les pensées insouciantes

Danny DeVito as “Larry the Liquidator:”

“Buggy Whip” speech from Other People’s Money.

I’ve posted this before, and it’s beyond belief that he even needs one within his own field, but if Mitt Romney needs a defense of his tenure at Bain for the upcoming debates, he could hardly do better than the above speech.

Also:

Jim Pethokoukis:

There is a huge net benefit for society from Schumpeterian capitalism, but there are losers, as economist Michael Cox of the Dallas Fed points out in this great article (and table) on creative destruction at the Library of Economics and Liberty:

A society cannot reap the rewards of creative destruction without accepting that some individuals might be worse off, not just in the short term, but perhaps forever. At the same time, attempts to soften the harsher aspects of creative destruction by trying to preserve jobs or protect industries will lead to stagnation and decline, short-circuiting the march of progress. Schumpeter’s enduring term reminds us that capitalism’s pain and gain are inextricably linked. The process of creating new industries does not go forward without sweeping away the preexisting order. … The disruption of lost jobs and shuttered businesses is immediate, while the payoff from creative destruction comes mainly in the long term. As a result, societies will always be tempted to block the process of creative destruction, implementing policies to resist economic change.
Attempts to save jobs almost always backfire. Instead of going out of business, inefficient producers hang on, at a high cost to consumers or taxpayers. The tinkering short circuits market signals that shift resources to emerging industries. It saps the incentives to introduce new products and production methods, leading to stagnation, layoffs, and bankruptcies.

Who has done more for peace: The U.S. Marine Corps or the Peace Corps? The U.S. Army or the U.N. Peacekeepers?

Rhetorical questions from the ever-pragmatic Dennis Prager

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

George Bernard Shaw

# George Bernard Shaw

# Quote

# Cynicism

# Pragmatism

Chris Christie: Comedian, Pragmatist

But he has four children, ages 8 to 17, he will not abandon for presidential politics. When he visited a workaholic aide during her difficult labor before her daughter was born, he said, “Put away your BlackBerry, you are in the middle of a miracle.” As subtle as a linebacker, as direct as an uppercut, Christie, explaining why he will not run, demonstrates why many wish he would. When supporters argue, “You can’t say you’re not ready — look at Obama,” he replies: “Yeah, look at him.”

Hilarious!

Video: Tim Pawlenty pounds the president’s empty podium in best ad of his campaign

Experience Matters

Very good.

Governor Pawlenty should be on the GOP ticket somewhere. He’s smart. Pragmatic. Proven.

His term as Governor illustrates his record on economic issues, but have a listen or read the transcript from his interview with the Council on Foreign Relations in June here: ( audio / transcript ).

His clarity is refreshing. Leave the nuance and platitudes to the amateurs and pretend leaders.

Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday. Tim has not been generating the “excitement” that some of the other candidates have, but after 2008, how ‘bout we vote substance over style this time around, mkay?

No More ~~College Sophomores~~ Senators for President.

http://www.TimPawlenty.com

(Source: hotair.com)

We are all somewhat impervious to new information, preferring the beliefs in which we are already invested. We often ignore new contradictory information, actively argue against it or discount its source, all in an effort to maintain existing evaluations. Reasoning away contradictions this way is psychologically easier than revising our feelings. In this sense, our emotions color how we perceive “facts.”

The simple reality is people feel before they think. And when those feelings are strong enough, facts take a back seat.

David P. Redlawsk, professor of political science and director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University.

On “motivated reasoning.”

Got it?

Save your breath.

Tagged: #EveryDivisiveIssueInTheWorld

P.S. “Motivated Reasoning” would be a great name for a political blog.

Dear Congress,
Before stopping Military pay, you might want to think about what you have trained us to do.
Sincerely,
A Proud Soldier

Tweet via @jaketapper:

A soldier friend forwards…. http://twitpic.com/4ia80m

Dear Congress,

Before stopping Military pay, you might want to think about what you have trained us to do.

Sincerely,

A Proud Soldier

Tweet via @jaketapper:

A soldier friend forwards…. http://twitpic.com/4ia80m

RE: Here are my own recommendations for Election Day…

Delayed post.

