It was a risible moment during the movie, Forrest Gump, when he told President Johnson that he won his medal because they shot him in the butt-ocks.
One of the great lines from the movie was Stupid is as stupid does!
Since Forrest was basically a simple child in an adult’s body it had almost an embedded Biblical wisdom to it.
Given the state of the economy and our president’s inepitude with financial affairs, it might be time for Forrest to go back to Washington and give them the wisdom of his thoughts.
Ever since she could talk and I think that was just a few minutes after her birth, my eight-years old granddaughter was not allowed to say the word, stupid because her parents told her it was a bad word.
Yet she freely uses the word Obama which is a bad word in her grandparents’ home.
Pundit James Carville got a lot of mileage out of his phrase, It’s the economy stupid!
Some might say that it summed up the reasons that George H. W. Bush failed to retain his public office in 1992.
I am really surprised that more people have not resurrected Carville’s slogan for this upcoming election.
Economy and stupid have been hermetically paired these past three years with the Obama administration.
Clueless is another word that comes to mind.
Everywhere you read, someone is talking about the economy and like the weather, no one is doing anything about it, thanks to the obstructionist in the White House.
I wonder if someday my granddaughter will see the connection between her old offensive word and the current occupant of the White House.
While on the subject of of stupid billionaire Warren Buffet worries that he has not paid enough in taxes, giving comfort and ammunition to the Obama forces who lust for more money, like a vampire lusts for more blood.
Perhaps that explains the ubiquity of movies and TV about vampires and other blood-suckers.
Buffet paid only 17% of his unstated income in taxes. He thinks that he should pay a lot more.
Then he should start by paying himself a huge salary from his tax-sheltered foundation like most working Americans.
The truth is Buffet already has enough money for the rest of his life.
He wants government to stop others from becoming as wealthy as he is.
It is always apples and oranges with Obama. They cite the deficits as a reason why they need to raise taxes on millionaires…most of whom only make $200,000 a year. Can’t Americans do math?
Harvard said women couldn’t but then that was before Larry Summers went to work for Obama.
What Obama is saying is that he would use that additional revenue to address the deficit.
By creating a larger deficit?
If anybody really believes this man is capable of reducing anything, I have some prime oceanfront property here in Southeast, Missouri I can sell you.
Thanks to Uncle Sam who flooded it last spring.
He will pour it all down the special interest sinkhole that he has already wasted $5,000,000,000,000.
Implicit in his senile pandering to Obama is his belief that he owes his $58 billion wealth to Big Government for his wealth.
Unless Buffet is a crony capitalist like the executives at GE, he has forgotten how it has been his own uncanny knack of picking winning stocks that allowed him to amass such a fortune.
Were government to someday confiscate his entire fortune, it wouldn’t do any real good to address the economics problems of this country.
Pope Benedict XVI has also weighed in on economics, before a Spanish audience in hoping to ease strained ties with the Socialist government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in Madrid.
I don’t even like the leader of my Church having anything to do with any kind of Socialism, let alone give the appearance of appeasement.
And appeasement is what it sounded like when the pontiff urged business leaders to use ethics to work for mankind and not just be concerned with profits.
The pontiff failed to understand that economics is indifferent to humanitarian causes, except when they try to buy public good will through philanthropy.
It is an imperfect system but it is far better than any of the alternatives, especially the Socialist government he was trying to salve.
Businesses are created, first of all to make money for the risk-takers who invest their time and their money in new ventures that employ millions of people.
Where would the world be without free enterprise?
In the Gulag?
Humanitarian projects have been historically the work of churches and philanthropists.
The moment government got into the charity business they abused it to the extent that they used humanitarian interests to extort trillions from businesses around the world.
It is primarily socialist governments, like the one in Madrid that are responsible for the excessive poverty in the world and for running the global economy near the brink of total collapse.
Just once I would love to hear a leader of my church talk or even preach about the responsibilities of government toward property owners and the successful.
Have governments been good stewards of the largesse they confiscate from their subjects?
And what do the rich get in return?
They have to build gated communities to protect their families and their properties from the brigands and marauders that liberal societies have encouraged to prey on them.
Unfortunately it is always the lower classes that suffer the most…but this is because of big government and not the denizens of gated communities.
I would just love to hear a priest preach about violations of the Seven Commandment, which for Catholics is Thou Shalt Not Steal.
No, so many of prelates are blinded by false notions of social justice, which emanates from Karl, not Jesus.
This reminded me of a clerical admission in grade school about papal infallibility that said that the pope was not infallible in science …or economics but only in faith and morals.
