Kyle Smith (Twitter: @rkylesmith) is a film critic for The New York Post and the author of the novels Love Monkey and A Christmas Caroline. Type a title in the box above to locate a review. Find an alphabetical listing of The New York Post's recent film reviews here.
Buy Love Monkey for $4! "Hilarious"--Maslin, NY Times. "Exceedingly readable and wickedly funny romantic comedy"--S.F. Chronicle. "Loud and brash, a helluva lot of fun"--Entertainment Weekly. "Engaging romp, laugh-out-loud funny"-CNN. "Shrewd, self-deprecating, oh-so-witty. Smith's ruthless humor knows no bounds"--NPR
Buy A Christmas Caroline for $10! "for those who prefer their sentimentality seasoned with a dash of cynical wit. A quick, enjoyable read...straight out of Devil Wears Prada"--The Wall Street Journal 
 | |
|
« Rob Zombie Disses Adam Lambert | Home | Review: “Tetro” »
By Kyle | June 9, 2009
Everybody’s talkin’ about Jon Voight as he puts the hammer down in a Breitbart TV segment. Via Big Hollywood.
Topics: Barack Obama, Movies, Politics |
June 10th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
It really is a good way to describe him, a false prophet. I have taken recently to visiting many left wing blogs and you are starting to see concern even among them that this isn’t what they bartered for. The poll numbers we are hearing I think are a complete and utter fabrication. Most of my friends are openly liberal and of them I only know of two who approve of the way Obama is doing things but they do not seem to actually know his policies but they think he seems like a “cool guy”.
Hopefully there will be a surge right in 2012 (to the true right not the Bush fake right). Someone has to do something before this debt bubble burst, there is no more pressing issue at this point. Democrats we know will not do anything to stop the debt from growing because they are trying to buy votes with taxpayer money. Republicans are not much better but we are going to have to go with the lesser of two evils for now.
June 10th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Brandon, a few things:
1. some left-wing bloggers may not like Obama because he isn’t left-wing enough (ie: not nationalizing the banks, not going for single-payer healthcare, didn’t pull troops out of Iraq yesterday). If some lefties think Obama is a “false prophet,” it’s for reasons diametrically opposed to those of Ed Gentry (who clearly hasn’t recovered from the trauma of having almost blown that mountain man).
2. I work for a major polling company, and I can tell you with great confidence (though I am not a pollster myself): No one is cooking the books. My company was accused by Moveon in 2004 of tilting toward Bush. We were accused of being run by Christian fundamentalists. If we’re pissing off Brandon AND Moveon, we’re probably doing our jobs just right. Besides, Obama’s approval has been dropping the past week, below 60% just today.
3. Conservative and moderate Democrats will be the ones, eventually, to raise red flags about debt. The DC Republicans will not be able to do this because (a) they have zero credibility on the debt issue (when they controlled everything, they squandered any claim to being the party of “small government”) and (b) they seem to be AWOL from Planet Earth at the moment; they are not a serious national political party, but a regional (southern, rural) sect. This will change eventually, but not in the short-term, at least not in any way that I can see right now.
4. Wishful thinking on the “true right” surge in 2012. Can you name a time in recent memory when the US public actually wanted government slashed? The size of govt as a % of GDP grew under every recent president except Clinton. Americans are rhetorically conservative (”get government off my back”) but operationally liberal (”give me my subsidies, pork projects, funding, etc.”) This “true right” of which you speak only exists in seminar rooms, in think tanks, and in some people’s active imaginations.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
yankeefan
Although I don’t agree with everything you say I find that you may be right about the size of government. The fact is that this country is heading down the path of dependency on Government. People rail against the government but secretly love the benefits. Of course, this goes back to most people not understanding the appropriate relationship between the citizen and the state. It’s Alexander Tytler’s theory come to life.
Of course I view this as a bad thing. We are on a collision course with massive entitlement programs that are bankrupting us financially and usurping the parts of our life that should be left up to individual decision (i.e. savings, health care, etc.).
But Obama has a nice smile and makes people feel good about themselves so I guess we can just gloss over all the bad stuff.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Yankeefan,
1. You are correct some do not believe he is far left enough and now believe he is just another politician which from me draws a resounding: duh. Still others are becoming gravely concerned about debt and realizing that crazy spending was not a trait of Republicans like Bush but a trait of politicians in general.
