The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 5)
This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
WASHINGTON (DC) Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ) released the following statement Monday after voting against the amended Budget Control Act:
“Last week I voted for the Boehner plan because— while imperfect—it made adequate strides to get our fiscal House in order. The final debt-ceiling bill, however, goes in a direction that I cannot support. Due to the design of the bill’s trigger mechanism, I am concerned that President Obama will be able to use the threat of tax hikes and drastic defense cuts to continue to amass record levels of spending.
“Though I didn’t support today’s bill, I want to commend Speaker Boehner and the House Republican Leadership for changing the culture in Washington and compelling Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration to finally recognize how central America’s debt problem truly is.
“On another note, it was a very special moment seeing Congresswoman Gabby Giffords cast her vote on the House Floor tonight. Both sides of the aisle greeted her with a loud standing ovation. It was a nice way to end what has been a very tense few days in the House.”
Great documentary on Coldplay. I have written a lot on Coldplay the last few years and I see something spiritually happening with the group as they continue to search for a deeping meaning in life.
The ASTRA Award winning music documentary – Max Masters Coldplay – was voted MOST OUTSTANDING MUSIC PROGRAM for 2009.
Sarah Linton Productions and The Post Box produced the Max Masters documentary to coincide with the album release of ‘Viva la Vida’.
___________________
Lead singer Chris Martin has said that the lyrics are about being devoted to someone, wanting to do anything for them – writing a song for them, swimming across the sea for them and so on. He said that it’s not necessarily a romantic devotion, but someone that you look up to and would do anything for, a brotherly love. (thanks, Adam – Sussex, England)
The band came up with the line “Look at the stars, look how they shine for you” after looking up at the night sky. They were recording in Wales, which had a nice, clear sky.
The color yellow can have many negative implications (“Yellow Journalism,” “Yellow Fever,” a “Yellow Card” for a foul in soccer), but for Coldplay, it is a beautiful color. According to lead singer Chris Martin, “It was simply because that word sounded nice, it just seemed to fit, no other reason. None of the other colors would have sounded right really!” The Beatles were kind to the color when they used it in their song “Yellow Submarine.”
Martin initially wrote the words and melody, then the rest of the band wrote the other bits and pieces (the hook, the riff, fillsetc.).
“Yellow” is a term that can mean cowardly or afraid. From this standpoint, the singer could be afraid and nervous to show his love, until he “ran across” and “jumped across” for her. He finally got the nerve to express his love. (thanks, Stefan – Winona, MN)
This was a hit in their native England, but it didn’t do nearly as well in the US, where it took Coldplay longer to catch on. The song did have tremendous crossover appeal, however, and got lots of airplay on Modern Rock, Adult Contemporary and Pop radio stations.
The video is one continuous shot of Chris Martin walking on a beach in England. The plan was to shoot the band walking along a sunny beach with lots of people lying around, but Coldplay drummer Will Champion’s mother died shortly before the shoot. The film crew and extras were already hired, so with the band’s blessing, Martin went by himself while the other members attended the funeral. It was raining that day, so instead of using the extras, they had Martin alone on the beach. Parachutes is dedicated to Champion’s mother. (thanks, Rich – Llanelli, Wales)
The video was shot at a fast shutter speed to achieve the slow-motion. In order for Martin to sing along, he had to lip-sync to the song played at double speed.
Coldplay was in England recording other tracks for the album while this was being mixed in New York. They hated the results of the mix and flew to New York to make sure they got the sound they were looking for.
ABC Television used this song to promote their shows. The campaign featured bright yellow backgrounds.
This won a Grammy for Best Alternative Music Album. This was nominated for Best Rock Song, but lost to “Drops Of Jupiter” by Train.
When performing this song, Chris Martin used to change the song’s melody. However, R.E.M’s Michael Stipe advised against it: “Stop doing that. People want to hear the songs the way they know them.” The Coldplay vocalist began singing all their songs in a straightforward way.
This song starts off with a guitar playing and then merges more into other instruments including drums. The singer, Chris Martin, then begins to sing after a small instrumental introduction. It is about 4 minutes 30 seconds long but every second of this song is like a bit of heaven.
I am immediately hooked by this song and it to me seems to the one of the best love songs out there. He talks about how everything is “yellow” and it is said that he choose this particular colour because he was thinking what to write in the blank and looked across at the yellow pages!
