Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 29, 2016, 03:21:07 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94230 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 156
101  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: WSJ: The case for Kasich on: April 05, 2016, 12:32:34 PM
Being a two term governor of a major state is a great credential, so is his service in congress.  But this isn't a resume election; it is a change of direction election according to the votes cast so far.

Kasich, Like Jeb, chose to run against the delegates and conservatism.  I don't know when John Kasich changed or why, but he isn't the same guy that stood by Newt in 1994.

This isn't a federal budget of 1998 and this isn't what we thought was the world threat level of 1990s either.  He hasn't shown an interest in getting up to speed (MHO) and he didn't run a national campaign.  

Ohio ranks 46th in median household income growth.  
http://www.usa.com/rank/us--median-household-income-growth-rate--state-rank.htm

Kasich lacks charisma and the ability to attract voters outside of Ohio.

Big government conservative is an oxymoron.  Kasich doesn't express any regrets for embracing it.

Son of a mailman, Kasich made $1.1 million in 2008 working for Lehman Brothers...
http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2010/04/02/kasich_made_11_m_in_2008_no_go.html/

What percent of those polled so far know that?  What percent will know that on election day?

Yes, he should be considered if Trump and Cruz fail.  No, he isn't the best choice.
102  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Housing/Mortgage, Obama administration pushes banks to make [bad loans] on: April 05, 2016, 12:04:30 PM
Previous post in this thread:  Maybe if Trump wins New Hampshire, Pat will come back...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard Dem economist Austan Goolsbee argue that CRAp did not factor in the crash and that banks don't make mortgages.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/29/listen-to-an-economist-shut-down-hannity-for-bl/209611

Now this:
Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
103  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Left, publicly funded campaigns on: April 05, 2016, 11:45:51 AM
Little guy, Bernie Sanders, is raising $44 million a month in small donations by speaking the truth from an Occupy Wall Street far left perspective, more than Hillary is getting from bi corporate interests, while he calls for taxpayer funding of all campaigns - because it is impossible otherwise for the little guy to compete with the big money interests.

Isn't that the definition of this thread, Cognitive Dissonance of the Left!
104  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credi on: April 05, 2016, 10:54:44 AM
I just heard Dem economist Austan Goolsbee argue that CRAp did not factor in the crash and that banks don't make mortgages.
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/29/listen-to-an-economist-shut-down-hannity-for-bl/209611

Now this:
Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
----------------------------------

I notice the story dateline April 2, 2016.  Any chance this was an April Fools' prank?  Today the President is addressing corporate inversions by making stricter rules instead of making tax rates competitive.

Republicans should spend every political dollar available this month on proving the case that this President is the April Fool.  Make Hillary or the nominee run away from these policies.
105  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Fire at IRS on: April 05, 2016, 10:42:00 AM
TOO BAD SOMEBODY DECIDED TO STORE GASOLINE AND OILY RAGS IN THE SAME ROOM AS THE SUBPOENAED HARD DRIVES. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN! IRS Building In Washington, D.C. Closed Today Due To Fire.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/04/irs-bulding-in-washington-dc-closed-today-due-to-fire.html
106  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion, life deniers, Hillary 'unborn person', 'mother carrying a child' on: April 05, 2016, 10:35:02 AM
Copying this over from Hillbillary thread.  I would add that 'person' is a legal term and Hillary is hinting that she would like to guarantee government healthcare to the unborn - if not for the abortion interest.  I think she hit her head pretty hard on the fall...

Let's see who else picks up on this.  HRC on Meet the Press, I think it was, this morning screwed up for pro-choice worse than DT screwed up for pro-life.  I can add the transcript later.

Sec. Clinton kept referring to the pregnant woman deserving choice as a "mother carrying a child".  She also referred to "the unborn person".
...
I did not know that it is an unborn "child" or "person" inside a pro-choice "mother".  It was called "unviable tissue mass" inside a "woman".  Important distinction!

This changes everything.  You terminate tissue.  You don't terminate a child.  ...

Yes, this was noticed by others!  At least on the right...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/print/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3522101/Hillary-Clinton-says-unborn-person-doesn-t-constitutional-rights-explains-stance-abortion.html
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-doesnt-constitutional-rights/
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-on-abortion-the-unborn-person-doesnt-have-constitutional-rights/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/03/hillary-unborn-babies-do-not-have-rights-video/

Video Clip of the exchange:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/03/chuck_todd_to_hillary_clinton_when_or_if_does_an_unborn_child_have_constitutional_rights.html

Good for Chuck Todd for asking one tough, relevant question.  She usually doesn't go on shows that do that - I believe she has never appeared on Fox News Sunday.  Todd introduced the subject by ripping Trump for taking 5 positions in one week on abortion.  Hillary got her guard down, was ready to jump in and pile on, but instead he gave her an open ended opportunity to state her view on abortion.  She went right into Roe v Wade, that she agrees with it and so on, and it allows for some restrictions.  Then Todd bluntly asked her when and if an unborn child has constitutional rights.  And she stumbled badly.  

The left thrives off of owning the language of the issues.  Spending going up is a budget cut.  Temporary spending is permanent.  Affordable housing is not affordable but requires subsidy, hence a government policy.  Affordable healthcare, same thing, makes it unaffordable, requiring a massive federal program with mandates that all would not be needed if it was affordable as the term used to mean.  Eliminating racial differences means putting more focus on race.  Marriage is no longer husband-wife, and so on. The left owns the language when they are winning on issues, and they pull it off by having monopoly control of the messages around us, from k-12 curriculum, to teachers unions, colleges, elite universities and the media.

Nowhere is language more crucial than abortion.  Rachel meant well, especially on moral issues but would only post about abortion by starting a separate thread called 'reproductive issues'.  Abortion isn't reproduction; it's the opposite.  But you don't call it killing a baby and then ask people what they think about it.

Hillary has been so deeply entrenched in this kind of leftism that her blunder was outrageous.  ccp might know, but it could be a symptom of age or brain injury that such an expert on the topic would make such a beginner leftist type of error after all these years in the leftist bubble.  Otherwise she got sloppy after recently experiencing a real, grandmother-grandbaby love when she should have been reviewing Saul Alinsky manuals for her upcoming run.

You don't call 'it' a 'person' while talking about it having no rights, okay to kill.  You don't call the woman a mother and you don't call the fetus a child.  If you begin to admit, as Reagan put it, that it [a fetus] is 1) alive, 2) human, and 3) and has separate, distinct DNA from the mother (and father), then you are pro-life, not pro-choice.  Abortion becomes a killing of a child, not a procedure on a woman.

In the middle of the same sentence, she used proper leftist language, that it is the woman's "decision".  A sentence that ends without saying it is the woman's decision to do what, kill / end the life of the 'child', 'person', 'tissue mass', whatever you want to call what is alive and being killed and removed.

The science in this case is not on the side of the life deniers, so adhering to a very careful and strict choice of words is the only way to defend this barbaric, 21st century, 1st world practice that in 98% of the cases is done for convenience reasons.

Muslim genitalia mutilation at birth is abhorrent behavior to us, but killing the same baby one moment earlier isn't - only because of a strict choice of words and framing of the issue.
 
107  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: April 05, 2016, 10:31:04 AM
Thank you, will do.  I would add that 'person' is a legal term and Hillary is hinting that she would like to guarantee government healthcare to the unborn - if not for the abortion interest.  I think she hit her head pretty hard on the fall...
108  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: a lot of behind the scenes jockeying. Ryan, Presidential, Rule 40b on: April 05, 2016, 10:22:21 AM
I don't know what to think.  On one hand I am not happy with establishment Ryan but I cannot see how Trump could win a general election. (He is our of favor with me.  It is 100% clear he lacks the impulse control to be President.)   And I just do not seeing Cruz winning either:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charles-koch-paul-ryan-nomination_us_57029099e4b083f5c6082b95

One problem with Paul Ryan for President is that it puts the Republican House back in disarray.  Other than that he didn't run for President or win a delegate, I think he would be a fine President.  I don't see how he would have fared any better in the primaries than Rubio.  Strong on most issues, no executive experience, favored comprehensive immigration reform.  He already has a chance to make a place in history by taking over as Speaker of the House at 45.  

