Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 28, 2014, 02:45:59 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83468 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 123
3651  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / No longer doubting (Justice) Thomas on: October 17, 2011, 09:55:28 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/thomas-321865-original-court.html

Ralph A. Rossum: No longer doubting Thomas

In his 446 opinions, Clarence Thomas always looked to preserve the original meaning of the Constitution.

By RALPH A. ROSSUM / Salvatori professor of American Constitutionalism, Claremont McKenna College

On Oct. 23, 1991, Clarence Thomas was sworn in as the 106th Justice of the Supreme Court. During the heated debate over his confirmation, Gary McDowell, a conservative legal scholar and former speechwriter for Edwin Meese, wrote a piece entitled "Doubting Thomas: Is Clarence a Real Conservative?" Now, 20 years later, there is no doubt: the answer is an unequivocal, yes.

In the 446 opinions he has written since his confirmation, Thomas has assiduously pursued an original understanding approach to constitutional interpretation and a jurisprudence of constitutional restoration. He has been unswayed by the claims of precedent – by the gradual build-up of interpretations that, over time, completely distort the original understanding of the constitutional provision in question and lead to muddled decisions and contradictory conclusions.

As with too many layers of paint on a delicately crafted piece of furniture, precedent based on precedent – focusing on what the Court said the Constitution means in past cases as opposed to focusing on what the Constitution actually means – hides the constitutional nuance and detail he wants to restore. Thomas is unquestionably the justice who is most willing to reject this build-up, this excrescence, and to call on his colleagues to join him in scraping away past precedent and getting back to bare wood – to the original understanding of the Constitution.

The two Supreme Court justices who unabashedly identify themselves as originalists are Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Yet, they are different in their approaches. Scalia consistently employs an original public meaning approach to interpretation.

He wants to know what the words of the text being interpreted meant to the society that adopted it. While he often turns to founding documents, he does so because they "display the original meaning of the text."

Thomas, pursuing an original understanding approach, incorporates Scalia's narrower original public meaning approach, but then widens the originalist focus and asks as well why the text was adopted. Concerning the Constitution, Thomas turns readily to founding era sources not only to determine the original meaning of the text being interpreted, but also to ascertain the ends the framers sought to achieve, the evils they sought to avert, and the means they employed to achieve those ends and avert those evils when they adopted and ratified that text.

Thomas invariably rejects past decisions that depart from that original understanding. He invites his colleagues to join him by engaging in the hard jurisprudential work of scraping away the layers of misguided precedent and restoring the contours of the Constitution, as it was originally understood by those who framed and ratified it.

Here are two examples from the scores that could be provided. In his concurrence in the Ten Commandment case, Van Orden v. Perry, Thomas condemned the "incoherence" of the Court's past decisions that rendered "the Establishment Clause impenetrable and incapable of consistent application" and called for a "return to the views of the Framers" and for the adoption of actual physical coercion as "the touchstone for our Establishment Clause inquiry."

And, in his dissent in the takings case, Kelo v. City of New London, he observed that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not." He regretted that the Court majority relied not on the constitutional text, but "almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result."

And, he concluded, "[w]hen faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning."

After a long and bruising confirmation hearing and a close Senate vote, Thomas arrived at the Court as damaged goods. And, given the liberal bias of the legal professoriate, law review articles about him during his first decade of service were unrelentingly hostile and derogatory. One in the Harvard Law Review went so far as to declare that Thomas had no underlying legal approach other than to be in "direct opposition" to the views of Justice Thurgood Marshall whom he replaced. But, that is finally changing, as thoughtful articles taking seriously his opinions and commending his original understanding jurisprudence are now much more prevalent than those castigating him. They praise him as the "Next Great Dissenter," "the Lone Principled Federalist," and the emerging "Commercial Speech Protector."

Even his civil rights opinions are now winning the respect of leftist professors such as Mark Tushnet and the self-described "liberal black womanist," Angela Onwuachi-Willig, who confessed that, by defending Thomas, she had committed an act she "once thought was impossible."

As his 20-year effort to restore the original understanding of Constitution makes clear, there was no reason then and there is no reason now to doubt Thomas.
3652  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012 Presidential: Taxpayer paid buses, 2.2 million, head to swing states on: October 17, 2011, 08:52:51 AM
There is no primary opponent so the rule is no victim, no crime?  See if the sound bites this week coming from the President bus tour through states like North Carolina and Virginia that Obama carried in 2008 and needs in 2012 sound like campaigning or governing.  Leave the campaign war chest in the bank.  This tour is free!