This wonderful love song expresses love to it’s fullest in where a person would give his/her all for the one they love and to me the chorus tells me that he is saying that the soul is what should be looked at when determining a lover. I don’t know if that is what he meant but this is what I choose to interpret it as.
This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: My son Hunter is a coldplay nut and his 19th favorite song is “Glass of Water.” The whole album is very […]
This is “Music Monday” and I always look at a band with some of their best music. I am currently looking at Coldplay’s best songs. Here are a few followed by another person’s preference: My son Hunter’s 20th favorite song: Coldplay – Speed Of Sound Hunter Hatcher comments: Speed of sound takes me back to […]
Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago: Solomon, Woody Allen, Coldplay and Kansas What does King Solomon, the movie director Woody Allen and the modern rock bands Coldplay and Kansas have in common? All four took on the issues surrounding death, the meaning of life and a possible afterlife, although they all came up with their own conclusions on […]
Coldplay – 42 Live Coldplay perform on the french television channel W9. I wrote this article a couple of years ago: The Spiritual Search for the Afterlife Russ Breimeier rightly noted that it seems that Coldplay is “on the verge of identifying a great Truth” and their latest CD is very provocative. Many songs mention […]
CP I wrote this article a couple of years ago. Are Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin looking for Spiritual Answers? Just like King Solomon’s predicament in the Book of Ecclesiastes, both of these individuals are very wealthy, famous, and successful, but they still are seeking satisfying answers to life’s greatest questions even though it seems […]
Coldplay seeks to corner the market on earnest and expressive rock music that currently appeals to wide audiences Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago about Chris Martin’s view of hell. He says he does not believe in it but for some reason he writes a song that teaches that it […]
Views:2 By waymedia Coldplay Coldplay – Life In Technicolor ii Back in 2008 I wrote a paper on the spiritual themes of Coldplay’s album Viva La Vida and I predicted this spiritual search would continue in the future. Below is the second part of the paper, “Coldplay’s latest musical lyrics indicate a Spiritual Search for the […]
Coldplay performing “Glass of Water.” Back in 2008 I wrote a paper on the spiritual themes of Coldplay’s album Viva La Vida and I predicted this spiritual search would continue in the future. Below is the first part of the paper, “Coldplay’s latest musical lyrics indicate a Spiritual Search for the Afterlife.” Coldplay’s latest musical […]
Coldplay – Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall (Official) The new single – download it now from iTunes at http://cldp.ly/itunescp (except in the UK, where it will be released to download stores at 12.01am on Sunday June 5th). Written by Berryman / Buckland / Champion / Martin / Allen / Anderson. Produced by Markus Dravs, Dan […]
Former Arkansas Razorback and Chicago Bears great Dan Hampton shows off his Super Bowl ring while talking with Sport Talk – The High School Show host Dave Barr about everything from Ryan Mallett to high school sports. He was signing autographs during our remote at the Pleasant Grove Wal-Mart in Rogers.
_______________________
Former Arkansas Razorback Dan Hampton refuses President Obama’s invitation to the White House. I would have gone if it were me. It is an honor and you have to respect the office in my view. I am not a Democrat, but I would love to see the band Chicago play at 4pm this Saturday with the Clintons. The Arkansas Times Blog reported that tickets are free.
My good friends Craig and Dana Carney grew up in Jacksonville with Dan and remember when he was a band geek in the 10th grade for the Jacksonville Red Devils.
President Obama invited the 1985 Super Bowl championship team to visit Washington, D.C., earlier this month. The Bears had been scheduled to meet with President Reagan in January of 1986, but the Challenger disaster forced the White House to cancel the planned meeting.
Hampton gave three reasons for not attending:
1. Wives and children of the players weren’t invited.
That does seem like an oversight by whoever planned the meeting. Granted, children of the players are most likely adults by now so it’s not like a 5-year-old is getting snubbed, but surely the White House could have pulled out some more folding chairs for the event.
2. He says he’s “not a fan of the guy in the White House.”
A frequent reason given by those who decline White House invites, whether it be for Obama or any president who came before him. This sounds lame and takes a tremendous lack of perspective. Declining an opportunity to go to the White House and shake hands with the President of the United States because you don’t like the guy’s opinion on health care seems petty. Does Hampton not have any friends who are Democrats?