2.I can understand your disagreement on my polling statement. Unfortunately neither of us can prove we are conclusively right. In the interest of fair disclosure it’s not just now I have thought polls were inaccurate, I’ve always believed that. A sampling of 1,000 people will never accurately represent the opinion of 300 million. I believe our politicians have become too reliant on them.
3. No arguments from me on Republicans having no debt credibility. I pointed out as much by saying they weren’t much better. We are ripe for a thrid party formed of moderates and Libertarians. However I do not think that will be able to take hold by 2012.
4. Depending on your definition of recent the post Carter era created a dramatic surge right and gave us Reagan. You will obviously point out he increased deficit spending and you will be correct; he did however also increase tax revenues while decreasing taxes, isued a government spending freeze, decreased the size of government (ie departments and Federal employees), simplified tax codes, and his spending in the military industrial complex (which accounted for nearly all of his deficit spending) led to the discovery and utilization of the micro chip and by proxy the technology revolution. That’s what I mean by a surge right, he was our last true Republican. Frankly the only reason other Republicans keep getting elected is because of Reagan’s memory.
A qualifier on the % of GDP spending under Clinton. He did in fact decrease it but under the largest tax increase since the ratification of the 16th ammendment and by unwisely cutting spending on defense and intelligence by over 40%. Don’t get me wrong I actually kind of liked Clinton I just think he failed to tackle the true spending killers in our country (entitlement programs; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and cut spending to many essential security services. I don’t know that anyone has the political will to tackle our addiciton to entitlements.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Brandon, in #4, you (inadvertently?) make a very strong case for government intervention in the economy, as a spur to private innovation:
“his spending in the military industrial complex (which accounted for nearly all of his deficit spending) led to the discovery and utilization of the micro chip and by proxy the technology revolution.”
If that’s what you mean by a “surge right,” I may have to sign up for that! You have made a very powerful endorsement of government investment in future economic growth and prosperity.
Other stuff re: Reagan — government growth continued unabated under Ronnie, and he in fact raised taxes numerous times throughout his presidency, after the initial cut.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Yankeefan,
Touche. The government did not invent the microchip obviously but the military industrial complex found early use for it. The government made wise use of private innovation but the government itself has never spawned an innovation (unless you count needless paperwork as innovative).
The MIC is a different animal in which the private sector is given free reign over what innovations they will create and the government basically points and says “I want that one”. It’s different than trying to force innovation through punitive taxation (cap and crap…er trade) or taking over companies to make them produce products the government prefers.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:42 am
There is, and always has been, a place for government investment in R&D, that yields private innovation. You seem pretty knowledgeable about history, and probably know the myriad examples dating back a long time. Very recently, the development of the Internet, which never would have happened in the private sector: the development costs were too prohibitive.
By the way, on entitlements, I’d separate Social Security from the health programs, which are a much bigger problem. Soc Security has been made solvent before, and can be made so again. (Some economists say it will currently be solvent until 2050 or thereabouts.) It is actually a relatively simple fix: phase in a higher age, and raise the payroll tax threshold.
Clinton and Moynihan actually had a reform in the works, but this got knocked off the table when the Lewinsky madness took hold. (One of the luxuries of peace, prosperity, and an economy that creates 250,000 jobs (not just blowjobs) per month: a year-plus sex “scandal.”
If I remember correctly, the Clinton-Moynihan idea may have included private accounts…but don’t tell anyone on the left.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Most certainly there is room for government investment in private innovation. The government functions as a business; they have revenue, expenses, and employees and all businesses can streamline and cut cost through wise technological investment. The government has the added benefit of being able to stimulate additional revenue through wise innovation investment and your example of the internet is a perfect example. Government investment in the internet spurred commerce and commerce naturally produced taxes, but the internet was still a private innovation brought about by the needs of private industry which in this case was IBM I believe in the late 70s.