WSJ: Obama to Target a Few Crucial States

The president starts a three-day bus trip Monday through North Carolina and Virginia that brings fresh attention to the kinds of voters he will rely on as he works to assemble a majority next year in the Electoral College.
3653  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / VDH: The skeptics of 2008 proved prescient on: October 17, 2011, 08:35:08 AM
Did 2008 Come True?
October 16, 2011 - 11:15 am - by Victor Davis Hanson

The Right-Wing Complaint of 2008

In 2008, the following was the general right-wing argument against Obama’s candidacy:

a) The self-professed “uniter” Obama had, in truth, little record of uniting disparate groups. From community organizing to politics, his preferred modus operandi was rather to praise moderation, but politick more as a radical, and sometimes go after opponents as unreasonable or illiberal. Thus the most partisan voting senator in the Congress, who talked grandly of “working across the aisle,” also urged supporters to “get in their faces” and “take a gun to a knife fight.” Acorn, Project Vote, and SEIU were not ecumenical organizations.

b) Obama knew very little about foreign affairs, or perhaps even raw human nature as it plays out in power politics abroad. At times, he seemed naive about the singular role of the U.S. in the world, especially his sense that problems with Iran, the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia, and others were somehow predicated on American arrogance and unilateralism (and neither predating nor postdating George Bush) — to be remedied by Obama’s post-racial, post-national diplomacy.

c) In truth, Obama, for all his rhetorical skills and soft-spoken charisma, had little experience in the private sector outside of politics, academia, foundations, and subsidized organizing. Consequently, he did not seem to understand the nature of profit and loss, payrolls, how businesses worked and planned, or much of anything in the private sector.

d) Obama at times seemed to lack common sense, and perhaps even common knowledge. He appeared confused about everything from the number of U.S. states to the idea that air pressure and “tune-ups” might substitute for new oil exploration. He seemed assured when reading a teleprompted script, and yet lost much of his eloquence when it came to repartee and question and answer.

e) Obama saw race as essential to his persona and his success, rarely incidental. Collate the writings and rantings of his triad of pastors and friends — Rev. Wright, Rev. Pfleger, and Rev. Meeks — and one sees a common theme of racism (sometimes overt), anti-Semitism, and class warfare. It was considered irrelevant to remind voters in 2008 that Michelle Obama had alleged that the U.S. was a downright mean country, or that she had confessed to never heretofore being very proud of her country until it gave consideration to her husband as a presidential candidate — though both sentiments would seem rare for a potential first lady.

f) Obama, it was also felt, counted on a sense of entitlement. His admissions to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard were alleged not to have been based on the usual competitive test scores or grades — and such charges were not refuted, but considered ancient history. As Harvard Law Review editor, he seemed to assume, quite rightly, that he did not have to publish an article. As a University of Chicago Law School lecturer he also rightly assumed that Chicago — and later Harvard as well — would, if he had wished, granted him tenure, again, despite nonexistent publication. Sen. Clinton argued, without much refutation, that as a state legislator Obama had both authored very little legislation and voted present on any vote that might be considered problematic for a higher political office — a charge that later disappointed supporters would come to echo, along with admissions of prior inexperience on Obama’s apart.

g) Obama, like many on the elite left, had an ambiguous attitude about affluence and its dividends. The more, as a community organizer, he had railed about bankers and unfairness, the more he had enjoyed a mini-mansion and dealt with the soon-to-be criminal Tony Rezko. The current Wall Street protests take their cue not just from presidential anger at “millionaires and billionaires,” but also from the idea that affluent young people are exempt from their own rhetorical charges.

Yet in 2008, to suggest “spread the wealth” meant anything important was to be either racist or a rank partisan. But Obama in 2001 in a Chicago public radio interview could not have been clearer about the need for government to redistribute income and his unhappiness that the Constitution seemed to prohibit that. Here is a telling excerpt in all its half-baked Foucauldian vocabulary:

    But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. … I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

Again, to refer to all of the above in 2008 was considered not so much unfair as improper.

The Proving Ground

Then came the election, and a perfect storm of events. The general unhappiness with Bush over deficits and Iraq, the recession that had started in December 2007, the absence of any incumbent vice president or president in the race for the first time since 1952, an unusually unenergetic McCain campaign, and a nakedly partisan media — all that by early September still had not given Obama the lead. But the mid-September 2008 financial crash did. And so what in the last fifty years was usually considered improbable — the election of a northern Democratic liberal — soon seemed foreordained.

The Reality of 2011

We are now nearing the third year of the Obama administration. Were those worries of 2008 at all justified? Let us briefly review them in the same order:

a) Uniter? The country is divided, perhaps more so than in 2006 — except to the extent of gradually unifying around opposition to Obama, who now polls around 40% approval and is heading to Bush levels in three rather than seven years. “Get in their faces”transmogrified into “punish our enemies,” a lawsuit against Arizona, “stop the smears”/ JournoList/AttackWatch.com, and a shellacking in 2010 that led the president to abandon any pretense of “bipartisanship” in favor of revving up the base with them/us rhetoric. Let me juxtapose these two quotes that sum up the current weird Obama atmosphere:

    * “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic.” — Hillary Clinton in 2003 objecting to the Bush administration.

    * “These are not patriots, people who love this country want to see jobs created. They don’t love this country. … I don’t think they love this country. They’re not concerned about the economic well being of the country as a whole.” — Rep. Linda Sanchez, in 2011, in response to congressional opposition to President Obama’s job’s bill.