3. “It was 25 years ago. Let it go.”
I’m sort of on Hampton’s side on this one (though not enough to make it a valid excuse for declining). It’s not like every Super Bowl team was going to the White House back then; the Bears were only the second team to get the invite. The 25-year-old canceled visit is a thinly veiled excuse to invite the team from Obama’s adopted hometown for a visit. What about other championship squads? Where’s John Riggins’ and The Hogs’ invite? The 1974 Dolphins can’t get any love?! (And Florida’s a swing state, Barack!)
The showdown in Wisconsin has generated competing claims about whether state and local government bureaucrats are paid too much or paid too little compared to their private sector counterparts.
This is a fair point, so we need to find some objective measure that neutralizes all the possible differences. Fortunately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has a Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, and this “JOLTS” data includes a measure of how often workers voluntarily leave job, and we can examine this data for different parts of the workforce.
Every labor economist, right or left, will agree that higher “quit rates” are much more likely in sectors that are underpaid and lower levels are much more likely in sectors where compensation is generous.
Not surprisingly, this data shows state and local bureaucrats are living on Easy Street. As the chart illustrates, private sector workers are more than three times as likely to quit their jobs.
This helps explain why the unions are treating the Wisconsin debate as if it was Custer’s Last Stand. The bureaucrats know they have comfortable sinecures and they are fighting to preserve their unfair privileges.
This Center for Freedom and Prosperity video looks at all of the data and reveals a pecking order. Federal bureaucrats are at the kings and queens of compensation. State and local bureaucrats are like the nobility. And private sector taxpayers are the serfs that worker harder and earn less, but nonetheless finance the entire racket.
The video closes with a very important point that the right pay level for many bureaucrats is zero. This is because they work for programs, departments, and agencies that should not exist.
What do the Department of Justice, the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 state Attorneys General have in common?
They’ve all requested writs of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court to determine the fate of ObamaCare in the matter of United States Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida.
Politico thinks the DoJ request means President Barack Obama is either very smart … or very dumb:
It could be one of the smartest political moves the Obama administration has made — or a historic mistake that could kill not just the health care reform law but the president’s chances for reelection, too.
By asking the Supreme Court to rule so quickly on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the administration is taking a huge risk that the justices will rule against the law right in the middle of the 2012 race — either striking down the whole law or just slicing out the requirement for nearly all Americans to buy health coverage.
The only person seeming to be of little or no weight, worth or importance in the context of this story is our own Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. It was his office that supplied the quote above by way of explaining why he chose to forgo joining the 26 other states that now seem poised to have their day before the Justices.
So our questions to Mr. McDaniel are thus: Do you still maintain that this suit is frivolous given the Obama Administration’s cert petition? And will you stand with 26 other Attorneys General and the people of Arkansas in their effort to fight this unconstitutional law?
Or will you side with Mr. Obama?
And don’t think we don’t remember how Mr. McDaniel availed himself of the opportunity for Democratic brownie points by testifying in support of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor–a likely yes vote on the ObamaCare issue.
We spy Dustin!
Gotta love C-SPAN.
Anyone think there might be a television commercial running in the spring of 2014 with juxtaposed images of Mr. McDaniel and Ms. Sotomayor?
Red Arkansas Blog wrote a good piece that I wanted to pass along. What do the Department of Justice, the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 state Attorneys General have in common? They’ve all requested writs of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court to determine the fate of ObamaCare in the matter of […]
Obamacare at the Supreme Court The time is finally here for the Supreme Court to hear this case. Obamacare Has Arrived in the Supreme Court Hans von Spakovsky September 28, 2011 at 11:00 am The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) stole a march on the Obama Administration this morning by filing a petition with […]
The third monthly luncheon with featured speaker Ernest Istook was excellent. First, we got to hear from Dave Elswick of KARN who came up with the idea of this luncheon, and then from Teresa Crossland of Americans for Prosperity. Below is a portion of Istook’s biography from the Heritage Foundation: Ernest Istook Distinguished Fellow Government Studies Ernest […]
While many people have a fairly good grasp of what inflation is, few really understand its fundamental cause. There are many popular scapegoats: labor unions, big business, spendthrift consumers, greed, and international forces. Dr. Friedman explains that the actual cause is a government that has exclusive control of the money supply.
