A new crop of Republicans will be taking office next month so I think it is very important to take note - NOW - of the state of the current economy. It is important to do it now because you can sure bet that the Republicans will try to take credit for every gain we have had over the last two years - even though they voted NO on EVERYTHING.
So - just to review - two years ago - after 8 years of Republican's driving our economy into the dirt, President Obama inherited a gigantic mess of a scale that still amazes me. Since then some unpopular solutions were proposed, some hard choices made and even though progress has been slow - we have made significant gains.
Most news stories about our economy now show sure signs of significant recovery. The current Holiday shopping season has been very good - with spending at levels not seen in years as was reported across most major news sites today. This is a link from an article I purposely took from Fox News so the nay-sayers would have a harder time refuting it. It is an AP article and appeared nearly identical on USA Today and other news sites.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/19/shoppers-crowd-malls-christmas-countdown/#content
But, of course, they are trying to refute it - but not on Fox News online. There were only 2 comments posted on the article on Fox News but there are hundreds posted on USA Today - mostly negative. It's important to note where the negative comments are being posted because it is all politically motivated. They know that most liberal thinkers don't see Fox News as a legitimate news source and the goal is to preach negativity to those who are trying to be neutral. But we will cover all that that again another time.
As of now our economy is looking a bit brighter and I sincerely hope it does continue over the following years and into the next Presidential election. But I want credit for the recovery to go where it belongs - to President Obama and the Democrats who are currently the majority in Washington. Good job!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I'm really concerned about the direction FL will be taking considering our new governor's recent past.
Me too! It is very disconcerting to have a known criminal running a fragile state like Florida. How this man got elected I'll never understand.
I stumbled upon this today and I thought you might find it interesting (it's long, so I have to post it in two parts.
Here's another stereotype... Liberals are more compassionate than conservatives. Certainly, this is a view deeply held by liberals themselves. Yet the truth is exactly the opposite.
Next week, Basic Books will publish an astonishing new volume by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks: Who Really Cares. Prof. Brooks reviews the vast academic literature on charitable giving and arrives at a startling conclusion: By virtually every measure, political conservatives are demonstrably more generous, more honest and more public-spirited than political liberals.
Consider for example this one fundamental liberal/conservative dividing line, the question "Do you believe the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality?" In a major 1996 survey, 33% of Americans gave the liberal answer, "yes"; 43% gave the conservative answer, "no."
Those who gave the conservative answer were more likely to give to charity than those who gave the liberal answer. And when they gave, they gave much more: an average of four times as much as liberal givers.
Correct for income, age and other variables, and you find that people who want government to fight inequality are 10 points less likely to give anything at all — and when they did give, they gave US$263 per year less than a right-winger of exactly the same age earning exactly the same money."
"A second survey, this one conducted in 2002, found that people who believe that "people should take care of themselves" accounted for 25% of the population — but gave 31% of America's blood.
"To put this in perspective," Brooks says, "if the whole population gave blood like opponents of social spending do, the blood supply would increase by more than a quarter. But if everyone in the population gave like government-aid advocates, the supply would drop by about 30%."
A third survey found that people who believe that the government "spends too much on welfare" were more likely to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or to give food or money to a homeless person.
A fourth found that a poor family that worked for its income donated three times as much money as a family that received an exactly equal income from welfare.
It's almost a psychological rule: The more you espouse "compassion" in your politics, the more likely you are to be selfish in your personal behavior."
-David Frum's Diary, 11/18/06, National Review Online
This is what is known as a Hypocrite. The billionaire who drops a quarter in the bucket - making sure a picture is taken and a survey is filled out to record the event - and then goes off to Washington to ensure the policies they support keep people needy.
As for blood donations - I gave regularly until it was determined they didn't want my blood even though I am totally healthy. I would still donate regularly but I just can't pass the question and answer test where it asks if I am a man that has had sex with a man in the last 30 years.
Meanwhile - any prostitute can donate anytime they want.
I was curious how you would react to being presented with the evidence that one of your most cherished and foundational prejudices was false.
My uncharitable guess was that you would likely respond with a combination of feeble denial and irrelevant personal anecdote.
I must say that you have magnificently lived down to my expectations!
Good job, Cleopatra.
( Although in fairness, what else could you really do? Admit that you might have been wrong? Make a difficult and honest reevaluation of your own personal bigotry in the light of new evidence?
LOL. )
Just yanking your chain, Uncle Ebenezer.
I wish you would comment on the topic. We already discussed this in other posts. But you needn't seek historical records to see how the Republican party lacks compassion. Your dear friend Sara Palin firmly believes:
Poor children - A-OK!
Sick Children - Okey Dokey
and now Fat Children - You Betcha!
Like I said, feeble...
Yeah, why consider any actual data or facts, when you can just indulge in painting silly bogey-men cartoons?
What's really funny is that you don't even seem to notice how lame and self-defeating your last response was.
The question was which group (Liberals vs. Conservatives), as a group, was more generous, compassionate, and concerned about others in their actual behavior
(who walked the walk, rather than just talked the talk).
Pointing out an individual's behavior, from either side, would be completely irrelevant. Even if your silly caricature of Sarah Palin was true (it's not) that would in no way be a defeater to my argument.
Not even slightly.
Spend a little more time thinking, before you type (or vote!)