Could now-Secretary Clinton address Rep. Sanchez’s charges?

b) Abroad? Obama soon began treating allies and enemies alike as near neutrals: outreach to Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba, while petty slights and sometimes serious rebuke to Israel, the UK, and eastern Europe. Once the most vocal of Bush’s critics, Obama ended up copycatting all of his predecessor’s anti-terrorism protocols – but without a gesture of gratitude. As Predator in chief, Obama quintupled the number of targeted assassinations, on the apparent theory that dead suspected terrorists would cause fewer problems than incarcerated confessed terrorists. Reset and outreach faded and are now terms of yesteryear: China is as anti-American as ever, more so Pakistan. Iran allegedly now tries to kill inside Washington. Putin is still Putin. “Leading from behind” proved that a thug like Gaddafi could resist NATO’s big three for eight months. The Arab Spring may become a winter of anti-Semitism, anti-Christianism,  and anti-Americanism. The Arab Spring also suggests so far two tragic truths: the Middle East changes only when the U.S. removes a psychopath, and then spends lots of blood and treasure fostering a new government — something that has zero political support after Iraq; and two, Middle East dictators are sometimes more liberal than the masses to whom they deny freedoms. In general, we still have Afghanistan and Iraq, plus Libya and now a small force in Africa. Israel, Cyprus, Taiwan, North Korea, and the former Soviet republics are more volatile, not less.

c) Economy? Obama’s EU-like economic plan is in shambles. Prior to Obama, Keynesians had argued that no one had given them a fair shot since the Depression. But borrowing nearly five trillion in less than three years, near zero interest rates, vastly expanding food stamps and unemployment benefits, absorbing private companies, and issuing vast new financial and environmental regulations turned an anticipated recovery into another near recession. In any case, Obama’s economic architects of such policies — Goolsbee, Orszag, Romer, Summers — mysteriously did not last three years.

d) Common sense? 2008 campaign “slips” prefaced things like “corpse-man” and speaking Austrian — perhaps understandable, but not in the media climate of zero media tolerance for “nucular.” Presidents I suppose in the future will have to be taught by handlers not to bow to emperors and kings. Going to our ally Germany to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall was apparently less important than jetting to Copenhagen to lobby for a Chicago Olympics. The 2009 Cairo speech was one of the most factually incorrect speeches in recent presidential history, as almost every assertion was demonstrably false. Well before Solyndra, the secretary of energy quipped that gas prices should reach European levels, that California farms would some day blow away, and that Americans, in essence, could not be trusted to buy the right light bulbs. From “man-made disasters” to “overseas contingency operations” to “my people” and “cowards” to videos assuring that immigration laws will not be enforced, the Obama cabinet is about what one could have predicted back in 2008.

e) Racial healing? All these earlier bothersome tidbits like “typical white person” reappeared with an entire litany of them/us calumnies, none of them in isolation of any importance, but in toto quite disturbing. Do we remember them all — from the beer summit and Eric Holder’s “my people” and “cowards” to “wise Latina,” “punish our enemies,” “moats and alligators,” the faux-southern black preacher cadences and condescending addresses to “bedroom slippers” African-American audiences, or the video appealing to constituents by racial categories? Few imagined in 2008 that the Congressional Black Caucus in 2011, in the new period of post-racialism, would be accusing opponents of wanting a return to lynching and Jim Crow laws.

f) Political savvy? Why federalize health care in the midst of a recession with 10% plus unemployment? Obama promised the public in November 2010 not to raise taxes in a recession, in 2011 to raise them a lot. Solyndra seems far worse than Enron, but Fast and Furious perhaps as bad as Iran Contra — except that Americans died in the former and not the latter. In 2010, potential Republican opponents and the Democratic base were worried that Obama would triangulate as Clinton had in 1995; in 2011, most observers are exasperated that he thinks more of what failed in 2010 is the remedy in 2011.

g) Hate or love of the elite? The hints of the 2008 attraction and distrust of wealth only magnified by 2011. In the midst of “at some point” we have made enough money, of not the time for profits on Wall Street, of “millionaires and billionaires,” of “corporate jets,” of going after everyone from guitar factories to Boeing — in the midst of all that, where do all the all elite vacation spots and golf resorts fit in — along with massive donations from Goldman Sachs and BP? How strange that the more one demonizes the good life that unimaginable riches provide, the more one seems comfortable with the good life that unlimited government subsidizes?

The skeptics of 2008 proved prescient; those who demonized them should be embarrassed. And we should remember that candidates, of both parties, will govern mostly as they campaign. Slips are not indiscretions, but often will prove in hindsight windows of the soul.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/did-2008-come-true/?singlepage=true
3654  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / We STILL own 500 million shares of Government Motors on: October 17, 2011, 08:30:45 AM
http://www.bailoutcost.com/
Current loss:  14, 421,881,925.36

How the loss is calculated:
The United States Treasury owns roughly 500 million shares of common stock in General Motors. (Source: U.S. Treasury) The Treasury would need to sell these shares at roughly $53 per share in order to "break even" on the investment. (Source: WSJ) Using Google Finance API, we multiply the current GM stock price by 500,065,254, and subtract that total from $26,503,458,462 (or, 500,065,254 x $53).

Our calculations estimate the loss taxpayers would suffer if UST sells its GM common stock shares at the current ticker price. We track the common stock price and update our calculations on an ongoing basis, providing an up-to-the-minute snapshot of the money the UST lost in Government Motors.
-----
Rob Peter, pay Paul.  Someone tell me how coerced help from taxpayers to one enterprise is equal protection to all others...  sad
3655  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans on: October 17, 2011, 08:20:33 AM
"McCain-Feingold...was structured to make it more difficult to challenge incumbents."