Friedman says that the solution to inflation is well known among those who have the power to stop it: simply slow down the rate at which new money is printed. But government is one of the primary beneficiaries of inflation. By inflating the currency, tax revenues rise as families are pushed into higher income tax brackets. Thus, inflation transfers wealth and resources from the private to the public sector. In short, inflation is attractive to government because it is a way of increasing taxes without having to pass new legislation to raise tax rates. Inflation is in fact taxation without representation.
Wage and price controls are not the cure for inflation because they treat only the symptom (rising prices) and not the disease (monetary expansion). History records that such controls do not work; instead, they have perverse effects on both prices and economic growth and undermine the fundamental productivity of the economy. There is only one cure for inflation: slow the printing presses. But the cure produces the painful side effects of a temporary increase in unemployment and reduced economic growth. It takes considerable political courage to undergo the cure.
Friedman cites the example of Japan, which successfully underwent the cure in the mid-seventies but took five years to squeeze inflation out of the system. Inflation is a social disease that has the potential for destroying a free society if it is unchecked. Prolonged inflation undermines belief in the basic equity of the free market system because it tends to destroy the link between effort and reward. And it tears the social fabric because it divides society into winners and losers and sets group against group.
The doctrine that inflation can cure unemployment, implicit in the Obama administration’s spending blowout, goes way back.
The modern version originated with William Phillips, a New Zealand-born economist who, in 1958, wrote a paper modestly titled “The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1861‑1957.” Phillips suggested that when inflation went up, unemployment went down. Keynesian economists Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow popularized Phillips’ idea as a reason to ratchet up government spending and inflate the money supply. That’s what the Kennedy and Johnson administrations did during the 1960s.
In 1967, Milton Friedman expressed a skeptical view about what had come to be known as the Phillips Curve, launching an extended debate. Then in 1973, President Richard Nixon, who had famously declared “I am now a Keynesian,” leaned hard on Fed Chairman Arthur Burns to inflate the money supply and drive down unemployment, hopefully to improve Nixon’s prospects for re-election. Well, as those of us who were around back then recall, both inflation and unemployment went up! This was a bit of a problem for Phillips Curve aficionados.
As if the stubborn stagflation of the 1970s wasn’t bad enough, subsequent efforts by new Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and President Ronald Reagan to stop inflation cold delivered another hammer blow against the Phillips Curve: both inflation and unemployment went down!
Now fast-forward to January 2009: President Obama levitated the Phillips Curve from the dead when he repeatedly declared that it was urgent to enact his $825 billion stimulus bill so unemployment would go down. But both spending and unemployment went up! It became harder to deny that the stimulus spending flopped, though the New York Times’ Keynesian columnist Paul Krugman tried valiantly. He claimed stimulus spending flopped because Obama didn’t spend enough. Accordingly, several weeks ago, Obama proposed still more stimulus spending to fight unemployment, and he begged people to support it: “If you love me, pass this bill!”
There shouldn’t have been any surprise about Obama’s flop, since the underlying idea – the Phillips Curve – proved to be a dud long ago. This would be a good time to review experience with the Phillips Curve.
Thankfully, Cato Adjunct Scholar John H. Cochrane, the AQR Capital Management Distinguished Service Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, has done just that. He focused on the period from 1966 to the present. That year, President Lyndon Johnson was going full bore, promoting runaway spending on new entitlement programs and on the Vietnam war simultaneously, and inflation reared its ugly head.
Cochrane charted what happened year-by-year to inflation and unemployment. The result wasn’t a nice smooth curve dreamed about by Keynesians. Rather, there was a kinky curve. One year, inflation went up, and unemployment went down. Next year, inflation went up again, and unemployment went up. Then when inflation went down, unemployment went up again. On and on as if we followed a drunk stumbling around a street. Since a single chart would have become an unreadable tangle if it tried to cover the entire 45-year period, Cochrane developed two charts, 1966-1984 and 1985-2011. Clearly, what we see is a random relationship between inflation and unemployment, that makes the Phillips Curve worthless as a policy tool.
