President Obama and the Truth About Debt

[copied from Instapundit]

DAVID HARSANYI: No, Republican Presidents Aren’t Responsible For Most Of America’s Debt.

Leonhardt, for example, makes a bunch of inconvenient debt that resulted from spending liberals deem “necessary” simply disappear. The stimulus bill championed and signed by President Obama was pegged at $787 billion, but the cost grew to around $2.6 trillion when “automatic stabilizers” — Keynesian spending increases embedded into law — were included. The above graph discounts “automatic stabilizers,” which are both supported by Democrats and a reflection of economic conditions.

While ignoring $1.8 trillion might be politically convenient, the fact is that the day Obama left office, the debt was almost $20 trillion, nearly double what it was when he got there. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the deficit went from just over 52 percent of gross domestic product at the end of fiscal year 2009 to 77 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2016. With all that spending, Obama still oversaw the weakest recovery in American history.

The only other way a person can argue Obama “lowered deficits” is by comparing his first year of historically high deficits — fueled by outlays that he either signed into law, voted for, or supported — to his other years (akthough deficits were again rising by the end of his term). That is deceptive, to say the least.

Many presidents are guilty of growing the debt, but no president in history had ever taken on more than Obama did. And when we stop tipping the scale, and solely compare debt to the percentage of total economic output under all these presidents, we are left with a far different picture than Leonhardt’s selective framing.

The Left will say or do anything to hide their culpability and economic ignorance (but I repeat myself).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sugars, Fats, and all That

Not all carbs are bad. Here’s why: all carbs, no matter what their source, must first be metabolized (i.e., converted) to glucose. Any excess glucose is converted to body fat. Refined sugars, like table sugar (i.e., sucrose) or fruit sugars (e.g., fructose) are converted to glucose very efficiently. On the other hand, more complex carbohydrates – esp. the ones associated with dietary or insoluble fibers (e.g.,cellulose) – have a much different effect on the body. They are metabolized much less efficiently (some, like cellulose, cannot be metabolized at all) and far more slowly than simple sugars. Moreover, the insoluble portions of such carbohydrates have other beneficial effects – producing improved cholesterol levels, reduced risk of heart disease, increased appetite suppression, some forms of cancer protection (e.g., colorectal cancer) and so forth.

ASIDE: fat is the body’s preferred energy source and your metabolism goes to great lengths to conserve and produce fat. During a marathon, for example, a runner will exhaust his/her liver’s store of sugar (a.k.a., glycogen). Once the glycogen is depleted, the liver will then begin to break down protein for energy. It won’t touch its fat reserves. By the way, your body burns fats to keep warm. It’s why swimming is such a great exercise for weight control. The water is usually colder than the air and your body burns its fat reserves to maintain a normal temperature.

Lesson: reduce intake of refined sugars and starches (long chains of glucose molecules found in potatoes, pasta, cakes, breads, etc.). Get the bulk of your daily carbs from foods with high fiber content (black beans, split peas, lentils, broccoli and some berries (Raspberries, blackberries) and fruits (pears). As for cereal, oatmeal is pretty good.

Dietetically incorrect after six years

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The New Disney Princess?

From Planned Parenthood: ‘We Need’ a Transgender, Undocumented ‘Disney Princess Who’s Had An Abortion’

It’s true that most of us would recoil at the idea that a new Disney Princess would be representative of this lifestyle, but the ever inestimable David Burgh reminds us that, well, Disney isn’t all that wholesome anymore. After all,

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gun Free Zones: First the Truth, Then Your Opinion

In this post, I examine at the claims advanced in the gun-violence debate by both sides.

But first, let’s get some key assumptions out of the way: Debates are productive if, and only if, all sides advance opinions based on fact. Or, as a great man once said, “First the truth, then opinion”1)Dennis Prager.

So, here is THE critical truth that is predicate to the exercise of determing the best way(s) of detering gun-mediated mass violence. This truth is manifest, objective, and inarguable:

One or more humans are ALWAYS the root cause of mass shootings

If we cannot agree on this assumption as fact, then there is no point in continuing. Stop now. But, if you choose to proceed, then David Harsanyi’s essay published in the Federalist shortly after the Parkland shooting is informative. He catalogues the false narratives used by those whose outrage is directed away from the root cause of mass shootings.

We Can’t Have A Debate About Guns If Liberals Keep Lying About Them

Above and beyond the observation that misdirected moral agency is the root cause of these tragedies, I now turn to a set of empirical truths:

Gun Free Zones:

Gun Free Zones in schools is not without merit provided some means are established that will protect students from those for whom Gun Free Zones are an invitation to violence. The analogy that springs to mind is this: airplanes engaged in commercial air passenger transport are gun-free zones. BUT, such gun-free zones are enforced by pre-screening passengers.

Gun free school zones are useless in the absence of enforcement of some kind (the recent Parkland massacre is a case in point). To this end, the Fayettesville ISD comes to mind. Recently, the Fayettesville Independent School District (ISD) has chosen to arm selected faculty and staff who elect to undergo a psychological exam, pass regular drug tests, complete a combat firearms training course and an annual firearms qualification test. Moreover, the school district will still maintain its gun-free zone policy – except for its armed guards. Bravo.

More generally, it might surprise many you who abhor guns that schools have been arming faculty and staff for sometime. So, let’s take a breath and look at the facts:

The four examples presented above are by no means exhaustive but are illustrative of what happens when cooler heads prevail. More specifically, these examples are part of a largely unreported trend (esp., by major media outlets) in Education – both for K-12 and university level institutions. Such institutions, especially rural ones in which law enforcement cannot quickly respond.

As mentioned previously, the beauty of arming selected faculty and staff is that a school district or university can still maintain its gun free zone.

Here’s What researchers who study this stuff have to say?

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

Footnotes   [ + ]

Posted in Gun Control, Law Enforcement, News | Leave a comment