddenly connecting with the ball , but he was now hitting it further after a couple swings on the left side than he had after a month of (admittedly sporadic) practice on the right side!
He said he felt more comfortable on the left, so I told him to go ahead and try that side during the next game. Last night, he had three at-bats.
His first time up, the coach told him to go back to the right side, but at seven years old he didn't have any problem telling the coach he knew what he was doing. He struck out, but he got a surprised compliment from the coach on his form.
Second time up to bat, he actually connected with the ball! It was short, and went foul on the first base side, but he made it to base before letting them send him back. For the third at-bat he managed a foul tip.
I don't know if he'll end up still batting left at the end of the season. But he did get a taste of what it will feel like when he finally gets his first hit. And something tells me, he believes he can do it.
We spent about the first half-hour working off a tee, practicing good swing mechanics and showing how a good stance can make a big difference in the swing. We kept working on his swing until I thought he looked comfortable and appeared to know what he was doing. Turns out he knew better than I'd given him credit for.
After I started lobbing him some pitches, he asked if he could switch hands. I was a little bit reluctant, since we had spent all that time on the right side, but we had time, and it couldn't hurt.
So I helped him line up with the "plate" and quickly reviewed the stance and mechanics of the swing. He swung the bat a couple times, and we were ready to go. Not only was he suddenly connecting with the ball , but he was now hitting it further after a couple swings on the left side than he had after a month of (admittedly sporadic) practice on the right side!
He said he felt more comfortable on the left, so I told him to go ahead and try that side during the next game. Last night, he had three at-bats.
His first time up, the coach told him to go back to the right side, but at seven years old he didn't have any problem telling the coach he knew what he was doing. He struck out, but he got a surprised compliment from the coach on his form.
Second time up to bat, he actually connected with the ball! It was short, and went foul on the first base side, but he made it to base before letting them send him back. For the third at-bat he managed a foul tip.
I don't know if he'll end up still batting left at the end of the season. But he did get a taste of what it will feel like when he finally gets his first hit. And something tells me, he believes he can do it.
5/22/2007
Bleg
For my wife, who asked for a site which would recommend books based on other books she's liked.
I know LibraryThing's Suggester does that, based on the author or title, using the database of its member's collections.
Another page I liked on the same site is their tag cloud, which is a pretty interesting way to whittle down a wide variety of books.
Anyone else have other suggestions? Thanks!
I know LibraryThing's Suggester does that, based on the author or title, using the database of its member's collections.
Another page I liked on the same site is their tag cloud, which is a pretty interesting way to whittle down a wide variety of books.
Anyone else have other suggestions? Thanks!
5/16/2007
I don't blog reality TV
...because it's not my thing. But who's ever watched a Tuesday night episode of American Idol and not known that Melinda Doolittle would win?
Really!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