Ya can't make up this kind of stuff.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/12/sarah-palin-michelle-obama-dessert-/1
hahaha...ya, she can be a goof-ball, for sure ( or should I say, you betcha?), but what I claimed was untrue was the caricature you were drawing, not whether or not she made some good natured comment that was obviously a joke (obvious at least to anyone who wasn't completely blinded by irrational idealogical animus).
Unless, you seriously are saying that Sarah Palin wants kids to be fat? Is that really what you want to go on record as contending?
Nice deflection, though. I'll take that as an admission that you have no substantive response to my last few posts on this thread about which side in this country lives compassion, rather than just talks about it.
It's starting to get a little like some Monty Python skit where I ask a question or make an observation and all you can do in response is shout "Sarah Palin!"
Man, she has really gotten under your skin, hasn't she?
Oh, there was a topic?
What was it?
Was it which side was going to claim credit for the inevitable economic rebound (uh,d'uh...both?), or was it about the new governor of Florida?
So Thohea gets to change the subject, but I can't, huh? I see what your game is. A blatant case of anti-straight discrimination ( oh, the hate!).
Gotta go...
"inevitable economic rebound"
Yup - that was the topic indeed.
Oh - and our new crook - er - I mean Governor is one of those new Republicans mentioned in the original article - so Thohea's comment is at least somewhat related.
Andre - with regard to your compassion comments: You will note that I very rarely re-post articles by others. In my opinion, actions speak louder than words and the actions I have seen in the Republican party are crystal clear. Absolutely no compassion for those less fortunate. I don't need to quote anyone else to prove it - it's right there for everyone to see.
In other words, your opinions are based soley on personal impressions ( with no offsetting controls for the personal bias's and prejudices that we all carry) and have no statistical or scientific basis.
Fair enough.
I prefer a more objectice, evidence and reality-based, standard of inquiry.
You keep refering to your new governer as a "crook". I don't know much about him, other then what I read in a fairly positive profile in the staunchly Liberal New York Times.
It is my understanding that he has never been personaly charged or indicted for ANY crime, let alone convicted.
Is that true or false?
This Blog is in fact a collection of my personal observations and opinions based on various news sources and current events. They are my views - not someone else's re-printed.
As for our Crooked Governor, he was CEO of the company at the time his company was accused of Medicare Fraud. Just because he isn't in jail doesn't mean he isn't a crook. I can name countless other crooks who are still in business. Money has the power to buy freedom.
Yes, I realize that this blog reflects your personal views, and that's fine (that's what most blogs are for, after all), but that isn't what I was questioning.
What I was questioning was what your personal views are based on.
Are they based primarilly on facts and objective scientific studies, or are they based more on wishful thinking and the personal pyschological motivations that grow out of your own partlicur prejudices and bias's?
But I'm just repeating myself....and you have effectively, if indirectly, already answered that question many times before anyway.
Re:your new governer: I take it from your rather off-point answer to my question about whether or not your new governer has ever been charged with any crimes is "no".
Is that correct?
Your Google search button must be broken. Try this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott
Again - he isn't convicted of a crime but that doesn't make him innocent of one.
"He was forced to resign as Chief Executive of Columbia/HCA in 1997 amid a scandal over the company's business and Medicare billing practices; the company ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million"
14 felonies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is really only 2 possibilities here:
1. He is a totally inept CEO who didn't know what was going on in his own company - and therefore would also make a terrible Governor.
2. He did know.
There is always the possibility that he did something wrong many years ago, and has matured to the point where he realizes how badly he erred, and is now all the better person for it and that much more determined to use his obvious talents and skills for the common good, and shall prove to be an outstanding governor.
I can hear you laughing, but heh, come on...it's at least possible.
I'm not saying it's even likely, but it is possible (remember, us Catholics are big on the whole Redemption thing).
After all, there are plenty of precedents is American history of people from corrupt business backgrounds later becoming reasonably successful public servants: I'm thinking of names like Daly in Chicago, Kennedy in Massachusetts, or for that matter, look at our current Secretary of State(her of Rose Law Firm fame).
Ahhh - Whitewater. A shining example of the Republicans relentless struggle to knock down a Democratic president on baseless claims no matter what the cost to the American public. The current birth certificate issue is another one and if, God willing, President Obama wins a 2nd term you can sure bet they will find some other nonsense to dig up.
I just read most of the Wikipedia article on Whitewater and I still don't understand it. The final paragraph says this:
"Indeed no one ended up happy with the Whitewater investigation: Democrats felt that the investigation was a political witch-hunt, Republicans were frustrated that both Clintons had escaped formal charges, and people without partisan involvement found press coverage of Whitewater's facts and narratives, which spanned four decades, difficult to understand to the point of bafflement."
I was one of the those left in bafflement.
Rick Scott on the other hand was CEO of the company that was CONVICTED OF 14 FELONIES. Again - he was either a really bad CEO or a thief of American taxpayer money. Whichever one he is - I doubt he has changed as it was all very recent. We the voters knew before the election - yet somehow he won despite all the polls showing otherwise.
Oops,I meant to post this here (too many different threads!)
From the little bit that I have read,almost everyone who knows him, even his detractors, all agree that he is a brilliant man and a phenomenally effective CEO.
That leads me to suspect that he probably did know about the over-billings...and, at least, tacitly approved of them.
13 years ago is not "very recent" in the life and career of a high powered CEO (it's an eternity for a politician), or really for anyone else for that matter. A person can change a lot in 13 years.
Has he? I have no way of knowing. A majority of Florida voters seem willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Let's see what he does with it.
Post a Comment