Lon wrote: The most striking thing about this column, and the comments that follow it, is the degree to which they highlight the lie that what differentiates the right and left is how much government they want. Ransom is outraged that a town is not telling a business where they can and cannot locate. (Oddly he is actually outraged at a nearby city that a town is not telling a business where it can locate, but he tends to have a special level of incoherence). Very few of the conservatives below even blink at the idea that government should interfere with private property rights. Apparently property rights aren't so important to them after all when it is not a matter of helping the poor (which apparently contradicts an absolute property right).- in response to Catholic Nuns Fight Strip Club and City Hall
Dear Comrade Lon,
I’m incoherent? I had to read your comments a dozen times to figure out what your point is and I’m still not positive what you are arguing.
But here goes:
I don’t know how the column differentiates the amount of government either the right or the left is willing to accept. I personally think that normal zoning laws should be sufficient to keep a strip club separated from a convent. Zoning laws have been around for a long time. I’m not arguing that property owners should have the unfettered right to build a nuclear power plant, for example, next to your house. You seem to be arguing that they should be allowed to build one.
I think it’s in everyone’s best interest that the convent stay where it is and the strip club find somewhere else to locate.
Take a drive down the Dan Ryan and the Kennedy Expressway southward. Every once in a while the highway will jog a bit. Every time it does, straight ahead you’ll see a church steeple. That’s because politicians had enough sense when the expressway was built to understand that churches were an important part of the community. But not anymore. Now they just sneer at church. It’s one thing to be corrupt, it’s another thing to be entirely without moral sense, which is what seems to have happened to Democrats from Chicago, including and especially Obama.
My argument with Chicago is really about the Cook County-Illinois politico-crime syndicate that includes Chicago, Cicero, Stone Park. I use the term Chicago loosely in this case because readers are most familiar with it. But the term could apply just as well to Illinois.
From Chicago Mag:
When federal agents arrested Governor Rod Blagojevich two years ago—interrupting what the U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald called “a political corruption crime spree”—Robert Grant, head of the FBI’s Chicago office, offered a succinct analysis of the day’s events. “If [Illinois] isn’t the most corrupt state in the United States,” he said, “it is certainly one hell of a competitor.”
The diamond in that pin of corruption however starts in Chicago and spreads outward.
Don’t believe me?
The University of Illinois alumni club is hosting a seminar called 21st Century Chicago and Corruption Today. “A new report shows Illinois to be the third most corrupt state in the nation and Chicago the most corrupt city,” says the teaser. “Join study leader Dick Simpson, UIC political science professor, author, and former Chicago alderman, to discuss recent study findings.”
Simpson is a very liberal Democrat.
About half the people in the administration followed Obama to DC from Chicago. And the amount of sheer corruption shown in the Solyndras, the Lightsquared and Fast and Furious scandals say it was the wrong half.
You and your liberal buddies didn’t select an Arthur when you reconstituted Camelot, but rather a Mordred.
To my conservative friends, if you think this next election isn't important, think again.
Donjindra wrote: “The sisters who minister to the residents are concerned about the influence that a strip club would have in a largely residential neighborhood, where home prices have fallen from over $300,000 in 2006 to under $100,000 in 2011" Since when do "migrants" own $300,000 to $100,000 homes? Is John Ransom so clueless? Or does he just hope his followers are? The same can be said for the nuns. How many "migrants" pass though urban Chicago for their helping hands? Or are these illegal aliens we'd rather not mention in today's propaganda? - in response to Catholic Nuns Fight Strip Club and City Hall
Dear Comrade Donjinda,
The real estate data comes from City-Data.com. They track actual sales. I’m guessing that it’s fairly accurate. You’ll often see communities go through gentrification and rehabilitation at the end of a land boom. Subsequently prices will drop pretty steeply because prices in those locales are speculative. But all you have to do is follow the link to see the data.
According to Wikipedia, Chicago has the fifth-largest foreign born population of any city in the United States. It has a huge migrant tradition, including Germans, Irish, Polish, South Asians and Swedish. When I was growing up, Chicago was home to more Poles than anywhere outside of Poland. I think that’s still true.