This sounds as if he is trying mix both.
The real trouble is that most people hate economics.
This gives charlatans like Obama almost a free rein.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, they hate it because so much economic theory violates common sense.
Nothing so far Obama has done has boosted this reputation.
One of their biggest canards is the fallacy that by extending unemployment insurance to people who have lost their jobs, is a good way to stimulate the economy.
They are earning any money, so by government giving money they didn’t have, they will spend it.
Brilliant logic if money great on trees.
I’ll have to ask the Fed about that.
While it is a perfect Keynesian theoretical answer, it is practical nonsense.
According to the WSJ‘s Stephen Moore the White House is telling us that the more unemployed people we can pay for not working, the more people will work.
And this will really stimulate us out of an approaching double-dip recession.
Milton Friedman said that the more you subsidize something, the more of it you will get.
If I, who had just a pair of what FDR used to call Gentleman C’s in Economics at Holy Cross understand it, how stupid does that make the rest of the country who doesn’t?
One of my favorite lines is from what maybe an apocryphal scene involving the deathbed of famed comedian, W. C. Fields.
He was said to have been interrupted in his hospital room by a friend who asked him why he was thumbing through the Bible.
His patented response looking for loopholes.
I am not certain if this is the case with the Catholic Church in America and its United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, but I often wonder if one of their prime functions is to give a protective salve for the collective consciences of its many liberal and socialistic members who have no trouble in advancing the causes of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.
This was true when Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was sitting in the chairman’s seat and professing his famous seamless garment principle that has done more to harm the pro-life movement than anything Planned Parenthood ever could have done on its own.
In 2008 the Catholic bishops have been publishing a document entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
Ideally this was designed to help Catholics form their consciences in light of the Church’s teachings, so they can make moral and wise voting decisions.
One would also like to think that it was designed to help Catholics find those candidates that resonates a proximity to Catholic moral teaching
Given all the working myths in this country about the so-called separation of Church and State, the Church cannot appear to endorse one candidate or another.
Did this separation ever stop Bill Clinton from singing in a black Baptist choir?
The fact that 54% of Catholics voted for Barack Obama can only lead to the conclusion that nobody took the time to read it or many totally ignored it.
Quite possibly the document was so generally vague that anyone who ever spent an afternoon withJudge Judy could have found an easy loophole to rationalize a vote for the most egregious advocate of unrestricted abortion in America.
Catholic editors Deal Hudson & Matt Smith believe that the latter possibility was at work three years ago and they fear that virtually the same document will be approved at the bishops’ annual Baltimore meeting in November, allowing Obama to profit once again from the Catholic voters, who seem more intent on social justice issues than stopping the fetal death and destruction Obama and his party promote.
As Hudson points out:
The 2008 version of Faithful Citizenship ccontains several passages (Sections 34-37) that are capable of overly broad interpretation. Groups like Catholics United and Catholic Democrats cherry-picked the following passage from Section 35 for prominent display on their web sites and in their printed materials.
There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.
They state of course that this would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, and not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences.
Anyone who objected to the implication of this passage could have been met with an equally confusing citation from the previous paragraph, Section 34, which states:
A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.
At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
What this means is that a Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as he or she did not intend to support his pro-abortion position.
But the very fact of helping elect an individual who supports an abject evil, such as abortion, does in fact support his ability to be elected and further promote his intrinsic evil.
In essence it contradicts its own position.
The bishops add this statement, in making these decisions,it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.
While this sounds so very logical and reasonable but it does not hold up under the bright light of scrutiny.
The average Catholic voter is usually not equipped to make these kinds of abstract distinctions.
If the candidate was a racist the bishops would probably make the argument that one belief so poisoned his soul that it would be sinful to vote for him because there was no way he would have a legitimately moral basis in other issues.
But with abortion the bishops don’t seem to see it the same way.
A pro-choice candidate can still be right on all the other humanitarian issues of social justice.
The bishops also say: these decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.
I believe that if a politician sought election on the bodies and burned flesh of 50 million unborn children, it would tarnish his legitimate concerns for the poor and the indigent.
In essence the liberal bishops strangle on their own logic.
Thankfully not all bishops agreed in 2008.
During the 2008 campaign, many individual bishops attempted to address the confusion of Faithful Citizenship. Bishop Robert Vasa, for example, pointed out that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is never justified when the opponent is pro-life.
Similarly, Bishops Kevin Vann and Kevin Farrell insisted there are no truly grave ‘moral’ or ‘proportionate’ reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.