I was really hoping to never have to know the exact wording of RNC Rule 40b, just like I hate the tax code, but here goes...

Rule 40b

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8 ) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (Cool or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-[/b]pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf

In other words, if they keep this rule in the age of twitter and private and group messenging, anyone can place anyone in nomination at any time just by submitting a petition from a majority of delegates in 8 states to the convention secretary, an hour before the next ballot.  That kind of organization and support is way below what is necessary to win anyway.  A majority of delegates can vote that candidate down too.


Trump has won 37% of the votes cast so far and is likely to fall short of 1237 before the convention.  Just like the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place finishers, he is not deserving of the nomination - unless that is what a majority of the seated delegates want.  If the 1st place candidate can't reach the magic number in the first couple of ballots, the delegates logically turn to the second place candidate and we will see if he can clinch it on the 3rd or 4th ballot.  Let's say Cruz also fails to clinch it.  I don't see why the 3rd and 4th place finishers don't have the same claim at that point to try to reach a majority that Cruz had when Trump fell short.

If this drags on, the feeling in the hall is that if we fail to endorse, this is not a major national party and Hillary will essentially run unopposed.  Time and patience run down and attention will keep turning to who might win and make the deadlock end.  At one point, Rubio was everyone's second choice.  No one knows who that is now; people are guessing its Cruz.  The other scenarios only come into play if both Trump and Cruz fall short.

The RNC's responsibility is to make sure ballots start very early in the week (Saturday 8am?) and keep happening on scheduled intervals until done.
109  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cognitive Dissonance of Hillary Clinton, abortion kills an "unborn person" on: April 04, 2016, 11:04:29 AM
Let's see who else picks up on this.  HRC on Meet the Press, I think it was, this morning screwed up for pro-choice worse than DT screwed up for pro-life.  I can add the transcript later.

Sec. Clinton kept referring to the pregnant woman deserving choice as a "mother carrying a child".  She also referred to "the unborn person".
...
I did not know that it is an unborn "child" or "person" inside a pro-choice "mother".  It was called "unviable tissue mass" inside a "woman".  Important distinction!

This changes everything.  You terminate tissue.  You don't terminate a child.  ...

Yes, this was noticed by others!  At least on the right...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/print/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3522101/Hillary-Clinton-says-unborn-person-doesn-t-constitutional-rights-explains-stance-abortion.html
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-doesnt-constitutional-rights/
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-on-abortion-the-unborn-person-doesnt-have-constitutional-rights/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/03/hillary-unborn-babies-do-not-have-rights-video/

Video Clip of the exchange:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/03/chuck_todd_to_hillary_clinton_when_or_if_does_an_unborn_child_have_constitutional_rights.html

Good for Chuck Todd for asking one tough, relevant question.  She usually doesn't go on shows that do that - I believe she has never appeared on Fox News Sunday.  Todd introduced the subject by ripping Trump for taking 5 positions in one week on abortion.  Hillary got her guard down, was ready to jump in and pile on, but instead he gave her an open ended opportunity to state her view on abortion.  She went right into Roe v Wade, that she agrees with it and so on, and it allows for some restrictions.  Then Todd bluntly asked her when and if an unborn child has constitutional rights.  And she stumbled badly. 

The left thrives off of owning the language of the issues.  Spending going up is a budget cut.  Temporary spending is permanent.  Affordable housing is not affordable but requires subsidy, hence a government policy.  Affordable healthcare, same thing, makes it unaffordable, requiring a massive federal program with mandates that all would not be needed if it was affordable as the term used to mean.  Eliminating racial differences means putting more focus on race.  Marriage is no longer husband-wife, and so on. The left owns the language when they are winning on issues, and they pull it off by having monopoly control of the messages around us, from k-12 curriculum, to teachers unions, colleges, elite universities and the media.

Nowhere is language more crucial than abortion.  Rachel meant well, especially on moral issues but would only post about abortion by starting a separate thread called 'reproductive issues'.  Abortion isn't reproduction; it's the opposite.  But you don't call it killing a baby and then ask people what they think about it.

Hillary has been so deeply entrenched in this kind of leftism that her blunder was outrageous.  ccp might know, but it could be a symptom of age or brain injury that such an expert on the topic would make such a beginner leftist type of error after all these years in the leftist bubble.  Otherwise she got sloppy after recently experiencing a real, grandmother-grandbaby love when she should have been reviewing Saul Alinsky manuals for her upcoming run.

You don't call 'it' a 'person' while talking about it having no rights, okay to kill.  You don't call the woman a mother and you don't call the fetus a child.  If you begin to admit, as Reagan put it, that it [a fetus] is 1) alive, 2) human, and 3) and has separate, distinct DNA from the mother (and father), then you are pro-life, not pro-choice.  Abortion becomes a killing of a child, not a procedure on a woman.

In the middle of the same sentence, she used proper leftist language, that it is the woman's "decision".  A sentence that ends without saying it is the woman's decision to do what, kill / end the life of the 'child', 'person', 'tissue mass', whatever you want to call what is alive and being killed and removed.

The science in this case is not on the side of the life deniers, so adhering to a very careful and strict choice of words is the only way to defend this barbaric, 21st century, 1st world practice that in 98% of the cases is done for convenience reasons.

Muslim genitalia mutilation at birth is abhorrent behavior to us, but killing the same baby one moment earlier isn't - only because of a strict choice of words and framing of the issue.
 
110  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: FL Gov. Scott signs bill requiring charges before forfeiture on: April 04, 2016, 09:28:01 AM

An obvious reform in the pursuit of property rights, liberty, due process and fighting the abuse of government, hard to believe this isn't already the law, but it is an important ray of hope nonetheless.

Shouldn't a conviction rather than a charge be required to keep any property permanently?

From previous posts, the total value of government seizures now exceeds all private theft in this country.

111  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Stratfor: Detecting Bombmaking on: April 04, 2016, 09:14:09 AM
Quote:  Crafty's Post:
Awareness Can Short-Circuit a Bomb Attack
Security Weekly
March 31, 2016

Some missed opportunities to avert the bombing attacks that struck the Zaventem airport in Brussels included chemical odors outside the bombmakers' apartment and suspicious behavior on the part of the suicide attackers....
---------------------------------------------------

This post is quite informative.  This knowledge needs to be more widely known if that is one of ISIS' current modes of attack.  Not mentioned is what the taxi driver could have done, had he known.  Refuse to drive terrorist looking Muslims in Brussels-Molenbeek to where they request?  I own small quantities of strong cleaners and solvents among those mentioned, but as the articles, it would be odd and suspicious for a household to be buy chemicals like those in bulk or to have that smell coming out of a residence.
112  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of Hillary Clinton, abortion, not ready for prime time on: April 03, 2016, 02:48:43 PM
Let's see who else picks up on this.  HRC on Meet the Press, I think it was, this morning screwed up for pro-choice worse than DT screwed up for pro-life.  I can add the transcript later.

Sec. Clinton kept referring to the pregnant woman deserving choice as a "mother carrying a child".  She also referred to "the unborn person".

Justice Breyer has also made this awful Orwellian, pro-choice mis-speak.  Why is a woman carrying a "fetus" a mother?  Mother of what?  The facts (in that case) didn't say she had previous children.

I did not know that it is an unborn "child" or "person" inside a pro-choice "mother".  I was called "unviable tissue mass" inside a "woman".  Important distinction!

This changes everything.  You terminate tissue.  You don't terminate a child.  Some might call that ......[murder].

Maybe Hillary had a Trump pro-life moment when a beautiful (to them) Clinton grandbaby popped out after 9 months of kicking inside the tummy of Hillary's loving (to her) daughter Chelsea.

Maybe Democrats are people too and are capable of putting life ahead of politics...  Or should I expect a correction.  She didn't mean to say mother and child - and Trump didn't mean to say punish the woman.

Unfortunately, we live in a time void of great leaders.
113  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: April 03, 2016, 02:11:37 PM
Strangely it is the (non-existent?) Republican Party of California in June that will determine what the Presidential ballot will look like for the nation in 2016.  If Trump can't clinch, someone else eventually will.