What the government is doing now is a different animal. They are attempting to force innovation with threat of punishment. To use a real world example, I can’t sing. If you were to walk up to me and punch me square in the face and do so every day until I became a great singer I would never be a great singer and my face would probably be a mess. You simply can’t force innovation. The USSR and China tried it and failed repeatedly, yes they got sputnik first but it was off of stolen US ballistic missle technology so that doesn’t count. What we are looking at now with Cap and Tax is really more a Communist model to force innovation at gun point. Of course those of us in the know realize it is being done to attempt to fund nationalized healthcare which the government realizes is impossible to fund. Worth mentioning I work under Federal contract with Medicare so this right in my wheelhouse.
You are correct in 1998 President Clinton created the sin of a bipartisan bill to put 15% of social security in privately held mutual funds. He actually had Republican support on this but Democrats were ready to burn him at the stake. Private social security accounts would make it solvent, definitely. Rather than due that I think a requirement that a certain percentage of salary be invested or face a tax penatly would work much better. The biggest problem with Social Security is not a lack of revenue it’s that our corrupt government pilfers it like a piggy bank for their pet projects. We have to take it out of their hands entirely so they quit spending it. Not to mention can you imagine the boom the market would have if it had guaranteed money pouring in from something as reliable as a pay period withdrawl? NASDAQ would hit 20K in the first year.
Oh the Social Security insolvency is supposed to be 2016 but they are now saying 2012. The report that came out a few weeks ago showed we were already spending 95% of the revenue with 100% now expected by years end. Social Security had not originally been due to be revenue neutral until around 2013. The 2050 you were thinking of was Medicare but that’s an out and out lie, it’s already losing money. CMS informed us of this and is forcing a 4% fee schedule cut to try and slow the bleeding.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Sheesh. That was a long reply, sorry about that. I am enjoying the conversation though.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Don’t sweat it. I write tomes too. Herewith…
Whatever the date on Soc Sec, I still think the fix is relatively easy (at least conceptually; politics is another matter). But I strongly oppose private accounts. I actually like Soc Sec the way it is (again, allowing for adjustments in age, taxes, etc mentioned above) for the simple reason that most people have no clue of how to invest their $$$. They will make bad decisions and then — guess what! — come back to the government with their cups out, asking to be….bailed out! And we will of course bail them out, because it’s cat-food time for the elderly if we don’t.
So why even set in motion a series of events, if we know pretty much where they’ll end up? And let’s be honest about this: Private accounts are a non-starter politically. You may never have a better chance at them than you did with Bush fresh off an election victory in 04, with GOP controlling both houses. (Only possible chance is a Dem selling it to the public in a Nixon-to-China way, but don’t hold your breath).
Also, imagine the condition of those private accounts during the recent stock-market crash. Again…Purina time! Maybe Fancy Feast for the more well-heeled.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Here is another volume.
Undoubtedly there is risk in private investment but not nearly as much as there is with government investment. Seriosuly can you think of any entity more irresponsbile with money than the Federal Government?
The government interest yield on invested monies is less than 1% and no one can expect to make a reasonable living off of social security earnings. My job works only with social Security recipients and primarily with the impoverished and most of our members are what is known as dual eligible. These are people who are receving medicaid and medicare etc and the most any of these people can make and qualify is $616 a month (this can vary slightly by state). Currently it is estimated that over 70% of seniors either qualify or are already receiving dual eligible status. This means that around 70% of seniors are living on or around the $616 a month mark. This is a perfect of the government not helping the impoverished but assuring that they remain impoverished.
Given the low yield of Social Security and the fact that it does not allow for inflationary adjustments the possibility of anyone even now surviving off Social Security alone is slim. For our generation it will be impossible as we can assume the cost in 20 or 30 years will be double what they are now but Social Security is not designed to adjust for this since there is no ability for the money to grow. With that said I think we can all agree you need to have 401k or some other source of investment for retirement for which Social Security is a supplement. The financially irresponsible will not do this by choice.
That in a nutshell is why I believe only the private sector can save any form of Social Security, only the private sector can incentivise the borrowing of your money. The irresponsibility of a few should not be used as a club to punish the many. I think this goes into the larger issue as to what degree should most have to suffer to prop a few but that’s a different discussion for a different day.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Whenever I hear/read the locution “actors speaking on politics,” I reach for my gun.