Sunday, November 22, 2009

SNL goes after Obama ... hard

Apparently, at SNL they don't believe the President's protestations that the economy is getting better and all the Democrats' spending has fixed everything.
Gee, who would have thought that in the week when Sarah Palin's book comes out and she's all over the place, that SNL would have chosen to ridicule Obama? Perhaps he's jumped the shark in their eyes.

28 comments:

Rick Caird said...

I just heard a "tease" for 60 minutes tonight. It went something like: "if you don't understand why health care needs reform, after 60 minutes tonight, you will know why".

I guess 60 minutes is on board with Obama.

Rick

Tacitus Voltaire said...

don't believe the President's protestations that the economy is getting better

DJIA
-14.28 -0.14%
last 10318.16


remember where the dow was when obama took the oath of office? but what does wall st know about the economy?...
.

Pat Patterson said...

The End of Days is truly at hand when the progressives are arguing that Wall St is the sum total of the economy. That we should ignore all the other signs and simply take solace that the running dogs of capitalism are reinvesting their 60% of what they had in 2007.

tfhr said...

Pat Patterson,

Well said. I thought the Progressives were blaming all that is bad ON Wall Street.

equitus said...

LOL... someone pretending to be TV? Either that or he's reached new levels of desperation.

tfhr said...

equitus,

Hard to believe. I wonder why he doesn't go back through to replace the capital letters with lower case in material he has copied and pasted?

tfhr said...

Saw the YouTube clip below at Moonbattery.com and thought of Hu's SNL plea for a kiss, though it was intended as a jab (view for full pun impact) at Mary "Louisiana Purchase" Landrieu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VuIShM5kAQ&feature=player_embedded

Tacitus Voltaire said...

progressives are arguing that Wall St is the sum total of the economy. That we should ignore all the other signs

um, no i didn't

but, wall street is showing confidence. i guess facing that fact would be too difficult to deal with

Tacitus Voltaire said...

reinvesting their 60% of what they had in 2007

heh

and tfhr was all excited because sweden in the 1990s allowed investment of 2.5% of one's income in the stock market. i suppose they fared as well as the rest of us vis-a-vis our 401ks... as pat notes, most of them fell to about 60% of their value in 2008
.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

he's reached new levels of desperation

meaning?
.

tfhr said...

TV,

I'm thrilled that you've read at least part of one of the articles I provided for your benefit. But you do have to read the whole article because you seemed to have missed this:

"Workers must put 18.5 percent of their income aside for retirement, but they are now able to invest 2.5 percentage points of that amount in an individual account."

"The remaining amount, 16 percentage points, is a tax that funds the pay-as-you-go government program. The Riksdag also altered this portion of the system dramatically. Instead of providing a pre-determined retirement benefit based on number of years in the workforce and earnings history, the new system provides benefits based on the amount of taxes paid during the worker's career. By creating a system of notional accounts (no money is actually deposited) and linking retirement benefits to lifetime income, the parliament has set the stage for further privatization. http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1381.cfm

The same article makes this important point:

"...the Swedish system has a trust fund that is supposed to invest surplus payroll taxes in order to pay benefits when the baby-boom generation retires. As in America, some of these assets are illusory, consisting of government bonds that can be redeemed only by collecting additional taxes from the public in the future. A significant portion of the Swedish trust fund, however, is comprised of private-sector assets.

The overall contribution rate of 18.5% is "slightly below the tax burden for the old system". Don't forget to include the older occupational based private pension plan which under the new system allows workers to invest from 2% to 4.5% in an individual account. The two plans allow workers to "save 4.5% to 7% of their income in personal accounts for retirement. This level of mandatory individual retirement savings is significant by world standards." http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1381.cfm

An Irish business publication had this to say about Non-Financial Defined Contribution (NDC) Schemes, like Sweden's: "[A]n NDC approach, which still commands widespread political support in Sweden a decade after its launch, could be an important model for other countries to assess. The report says that greater numbers of women in the global workforce, rising divorce rates, changing employment patterns in the global economy, rising budget deficits, and rising numbers of elderly are all driving the urgency for pension reform. An NDC reform helps address all these reform pressures. http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/printer_1000article_10004900.shtml


Robert Holzmann, Director of Social Protection at the World Bank, and Professor Edward Palmer, Head of Research at the Swedish Social Insurance Agency say the "NDC is a most promising new approach to pension reform at a time when virtually every country in the world is looking at the viability of their pensions systems, and wondering how to relieve their demographic and economic pressures, while avoiding creating additional burdens for future workers".
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/printer_1000article_10004900.shtml

Much of the rest of the world is confronted with failing "universal" pension plans and many are beginning the move toward privatization. Some are even using Sweden as a model.