Trump is 500 delegates short of the 1237 needed right now, with 848 remaining.  He could lose Wisconsin, win NY and some other states and get within the 172 Calif. delegate reach by June 7.  

California for the most part is 53 separate, congressional district elections, very difficult to sweep if votes tend to go with regions or demographics.

Primary Calendar    G.O.P. delegates   
Delegates Remaining   848   
APRIL 5   Wisconsin   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-MOST  42   
APRIL 8   Colorado Republican Conventions  37
APRIL 19   New York   95   
APRIL 26   Connecticut   28   
Delaware   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL   16   
Maryland   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-MOST   38   
Pennsylvania   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-MOST   71   
Rhode Island      19   
MAY 3   Indiana   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-MOST  57
MAY 10   Nebraska Republican Primary  G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL  36   
West Virginia   34   
Oregon   28   
MAY 24   Washington State Republican Primary  44   
JUNE 7   California   172   
Montana   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL   27
New Jersey   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL   51
New Mexico      24   
South Dakota   G.O.P. WINNER-TAKE-ALL   29  JUNE 14   
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0
--------------------------------------------------------------

After all the Kasich hoopla, I notice that Marco Rubio is still in third place in the delegate count.  Depending on rules not yet set, if Trump cannot win on the first or second ballot and if Cruz cannot win on the 3rd or 4th ballot, and if they start taking more names into nomination, I would look for Kasich and Rubio to re-enter the contest, not Romney or Ryan or a "fresh face".  What happens after that is all legitimate if it follows the agreed rules of the process.  

In a contested convention, it becomes a game of momentum.  Let's say Trump is a  delegate or 2 short on the first ballot and 3 or 4 delegates short on the second ballot.  He will only go down from there.  Same will be true for Cruz after delegates are gradually released.  If he is rising while Trump is falling but peaks short of 1237, once his momentum stops, he is done.

My current prediction is Cruz on the third ballot.  Failing that, Rubio on the 27th ballot.  Then, as Priebus pointed out, it is the delegates who decide the VP choice, not the Presidential nominee.

Take the advice of the exciting governor of Ohio, better get your seat belt on...

Meanwhile, on the Dem side, frontrunner Hillary Clinton has a close race going with FBI Director James Comey.
114  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade, 1 Million Manufacturing jobs lost since NAFTA on: April 03, 2016, 01:21:58 PM
(Related post here: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.msg95132#msg95132 )

Speaking of answering myths, we are hearing that Ohio lost 320,000 manufacturing jobs since the passing of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/bernie-s/sanders-overshoots-nafta-job-losses/
http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html

Similar claims, different numbers in Wisconsin. 

FYI to the zero-sum, anti-Reagan, static economy supporters that make up a third of the Republican party and 2/3rd of the Democrats:  Economic globalization was not caused by one piece of paper (1200 pages in this case),   It was already happening!

If not for this one document, our little economy would be chugging along like it's 1956 again.  We could build iphones right here in America, they would cost $20,000 each. 3 people would have one, and everything would be fine.  We could keep Walmart out and the 5 and dime store open over on main street - if not for NAFTA, currency manipulation in China etc.

Besides that it's false, I have not heard from the opponents of freedom to trade the number of jobs Ohio would have lost if did not pursue free trade with the world.

There is so much bunk thrown around on this subject, from Krugman falsely crediting NAFTA to Democrats to the reversal of roles in this election if the protectionist DT is the Republican nominee. 

NAFTA is not a free trade agreement.  A free trade agreement can be written in one sentence, does not require three reams of paper to print.  Also, it was Mexico ending tariffs; we had already ended ours. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ec200210a.pdf

[A vote for TPA (TPP fast track authority) is not a vote for a trade agreement either.]

Even PolitiFact rates Sanders claim of 800,000 job losses since NAFTA as 'mostly false'.

Smoot Hawley could be renamed Sanders Trump.

To complicate matters more, Trump says (paraphrasing) he supports free trade and is just bluffing to get the vote of the protectionists.  Hillary says she supports free trade too and is just bluffing to compete for the vote of the Sanders crowd.

Just what our economy needs, more uncertainty along with receding economic freedoms.  What conservative wants to let government determine what goods should come in or not at what price and regulate that by levying a tax on the American consumer? 

I recall from my export days that we had a million dollar order of modems made in the Twin Cites, ready to ship to Mexico, and then we broke open the boxes and had them disassembled and separated into circuit boards and cases, then needing to be reassembled upon receipt, to fall under a different, less punitive tariff class in third world, pre-NAFTA Mexico.  That kind of nonsense is what trade protectionists unknowingly favor.

Big government conservatism is an Oxy Moron.
115  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / European matters, Out of EU vote poll leading by 4% in U.K. on: April 03, 2016, 12:22:28 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/02/eu-referendum-young-voters-brexit-leave

My guess is that it will be a close vote to stay in since this is almost margin of error close and people are mostly afraid of change.  Similarly, Scotland voted narrowly to stay in the U.K.

Which way would YOU vote?  My instinct would be to vote yes for the economic common market, no for open borders, no for Euro currency and in this case no for E.U. 

Being just one member is too little control of your own country.  The E.U. is not a country.  It is not an e pluribus unum, out of many, one.  Nor are we anymore, but Europe is less so.  Too many screwed up, failing states, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece... and too much going wrong in the so called stronger ones such as a million new refugees in Germany, trouble in France, Brussels, etc.
116  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Eight false memes about Iraq on: April 03, 2016, 12:00:20 PM

Since the media gets it wrong, the history books get it wrong.  A lot went wrong in Iraq, but the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was not wrong, IMHO.  The details of this are worth saving!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq
 John Hawkins,  Jan, 2012  

1) George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.: This is a charge that has been repeated ad nauseum by opponents of the war, but the claim that Bush “lied” about stockpiles of WMDs doesn’t hold up to the least bit of scrutiny.

Once you understand one crucial fact, that: numerous prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly declared and obviously believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, it becomes nearly impossible for a rational person to believe that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. We’re not talking about small fry or just proponents of the war either. The aforementioned Democrats include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Henry Waxman, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Pelosi among many, many others. Just to hammer the point home, here’s a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

To believe that George Bush lied about WMDs is to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to lie about WMDs that goes to the highest level of both parties & that stretches across both the pro and anti-war movements.

It’s just not possible — and that’s before we even consider the numerous other pieces of exculpating evidence like: all the non-American intelligence agencies that also believed Saddam had WMDs, CIA Director George Tenet famously saying it was a: “‘slam-dunk’ that Hussein possessed the banned weapons”, the once secret: Downing Street Memo: which certainly proves that our allies in Britain believed Saddam had WMDs…

“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”

…and of course, that we did find: warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents: and artillery shells filled with: mustard gas: &: sarin: (even though they were small in number and weren’t recently made).

When you add it all up, it appears that George Bush, like a lot of other people, was wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of WMDs. But without question, he did not lie about it.

2) A study released in March of 2003 by a British medical journal, the Lancet, showed that 100,000 civilians had been killed as a result of the US invasion.To be perfectly frank, it’s hard to see how anyone who has even a passing familiarity with statistics could take Lancet’s numbers seriously.: Fred Kaplanfrom Slate explains:

“The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.The report’s authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference’the number of “extra” deaths in the post-invasion period’signifies the war’s toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I’ll spell it out in plain English’which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language’98,000’is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn’t an estimate. It’s a dart board.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday’s election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It’s a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.”

Bingo! What Lancet was in effect saying was that they believed 98,000 civilians died, but they might have been off by roughly 90,000 people or so in either direction.

Moreover, other sources at the time were coming in with numbers that were a tiny fraction of the 98,000 figure that the Lancet settled on. From a: New York Times: article on the Lancet study:

“The 100,000 estimate immediately came under attack. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain questioned the methodology of the study and compared it with an Iraq Health Ministry figure that put civilian fatalities at less than 4,000. Other critics referred to the findings of the Iraq Body Count project, which has constructed a database of war-related civilian deaths from verified news media reports or official sources like hospitals and morgues.That database recently placed civilian deaths somewhere between 14,429 and 16,579, the range arising largely from uncertainty about whether some victims were civilians or insurgents. But because of its stringent conditions for including deaths in the database, the project has quite explicitly said, ”Our own total is certain to be an underestimate.”