The charts appear in an insightful article Cochrane wrote, published in the Fall 2011 National Affairs. The article is important quite apart from the Phillips Curve charts. Although the prevailing view seems to be that high inflation is most likely to occur if and when the Fed increases the money supply, Cochrane warns high inflation could occur as a consequence of soaring government debt. Such inflation would amount to a default. It would be triggered by a run on dollar-denominated assets, if and when investors conclude that the government cannot pay its debts. Runs occur without warning, often after a succession of events have undermined investor confidence.
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 4)
This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
Washington, D.C. – Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02), on the heels of his vote against the debt ceiling plan proposed yesterday, released the following statement, reiterating his remarks last night on the House floor emphasizing the vital importance of a Balanced Budget Amendment:
“It is simply undeniable at this point that Democrats do not grasp the threat posed by our perpetual deficit spending and ever-ballooning debt. Even as the debt ceiling has been raised yet again, Democrats, who claim to support a Balanced Budget Amendment, despite having opposed BOTH Balanced Budget Amendment proposals that passed the House, have again made certain to include numerous exceptions into the debt ceiling legislation, so that a Balanced Budget Amendment to permanently fix our deficit spending problem is not a requirement, but an option they can opt out of at a later date.
“Lip service to a balanced budget it no longer enough. All financial budgets will eventually balance. That includes the budget of the United States government. The question before our nation now is whether our budget will balance due to proactive work by those of us sent to fix the broken system in Washington, or by financial calamity due to the unwillingness of so many to stop a looming disaster when we had the opportunity to do so.”
###
Congressman Franks is serving his fifth term in the U.S. House of Representatives and is a member of the Judiciary Committee, where he serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and a member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law. He is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, where he serves on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
Congressman Franks is serving his fifth term in the U.S. House of Representatives and is a member of the Judiciary Committee, where he serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and a member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law. He is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, where he serves on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).
On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.
In a private conference call with a handful of university students across the country, GOP Presidential hopeful — and President Obama’s former Ambassador to China — Jon Huntsman argued in support of one of the most far-reaching, controversial elements of the conservative political agenda.
As first reported in a broader piece by theHuffington Post, Huntsman argued in favor of a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to maintain a balanced budget — an innocuous-sounding, but radical plan pushed by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and numerous other congressional conservatives.
“We’re going to have to fight for a balanced budget amendment,” Huntsman said. “Every governor in this country has a balanced budget amendment. It keeps everybody honest. It’s the best safeguard imaginable.”
At its core, a balanced-budget amendment would make it unconstitutional for the government to spend more than it collects in revenue — a requirement that, without safeguards, would make stimulus and emergency spending impossible.
Faced with a similar requirement, states responded to the recession with budget cuts that exacerbated the downturn.
But Republicans on the Hill have taken the idea a step further to the right by including a provision that would make it functionally impossible for the government to raise taxes. The goal, then, is to force future Congresses to slash or eliminate federal spending programs — which disproportionately benefit the needy and elderly — to bring them in line with a revenue base that’s likely to shrink over time.
It’s unclear whether Huntsman supports this version of a Balanced Budget Amendment, or a less extreme one. But the nature of the idea is such that it allows conservatives to signal their support for slashing programs without providing the unpopular details. And in the GOP primary, this will likely be a key test for candidates hoping to curry favor with influential conservatives like DeMint.
The Wall Street Journalreports on rising state and federal unemployment taxes at a time when unemployment remains high. Keynesian economists keep telling us that unemployment benefits have a stimulative “multiplier effect” on the economy. Unfortunately, that sticky little problem of the government having to suck resources out of the economy to pay for this alleged stimulus keeps getting in the way:
The higher tax tab could discourage hiring. ‘It’s just one more cost to add,’ said Douglas Devnew, vice president for finance and administration at Trumpf Inc., a Farmington, Conn., manufacturer. ‘Companies like ours are going to think that much harder if we need more folks.’
Yes, that’s only an anecdote. But I find anecdotes to be considerably more indicative of reality than, say, the fancy economic models favored by the White House that continue to erroneously predict growth and reduced unemployment if the government spends more of the private sector’s money.
If anecdotes aren’t your thing, check out this excellent Cato essay on the unemployment insurance system. Critics of a government administered unemployment insurance system are often accused of being callous toward the plight of those seeking work. But the essay’s examination of the history of unemployment insurance, and the ill-effects and failures of the government-run system indicate that it’s the supporters of the government-run system who should be on the defensive.
Former 
The Daily Hatch 