Sarkozy the Intolerant

This is not a good idea.

Paul thinks it's a good idea...

Supposedly a majority of Americans are willing to agree to higher taxes to pay for healthcare reform.

"Obama, who insists the plan will not add to the country's huge deficits,
received a boost from a weekend poll showing that Americans strongly support
fundamental healthcare changes and, more importantly, are willing to accept
higher taxes to pay for it."

I wonder how this particular poll question was asked. Would most Americans be willing to pay higher taxes or are most Americans willing to "accept" higher taxes? So long as they are not the ones that actually have to pay those higher taxes.

Afterall, I'm pretty sure that we can send extra money to the IRS if we so please.

What the F?

This graph shows what the Obama administration and their team of economists predicted unemployment would be at with and without the stimulus package. The red dots are the actual unemployment numbers.
There are a few different ways we can explain the results shown in this graph.

1.) The inputs into the calculation were incorrect. That is to say, the formula for creating/saving jobs was correct but the initial information was incorrect.

2.) The economists actually had no idea at all how it would play out with or without the stimulus.

3.) The formula for government "job creation" is incorrect.

4.) The stimulus had a contrariant effect, causing unemployment to rise rather than fall.

Any thoughts? Did I miss any possible scenarios? Anyone want to venture a guess, or even an educated answer?
Perhaps deregulation and George Bush is the cause?

My thoughts:
On #1, possible but not plausible. Is anyone honestly going to attempt to say that Obama and his economists are so incredibly brilliant that they are able to account for all possible future variables and yet they are unable to use the correct starting point(using static data) in their equation?

As to the other 3 options, I feel it could be any of them. In reviewing my old Econ professor, and head of the SCSU Econ department, I feel like he seems to align himself with #2 or #3, http://www.scsuscholars.com/2009/04/hey-rocky-watch-me-pull-number-out-of.html

What a Shocker

This should give us great confidence in our elected leaders.

And this from Durbin's official website on the topic of ethics,

"Those of us who hold elected office must always keep sight of who we
serve:..."

Perhaps we shouldn't really be surprised about this. Afterall, recent history with Illinois politicians would tell us not to expect much as far as ethics goes. See Blagojevich, and here, or for a more extensive list, here.

John 8:7

Barack Obama is attempting to show his concern for fiscal responsibility.

Next we'll have Bill Clinton lecturing us on responsibility in a marriage, or Bernie Madoff telling us how ethics in the business place should be interpreted.