Via: GlobalSecurity.org, here’s another Iraqi civilian death estimate:

“On 20 October 2003 the Project on Defense Alternatives estimated that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants — that is: civilians who did not take up arms.”

Given all that, how any informed person can buy into Lancet’s numbers is simply beyond me.

3) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.: It’s always difficult to prove a negative, but that simply never happened.

Many people may believe this was the case because in “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Michael Moore truncated a comment by Condi Rice in order to deliberately give viewers of his movie that false impression. Here’s the quote as it appeared in the film:

“There is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11”

Now here’s the full quote:

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

Setting aside Moore’s little deceit, there just aren’t any quotations I’ve ever seen from anyone in the Bush administration saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. That’s why, in a piece called “Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism,” which incidentally was written about a week before the war began, I wrote this:

The Bush administration has never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11…

Furthermore, after the war had begun, in September of 2003,: President Bush himself publicly & explicitly said:

“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.”

It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

4) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century.: The problem with trying to claim that the war in Iraq was preordained during some 1998 PNAC meeting is that the United States government has been trying to find a way to get rid of Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War. In an interview I did with him back in January of 2004,: David Frum, went into detail on this subject:

“The idea that overthrowing Saddam Hussein sprung out of the minds of a few people in Washington forgets an awful lot of history. In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America’s policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn’t work. Then we tried coups; that didn’t work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991.”

The reality is just as Frum pointed out: overthrowing Saddam Hussein by hook or crook was the de facto policy of the US government for more than a decade before the war in Iraq and the disagreement was over how to do it. That argument was settled in many people’s minds by 9/11, not by people conspiring in a think tank back in 1998.

5) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq.: This is another historical rewrite. The reality is that the pro-war movement in this country since 9/11 has plainly spoken of dealing with Saddam Hussein as part of the war on terrorism almost from the very beginning. Here’s George Bush in a: speech given on 9/20/2001:

“Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

Iraq certainly was a state that harbored and supported terrorists and the approach Bush discussed, the Bush Doctrine, was adopted and talked about often in relation to Iraq during the lead up to the war. As proof, look to a column called “Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism” that I wrote back on March 13, 2003:

Why are we going to invade Iraq?: Nine days after 9/11, George Bush said,“(W)e will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

That definition fits Iraq and since they happened to be the easiest nation to make a case against at the UN and in the court of World Opinion, they were our next logical target after Afghanistan — although they’re not our last target.”

The war on terrorism cannot be won as long as there are terrorist supporting states out there. So one way or the other, we need to get those rogue regimes out of the business of supporting terrorist groups of international reach. Saddam led one of those regimes and now, happily, he’s gone — perhaps before the US was hit with an Iraqi based terrorist attack:

“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received … information that official organs of Saddam’s regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.” — Russian President Vladimir Putin as quoted by CNN on June 18, 2004

Even: John Kerry, the flip-flopping Democratic candidate for President last year, seemed to at least agree that the fate of Iraq was crucial to the war on terror:

“Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean].” — John Kerry, 12/15/03

Kerry even pointed out that he thought Saddam might give WMDs to terrorists:

“I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that – that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.” — John Kerry, “Face The Nation”, 9/15/02

Now if even John Kerry of all people is willing to admit that Iraq is: “critical to the outcome of the war on terror”: and that Saddam was the kind of guy who might use terrorist groups to attack the US, we should be able to at least agree at this point that it’s not the least bit disingenuous to suggest that Iraq is an important part of the war on terrorism.

6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism.: It’s amazing to me that today in 2005, people are still trotting out that oft-disproven quip. Christopher Hitchens was also apparently surprised when Ron Reagan, Jr. made a similar assertion recently and you may find his: response to be most enlightening:

“CH:: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?RR:: Well, I’m following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which…

CH:: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? … At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?…

RR:: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH:: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?”

Mr. Hitchens is entirely correct. Saddam provided “safe haven” for: terrorists with “global reach.”: Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yassin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, “Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over…Scotland,”Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer,” & “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan” who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda’s forces in Iraq.

Without question, Saddam Hussein had extensive ties to terrorism.

7) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda.: A couple of quotes by the 9/11 Commission, which were often used out of context during the polarizing 2004 election cycle, have fueled the ridiculous claim that Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al-Qaeda. Here’s an excerpt from an article at: MSNBC: called: “9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida,”: that should give you a good idea of the anti-war spin that was put on the Commission’s comments:

“It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan ‘do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,’ and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates “have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq.”The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, ‘We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.’

However, the spin doesn’t match the reality.

What the 9/11 Commission was trying to get across was that there was no evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda collaborated on specific attacks, not that they didn’t have a working relationship.: 9/11 Commission Vice-Chairman (and former Democratic Congressman) Lee Hamiliton: echoed exactly that point in comments that were largely ignored because they didn’t fit the anti-war storyline some people were pushing:

“The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don’t disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don’t have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States.”

While there may not be evidence that Saddam and Al-Qaeda cooperated in attacks on the United States, the evidence that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al-Qaeda worked together is absolutely undeniable.

For example, no one disputes that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who once ran an Al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and is leading Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in Iraq today, was in Iraq BEFORE the war started getting medical care. In and of itself, that would seem to strongly suggest a significant connection.

But wait, there’s more!

Consider this comment by former: CIA Director George Tenet: in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002:

“Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.”

Here’s more from: Richard Miniter, author of “Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror“:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq’s Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam’s son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam’s mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam’s son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

Here’s more from Weekly Standard columnist Stephen Hayes, author of “The Connection : How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America“:

“Evan Bayh, Democrat from Indiana, has described the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as a relationship of “mutual exploitation.” Joe Lieberman said, “There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.” George Tenet, too, has spoken of those contacts and goes further, claiming Iraqi “training” of al Qaeda terrorists on WMDs and provision of “safe haven” for al Qaeda in Baghdad. Richard Clarke once said the U.S. government was “sure” Iraq had provided a chemical-weapons precursor to an al Qaeda-linked pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Even Hillary Clinton cited the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as one reason she voted for the Iraq War.”

So is there proof that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda worked together to hit targets in the US? No. But, is there extensive evidence that they had ties and worked together at times? Absolutely.

8 ) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.: The left-side of the blogosphere has been bleating ceaselessly about the Downing Street Memo since the beginning of May which might lead you to wonder why the reaction to the memo has been so tepid in the scandal loving mainstream media. Well, the problem with the DSM is that there’s no “there, there.”

Some of the anti-war crowd’s rantings about the memo have hinged on its acknowledgement of increased bombings in the Iraqi no-fly zones (“spikes of activity”) during the run-up to the war. However, the increased frequency of bombings was common knowledge even back in 2002 (See: here,: here, &: here). We had already been bombing the Iraqis in the no-fly zone and we increased the pace to soften them up a bit just in case we had to go in. It probably saved the lives of some of our soldiers and almost no one except members of Saddam’s government seemed upset about it while it was actually going on. So why should it be a big deal now in 2005? The carping about it at this point is pure political gamesmanship.

Moving on to another jejune point in the memos that has led to hyperventilation among Bush foes, take a look at this line:

“C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable.”

Note that no particular person in the Bush administration said war is “inevitable,” it’s just the perception that C, AKA Sir Richard Dearlove, has. Again, we’re talking about something that was common knowledge back in July of 2002, as even liberal: Michael Kinsley: pointed out in a notably unenthusiastic LA Times column about the DSM:

“Just look at what was in the newspapers on July 23, 2002, and the day before. Left-wing Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer casually referred to the coming war as “much planned for.” The New York Times reported Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s response to a story that “reported preliminary planning on ways the United States might attack Iraq to topple President Saddam Hussein.” Rumsfeld effectively confirmed the report by announcing an investigation of the leak.A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed declared that “the drums of war beat louder.” A dispatch from Turkey in the New York Times even used the same word, “inevitable,” to describe the thinking in Ankara about the thinking in Washington about the decision “to topple President Saddam Hussein of Iraq by force.”

