1 August 2011: Doom, Gloom, but some cheer too

Workout notes
Swimming: 500 of 3g/swim/fist/swim, 500 of 25 front, 25 swim (fins)
Then 10 x 100 on the 2: 1:38, 1:38, 1:38, 1:38, 1:37, 1:36, 1:36, 1:36, 1:37, 1:36 (1:37.0 average)
200 cool down (back stroke)

Previously

1 Aug 1:38 1:38 1:38 1:38 1:37 1:36 1:36 1:36 1:37 1:36 (1:37.0 average)
27 July 1:40, 1:41, 1:40, 1:41, 1:40, 1:38, 1:37, 1:37, 1:38, 1:37 (1:38.9 average)
19 July 1:41, 1:38, 1:38, 1:38, 1:38, 1:37, 1:38, 1:36, 1:38, 1:36 (1:37.8 average)
This was a set back from the last time, but I did come in fatigued.

1 Aug 1:37.0 (.4 seconds/week)
27 July 1:38.9 (+ 1.1 seconds!)
19 July 1:37.8 (.85 seconds/week)
5 July 1:39.5 (.9 seconds/week)
21 June: 1:41.3 (1.1 seconds/week)
15 June: 1:42.4 (1.1 seconds/week)
1 June: 1:44.6 (5.1 seconds/.5 week = 10.2 seconds per week)
29 May: 1:49.7

Then 33:43 worth of running outside (hot! 82 F, 76 percent humidity; about 3.1 miles) The run was slow and miserable.

Cheer: via the Spandex Statement:

Click on the thumbnail to see the photo at the source, where one can see a much larger version!

Politics
The President’s presentation:

His administration’s “fact sheet”

A reaction that is a bit harsher than mine:

Barack Obama, Comedian

What I wanted to see:

What Would I Have Done?

That’s the question Obama’s kinda-sorta defenders keep asking; it’s supposed to be a conversation-stopper.

But the answer is clear: I would have made a statement declaring that giving in to this kind of blackmail would constitute a violation of my oath of office, and that my lawyers, on careful reflection, have determined that there are several legal options that allow me to ignore this extortionate demand.

Now, the Obama people say that this wasn’t actually an option. Well, I hate to say this, but I don’t believe them. [...]

It’s much, much too late for Obama and co. to say “Trust us, we know what we’re doing.” My reservoir of trust is now completely drained. And I know I’m not alone.

The last sentence doesn’t describe me. I still want to see the end result. Still I would cheer if this proposal got voted down in Congress, but that is not going to happen.

What is weird is that at least one Republican is to the left of the President:

I’m a Republican. Always have been. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation and limited government. But as I look back at the weeks of rancor leading up to Sunday night’s last-minute budget deal, I see some things I don’t believe in:

Forcing the United States to the verge of default.

Shrugging off the needs and concerns of millions of unemployed.

Protecting every single loophole, giveaway and boondoggle in the tax code as a matter of fundamental conservative principle.

Massive government budget cuts in the midst of the worst recession since World War II.

I am not alone.

Only about one-third of Republicans agree that cutting government spending should be the country’s top priority. Only about one-quarter of Republicans insist the budget be balanced without any tax increases.

Yet that one-third and that one-quarter have come to dominate my party. That one-third and that one-quarter forced a debt standoff that could have ended in default and a second Great Recession. That one-third and that one-quarter have effectively written the “no new taxes pledge” into national law.

There was another way. There still is.[...]

4) The place to cut is health care, not assistance to the unemployed and poor.

The United States provides less assistance to the unemployed and the poor than almost any other democracy. It spends 60% more per person on health care than almost any other democracy — and gets worse results. The problem is not that Americans use too much medicine. People in other countries use more. The problem is that Americans pay too much for the medicine they use. Go where the money is, cut where the waste is grossest.

5) We can collect more revenue without raising tax rates.

Republicans stand for low taxes to encourage people to work, save and invest. But how would it discourage work if we reduced the mortgage-interest deduction again? Did it hurt the economy when we reduced the maximum eligible loan to $1 million back in 1986? Do Canadians and Brits — who lack the deduction — work less hard than Americans?

Why are state and local taxes deductible from federally taxable income? Wouldn’t higher taxes on energy encourage conservation? Who decided to allow inflation to corrode federal alcohol taxes by 80% over the past 50 years?

Ok, I would disagree with Mr. Frumm on one issue: I’d let the Bush tax cuts expire. Oh yes, the President says that will happen. But either
1. He won’t be reelected (this looks increasingly likely) or
2. He and we’ll get rolled again.

Of course, there are some who say that this cave in is not that important.

Oh well.

Right now, the Republicans are gleeful and are measuring the drapes:

Note: the “80 percent of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent” rule didn’t work in 2004.
Our only hope is that the Tea Party overreaches and nominates a bunch of Christine O’Donnell’s and Michelle Bachmann’s.

But this is how President Obama’s approval ratings compares with President Reagan’s and President Clinton’s (Clinton was at 46; Obama was at 43, Reagan at 42 when the three lines end)

Intrade has Obama at 56.6 percent

Why Democrats Always Get Rolled…

It seems to me that Democrats always end up getting rolled in the debates involving the economy (e. g. the debt ceiling debate).

I am not cynical enough (yet) to believe what this blogger says:

Paul Krugman is a politically savvy man so it surprises me that even he thinks that the reason that the Republicans and the oligarchy are getting their own way so easily on fiscal issues is because Obama is a lousy negotiator.

As I have said over and over again, the Democrats negotiating strategy is to betray the middle and working classes that support them and give the oligarchy as much as they can while acting as if they were forced into it or were outmaneuvered. Since even people like Krugman and other liberal commentators seem to have bought it, it means that they have succeeded.

The Democrats behavior is perfectly understandable if you bear this simple rule in mind: When it comes to any policy that the Democrats say they espouse but which hurts the interests of the oligarchy, the Democrats do not want a strategy that will win, they seek one that will lose.

So why does this happen?

Note: this is only conjecture; I haven’t done the research to back this up.

Point 1. Democrats, by nature, are more inclined to compromise than Republicans. Republicans tend to favor “sticking to one’s guns”. Via the New York Times:

Over all, 55 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of independents and 69 percent of Democrats, want lawmakers whose views they agree with to compromise. But 50 percent of Republicans, including 56 percent of conservative Republicans, want lawmakers who share their views to stand by their principles, even if that means the government will shut down. Among Republicans and Republicans-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party, 68 percent want lawmakers who share their views to stand on principle.

Also, check out this chart (from readers of the New York times). Check out where the greener dots are and where the redder dots are. Red means “don’t compromise”; green means “compromise”:

Point 2. The current US political system allows for one group of stubborn people to slow down the process to a halt; witness the filibuster rules of the Senate and how a united caucus can defeat a House vote.

Point 3. Democrats, by tradition, favor the interest of the poor and less affluent. So, the Republican base, on the whole, is in a better position to ride out the consequences of a shut down.

Remember the previous “cave in”: the Republicans got to keep their tax cuts for the wealthy because they held unemployment benefits hostage.

Who, on the whole, needed that extension more? I don’t think it is the 250K a year and up crowd.

What about this current crisis? Who would be most hurt by a government default?

Anyway, that is my rant for the day.

White House, congressional leaders reach debt deal – CNN.com

Two days before the deadline for a possible U.S. government default, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders reached agreement Sunday on a legislative package that would extend the federal debt ceiling while cutting spending and guaranteeing further deficit-reduction steps.

White House, congressional leaders reach debt d…, posted with vodpod