Only those bishops that still hang on to the Bernardin toxin of moral equivalency could dispute this statement.
If the bishops republish the 2008 version Faithful Citizenship for the 2012 election — without changes — they will be providing Catholic voters with enough logical loopholes that will serve as a toxic salve for their consciences.
We all know that President Obama will be pulling for the toxins.
After less than three years of President Obama’s regime one thing is clear, the American people are more divided than I can ever remember, except maybe the Vietnam War era.
His divisive attitude has created an atmosphere where bullet points and old bromides of contention have substituted for ideas and viable solutions to catastrophic problems.
His virtual absence from the political fray earlier this month stands in solitary indictment of his presidency.
His political mantra of Blame Bush, general mendacity and evasiveness has prompted me to raise a series of questions that I invite each and every thinking liberal to address with cogent arguments.
I do this because I know the government media will not press him on any of these questions.
Failure to do so will just convince people like me that liberals are mere automotons, who merely recite Democratic bumper stickers without any clear understanding what their empty slogans really mean.
Give it a shot because, who knows you might realize that you are dead wrong.
1) Bush’s fault–at what point if any will the sagging economy become Obama’s fault?
2) If indeed it was and still is Bush’s fault, how do you explain that President Obama has not only followed the policies of his predecessor but greatly exceeded his spending by adding five trillion dollars to the nation debt?
3) If you think Bush’s two wars are responsible, how come Obama didn’t just end them as he promised in 2008?
Don’t forget about Obama’s War in Libya that was supposed to end in days and with little national purpose!
4) Obama says the Bush tax cuts in 2003 caused the economy collapse or something like that. Please explain how this could happen.
How does allowing people to preside over their own money cause an economic failure? Do you really think government can make better financial decisions than you can?
5) President Obama wants the wealthy to pay their fair share. If you accept the fact that the top 5% in the economic strata currently pay 59% of the gross total, then just how much more should they assume? 60%? 75%? 90%? 100%? Or 110%?
We now have 51% of the American people who do not pay anything in income taxes. Should they be made to pay something toward the total? Or would THAT be UNFAIR?
As an after thought, Bill Maher said on HBO that things were better in the fifties when the wealthy paid as much as 75%.
If this was not a solid gold non sequitur, I don’t know what is.
Bill, it was better in the fifties because there was no Vietnam, no women’s movement, no legalized abortion, no affirmative action quotas etc.
In other words the culture war had not started in essence and it had nothing to do with how much in taxes the wealthy paid.
The economy also was not that great.
And that man is considered a thinker by the left! What a big joke he is.
6) Why do you think a 3rd stimulus package would work when the first two failed dismally? Where would you spend another trillion dollars? (See question # 12)
7) What positive or friendly steps has Obama taken toward businesses since he became president?
Please don’t say extending the Bush tax cuts because everyone knows that if re-elected he will raise the tax rates through the roof. His uncertainty in effect nullified any real economic value for the country.
8) With regard to civility, what steps has the president taken to lecture or criticize the denizens of the left-wing press for their constant vilification of the Tea Party members?
9) Do you think they really are terrorists, bomb-throwers and hostage takers? The Tea Party, not the media!
10) Do you approve of the president’s near total disregard for the U. S. Constitution with his 34 czars, executive orders and EPA regulations, which have in effect enacted cap-and-trade against the explicit will of the Congress?
11) Do you agree with the president that we should model ourselves on the Social Democracy paradigm of Sweden with its exceedingly high taxes and lack of economic freedom?
12) If Obama can’t get his extra trillions from the rich, where will he find the money to pay our bills?
13) Is this the kind of change you hoped for in 2008?
Editor’s Note: I could have asked why Obama doesn’t want America to be exceptional as if there were something wrong with this country’s success! Well he got his way as our credit rating has dropped us to the level of Belgium and New Zealand. If he is re-elected how does Zimbabwe and Somalia sound?
Please don’t be shy. I really want to know how anyone who still supports him will answer these questions. Our very future depends on your clear understanding of this questions. Send them to my comments page.
It is always easy to play the blame game.
Our politicians have been adept at this sordid aspect of the game of politics for centuries.
An old high school classmate recently raised the issue that in my last post I might have assigned too much blame to the executive branch.
I responded by saying that it is a safe and historically accurate bet that since the days of FDR the power of government had shifted perceptively to the Oval Office.
The Watergate Affair did for a short while transfer the power back to Capitol Hill.
However with Obama he might have a point.
I have been reading, writing and thinking about this man for three very long years.