Why, it almost sounds as if many people who weren’t passing around secret documents saw the invasion of Iraq as “inevitable,” even back then! I guess those “secret” memos aren’t as as chock full of sensitive information as you’d think.

But, let’s move on to the meat of the DSM. Via: Wikipedia, here is the part of the Downing Street Memo that has caused the most “excitement” on the left:

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Basically the charge here is supposed to be that Bush “fixed” the evidence for the war.

When the word “fixed” is mentioned in the memo, it’s obviously not being used as Americans would use it if they were talking about “fixing” a horse race. Instead, the writer was trying to get across that the Bush administration was attempting to build a solid case to justify its policy publicly. That’s certainly not a unique way of looking at it either. For example,: John Ware, a reporter at the very liberal BBC, seems to have roughly the same interpretation:

“Several well placed sources have told us that Sir Richard Dearlove was minuted as saying: “The facts and the intelligence were being fixed round the policy by the Bush administration.” By ‘fixed’ the MI6 chief meant that the Americans were trawling for evidence to reinforce their claim that Saddam was a threat.”

Furthermore, to even try to interpret the Downing Street Memo as supporting the idea that Bush was making up evidence — presumably about weapons of mass destruction — is extremely difficult to square with the fact that the DSM itself makes it absolutely clear that the British believed Saddam had WMDs. From theDSM:

“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”

If the Bush administration and the Brits believed Saddam had WMDs and was capable of using them, what exactly is supposed to have been forged? Nothing of course, because that’s not how the person taking the notes meant it to be interpreted. If he’d known his notes were ever going to be read by the public, I’m sure he would have been more careful about ambiguous phrasing that could be willfully misinterpreted for political gain.

On top of all that, there have already been investigations that have cleared the Bush administration of doing anything shady on the intelligence front. As Cassandra at: Villainous Company: correctly pointed out:

Quote (the DSM) all you want. Is there some evidence to back this up? Say, to refute the conclusions of the Butler Report (British), the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, or the 9/11 Commission, which all concluded that there was no improper manipulation of intelligence? Or are we now willing to disregard the conclusions of three official inquiries on the strength of one (word in an) unattributed set of minutes from a single foreign staff meeting?”

The Downing Street Memo is a lot of hullabaloo over nothing of note.
117  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Sen Feinstein's hubby wins CA rail contract, Crony governmentism on: April 03, 2016, 11:51:36 AM

Small world!  Just lucky Democrats.  

Reminds me of the Clintons, who haven't worked a minute outside of government since being dead broke, but are worth $80 million, and still increasing while neither is working.

The people who say they want government imposed equality for all end up taxing the little people and steering the government money to themselves.  This is more like a Stalin, Chavez and Kim Jung Un kleptocracy than a Heritage Freedom Index top 10 country.  (Oh, we aren't anymore!)
118  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the left: Thomas Frank, The Blue State Model on: April 01, 2016, 11:26:24 PM
Long read.  I must say, this is interesting.  Sensitive to bias, I was trying all the way through to figure out where he was headed with it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-frank/the-blue-state-model-_b_9562960.html?

The focus is on Massachusetts where some things are going right and other things aren't.  He is making distinctions between different kinds of liberalism.  It is the Huffington Post.  He talks about Massachusetts liberals seeking a more perfect meritocracy.

"Professional-class liberals aren’t really alarmed by oversized rewards for society’s winners. On the contrary, this seems natural to them — because they are society’s winners."

Senator Elizabeth Warren is the other kind of liberal, the common man liberal, the inequality fighting liberal.  Not like former governor Deval Patrick, an innovation entrepreneur liberal who sided with Uber riders over taxi drivers.

The role of elite education is central.  "MIT’s alumni have started nearly 26,000 companies over the years, including Intel, Hewlett Packard, and Qualcomm. If you were to take those 26,000 companies as a separate nation, the report tells us, its economy would be one of the most productive in the world."





119  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: April 01, 2016, 10:52:36 PM
A few interesting facts in this piece, link below:

90% of new jobs / job growth are part time.

Growth rate since the recession is a dismal 2%.

Hillary promises to punish inversions with a new tax instead of reform the highest business taxes in the world.

US businesses are holding $2 trillion in foreign earnings outside the US, double Obama's stimulus package.

Hillary proposes to raise minimum wage 66% from 7.25 to $12.

1% of US workers make minimum wage.

0.4% of workers 25 or older make federal minimum wage.

More taxes and more regulations hurt economic growth.

Economic growth would help low income people more than more taxes and regulations.

Hillary and the left choose greater government power over increasing economic growth.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/what-hillary-gets-wrong-on-wages-commentary.html

120  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Women captives of Boko Haram who have escaped on: April 01, 2016, 12:59:42 PM

It angers me to see the world so powerless to stop this.  Yet encouraging to see that Muslims hid and fed them along the way and a Catholic camp giving them a home.

From the article:
"More than six years into their bloody campaign in northern Nigeria and the surrounding Lake Chad region, Boko Haram extremists have killed around 20,000 people. Entire villages have been razed to the ground; men and boys executed or forcibly recruited to join the militants’ ranks; and women and girls taken against their will as wives and household slaves. As part of the group’s brutal effort to establish an Islamic caliphate ruled under a strict interpretation of sharia, its militants have conducted mass rape."

Meanwhile our President golfed, spent $4 million on his last Hawaii trip, ignored ISIS, Boko Haram, visited the Castros, and cut deals already broken with Iran.  

Our Secretary of State was trading State favors for Clinton crime family support and making exceptional speeches to Wall Street bankers.  I wonder what percentage of this big, women's rights advocate's emails were focused on solving the crisis in Nigeria...  20,000 of them were about wedding plans.

We aren't the world's policeman but there is a time and a place to offer help.  Do we have to wait until this is within our borders to fight back?

I wonder if these women survivors of Boko Haram or the Islamic State, raped, starved, beaten, "forced to watch her uncle's head sawed off", think the biggest threat in the world is Climate Change?
121  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion, Trump, Matthews on: April 01, 2016, 11:42:23 AM
Trump stepped in it big time suggesting penalties for women having abortions, if  it was illegal, after being pressed by a Hillary Clinton surrogate into answering a hypothetical.  There are a number of problems with Trump's answer on this.

George H.W. Bush had a similar exchange in a debate, 1988.  A 70 year old student of the Presidential pursuit might have known this and have learned from it.  http://debates.org/index.php?page=september-25-1988-debate-transcript

[What other recently acquired viewpoints has Trump not thought through?]

If abortion law was returned to the states, the penalty (or not) would be a state issue.  Is he running for South Dakota State Assembly?  A simpler answer might have been that a pro-abortion mother (oxymoron?) could drive across state lines and have the procedure done legally and safely (at least from the point of view of the mother).

He knew it was a gotcha question when he stepped into it.  He tried not to, then caved when pressed. (I wonder if Chris Matthews is tougher than Putin, Xi or the Ayatollah?)  Besides showing a lack of wisdom, this is not the kind of strength and control he claims to possess.

What is the right answer, or a better answer, if you are pro-life and trying to advance that cause?  Try this:  
Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund.

Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.

In simpler math:  Abortion = 1 dead + 1 injured

You must change hearts and minds before you change laws.  There is a moral case to be made for life before there is a legal case for protecting it.  Right now the highest moral value at stake is protecting is the convenience of the mother.  

Trump had a personal encounter with an abortion / non-abortion outcome that ended up with a beautiful life being born that touched him personally, as did I.  A person having one of these experiences discovers what should be obvious to anyone - that is a life in there - as valuable as ours and much innocent.

Every woman having an abortion today grew up post Roe v Wade, and likely taught her whole life that her choice of convenience is paramount, not the survival of the rapidly developing life inside of her.  There are some steps missing in between going from a wrongly decided constitutional right to a crime.

Instead of Trump backtracking to tell his personal story (that may not have happened), he followed his opponent's henchman down into the abyss, hurting himself and hurting the cause.