Like your earlier poor choice of using Germany as an infallible example of successful social engineering, your mention of Sweden in the context of advocating universal pensions was also a misnomer.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

infallible example of successful social engineering

no, i intended it as an example of a country that has had universal pensions and health insurance for over a 120 years, yet has not gone broke or become anything less than an major economic power. that was the point i was answering

as for "social engineering", you should recognize that everything any of us are talking about, including all of you, is "social engineering". yes, reaganomics is social engineering. and no system is infallible or even without major flaws and problems. no system. none.

before you continue to argue against what you imagine i believe or am advocating, i would appreciate it if you took the time to find out what i believe and am advocating

Pat Patterson said...

Wait I though Scotland was the orginal health care Garden of Eden. As to the rest I can only point out that some exhibit cases of reading MEGO in being only able to read what supports their position and be stricken blind when confronted by contradictory information.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

now, pat did a little research about how universal pensions and health insurance were instituted in germany in the 1880s under bismark, whose reaction to socialism was to put its leaders in jail if possible. pat said this about bismark:

Bismarck simply did what any smart politician did, then and now, he co-opted the left

actually, wilson did the same thing around WWI: jail the socialist leaders, and then enact their agenda. in fact, socialists in america in the 1800s had radical items on their agenda such as banning child labor, especially the kind where children as young as 9 years old were working 14 hour days in the textile mills

the free-market advocates at the time said that it would be the end of capitalism if children were not allowed to freely sell their labor on the open market, and that the american economy would be suffer severe adverse effects if this arrangement were ever banned. they also said similar things when teddy roosevelt began the breaking up of monopolies

yet american economic strength has not yet come to an end and we are still the richest country in the world
.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

before i stop making a pain in the butt of myself around here for at least a little while, i wanted to be clear about what my political philosophy is

i've been throwing the word "socialism" around (in its extremely vague popular usage) for convenience, lately, so one might be excused for thinking i consider myself a socialist. i am not a socialist or a communist. (did i mention that i have been putting in a lot of time and money lately trying to start my own business?)

in fact, i have given up on getting people to use the word "socialism" in its dictionary meaning:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy (american heritage dictionary)

this system has never worked well at all, and even the chinese have abandoned it

on the other hand, people here on this blog explicitly rejected the dictionary definitions in favor of various vague formulations that would include the roman empire as a socialist state. one commenter here even told me that bismark was a socialist (! - did you know that betsy's page comment threads several years old are indexed by google? you can look up all of our old conversations!) by the definitions i heard here, all modern governments are more or less socialist

so, what is my philosophy of political and social organization? i think the best summary is this:

'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

.

Rick Caird said...

It is a little late, but TV really does not understand the stock market and the Dow. It is true the Dow continues to go up, but the volume gets thinner and thinner. In other words, it is the pros trading with other pros.

This is not a sign of confidence. At the same time the broad indexes are going up, the mutual funds based on those indexes are losing deposits. That is not a sign of confidence. That is an expectation of high risk and volatility.

Rick

Pat Patterson said...

This is really sad, first again no mention of where the quote comes from, Matthew 25 and a complete perversion of the intent of the similie in that Jesus was certainly not calling on the Romans to set up a universal health care system in the provinces but was preparing the Apostles for their mission after his death and describing how they would identify those that had received Jesus and those that did not. Those that took the evangelists in obviously had been saved while those that turned them away had not. But good works revealed their salvation but good works were not a path to salvation.

Stick to the propagandists and stay away from politicized interpretations of the Scriptures.

tfhr said...