Galefly wrote: My guess is that the big money stolen form us comes in the form of Denny Hastert-like property deals (where is the highway going?) rather than securities. He should be in jail making little rocks out of big rocks. Our congressmen are, almost to a man, thieves, liars, and scoundrels who would sell out our our country and bankrupt us and many generations yet to come for the smallest of personal gain. - in response to STOCK Act Won't Stop Millionaire Congress
We had an interesting article about that yesterday in Townhall Finance by Tad DeHaven of Cato:
A Washington Post investigation identified dozens of examples of federal policymakers directing federal dollars to projects that benefited their property or an immediate family member. Members of Congress have been enriching themselves at taxpayer expense?
Take the example of Rep. Candace Miller (R-MI):
“A member of the House Transportation Committee, Miller in 2006 was able to secure a $486,000 earmark that helped add a 14-foot-wide bike lane to the new bridge,” reports the Post.” That lane is a critical link in the many miles of bike paths that Miller has championed over the years. When the bridge had its grand reopening in 2009, Miller walked over from her home.”
CalRepublican wrote: I think the" a solution" to that is every congress and senator that trades in the market must have everything published in real time as they are done. That way if they don't do it they can be stripped of office and jailed. An alternative would to forbid them to trade while in office. - in response to STOCK Act Won't Stop Millionaire Congress
I get what you are saying, but I would prefer that we had a Congress that had a limited amount of power to affect the direction of the stock market. The problem isn’t inside dealing. The problem is that we have a government so large that inside dealing is an end in itself. When we limit the power of the government and get government out of business, the problem will be self-correcting.
Mike28 wrote: Why haven't the media vetted this guy's background. Did he have any friends in college? Who did he date, who did he have a beer with, what did they discuss when out and about. I find it troubling that no one has come forward to say he's a great guy, he was an AH when in college, these are the things we discussed, etc. Where are all the students he taught? Why haven't none come forward to tell us how good he was or how bad he was. You would think after all this time and after all of his loser policies someone, some where whould speak up. - in response to Obama is Big Brother's Keeper
According to a post by news editor, Katie “I’m Your Biggest Fan” Pavlich, Andrew Breitbart made the same point at CPAC.
“ObamaCollegeGate on the way?” writes Pavlich. “Yesterday during his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Andrew Breitbart gave the audience and C-SPAN viewers a preview of what's to come during the 2012 general election against Barack Obama. He said the mainstream media refused to vet Obama in 2008 and that he will not go unvetted in 2012. Breitbart says he has videos of Obama in college that nobody has seen.”
Anne wrote: Dem Congresswoman Now Regrets Voting for Obamacare www.weeklystandard.com
“I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception,” Dahlkemper said in a press release sent out by Democrats for Life in November. “We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage.” - in response to Obama is Big Brother's Keeper
I think a lot of people, especially Catholics, are coming around to the same way of thinking. A government big enough to force people to purchase products is a government big enough to force you to do almost anything.
But I will point out that trusting Obama to keep his commitment “to those … who supported final passage,” is an empty hope.
The political highway is littered with people Obama used and threw away when no longer needed. And Obama won’t be the last president of the United States. Obamacare is the thin edge of the wedge right now. Expect it to expand if we don’t stop it now.
Greg1475 wrote: Most religious Americans believe in a woman's right to abortion. While your particular religious beliefs are different, that does not make you closer to G-d, and it does not give you the right to impose your religious beliefs on others. Human beings are morally responsible for their own actions. Nowhere in Christian scripture are individuals are given an obligation to try to stop abortions. If you care about scripture, pay more attention to the numerous mentions of our responsibilities to the sick and the poor. - in response to Obama is Big Brother's Keeper
The same argument can be made right back at you. You should first care for the plank in your own eye rather than worry about the sliver in your brother’s eye.
At issue here isn’t any particular belief, but whether the government has the right to compel any religious organization to materially support the policies of the government even if those policies conflict with their religious beliefs.
It’s no longer sufficient for churches to encourage good citizenship. Now they have to be cheerleaders for our administration.
Canetoad wrote: What about the rights of women who work at these institutions who need and use contraceptives. There are many many women who work at religiously affiliated institutions who are not religious. Most of these institutions enjoy tax exempt status, which means the rest of society subsidizes their existence, therefore they have to play by the rules. - in response to Obama is Big Brother's Keeper
Dear Comrade Cane,
Religious institutions are funded by private donors, not society as a whole. Your concept starts with the idea that everything first belongs to society. It does not. Wealth first belongs to individuals. They then choose which religions to fund.
