SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: puborectalis who wrote (712018)4/26/2013 10:31:30 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1574757
 

CURL: W outclasses Barack and Bill, without even trying

DALLAS — Shortly after Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a fellow reporter who’d covered President George W. Bush all eight years told me she’d had enough of the travel and stress and strain of the White House beat, that she was moving on.

SEE RELATED: Emotional Bush at presidential library dedication: ‘Our nation’s best days lie ahead’

We reminisced about all the places we’d been, all the crazy days and wild nights, all the history we’d seen — first hand. Just before we said our goodbyes, I asked her if she’d miss covering President Obama.

“Not at all. He’s an inch deep. Bush is a bottomless chasm, a deep, mysterious, emotional, profound man. Obama is all surface — shallow, obvious, robotic, and, frankly, not nearly as smart as he thinks. Bush was the one.”

Her words, so succinct, have stuck with me ever since. By the way, she’s a hardcore Democrat.


But she was right. And that contrast was apparent to all who watched Thursday’s ceremonial event to open W’s new presidential library in Dallas. The class and grace and depth of America’s last president completely outshined that of his successor (who, coincidentally, or perhaps not, was the only one seated in the shade on a sunny Texas day).

In fact, the day gave America a chance to measure the men who have served it as commander-in-chief for 28 of the last 36 years. Five of the last six presidents were on stage, the first time the quintet has appeared together in public. And what a study in character it was.

Jimmy Carter, the Man From Malaise who was thrown out of office after just one abysmal term (remember double-digit inflation, 9 percent unemployment, gas shortages and low economic growth?) was first to speak. But he was, as always, befuddled. After Laura Bush finished her welcome to the crowd, there was a pause as the Army Chorus prepared to perform “America the Beautiful.” In those few moments, Mr. Carter, the only president wearing sunglasses, rose and moved toward the podium. W waved him back down, but Jimmy apparently thought he waving him over. After a short whispering session, the peanut farmer went back to his seat (and W made a funny face to the crowd that said “Adoy!”)

SEE RELATED: Interactive Bush museum will highlight 8 years of the era of ‘W’

When Jimmy did speak, he opened with, “In 2000, as some of you may remember, there was a disputed election for several weeks.” Nice way to start. He then took credit for giving W the idea to intercede in Sudan, and went on to praise W’s great successes — in Africa. He never mentioned 9-11 and the war on terror, or the commander in chief’s leadership during America’s most trying hour. Which is why his comments lasted just 3¼ minutes.

Bill Clinton followed. He, of course, spoke twice as long, filling his speech with jokes and faux humility. He was his usual affable self — smooth, confident, taking just the right pauses to punch passages, set up jokes (all of which wife Hillary guffawed at).

But the lip bites, the craggy-finger point, the cocked-head squint all looked like “Saturday Night Live” caricatures — mainly because they once were. Mr. Clinton, for all his prodigious gifts, will always be the class clown, the one no one takes too seriously. And with good reason: He did, after all, not “not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” in the Oval Office. And W — who vowed “to return dignity to the office of the presidency” — was America’s answer to his tomfoolery. It was, America said, time for a grown up.

George H.W. Bush, turning 90 in June, was a welcome respite. Somewhat frail now, he spoke only briefly from his wheelchair, but garnered two standing ovations — and the biggest laugh of the day from his oldest son. After his remarks, just 24 seconds, he shook his boy’s hand and said, deadpan, “Too long?”

President Obama took the podium next. Every bit as cunning as Slick Willy, his speech too was filled with fake self-effacing insights, including one on “the world’s most exclusive club,” which he said “is more like a support group.” Another laugher from the man with no humility was when he said “being president, above all, is a humbling job.”

Then, on a day that was intended to be without politics, he hawked his push for amnesty, imploring “some of the senators and members of Congress who are here today, that we bring it home — for our families, and our economy, and our security, and for this incredible country that we love.”

In fact, Mr. Obama made the whole trip about politics. He did a Democratic fundraiser the night before the library opening, and planned a pro-abortion speech at a Planned Parenthood event the same night (which his handlers finally realized was over the top and rescheduled).

Read more: washingtontimes.com
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



To: puborectalis who wrote (712018)4/26/2013 10:47:45 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1574757
 
Economic growth improves, but falls short of expectations

By Steve Benen
-
Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:46 AM EDT


At first blush, one might look at the new report on the strength of the U.S. economy and consider it good news. After all, the economy is, in fact, growing, and it expanded in the first quarter of 2013 at a much faster pace than the last three months of 2012. Overall, the nation has seen 14 consecutive quarters of economic growth, starting in mid-2009, when President Obama's Recovery Act helped put the nation on stronger footing.

But the closer one looks at the details, the more discouraging the new figures appear.

The U.S. economy expanded at a 2.5% pace in the first three months of 2013, up from 0.4% in the fourth quarter, as consumer spending rose at the fastest rate in two years and businesses restocked warehouse shelves. Yet government spending fell sharply again and imports surged to act as drags on economic growth, according to data released Friday by the Commerce Department. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had forecast growth to rise to 3.2%, so the less-than-expected number could weigh on U.S. markets.

It will take some time to dig through the data, and it's worth keeping in mind that these are preliminary results that will be revised twice in the next two months. The last GDP report, for example, was revised quite a bit in an encouraging direction.

That said, we can draw some tenuous conclusions based on the top-line data -- consumer spending looked quite good in the first quarter, and private-sector investment was fine. So what's behind the tepid growth? It appears the strength of the recovery was once again dragged down by government spending cuts.

Specifically, government spending cuts dragged down GDP by 0.8%. That may not sound like much, but it's actually enormous -- today's report would have shown economic growth of 3.3% instead of 2.5% had it not been for these cuts.