While the lives of hundreds of millions of baby girls ended in the pursuit of gender selection against females, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html, Hillary Clinton's proxy, Chris Matthews, set up the useful idiot Trump to extend the life of the fable that pro-life conservatives are anti-woman.

Which side is anti-female?  The enablers of gender-cide?  Or those who want to protect the least powerful and most innocent among us?
122  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: March 31, 2016, 11:48:24 PM
An interesting indictment, logistic, campaign question came up today, where will they post the secret service protection in relation to her cell?   Will it affect her acceptance speech if she skypes it in wearing an orange jumpsuit?
123  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the left on: March 31, 2016, 05:16:00 PM
That said Trump also stated that there should be a punishment for women if "it were made illegal".

Along with many other Trump mis-steps, bad answers from our bumbling leaders hurts all Republicans and all conservatives, not just Trump.
124  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: March 31, 2016, 05:06:45 PM
The GOPe will torpedo both Trump and Cruz. The convention will be more rigged than a North Korean election.

They can game the rules, but they can't really control how the delegates vote.

I believe that if Trump doesn't clinch it, the nomination moves to Cruz.  The only others with delegates are Kasich and Rubio.  Kasich moved to the moderate wing, has no support from conservatives who started with Trump or Cruz.  Rubio must know he is jinxed if he wins this without earning it.  He has enough political trouble already, losing his Presidential run, giving up his Senate seat,  By losing Florida to Trump he lost the enthusiasm for a gubernatorial run.  He won't be Trump's VP pick and it's hard to see how he is Cruz' best choice, being a nearly identical demographic - and didn't carry Florida.  I don't think you go further down the chain than Kasich or Rubio.  Not Romney, not Ryan, not Jeb.  Not the people that are already surrogates of someone else, Christy, Jindal, Fiorina, Walker, Graham.  Not Boehner, not Mitch McConnell, not McCain,  I could go on.  None has any better claim than Cruz to say they could or should be the nominee if the anti-Trump vote is bigger than Trump.

Cruz is better off winning this in an open format than by limiting the choices.
125  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination. on: March 31, 2016, 12:20:46 PM
"Let the looting begin."

Lets hear the comment from the White House.  Also lets hear that Sharpton is visiting him 2 x a week now instead of every week.


It seems quiet after the no charges decision in the Minneapolis police shooting.  The D.A. is a Dem; happened to be competent and thorough.  The police didn't do anything wrong.  The forensic evidence straightened out the contradictions of the people present.  The victimhood crowd was left with just saying the system's all wrong, police abuse etc except this wasn't a case of that.  The lead speaker was a professor who is the NAACP chapter president.

(He was shot because he was fighting to take one officer's gun, not for skin color.)

The so-called (black) community protest against police just extends the problem that no qualified blacks want to join the police and do that job.  These guys (white I presume) were hired with experience from some other town, not from the Northside 'community'.

Like the Sharpton reference by ccp, this is another case of self appointed activists trying to stir something up and elevate themselves, not a general feeling from people in their homes, living their lives, that police are out committing crimes where none previously existed.
126  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the left - Democrats inject social issues on: March 31, 2016, 12:02:45 PM
As Trump stumbled on abortion, Rush L. made a pretty good point today.  It is Democrats who are trying to inject social issues into the campaign.  In this case, Chris Matthews pressing DT on abortion when it hasn't been an issue this year.

Wasn't it Stephanopolous who brought up birth control.

Also Dems are always playing on gay issues when gay marriage is already 'settled law'.
127  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / US-China, Obama Faces a Tough Balancing Act Over South China Sea on: March 31, 2016, 11:21:55 AM
This is especially hard when you have a US President who is uninformed, disengaged and unprincipled. 

I wonder how those daily briefings are going - that he missed on the Middle East...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/asia/obama-xi-jinping-meeting-washington.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Obama Faces a Tough Balancing Act Over South China Sea

"Expectations that anything of substance will be accomplished in the 90-minute meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi are minimal."

128  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Morris: Cruz victory possible, Chaos in Cleveland on: March 31, 2016, 10:58:09 AM
Good analysis - except for the part where he calls Wisconsin a northeastern state. (?)
---------------------------------------------------------

Cruz is saying we can't change the rules, but setting the rules for the convention is what they always do coming into a convention.

"Rule 40" was written and passed by Romney's people to keep Ron Paul off the ballot in 2012.  You have to receive 50% or more of the vote in 8 states won to be on the ballot.  That is not a very reasonable criteria for state contests that had 17 candidates competing.  Not reasonable, that is, unless if it favors your candidate.

Some states release their delegates after the 1st ballot.  Others release their delegates from their state's vote after the 3rd ballot.  One area where the RNC needs to get ahead of the game is to set scheduled times for balloting.  Republicans might still be fighting and mudslinging instead of having speeches aimed at the general election on prime time.

The 1237 majority of possible delegates threshold does not go down if the convention drags on and delegates have left the floor or the building.  Are they going to set up porta-potties in the delegations? The delegate and the alternate who could step in might very well not be supporting the same candidate.   Delegates may need food and drink tasters...  The seating of alternates is a political matter in a contested convention.

The thought now is that Trump falls just short on the first ballot, and his count goes down each ballot after that.  What if the Cruz total goes down too and the convention is more divided than expected?  Can a rule change be proposed and enacted from the floor in between ballots?

One oddity of a contested convention is that multiple candidates will be vetting and announcing their VP selections to attempt to gain advantage and momentum.  (See Reagan-Schweiker, 1976.) That could mean there are 4 to 8 or more actual candidates roaming the floor, wooing delegates, looking for cameras.

We have never had a realtime contest like this in the age of twitter, vidku, etc.  Besides information traveling fast, so does dis-information.  False stories, cell phone and email hacking, and cell signal overload all possible in an arena of 20k with everyone scrambling for communications.


The Copper Clapper Caper involving Claude Cooper from Cleveland might have been easier to follow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjquGpmgwOo
129  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Grannis on Trade on: March 31, 2016, 10:03:02 AM

Grannis is right on this.  Except for criminal activity, stealing patents, etc., each transaction of trade is good.  It doesn't need to be "balanced" like a fiscal budget (we don't balance anymore either).  Imports are good, exports are good, and having both is doubly good.  Unlike a leftist world with compulsory purchases and regulated prices, every transaction of free trade is consensual and mutually beneficial.  The American consumer is reaping a huge benefit from global sourcing and American companies and producers likewise receive a huge benefit from having a global market in which to sell.

I listened to Trump on the Wisc. talk show.  He admits he doesn't want to raise tariffs, he won't raise tariffs, that would cripple our consumers (his voters), he admits.  He just wants to threaten to do that.  How do you threaten to do what everyone knows you are not willing to do?  He had no answer for that - another major issue he hasn't fully thought through.  Imagine next year's headline, prices for durable goods up 45% due to President Trump's trade policy.  He is too into his own popularity to ever do that even if it was good for us and it isn't.  It would be instant global recession with an easily traceable cause.

The WSJ used to say that global trade is beneficial and inevitable.  If you don't buy into the former, see the latter.  You can't have economic freedom in a global economy while being banned or punished economically for making your best purchases (and sales) around the world.  [The exception is when national security interests are at stake.]  And when people do have economic freedom, everyone benefits.

As the Chinese economy and consumer prospers, they will grow their demand for what we produce (if we produce what they demand) in a dynamic economy.

Trade protectionism is based on static, rear view mirror thinking.  We used to make  x , (steel, garments, or whatever), therefore we need to get back to where we made  x .  But comparative advantage moved on.  Now we need to produce  y and  z  to meet new market demand and stay ahead of our competition.  And what that our national product mix needs to be is not determined in the White House or a Congressional committee.

Freedom to trade requires the confidence that, given a  somewhat level playing field, we can compete with anyone.  The government's role in it is to remove the government imposed barriers that keep up from being competitive, not to micro-manage production, consumption or trade.