True even if by accident.  Incumbents start with a big advantage, the powers of incumbency: briefing letters, press stories covering their work in Washington and their local visits, paid staff helping constituents, etc.  Spending limits applied evenly to everyone lock in that advantage.

The way you limit money in politics is limit what influence is for sale.  If the public were to not tolerate the special treatment of special groups in the tax code, in spending bills or in regulations, most of that kind of money would dry up quickly.
3656  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans- Disparity on: October 16, 2011, 10:06:37 PM
"So what would be the policy solution to this gap?"

For lower and middle income earners to have the opportunity to earn more money if they want to.

Disparity tells us that people with high incomes make more money than people with lower incomes.  We are missing something with that.  I learn more when we compare some other variable such as that people who set an alarm and get up in the morning make more money than people who don't.  Or people who have saved and invested in their earlier years make more investment income now than people who didn't.

Fact is that a typical person moves freely between at least 3 or 4 of the 5 quintiles of earners in the course of their lifetime. 

The question IMO isn't disparity but opportunity.  If 40% of young people are unemployed right now, our policies are choking off their momentum to work a couple of jobs, save and start of business of their own someday.

"Campaign finance reform was lambasted by the..." ... [first amendment]   wink

"Simplify the tax code.  Get rid of loopholes"  YES!  And closing the loopholes means the marginal rates can be lower, and that would help investment, expansion and hiring get going again, helping those currently left out of the economy who don't want to be. Favorable conditions for economic growth will not cure disparity,but it does help everybody.

3657  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GOP job growth plan on: October 16, 2011, 04:54:44 PM
Finally, a GOP Growth Plan
Senators John McCain and Rand Paul have drafted an economic growth blueprint that they hope to be the rallying cry of all congressional Republicans.

By STEPHEN MOORE

The White House and congressional Democrats hope to use the Senate rejection of the Obama jobs plan this week as a campaign issue against "do nothing Republicans." Senate Democrats have crowed that "Republicans have no jobs plan of their own," but that's not true any longer. Senators John McCain of Arizona and Rand Paul of Kentucky have drafted a comprehensive economic growth blueprint that they hope to be the rallying cry of all congressional Republicans in the weeks ahead. We obtained a copy of the draft document which includes tax cuts, a balanced budget amendment, ObamaCare repeal, and a regulatory freeze.

In an interview, Mr. McCain said that the two GOP senators were asked by Senator John Cornyn of Texas to stitch together a counterpoint to the Obama $447 billion proposal that lost in the Senate on Tuesday. "Can you imagine a stranger pair than me and Rand Paul," laughed Mr. McCain of his co-sponsor, who is a libertarian Republican. "We found a lot of common ground, and that started with fixing the tax code," he adds.

The plan would also promote an America-first pro-drilling policy to expand U.S. industry and reduce the country's reliance on Middle East oil. That's an issue where Mr. Obama is highly vulnerable given the tens of billions wasted on wind and solar subsidies. On the regulatory front, federal agencies would not be able to issue new rules until the unemployment rate drops to 7.7%.

The plan, which would cut corporate tax rates to 25% from 35% is partly paid for by offering a reduced 5% tax on repatriated capital to the U.S. When that approach was tried in the Bush years, revenues rose as a flood of new capital that was trapped overseas poured back into the U.S. Mr. McCain fumed that the congressional score keepers won't count this maneuver "as a revenue raiser, even though we know it increase tax payments."

The plan won't get close to the 60 votes necessary in the Senate. But it does establish a polar star for Republicans to head toward. Republicans got a nice lift for the plan when a Chamber of Commerce poll asked 1300 business owners across the country whether they support the GOP plan of "permanent tax cuts and less regulation," or the Democratic plan of temporary payroll tax cuts and public works spending. More than eight of 10 said they favor the Republican approach.

Mr. Paul told Politico that it is critical that Republicans have a response on jobs to the White House offering. Now they have one, and we will see if Republicans actually fight for it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576631170682383808.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond
3658  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 16, 2011, 04:36:05 PM
"Perry has proven to be quite the disappointment."

Agree, but with 15 million in the bank he isn't going to go away anytime soon.  Like Newt, he can still add something to the discussion if he chooses to step up to the plate.
----
I watched Cain on Meet the Press today.  Must say again what a pompous and partisan jerk David Gregory is.  Cain was poised and focused, answered every question very well, never distracted by the outrageous opposing opinions expressed in the question that poses as journalism.  Cain was ready on every objection.  Cain makes the Reagan  case on foreign policy, peace through strength, wouldn't let Gregory go anywhere with neocon labeling and didn't get drawn into specifics on action against Iran.  When all he has for intelligence and IF this was an act of war, then he would have his advisers present him with "all our options".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/44921014#44921014
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44908788/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/

Gregory: For starters, about 30 million of the poorest households pay neither income taxes nor Social Security or Medicare levies.  `So for them,'" he says, "`doing away with the payroll tax doesn't save anything.  And you are adding both a 9 percent sales tax and 9 percent income tax.  So we know they will be worse off.'" That's the reality, Mr. Cain

After being completely refuted by Cain, Gregory says: "The other defect in the plan..."

Gregory just can't get it that state and Federal are DIFFERENT.  No matter what you do with federal, you have state taxes to deal with. His plan has nothing to do with that.