Women who work at religious institutions are required at the option of the institution to follow a statement of faith for that religion. You wouldn’t, for example, make a Jewish synagogue hire an avowed Nazi as a secretary because he or she is best qualified?
Or maybe you would?
Liberalism has descended into the terminal senile phase, so I can never tell exactly what you would or wouldn’t do anymore.
Steve of CA wrote: I don't think it is our money anymore, they paid back about 90 percent of the loan. Ransom: "f you are keeping score at home it’s Chrysler $12.5 billion, NBC $12 million, with a taxpayer loss of $133 billion..." When I clicked on this link, it said the U.S. is out 1.3 billion, not 133 billion on a loan it provided to Chrysler. - in response to Half Time in America; We Need a New Quarterback
It’s always our money. Tax money is never the government’s.
The $133 billion refers to the entire TARP bailout.
Yes, Chrysler still owes about $1.3 billion. And if I were president I would ask them- and GM- to pay the money back, regardless of how long it took. I don’t see why we should be gifting money to them or to banks. If Obama truly saved the auto industry, why can’t they pay back the money like any other industry would to any other financier? Truth is that the automotive industry is classically bankrupt: They owe more money than they can pay. If they weren’t they’d just pay us back over time.
FallofU wrote: Never seen any "finance editor" b&^%$ and moan like a little baby as much as you. Why don't you try supplying some facts and figures and show us how the economy is so much worse than it was at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009 and prove to us this President has made things worse? Come on John try using your brain instead of the black hole where you're heart supposed to be. You're filled with hate. - in response to Half Time in America; We Need a New Quarterback
Dear Comrade Fall,
You want stats? Fine. Here some stats.
There are fewer people in the labor force now than when Obama became president.
In the end what it means is that wages in the US have been permanently reduced by $208 billion per year and counting so far. That’s about 1.5 percent of GDP just in wages, not counting anything that is actually produced by those workers. When you figure in total output subtracted from GDP from missing workers, the number is closer to 2.1 percent of GDP that’s permanently missing from our economy. That’s about $320 billion.
Even the most optimistic projections for Obama’s millionaires’ tax doesn’t come close to raising that amount.
Over the long-term those little variations of 2 percent more or less in GDP growth make a huge difference in our economy. Over a ten-year period an economy that grows by 2 percent versus an economy that grows by 4 percent is the difference between having a GDP of $18.5 trillion versus a GDP of $22.5 trillion by year ten.
In total over ten years, it means that the economy will miss about $20 trillion worth of GDP in those ten years, and between $3.4-$4 trillion in tax revenues unless we start to follow pro-growth policies that lead to job creation for someone other than major Obama donors.
As far as "b&^%$ and moan like a little baby," I wasn't aware that someone without heart could both b&^%$ and moan.
You have to admit, that takes talent.
Javapoppa wrote: This idea that Obama 'saved' the auto companies needs to be examined a little closer. If they had gone through a reorganization through a normal bankruptcy, which could have led to abrogating their union contracts, both GM and Chrysler could have emerged as much leaner, better managed companies, able to compete for market share on their own. - in response to Half Time in America; We Need a New Quarterback
See above. If the auto industry isn’t bankrupt in the real financial sense, why can’t they pay us the outstanding money they owe us? Even if they can’t pay now, they can make arrangements to pay interest and debt over a long period.
The truth is that Obama put the auto industry through two bankruptcies. The first was when they turfed the old GM and Chrysler. The second one is when they crammed down U.S. taxpayers, writing off $1.3 billion for Chrysler and $23 billion- so far- for GM.
If they were “saved” as Obama said, they wouldn’t need those write downs of U.S. tax dollars.
Mac287 wrote: Obama never said, "Just lay there and we'll give you food stamps" ...that kind of lying takes a pro like Karl Rove to make it believable...you are not as accomplished as Karl at the art of the spin.(Neither is Ransom, but he keeps trying.) - in response to Half Time in America; We Need a New Quarterback
Dear Comrade 287,
No, Obama told us something more like: “Lie back and think of England.”
That’s it for this week,
"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.