[We have a trade thread.]
130  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: NRO: Abort Drumpf on: March 30, 2016, 09:51:29 PM

Another not-ready-for-prime-time moment for the candidate who hasn't bothered to think through the consequences of his views on ANY issue.
--------------------------------------------

I don;t know what to think of the 'battery' incident, but it is one more day in a Donald Trump world where we aren't talking about anything that any of us would put on "the way forward" agenda.
131  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: March 30, 2016, 09:47:03 PM
Seriously?
Yes. Not one more cent for defending a suicidal culture.

We don't only defend places like Europe and Israel for their benefit.
132  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2016 Presidential: Team Rubio asks Minnesota GOP not to release delegates - yet on: March 30, 2016, 02:42:30 PM
Team Rubio asks Minnesota GOP not to 'release' delegates — yet.
http://www.startribune.com/team-rubio-asks-mn-gop-to-not-release-delegates-yet/374012961/

A fight is looming in Cleveland.
133  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Race "discrimination", Minneapolis police officers not charged.. on: March 30, 2016, 02:38:59 PM
...for a self defense killing.

A couple of self appointed activists took over the county attorney's press conference trying to say all the things that might set off the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore. 

Note to activists:  He wasn't shot because he was black.  He was shot because he went for the officer's gun and a reasonable person would conclude he was about to kill them and endanger others.

[This occurred 2 blocks from a property of mine.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/jamar-clark-shooting-minneapolis.html?_r=0

It took the DA 31 hours to read through the evidence that is now posted for the public to see.  Forensic evidence proves he got to the officer's gun and that he was not handcuffed when shot, as 'eyewitnesses' had said.  Activists were able to reach their conclusion without the delay or burden of seeing evidence.

Let the looting begin.
134  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump - I alone can solve this. on: March 30, 2016, 02:14:58 PM
"Conceit spoils the finest genius. There is not much danger that real talent or goodness will be overlooked long; even if it is, the consciousness of possessing and using it well should satisfy one, and the great charm of all power is modesty."  - Louisa May Alcott
135  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / VDH: Do the opposite of Europe on: March 29, 2016, 09:39:24 AM
As a general rule, whatever Europe is now doing, we should do the opposite

   - Victor Davis Hanson

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433364/europe-edge-abyss

Without a Second Amendment or much of a defense budget, Europeans not only divert capital to enervating social programs, but also have sacrificed any confidence in muscular self-protection, individual or collective.

Even postmodern nations remain collections of individuals. A state that will not or cannot protect its own interests is simply a reflection of millions of dead souls that do not believe in risking anything to ensure that they are safe — including their own persons and those of their family. Finally, Europe is Petronius’s Croton. It does not believe in any transcendence as reified by children or religion. If there is nothing but the here and now, then why invest one’s energy in children who live on after one dies? Like atheism, childlessness reflects the assumption that ego-driven rationalism and satisfaction of the appetites are all there is and all that there ever will be.

Europe’s perfect storm is upon us. A shrinking, statist, and agnostic society that does not believe in transcendence, either familial or religious, is now in a war with near neighbors of a very different sort. In the Middle East, the fundamentalists are growing in numbers, and they most certainly do believe that their own lives are nothing in comparison to the Phoenix-like resurrection of their Caliphate and the sensual pleasures in the hereafter that will reward their martial sacrifices in the here and now. Of all the many reasons why immigrants to Europe so often dislike their generous hosts, the simplest may be because they so easily can.
136  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Former Trump worker now against Trump on: March 29, 2016, 09:24:46 AM

Every Trump voter should read this.  Trump should read this.
137  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Grannis on equities and related matters on: March 28, 2016, 06:07:40 PM

I commented on the Scott Grannis blog today and he responded.  We agreed that 'less anemic' might describe the upward revision in this economy better than 'stronger growth'.    grin

138  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: March 28, 2016, 04:04:19 PM
"Not familiar with the projected electoral college numbers for Cruz..."

That was just my own, off the cuff estimate.  Most believe she wins the electoral college at a popular vote tie, so the electoral win is significant at 3 points of margin.

"RCP Average   3/16 - 3/22   --   --   46.7   43.8   Clinton +2.9
FOX News   3/20 - 3/22   1016 RV   3.0   44   47   Cruz +3
Bloomberg   3/19 - 3/22   815 LV   3.4   51   42   Clinton +9
Quinnipiac   3/16 - 3/21   1451 RV   2.6   45   42   Clinton +3
CBS News/NY Times   3/17 - 3/20   1058 RV   4.0   47   44   Clinton +3
139  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: More viagra for Bernie! on: March 28, 2016, 03:59:25 PM

Hillary's other moniker was 'the nutcracker'.
140  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Risks of FGM here in America? on: March 28, 2016, 03:57:20 PM

Female Gender Mutilation.  Maybe we make the lifting of a US Muslim immigration pause contingent on a total, worldwide, Islamic repudiation and ending of this practice.  Then the ball is in their court.  Remove this barbaric practice from the face of the world and then get back in line if you want.  Don't bring your savagely cruel ways here.
141  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: March 28, 2016, 03:40:42 PM
Crafty:  "I go with Cruz.  It is not impossible he wins on the first round.  He has a very good chance of winning on the second round.  He has been doing the hard backroom work that means that delegates that are committed to Trump on the first round are his on the second.  The establishment has already conceded that it can live with him in order to stop Drumpf.

In addition to his hard line Constitutional principles, his positions, I think Cruz's tactics during the campaign leave the door open for him to appeal to Trump voters.  Cruz too has not yet turned his sights on the Empress Dowager, (nor has the FBI?). 

Cruz can beat Hillary."


Agree.  First, hold Trump short of 1237. 
I agree Cruz is in a good position to win on the following ballots if he gets that far. 
His nomination in this way is totally legitimate, but won't be seen that way by opponents.
Start now by separating Trump supporters from Trump.  We want Trump supporters; we don't want Trump (as the nominee).  We didn't create his negatives.  He did.
Because this endorsement would be totally legitimate, whoever gets to 1237 first, I see Trump eventually endorsing Cruz.  (Probably didn't want the job anyway, or why would he act like this?)

Once Republicans unify, Cruz is at about -3% in the popular vote against a failed Democratic felon, losing the electoral college by about 40-50 votes.  That is a better starting point than all the other remaining alternatives. 
142  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: March 28, 2016, 02:33:38 PM
The polls are right - except for the little preface, if the election were held today.  Hs supporters have the belief that when Trump turns his attention to Hillary, he will destroy her.  (Just as I know Rubio is the best communicator, won Florida by a million votes, etc.) Trump supporters may be right, but the polls today already take all that into consideration, her felonious existence and his own pluses and minuses.  There isn't much left to say about either one of them (that hasn't already been said).


"November will be a blood bath.  Even Alexander the Great couldn't get us out of this jam."

Isn't it strange that with 7 months to go, no one can think of a solution.
Our alternatives:
1) Go with Trump now, hope he runs and governs well.
2) Go with Trump after he hits 1237 delegates, hope he runs and governs well.
3) Go with second place Cruz on the second ballot.  Lose all Trump supporters.  Lose the election.
4) Take Rubio, Kasich, Ryan or somebody else on the second (or 50th) ballot, Lose all and Cruz and Trump supporters.  Lose the election.
5) Run a conservative 3rd party candidate against Hillary and Trump, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, anyone who wasn't on the primary ballots.  Trump Supporters stay with Trump.  Hillary wins.
6) Merge a ticket, Trump-Cruz, Trump-Rubio, Trump-Kasich.  But the only one who gains from that is Trump, offering the false promise that any veep will have 2 cents of influence over how he governs.

I lean toward 3) , 4) and 5) above, the not-Trump options.
143  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Trade Issues, Freedom to Trade, Free trade is killing us! ? on: March 28, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
With anti-free-trade talk rising politically again, it is time (again) to look at the merits of the arguments.