Cain did not back off of strong statement made in speeches, Cain clip: 'liberals seek to destroy this country',  Gregory: "How so?" Cain: "economically".  They don't want America to be strong.
3659  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 16, 2011, 01:26:41 PM
GM wrote: "At least Cain is willing to think outside the box on this topic."

Absolutely! Cain put himself on the map with his plan and sparked the interest of both the flat and Fair tax people that unfortunately are two competing minorities of the electorate. I read through Romney's 59 point plan and can't remember any of it.  I did not find the top marginal rate in there - because it isn't in there.  Hardly a commitment to lower rates, economic growth and smaller government.

Cain is the only one calling for the complete scrapping of the current tax code.  Many are finding agreement with the first two nines and but distrusting the third - the enactment of a large new federal tax.  The door is wide open for candidate Rick Perry to also scrap the code with a different plan.  Gov. Perry, if you are reading this, debates won't be so scary after you have a plan.  I will be happy to outline one for you.

3660  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: October 16, 2011, 12:29:46 PM
Kudlow is wrong about Cain's 999 excluding people below the poverty line. Kudlow says: "the Cain plan partially deals with this by exempting everybody below the poverty line." That was the FAIR tax that did that, undermining its simplicity.  Cain has only said that people poor or otherwise can avoid this tax by buying used goods.  A fair point except the price of used goods will go up by the same 9% his own valid logic - an embedded tax passed along to the consumer.

Note that Kudlow also writes: "I am troubled by the national sales tax piece. It reminds me too much of Europe. It could start low and then build on top of the other taxes. But I totally support the first two nines on personal income and business....I'm still a flat-tax guy"

Me too.

I posted at length previously as to why I believe the FAIR tax is unworkable politically, such as here is 2007:  http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1477.msg15510#msg15510  That is the reason Cain moved to the combination plan, but the combination plan precludes the central feature of the FAIR tax, repealing the income tax amendment.  

I agree the Cain plan if implemented exactly as written will achieve an economic jumpstart and optimistic future growth rates similar to what is claimed, but I don't believe income taxes and corporate taxes will then stay flat or low thereafter, but I do believe that a new federal tax will never go down in its top rate or go away.

Cain 9-9-9 requires a 2/3 majority to change the rates?  How so?  That sounds more like a constitutional amendment than a tax bill.  I favor constitutional amendments to cap tax rates and spending.  That is not in the proposal.
-----
I strongly agree with  this part, Crafty wrote: "The current structure, where most people pay little or no taxes actually weakens our resistance on the whole.  A system where virtually everyone pays THE SAME RATE will do much to stiffen the spine of we the people should Washington try to increase any of the 9s."

 
3661  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Republican race so far (Dance of the Un-Mitts) by John Podhoretz on: October 14, 2011, 10:04:17 PM
Crafty,  I see it differently, but I notice that John Podhoretz also makes the Ronald Reagan comparison.  This is a great re-cap of the race so far:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/dance_of_the_un_mitts_pYgo0N3ZIba7sLXGzZo18L

The question now for Herman Cain, certainly the most charming Republican presidential contender since Ronald Reagan, is whether he’s a formidable candidate in his own right -- or just the latest of the Not-Romneys.

The structure of the GOP race this year has been simple. There’s Mitt Romney and his solid 20-25 percent of the Republican electorate, the level of support the former Massachusetts governor has garnered in nearly every major poll this year.

And then there’s the other 75 percent. They know Romney. They’ve been listening to him for nearly five years. And they’re not buying.

There are three possible explanations for this.

They dislike his stands on policy. How can Republicans nominate a man who imposed an individual health-care mandate on the state of Massachusetts to lead a party whose primary policy goal since 2010 has been the repeal of ObamaCare -- designed around an individual health-care mandate?

They can’t make an emotional connection with him. Romney is a Scotchgarded candidate -- all attempts to penetrate the shiny surface are repelled. This is why there is political value to his rivals when someone brings up his Mormonism, and not just to make evangelicals uncomfortable with him. Because LDS is a minority faith, Romney’s membership in the church only emphasizes his otherness and distance.

The GOP base’s difficulty in finding a commonality with Romney is related to their unease with his policy history. Romney does not have a natural affinity with the GOP faithful. Or, as Rush Limbaugh put it simply yesterday, “Romney is not a conservative. He’s not, folks.”

Romney has sought to calm these concerns simply by changing some of his positions. He was pro-choice; now he’s pro-life. He was a supporter of some vague form of gay marriage; now he promises to oppose it. Which leads to point 3:

GOP voters think Romney is a phony. Combine the above two and you get this one.

Authenticity is always an issue for primary voters, as it should be. They are the most committed people in politics, and they believe deeply in the power of the political system to do good (even if, in the Republican case, the good to be done is to dismantle the political system in part). An inauthentic candidate is exactly the kind of politician true believers fear the most.

Romney can’t really do anything about these problems -- except perhaps find a way to remove the Scotchgard. And because of them, the GOP race all year has been a contest between Romney and the Not-Romneys.

First up was Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, who said explicitly that he was in the race to provide a more conservative mainstream alternative to Romney.

He went nowhere because, as it turned out, the 75 percent didn’t want to choose between Romney and a better version of Romney. They wanted a Not-Romney, a candidate of conservative principle, and three have surfaced.