Regarding:

peterfeld:

Here are my own recommendations for Election Day. First of all, vote! Second, vote Democratic, wherever you are. Maybe there are some thoughtful Republicans running in your area, but this is not the year to give them a boost. In New York, that means:

Tom DiNapoli, Comptroller. DiNapoli is a political hack who was installed as Comptroller in a backroom deal by the legislature after the corrupt Alan Hevesi was forced to resign. His Republican opponent, Harry Wilson, is considered a basically competent, effective fiscal manager of the sort who rarely runs for office, and many people think we’d be lucky to get someone with his talents to straighten out the fiscal mess in Albany. Still, this is no year to vote Republican. Support the hack Democrat, Tom DiNapoli.

You the least bit sheepish about this one?

The national races, sure. The Dems were playing defense against the GOP wave and voting down the party line was survival strategy (Well, not in New York and California, for the most part, but everywhere else).

The results of this local race, however, given the clusterfuck that is dealing with the state budget, will likely have a greater effect on most New Yorkers in the coming years than any decision the likes of a Schumer or a Weiner (aka, the most appropriately named Rep in Congress!*) will make in this current term.

* - with apologies to my roommate.

Support Grows for Tiered Security Risk System at Airports | NYTimes.com

daringfireball:

Sanity prevails? (Via Glenn Fleishman)

And the overzealous ACLU ruins this for everybody in 3…2…

Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), at her final press conference as House Speaker, January 4, 2010, four years to the day that she took the gavel in 2007 and pledged “no new deficit spending.” (via FoxNation) h/t @memorandum

Reality:

The numbers tell a different story:

When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 - a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years. Furthermore, the year over year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled during Pelosi’s four years as speaker, from $342 billion in fiscal year 2007 to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010.

And via HotAir:

And that doesn’t actually tell the whole story, either. The last budget passed by a Republican Congress spent a total of $2.77 trillion, with a deficit just under $200 billion. Democrats took that in FY2010 — their last actual full-year budget — to over $3.8 trillion, an increase of 38% in just three budget cycles. And when the Democrats finally got around to passing pay-go in their fourth and final year in control of the House, they ended up waiving it in almost every instance afterward.

Just For Reference™

From an earlier pos t:

Democrats will often blame this on the continued existence of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. However, the CBO reckons that the federal government will only get $4 trillion over the next ten years if all of the Bush tax cuts expire, as they are set to do on December 31 of this year. That ten-year revenue (which is itself highly debatable) still wouldn’t have covered all of the deficit spending Democrats did while in control of Congress in just four years. In fact, at their rate of deficit spending in three budget cycles, Democrats would add almost $15 trillion to the national debt in ten years:

Republicans in control for 12 years: Added $4.034 trillion (avg $336.17 billion per year)

Republicans in control during Bush era: Added $3.201 trillion (avg $533.5 billion per year)

Democrats in control of Congress during Bush/Obama era: Added $4.603 trillion (avg 1.48 trillion per year)

Democrats did not aim to control spending when they took control of Congress. They aimed to expand government at a historic rate, and they succeeded beyond even their wildest dreams. And what happened when Democrats finally got around to passing pay-go, more than three years later? They made more exceptions to it than bills that actually got the pay-go treatment.

This is exactly why voters can’t trust Democrats on spending, deficits, and taxes.

Again, to those that point to the Hastert years, and reprimanding, ask where the Tea Party-type/fiscal hawks were then — they were at the voting booth. When their elected representatives acted irresponsibly, the electorate called them on it.

The electorate, unsurprisingly, did the same on November 2 of last year.

Conclusion:

The last crop of Republicans on spending: Bad.

The last crop of Democrats on spending: Worse.

The new GOP class took over (just) the House yesterday. We’ll see how they do.

I’m not holding my breath, but we’re all watching you. How ‘bout you surprise us, for a change?

Previously:

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’ in 2007

The real problem: spending, not revenue

Edit: Undo Change — November 2, 2010