I know this makes congressional Republicans and much of the Beltway establishment uncomfortable, but if we want more economic growth, we'll need to stop making sharp cuts to government investments. It's the one part of economic policy that's easiest to control -- policymakers can simply choose to invest more, grow the economy, and create jobs -- if only the political will existed.

Instead, we see Republican policymakers continues to insist, even now, that the nation will benefit if Congress slashed public investments even further and took additional capital out of the economy. Indeed, sequestration cuts will continue -- even though they're hurting the country -- because conservative lawmakers consider the cuts a "victory."

As for the image above, the chart shows GDP numbers by quarter since the Great Recession began. The red columns show the economy under the Bush administration; the blue columns show the economy under the Obama administration.



To: puborectalis who wrote (712018)4/26/2013 12:01:07 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574757
 

Subject:
Outdoor Channel Leaves Colorado
A HARD WAY FOR THOSE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS TO LEARN A LESSON ABOUT AMERICAN FREEDOM AND THE CONSTITUTION. RIGHT IN THE OLD POCKET BOOK.

IN ADDITION TO THE BELOW, MAGPUL IS MOVING ITS ENTIRE MANUFACTURING OUT OF COLORADO. WELLINGTON KANSAS HAS OFFERED THEM FREE LAND ON WHICH TO BUILD A NEW FACTORY AND NO TAXES FOR 10 YEARS. IT WILL COST COLROADO 300 JOBS.

The implications of the push for stringent gun laws forces liberals into the light of reality from time to time. Here is a good example.

Read & share. Remember, the news is up to us...it won't come from the national media!

OUTDOOR CHANNEL PULLS PRODUCTION FROM COLORADO DUE TO CO SENATE BETRAYING 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

From: Michael Bane
Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Subject: OUTDOOR CHANNEL Pulls Productions from Colorado
To: Steve King

Dear Senator King;

I met you yesterday after the so-called "public hearings" on the anti-gun bills; as I mentioned, I am an Executive Producer for OUTDOOR CHANNEL. I currently have four series in production, including GUN STORIES, the top show on OC, with several additional series in development. My series focus on guns, hunting, shooting and the outdoors.

This morning I met with my three Producers, and we made the decision that if these anti-gun bills become law, we will be moving all of our production OUT of Colorado. We have already canceled a scheduled filming session for late this month. Obviously, part of this is due to our own commitment to the right to keep and bear arms, but it also reflects 3 lawyers' opinions that these laws are so poorly drafted and so designed to trap otherwise legal citizens into a crime (one of our attorneys referred to them as "flypaper laws") that it is simply too dangerous for us to film here.

I can give you chapter and verse on the legal implications if you need, but suffice to say that the first legal opinion was so scary we went out and got two others. All three attorneys agreed.

We are relatively small potatoes in television, but our relocation of production will cost Colorado a little less than a million dollars in 2013.

Secondly, we have proudly promoted Colorado in our productions (and have been moving more and more production into the state); now we will do exactly the opposite. What does this mean for Colorado? The community of television producers is a small one. Last week I had lunch with a major network producer who was looking to locate his new reality series in Colorado. That producer is also a shooter, and the new reality series will now be based out of Phoenix. That lunch cost Colorado over a million in economic impact.

Thirdly, according to numbers I received from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (for whom I used to work) yesterday, hunting had an almost $800,000,000 impact on Colorado in 2012, driving as many as 8330 jobs. Next month I will be in Texas meeting with most of the top outdoor/hunting producers, and the Number One agenda item will be Colorado. Already, hunting organizations and statewide hunting clubs around the country are pulling out of Colorado, and we expect this trend to accelerate rapidly.

The message we will take to our viewers and listeners is that these proposed laws are so dangerous to hunters and any other person, be she a fisherman or a skier who brings a handgun into the state for self-defense, that we cannot recommend hunting, fishing or visiting Colorado. We reach millions of people, and, quite frankly, we have a credibility that Colorado government officials can no longer match. Colorado Division of Wildlife is already running ads trying to bring more out-of-state hunters to Colorado...in light of the flood of negative publicity about these proposed laws, I can assure you those ads will fail.

We estimate that as many as one-quarter to one-third of out-of-state hunters will desert Colorado in the next 18-24 months, which will quite frankly be a disaster for the hunting industry in Colorado and have a devastating effect on our western and northern communities (certainly cities like Grand Junction).

This is not a "boycott" in the traditional sense of a centralized, organized operation; rather, it is more of a grassroots decision on where shooters, hunters and other sportsmen are willing to spend their money. Look at the collapse of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in February. That venerable multimillion dollar trade show chose to ban modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, and within three weeks it collapsed as all vendors and sponsors pulled out.

Colorado is going to pay a huge price for laws that will do nothing. Thank you, sir, for your support.
Best.
Michael Bane

OUTDOOR CHANNEL
mbane@outdoorchannel.com



To: puborectalis who wrote (712018)4/26/2013 12:20:13 PM
From: i-node  Respond to of 1574757
 
>> At this point, the austerian position has imploded; not only have its predictions about the real world failed completely, but the academic research invoked to support that position has turned out to be riddled with errors, omissions and dubious statistics.

This is such a disingenuous commentary.

Of course austerity is harder than uncontrolled spending. No one ever said otherwise.

The question that isn't addressed by Krugman or any other liberal is what is harder for future generations -- repaying debt or not repaying debt?

Pseudo-Keynesian as promoted by Krugman, CJ, and others here, is just an attempt to defer the pain of reasonable economic policy by dumping it on our children. It does nothing for growth; nothing about long-term unemployment; nothing to improve the economy. And creates an even bigger debt crisis going forward.