Michele Bachmann surged after two debate performances in which she positioned herself as unwilling and indeed emotionally incapable of compromise. But her entire candidacy was and is negative -- you know what she won’t do and what she doesn’t like, but you know nothing else.

Her Not-Romney position was obliterated by the arrival of the man who, on paper, was the perfect Not-Romney: Rick Perry. A hard-line conservative, he could also boast of governing credentials and had a simple positive message: I can get the country back to work the way people are working in Texas.

Perry has done nothing but shoot himself in the foot he’s had lodged in his mouth for six weeks. So now comes Herman Cain.

Now this is a Not-Romney -- an African-American evangelical preacher and former businessman with an entrancing personality and a genuine sense of the size and drama of the present moment.

Cain speaks plainly, whereas Romney speaks like the guy in a radio commercial reading off the fine print of a lottery. Romney has a 59-point plan to save the economy? Cain has a one-point plan, the already-iconic 9-9-9.

This is Cain’s Not-Romney moment. Some polls have him ahead of Romney now. Every conventional understanding of politics says he can’t win; 9-9-9 is fun to describe but difficult to defend substantively; Cain has an unfortunate history of saying unfortunate things. And he has no elective experience.

And he has one more problem: Romney. Because while everybody was looking for an alternative to him, Romney has used his time on the trail to turn himself into a dazzling candidate. Even the 75 percent won’t remain immune forever to just how fluent, how precise and how serious he is about running and winning.

All he needs is for this one last Not-Romney to fade as the others did. Will he?
3662  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 14, 2011, 07:12:39 PM
"I love the first two 9's  of his 999 - but not the last.  At least he has people talking about revamping the tax code."

Absolutely!  I don't think there is any question that Cain, who used to support moving 100% to a sales tax, could be moved in negotiations with congress to any serious proposal that tears up the old tax code, taxes income evenly, slashes the rates, and raises just as much money.

For Romney, he will leave the highest rates on the rich (because they fell into it?) and for Perry he will continue the public private partnerships.  How can we measure income if we can't even define what is a private business?

People  who liked Newt can remember that Cain's one word description was 'brilliant'.  Newt will have his best second shot at writing domestic policy in a Cain administration.
3663  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: October 14, 2011, 04:40:03 PM
www.HermanCain.com  I just donated $25.  With the dates for the primaries moving up dramatically, Herman is going to need the $ now.

I wasn't endorsing yet, but you are right about timing.  Now is the time.  I think I will match you on that.  

To all others:  Do not sit on the sidelines spring, summer and fall of 2011 and then in early 2012 tell us you don't like the remaining choices.

We aren't going to elect a perfect President, but we are going to elect a President.
3664  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: October 14, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
I am taking the Laffer and Ryan endorsements to be non exclusive; the Cain plan is one good way to move forward out of this mess:

Laffer...said Mr. Cain's principles on taxation are "really sound," and that Mr. Cain himself is a "world-class candidate," but he also praised several other GOP candidates.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65958.html

“We need more bold ideas like this because it is specific and credible,” Ryan said
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/187437-paul-ryan-loves-cains-specific-and-credible-9-9-9-plan
3665  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Tax Policy: Washington Post opposes dynamic scoring? on: October 13, 2011, 11:25:42 PM
Media idiocy in economics.  Washington Post editorial yesterday denies that changing the income.  They prefers static scoring.  Call dynamic scoring "faith-based" analysis.  Unbelievable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/herman-cains-deceptive-and-unfair-tax-plan/2011/10/12/gIQAauGDgL_story.html

Mr. Cain’s argument of revenue-neutrality rests on the sleight of hand of dynamic scoring — taking into account the economic growth to be generated by lower tax rates. This kind of faith-based tax analysis is too dubious a basis on which to rest an economic program.

3666  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012 Presidential: Herman Cain vs. Pres. Clinton on Health Care, April 1994 on: October 13, 2011, 11:04:00 PM
Watch Clinton's expression as he gets his lunch handed to him by a questioning restaurant proprietor.  Rhodes scholar young Bill Clinton does some pretty fast math on his feet - impressive to his audience, but wrong.  Readers of these pages would already know that Cain has a degree in mathematics and didn't pose his question to the President without doing his homework.  At the end, Clinton bails as if time is up and says send me your calculations.  Cain did that and never received a reply from the President or anyone in his administration. 

One of the bonehead statements of the Rhodes scholar that never worked in the private sector is that mandatory healthcare would only add 2% of additional cost (actually 7%) to a business with 10,000 employees that returns 1 1/2% to the bottom line.  No return or a negative return on sales means no expansion, no hiring, really no reason to be in business.

Another thing clear from the video is that Cain is no affirmative action, racially picked figurehead.  He is clearly the leader of the operation, out front and center in public advancing the interests of the business.  Besides CEO of a 500 restaurant company, he was also head of the national restaurant association.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy542UgSelQ  Intro ends at about 1:10.
-------
When he gave the Greenspan example for Fed management he made it very clear he was referring only to the years in the early 1990s when he served as Chairman of the Kansas City Fed.  It was a trick question because there was no good example in our adult lifetime of a Fed chair who would serve as a model for a great appointment.  In the last several decades we had Arthur Burns and the inflationary spiral of the 1970's.  We had inflation and then tight money that was poorly timed  under Volcker and caused a very deep recession and later became an Obama adviser, now AWOL.  We had the bizarre record of Greenspan who barely spoke English and we have the current QEx fanatic who can't remember his mission.
3667  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism: on: October 13, 2011, 11:48:34 AM
It will be interesting on the left to see who owns and who dis-owns the message that will come out of the 'Occupy' movement.