Almost everything you hear from POTUS candidates about trade deals is wrong
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2016/03/almost-everything-you-hear-from.html
The new IGM Panel poll of prominent economists asks about this proposition:
An important reason why many workers in Michigan and Ohio have lost jobs in recent years is because US presidential administrations over the past 30 years have not been tough enough in trade negotiations.
Only 5 percent agree, while 64 percent disagree.  (The rest were uncertain or did not answer.)  A previous poll asked about this statement:
Past major trade deals have benefited most Americans.
On this one, 83 percent agreed, and zero percent disagreed.

http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_25byqjBle85jqy9
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_d68906VNWqVmiGN

So the next time you hear some candidate complain about trade deals, remember that he or she is disagreeing with the vast majority of economists.
144  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Wesbury: US needs sensible debt financing on: March 28, 2016, 11:34:03 AM
Another way of sensibly financing our debt might have been to keep the total amount of it within reason. 

What would the cost of our debt be today at normal if not for our outrageous and counter-productive monetary policy?

Monetary policy failure enabled fiscal policy failure and now it is a federal government responsibility larger than providing for our common, national defense.  I wonder if that is what the Founders intended...

I wonder if Congress having the power to pay our debts, Article I, section 8, implied the power to slough 20-30 trillion US$ off on the next generation, as if it was unimportant.
145  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Fed's role in the bubble and the crash(es) on: March 28, 2016, 11:14:11 AM
Another 'Captain F'ing Obvious' moment for anyone reading the forum, now experts are telling us the Fed's wrongheaded policies of a decade ago (and now, still) are major contributors to the bubbles and crashes, then and coming...

http://economicsone.com/2016/02/22/a-firm-conclusion-about-the-role-of-fed-leading-up-to-the-crisis/
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/02/08/2152624/the-bank-of-canada-admits-easy-money-can-inflate-debt-bubbles/
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/remarks-080216.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Onlinepaperscombinedbyyear/2007/Housing_and_Monetary_Policy.pdf
http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/2010_pdfs/Fed-Crisis-A-Reply-to-Ben-Berhttp://www.sppm.tsinghua.edu.cn/eWebEditor/UploadFile//20150602112635392.pdf
nanke-WSJ-Jan-10-2010.pdf
http://www.sppm.tsinghua.edu.cn/eWebEditor/UploadFile//20150602112635392.pdf
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/08/07/Jarocinski.pdf

Pretty much every economist on earth except Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen agree on the multi-trillion dollar damage actual Fed policies have dealt on our economy.  And it's still happening. (cf. ZIRP, NIRP)

146  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Political Economics, Crony Governmentism, rigged economy, dearth of startups on: March 28, 2016, 10:59:28 AM
Over on the US Economy thread we keep hearing about how great a limited number of large, global companies are doing, as if that is a measure of how the economy is doing.  The economy is underperforming - to make a 'Captain F'ing Obvious' Understatement!

Under Obama's Accomplishments, did I already mention the worst startup rate of real businesses in US history?  (Filing an LLC to limit liability exposure on an existing building or asset that will employ no one ever is not a business startup.)  Others are starting to pay attention to warning signs that are already blindingly obvious to anyone on the forum.

Dearth of Startups:  http://www.inc.com/magazine/201505/leigh-buchanan/the-vanishing-startups-in-decline.html
Among other things, "Onerous Regulations"

http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/david-nicklaus/bullard-concerned-about-dearth-of-startups/article_b9a30d80-6980-581b-a52b-6bc53e861e33.html
Bullard concerned about dearth of startupsBullard concerned about dearth of startups
A long-term decline in U.S. startup activity should be of concern to national policymakers, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard

Now this:  (The Economist actually gets something right!)

Big firms never had it so good, competition persistently lacking.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21695392-big-firms-united-states-have-never-had-it-so-good-time-more-competition-problem?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

The Economist, What's wrong with the highest sustained profits by the biggest companies in US history?  Lack of competition.  Why the lack of competition?  New regulations... keep rivals out.

"Getting bigger is not the only way to squish competitors. As the mesh of regulation has got denser since the 2007-08 financial crisis, the task of navigating bureaucratic waters has become more central to firms’ success. Lobbying spending has risen by a third in the past decade, to $3 billion. A mastery of patent rules has become essential in health care and technology, America’s two most profitable industries. And new regulations do not just fence big banks in: they keep rivals out."

"2/3rds of Americans think the economy is rigged [against them]." 

 (  - How come we're on the side of making that true, instead of making that false? )

The two choices that remain coming out of these primaries are to choose between a crony government felon and a private takings advocating, crony government beneficiary.  That's great (with sarcasm), and when do we start to address what's gone wrong in this country?
-------------------------------------------------------
From The Economist:   ...
Most of the remedies dangled by politicians to solve America’s economic woes would make things worse. Higher taxes would deter investment. Jumps in minimum wages would discourage hiring. Protectionism would give yet more shelter to dominant firms. Better to unleash a wave of competition.

The first step is to take aim at cosseted incumbents. Modernising the antitrust apparatus would help. Mergers that lead to high market share and too much pricing power still need to be policed. But firms can extract rents in many ways. Copyright and patent laws should be loosened to prevent incumbents milking old discoveries. Big tech platforms such as Google and Facebook need to be watched closely: they might not be rent-extracting monopolies yet, but investors value them as if they will be one day. The role of giant fund managers with crossholdings in rival firms needs careful examination, too.

Set them free
The second step is to make life easier for startups and small firms. [Is this rocket science?]  Concerns about the expansion of red tape and of the regulatory state must be recognised as a problem, not dismissed as the mad rambling of anti-government Tea Partiers. The burden placed on small firms by laws like Obamacare has been material. The rules shackling banks have led them to cut back on serving less profitable smaller customers. The pernicious spread of occupational licensing has stifled startups. Some 29% of professions, including hairstylists and most medical workers, require permits, up from 5% in the 1950s.

A blast of competition would mean more disruption for some: firms in the S&P 500 employ about one in ten Americans. But it would create new jobs, encourage more investment and help lower prices. Above all, it would bring about a fairer kind of capitalism. That would lift Americans’ spirits as well as their economy.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21695392-big-firms-united-states-have-never-had-it-so-good-time-more-competition-problem?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

147  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics, New info, analysis on Income, Wealth, Spending Inequality on: March 28, 2016, 10:28:32 AM
Important work, I think, studying inequality over lifetime instead annually and looking more to spending rather than income wealth.  Realistic conclusions, policies must take disincentives to work at both ends of the spectrum into account.

https://newrepublic.com/article/131517/weve-measuring-inequality-wrong

Another look at that:
http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/income-inequality-doesnt-matter-study-finds-heres-what-does/
148  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Steyn looks even more correct as time goes on on: March 28, 2016, 10:01:18 AM

"The terrorists have won. If we're going to move the security perimeter back, why don't sovereign nations move it back to their own national borders by not importing and expanding the high-risk population in which terrorism incubates?"
149  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Massive deficits under Trump's tax plan? on: March 28, 2016, 09:52:47 AM

Yes, but they will be the biggest most beautiful deficits we have ever had.     sad

Or were they just starting points in negotiations by the world's greatest deal maker?    sad

Maybe he plans to make it up with his 45% tariffs...    sad

Higher tax rates from Hillary or Bernie will collapse the economy, bring in lower revenues as well.    sad

With most shelters and loopholes already out, lower rates mostly bring in lower revenues. 

Odd to have a deficit analysis without looking at the cause of deficits - spending.

Trump has endorsed spending restraint measures such as the Penny Plan.
http://www.onecentsolution.org/the-one-cent-solution/

Unfortunately his memory and commitment to promises made is lacking.

I would add - the Cruz plan is unworkable and unelectable.  Mentioned previously, I am waiting for the Paul Ryan plan.  The Republican House may be our last chance.  Needless to say, the Ryan plan is also unworkable if we lose the Senate and White House. 
150  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Ten Donald Trump lies on: March 28, 2016, 09:30:55 AM

Maybe he thinks we won't remember what he said, on camera.  I think he doesn't remember what he said, on camera.

Besides lying or forgetting, his problem is that he always has cameras on.  And tweets can't be untwittered.

Lying by people like HRC, Bill Clinton, Obama, now Trump creates a number of problems, such as lack of trust.  Even worse to me is that it makes it boring and a waste of time to listen carefully to what they say.  Why should we care what they say when they don't.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 156
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!