Tag Archives: political parties

An Instructive Graph

Posted on by
Reply

This one is from the Census Bureau’s Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013. The headline of the report is that American household median income stagnated for the second straight year and remains, in real terms, 8% lower than it was in the last year before the Panic of 2008. The graph below reflects that.2013MedianHouseholdIncome

What interests me about this graph, though, is not the end result snapshot, but the slopes of the graph’s separate lines, the changing levels of median incomes, as we come out of recessions and panics over the last 50 years.

Notice: coming out of nearly every one those dislocations, either immediately after it was over or shortly after, the slopes are up. Median household income recovered quickly for all groups indicated. To be sure, there were some significant lags in this—blacks often, Hispanics coming out of the 1990 mini-recession, for instance. However, even coming out of the 2000 dot-com bust, incomes “merely” stagnated overall (although with that one, incomes didn’t fall very much, either).

But coming out of the Panic, this administration’s policies have set a new record for holding back a recovery—incomes have not stagnated (would that we’d done that well); they’ve been pushed down.

Obamatalk

Posted on by
Reply

President [Barack] Obama on Friday sought to fine-tune his response to the growing Islamic State terror* threat, vowing to “degrade and ultimately defeat” the network—seemingly abandoning, at least publicly, his previously stated goal of making them a “manageable problem.”

“We are going to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL, the same way we have gone after Al Qaeda,” Obama said in Wales, during a press conference at the close of a meeting of NATO allies.

And

Obama on Friday claimed “there was unity” at the NATO summit over the belief that ISIS poses a “significant threat to NATO members” and regarding a readiness to take action.

“I did not get any resistance or pushback to the basic notion that we have a critical role to play in rolling back this savage organization,” Obama said.

This business of “the same way we have gone after al Qaeda” isn’t reassuring, given the metastasization of al Qaeda, and its success across the Maghreb, Yemen, eastern Africa, the growing power of its Boko Haram affiliate, ….

Yep—he’s toughened his words, all right. But he’s not toughened his actions.

This is just empty chatter. Obamatalk.

 

*Come on, guys. Their “state” is a delusional concept. This is ISIS (or ISIL, if you prefer; it’s a trivial distinction), and they’re terrorists. You should be talking about the ISIS (ISIL) terrorist threat. Full stop.

Resign, or Resigned?

Posted on by
Reply

The parents of a SEAL lost in Afghanistan, on seeing the butchery of ISIS and President Barack Obama’s decision not to respond, have written an open letter to him, via World Tribune. Here is their letter.

Billy and Karen Vaughn

After finally choosing to view the barbaric, on-camera beheading by ISIS of freelance war correspondent James Foley, I have been left with a level of rage known only to those of us who have sacrificed unspeakable offerings on the altar of world peace.

My offering was my only son—Aaron Carson Vaughn. Aaron was a member of SEAL Team VI. He was killed in action when a CH47D Chinook, carrying thirty Americans and eight Afghans was shot down in the Tangi River Valley of Afghanistan on Aug. 6, 2011.

Many times over the past three years, I have been asked what drove my son to choose his particular career. What made him want to be a Navy SEAL? My answer is simple.

Aaron Vaughn was a man who possessed the courage to acknowledge evil. And evil, once truly acknowledged, demands response. Perhaps this is why so few are willing to look it in the eye. It is much simpler—much safer—to look the other way.

That is, unless you are the leader of the Free World.

As Commander-in-Chief, your actions—or lack thereof—Mr President, cost lives. As you bumble about in your golf cart, slapping on a happy face and fist-pounding your buddies, your cowardly lack of leadership has left a gaping hole—not only in America’s security—but the security of the entire globe. Your message has come across loud and clear, sir: You are not up to this job. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.

Please vacate the people’s house and allow a man or woman of courage and substance to seize the reigns of this out-of-control thug-fest and regain the balance we, America, have provided throughout our great history.

Thanks to your “leadership” from whatever multi-million dollar vacation you happen to be on at any given moment, the world is in chaos. What’s been gained, you’ve lost. What’s been lost, you’ve decimated. You’ve demolished our ability to hold the trust of allies. You’ve made a mockery of the title “President.” And you’ve betrayed the nation for which my son and over 1.3 million others have sacrificed their very lives.

But this should come as no surprise, since your wife uttered a vile statement on Feb. 18, 2008, during the primary campaign—one that speaks volumes of your true convictions. “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country,” she said.

I am sure my deceased son thanks you for that, Mrs Obama. Oh, and you’re welcome.

Never in my lifetime have I witnessed such despair and such growing fear that the world’s last best hope, America, has finally been dismantled. Perhaps the better word is transformed—fundamentally transformed. Come to think of it, it’s become difficult—if not impossible—to believe things haven’t gone exactly as you planned, Mr President.

Amazingly, in five short years, your administration has lurched from one disaster to another. You spearheaded the ambitious rush to end the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan—with no plan on how to do so effectively. Also, the release of “the Taliban five” in exchange for one American—without consulting Congress—is also on your shoulders.

You have been at the helm during unprecedented national security leaks—including, but not limited to the outing of SEAL Team VI on the Bin laden raid, the outing of the Pakistani doctor who provided the intelligence for that raid, the outing of Afghanistan’s CIA station chief, and the outing of your personal “kill list” to make you look tough. In addition, 75 percent of American deaths in Afghanistan and 83 percent of Americans-wounded-in-action have occurred on your watch, according to icasualties.org.

And now, we have this recent, heinous event: the beheading of an American citizen by a barbaric organization you foolishly referred to as “the JV team” in your statements to the New Yorker magazine in January.

You, sir, are the JV team. It’s time for you to step down and allow a true leader to restore our honor and protect our sons and daughters.

America has always been exceptional. And she will be again. You, Mr President, are a bump in our road.

Obama’s decision not to respond is embodied in his speech and question/answer period while he was traveling in Estonia. While there, Obama said his goal was to “degrade and destroy” ISIS. A few short minutes later, he said his goal was to render ISIS a “manageable problem.”

 

h/t Power Line

Wave Election

Posted on by
2

There are wave elections, and there are wave elections. In 1894, for instance, the Republicans gained 130 seats in the House out of a total of 357 seats up for election. In 1932, the Democrats gained 97 seats out of 435. In 2010, the Republicans picked up 63 seats.

But all politics is local.

In Alabama’s 2nd District, for instance, the Republican won by 5,000 votes out of 216,000 cast in 2010, a margin of 2%. In Texas’ 23rd District, the Republican won by 7,000 votes out of 151,000 cast, and in the 27th District, the Republican won by 700 votes out of 105,000. In South Dakota, the Republican won by 7,000 votes out of 319,000. In Minnesota’s 8th District, the Republican won by 4,000 out of 277,000 cast.

So it went throughout the country, and so it went in all the wave elections. Waves occur from the aggregation of local politics, local elections, and a very large number of those local elections are not blowouts at all (though many are; some elections look like the losing candidate was just taking up space on the ballot).

In the coming 2014 mid-terms, the races in both the House and the Senate are similarly extremely tight, especially in the so-called battleground States. Indeed, even in wave elections, potsful of seats are locked up tight by the incumbent. See, for instance, the map presented here, showing gains and holds from the 2010 wave.

If the 2014 close races all break the Republicans’ way in the Senate, they could pick up 12 of the 6 seats they need to take control. If those races go the Democrats’ way, though, so would the wave go their way: they’d have 67 seats (counting the Independent and the Socialist who caucus with the Democrats) instead of their current 55.

Local politics.