GM posted the purple hair and nose ring lady.  BD advised to look past a few kooks for validity in their points.  Over time we will see what are their points.  I predict from past similar movements it will devolve into anti-capitalism which puts Obama the mainstream anti-capitalist in a tricky situation about taking sides.

"Fast-forward about 100 years to the "99 percenters v. 1 percenters."
Today, almost 35 percent of Americans are dependent upon government subsidies, and 40 percent of Americans pay no income tax and thus have no stake in the cost of government. Consequently, most are predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others' incomes rather than work for their own."

Our own CCP has persuasively made this point.  '35% of Americans' understates the influence.  Normally I have seen it written more like '53% of households' receive federal transfer of wealth payments.  I understand helping the oldest and weakest among us who cannot get help from their own family, church, county, state or neighborhood, but not defining the weakest among us who have no chance as the lower 99%!

Which hurts you more financially if you are middle class, the people who are taking from you or the people who pay taxes in dollars about 40 times more than you are?
3668  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012 Presidential - Rush L: Romney is not a conservative on: October 13, 2011, 11:28:56 AM
My view is that, like a Supreme Court Justice settling in after confirmation, there is about a 50-50 shot that Romney will govern in the right direction.  Running against a 0% chance.

Rush's view here is that if being a Governor is such a great experience for becoming President, then why can't we judge what they did as Governor?  Surprisingly strong words:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/12/rush_limbaugh_romney_is_not_a_conservative.html

The reason is simple: Romney is not a conservative. He's not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn't. What he has going for him is that he's not Obama and that he is doing incredibly well in the debates because he's done it a long time. He's very seasoned. He never makes a mistake, and he's going to keep winning these things if he never makes a mistake. It's that simple. But I'm not personally ready to settle on anybody yet -- and I know that neither are most of you, and I also know that most of you do not want this over now, before we've even had a single primary! All we've had are straw votes. You know that the Republican establishment's trying to nail this down and end it. You know that that's happening, and I know that you don't want that to happen, and neither do I.

Now, as for Romney -- and you should know, by the way, that I've met Romney. I've not played golf with him but I've met him, and I like all of these people. This isn't personal, not with what country faces and so forth. I like him very much. I've spent some social time with him. He's a fine guy. He's very nice gentleman. He is a gentleman. But he's not a conservative -- and if you disagree, I'm open. The telephone lines are yours. Call and tell me what you think it is that makes him a principled conservative, what exactly is it. Is there something that he has said that shows conservative, principled leadership? What did he say? I'm open to it. Now, we're told that governors are better than legislators when looking for presidents for a host of reasons.

Legislators are filled with ego, they sit around and by "yes" men, they're not executives, and they're one of many, and the buck never really stops with them. Governors, it's just the exact opposite. But when we look at the record, and we bring up Romneycare, we're told, "Well, that's been he was a governor, but as president he wouldn't do any such thing." What? What do you mean he wouldn't do any such thing? He did it is the point. He has positions as governor that make it obvious he believes in the concept of manmade global warming. "Yeah, but that was as governor, Rush. It's a liberal state. He had to do things to get elected." Um, there's gonna be a lot of liberal pressure on whoever our president is: Media, Democrat members of Congress that the media's gonna fawn all over.

Every night you'll have Harry Reid and Pelosi on camera commenting on what the new conservative president's doing. There's gonna be all kinds of liberal pressure on whoever our next president is who's a Republican conservative. The Romneycare health care bill has individual mandates, and they're wrong. Individual mandates are wrong whether they're imposed by a governor or a president. Governor McDonnell of Virginia has not done what Romney did in Massachusetts, and neither have most other Republican governors. Governor McDonnell of Virginia is running a very small deficits, but surplus, in fact, I think. His unemployment rate in Virginia is way down. Nobody talks about him for the presidency, because he himself has not put himself out there for it.

But most Republican governors are not having to fall back on the federalism argument to justify what they did. "Well, it's states' rights. You know, we're laboratories. We can do whatever we want to do. I wouldn't do it, of course, at the federal level! I wouldn't do it. But, of course, the governors we gotta experiment with things," and the reason that they're not falling back on federalism is because, as governors, they didn't make terrible policy decisions that they now have to justify. So if we are going to look at a governor's record, what exactly do we find? There's manmade global warming, and Romney has indicated that he believes in it and he has supported laws in Massachusetts built on it. The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in the federal government is out of control.
3669  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Middle East: War, Peace, and SNAFU, TARFU, and FUBAR on: October 13, 2011, 10:56:52 AM
I agree that nothing in the story indicates why they would trade one person for a thousand.  There is more to that and we don't get to know what it is.
---------------
Earlier in the year during the Arab spring there was a near-war between Iran and Saudi over Bahrain, a decades old dispute that I assume is still smoldering.  That Iran would want to kill off their enemy Saudi while he is negotiating assistance against them from their enemy America isn't is no surprise, nor is it new that our security is constantly thwarting off attacks like this.  It is a huge story, but not something new or changing as I see it.