TV,

Pat Patterson already beat me to the point about the Scriptures but I just have to ask if you still believe in the separation of church and state. I'm guessing you do but if George Bush had ever produced such an utterance it would have ignited paroxysms of indignation and charges of religious fundamentalist inroads into policy.

Again, the Swedish example has elements of change that seems to elude you and either form still owes it's survival to the United States, as do all western European nations that survived WWII and the Cold War because of the United States. That is not said to diminish the accomplishments of Swedes.

Sweden had a GDP in 2006 estimated at $379,758,300,000.00, which ranks the country between Belgium and Switzerland. Good company but I wouldn't characterize them as "powerhouses", as you did. Spain and Italy are both over $1,220,000,000,000.00, during the same period. Sweden still does not generate a GDP greater than Mexico, Taiwan, Turkey, or Australia.(1) Maybe it would put things in better perspective if you knew that Sweden's GDP was roughly on par with Michigan's in 2005 and less than New Jersey's.(2) The take away point is that Sweden is a small country with a small population. Let me know how you think the Swedish model of old would fare in a larger or less homogeneous population. After all those years of universal pension, don't you think there is a reason why the Swedes have adopted a new model that embraces greater privatization?

1. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-economy-gdp

2. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Comparison-between-U.S.-states-and-countries-by-GDP-%28PPP%29

Tacitus Voltaire said...

similie

'simile'

i didn't mean any other implication to be made from jesus' words other than their plain and literal meaning:

whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me

i believe jesus' words should be taken as he spoke them and not interpreted or explained away. i take them as a guide for all my actions in life

by the way, perhaps i should make one more point clear: i am an engineer and i believe in practical solutions that work. in the case of politics and social policy, the aim is a better society with the best possible life for all, which should be obvious and go without saying.

i really don't care whether the solution is statist or entirely left up to the marketplace, as long as it fulfills the obvious aim of working to the benefit of people's lives. this gives people like me an advantage over ideologues who interpret every solution through the lens of their pet theories

finally, if there is anybody who might, i can't imagine why, feel that the aim of social and economic policies is not to produce the best life for the most people, i would urge this person to get their morals on straight

that is why i read and quote scripture
.

Pat Patterson said...

The Klan were also great believers in the separation of Church and State because they saw a way to enact laws at the local level against Catholics and Jews and of course African Methodist congregations.

Pat Patterson said...

Don't know what a similie is, again how sad, and as a result the reason for a perfectly idiosyncratic version of Jesus's words to the Apostles. Maybe read the entire Book of Matthew rather than search only for the parts you agree with.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

This is really sad

quoting jesus makes pat sad. why do the words of jesus make you sad, pat?

and a complete perversion of the intent

i quoted them to make my social and moral philosophy clear, since one could have easily thought that i was a socialist or some such nonsense.

pat feels that he needs to re-explain jesus' intent, apparantly believing that the words of jesus are not clear without an explanation from the gospel of st. pat

in the book of job, the lord asks job: "were you there when i laid down the foundations of the earth?"

please, don't presume to re-explain the words of jesus to us, pat
.

tfhr said...

"HELL FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!!! STAND BACK AND WATCH THE 'TV'!!!" ( used my best Al Gore tent revival voice for that )

tfhr said...

Seriously TV,

Those GDP numbers sent your "powerhouse" theory straight to hell, didn't they?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

similie

the word is 'simile', pat

A simile is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things, often introduced with the word "like" or "as"

you're a high school teacher, pat - get with it

Those GDP numbers sent your "powerhouse" theory straight to hell, didn't they?

what theory is that?
.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

and, pat, looking again, i fail to find any "similie", ahem, simile in the quote from jesus, above

please review the course material and correct your answer
.

Pat Patterson said...

Right and since Jesus was not speaking not in parable or example he was using a simile (yes I spelled it wrong) but I suspect that even an engineer knows how to capitalize. The question should be when did Jesus speak plainly here as recorded by Matthew? Obviously he didn't and TV simply missed the point of what Jesus was saying

Pat Patterson said...

BTW,the last quote is from Job 38:4where unlike TV Job was tested and didn't fail. And also unlike TV Job did not ask for government help or demand that his neighbors share their wealth to make up for what he had lost.