I have covered every aspect of his personal and public life by reading everything available about the man and what do I know conclusively for certain?
Nothing! Zilch! Nada!
His aloofness and skills of verbal legerdemain and fact obfuscation have made him the most enigmatic person of the 42 two men who had preceded him.*
I am not certain who his father is…what country he was born in…if he is an American citizen..what religion he believes in…if any…
I know nothing about his years at Pepperdine, Columbia or Harvard. I don’t know if he actually wrote his two best-selling books or not.
Sometimes I am not even certain if he has come from this planet.
For all I know about him he was the Martian candidate.
I was more certain that Al Haig was in charge of the White House in 1981 that I am of this president.
I have seen him shot some hoops on TV.
While he is totally inept from a baseball mound, he does have a fine shot…at least when not guarded.
That I know.
So for me to blame Obama for this mess might be a stretch.
His uncanny ability to lead from the rear makes me wonder if he is in control of anything.
His career in both Springfield and Washington were distinguished mainly for his lack of distinction or accomplishment.
Is it possible that a George Soros type might be pulling his wooden limbs through an invisible set of strings?
The focal point of this serious crisis that his non-presence has wrought has been Speaker John Boehner and the non-consequential Senate leader Harry Reid.
The two main principles that we have heard from the White House and they have been repeated by so many different talking heads that it makes me wonder if the robot in the Oval Office might have had an equipment break-down.
Those two vague principles have been–compromise and balance, which have replaced hope and change.
Now I still don’t really know what he meant by hope.
The last unpleasant three years have taught me what change was on his data board.
By compromise, I think he probably means surrender.
His inability to offer anything that looks and sounds like a true compromise must rest with is programmers whomever they may be.
Just what has the president offered to compromise on?
The Republicans have asked for very few cuts and have virtually agreed to add another two trillion dollars to our immediate debt.
Senate leader Mitch McConnell has correctly stated weeks ago that beating Obama in November is the only way that we will ever get a handle on the long-term debt.**
And this doesn’t even include the unfunded future obligations to our population in pensions, medicare and retirement benefits.
I think that one could be as much as 70 trillion.
Ever wonder where that is going to come from?
Can anyone say Wisconsin or maybe even Greece?
Now as for balance, the president always reverts back to the rich paying their fair share.
Maybe if we were ever to see one of his college transcripts, we might find that he aced his Deconstruction course on Michel Foucault because he has given a new meaning to the word fair.
When the top 5% of our population–the movers, shakers and employers of this economy–already pay 59% of the gross total of income taxes and this president thinks that is not enough and they should pay more…just to be fair makes me wonder if this president even speaks the same language as I do.
Charley Gibson pointed out to Obama that taxing the wealthy more would not bring in any more revenue.
That’s a fact of financial life.
The higher taxes would cause a change in behavior that would virtually nullify any increased revenue.
Obama said that he knew that and it was a matter of fairness.
And what about the 51% of Americans who don’t pay anything in income taxes?
Is it fair that they have no financial stake in this country, other than the fact that millions of them are living off the largesse of the working members.
But again that their entitlement, isn’t it?
And now since we have crossed that magical number, the have-not or the pay-nots can now vote to take all of the money of the haves.
That’s not democracy but tyranny and this president has robotically brought us to this brink.
And even if a 100% of the top 5-10% were confiscated, would it solve our economic woes?
How many jobs would be lost when the rich had to live like ordinary people on a dwindling income?
Servants would lose their jobs. Department stores would lose billions and the president would spend their money in a few weeks.
All this makes me wonder if Obama is really on our side?
He has tried to knock America off its pinnacle of exceptionalism since his inauguration.
Obama wants to lead us to the back of the pack.
For what—punishment for our racial and economic crimes?
Even Bill O’Reilly, my favorite pinhead, said the other night that he thinks that Obama hates the capitalist system so much that he deliberately wants to crash the economy and bring us to financial ruin.
Is that a hard idea to fathom?
Those were strong words from the master of fair and balanced.
Of course fairness to the Catholic-educated O’Reilly means something entirely different.
But then again it sounds as if I am laying blame.
Maybe Obama’s wires have just gotten crossed.
Could Obama be the Stepford President?
I guess I will have to read Ira Levin’s 1972 book or see the two Hollywood adaptations to really understand this president?
* Grover Cleveland is counted as the 22nd and 24th president, which makes Barack Obama the 44th president.
** The tentative deal agreed to by Congressional leaders will not satisfy anyone. It will second McConnell’s point that 2012 will be for all the marbles, matching the Great Debate of late 18th century America.