Didn't this happen over the summer?  The surprise is that the Obamites went to press with it now instead of holding it a year for value in the general election.
3670  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Environmental issues: Role of the EPA on: October 13, 2011, 10:39:09 AM
Pulling out one point of CW from Politics: "main points I don't agree with the tea party... the EPA..."

I would think the federal role for protecting our air and water involves watching for gaps in necessary regulation and enforcement from across the 50 states and taking action in certain extreme circumstances that can't be solved a better way.  I don't understand having a federal standard for something that is stricter than what the people in the states chose for their standard at home.   But let's say 49 states have good and reasonable air and water protections and one state doesn't, and from that one state they spew filth or pollutants down wind or downstream outward across state lines.  That is when a federal government role is appropriate and justified.

All I think a conservative or tea partier would want for environmental regulation is a practice that regulations are reasonable and based on real cost/benefit analysis.  To unilaterally drive all factories off our shores alone does not reduce global carbon or anything else on the planet by a milligram.
3671  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 13, 2011, 10:13:12 AM
The 99% to me infers a class war war against the top 1% of earners.  I don't feel any of that.  I wish every family could have at least one million-plus dollar earner.  That reminds me to talk to my daughter about careers.

Wall street as an issue to me is only: what should the laws be and are we investigating and prosecuting all the violations.

Other than that, get rid of all the preferences so that businesses can concentrate on business instead of lobbying.  Start with getting it preferences of the tax code.  Then out with all the preferential spending.  Then comb through all regulations to make sure only what is necessary and can't be achieved a better way is regulated.  Obscene profits indicates a lack of competition for those services.  It is over-regulation and overly-complex regulations that pull our best and brightest into things like SEC compliance and employee benefit law instead of inventing, building and innovating.
3672  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: October 12, 2011, 11:41:13 PM
Thank you CW.

"I'm mostly interested in aggravating politicians that are in bed with large corporations. I'd also like to see something more tangible to prevent things like the 2008 crash. It was just used as an excuse to rob the treasury. Hell, Obama is still doing it."

I agree on these points.
3673  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: October 12, 2011, 05:33:55 PM
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/587698/201110111829/Apologies-Not-Accepted.htm

Actual cable:
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09TOKYO2033
3674  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: October 12, 2011, 04:23:25 PM
CCP, That is an amazing story.  The USA under Obama wanted to apologize to Japan for using force to end WWII - and Japan wouldn't allow it.  Unbelievable!

I wonder if the Obamites regret using force against Hitler as well.  Maybe my dad will still be charged aiding and abetting the American military effort in Germany during WWII.

Did we even try to sit down and talk with them first?
3675  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China, no hard landing... on: October 12, 2011, 04:10:03 PM
Asia's Wesbury?  wink

"Many experienced international investors look at a decline in housing prices as a signal of serious trouble to come. But Beijing itself has engineered this decline using policies that restrict house purchases. If this starts to cause major macroeconomic consequences, the government could easily reverse the restrictions."

Sounds a lot like an argument that could have been made in the U.S., how the resources and powers of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and FDIC and federal GSEs guaranteeing loans would remove any risk beyond minor fluctuations in housing prices here.  How's that going?

In closing: "Only if there is another global recession would China suffer a hard landing..."

And what are the odds of that?
3676  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential, Romney's lean toward liberalism? on: October 12, 2011, 01:14:56 PM
Slate, of all places, trying to paint Romney positions as liberal.  This was their 4th example:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/10/mitt_romney_liberal_on_taxes_health_care_trade_and_bailouts_he_s.single.html

 Middle-class tax cuts. An hour into the debate, Newt Gingrich asked Romney:

One of the characteristics of Obama in his class-warfare approach has been to talk about going after people who made over $250,000 a year and divide us. And I was a little surprised—I think it's about page 47 of your plan—that you have a capital-gains tax cut for people under $200,000, which is actually lower than the Obama model. Now, as a businessman, you know that you actually lose economic effectiveness if you limit capital gains tax cuts only to people who don't get capital gains. So I'm curious: What was the rationale for setting an even lower base marker than Obama had?

Romney answered:

The reason for giving a tax break to middle-income Americans is that middle-income Americans have been the people who have been most hurt by the Obama economy. … Median income in America has declined by 10 percent during the Obama years. People are having a hard time making ends meet. And so if I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that's the middle class. I'm not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net, they're taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there.

If I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most. That’s Romney’s most revealing statement of the night. A property-oriented conservative would say that dollars belong to the people who earned them and that tax cuts should let them keep more of their money. But Romney’s formulation—“ use precious dollars to reduce taxes”—assumes that the dollars are his to “focus,” i.e. distribute, according to need.  Again, it’s a defensible worldview. But it’s fundamentally liberal.
3677  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade on: October 12, 2011, 12:53:23 PM
True.  I agree the article and I agree with the quote within from the GE chairman only for the substance inside the quotation marks, not for his slimy acceptance of crony, public-private anti-equal-protection leadership.

For the question posed, reasonable exceptions to free trade make perfect sense to me in situations such as transactions that empower or enrich our enemies, or transactions to lower costs by manufacturing with coerced labor.

Isolating a regime like Iran economically is a legitimate foreign policy tool.  Probably not effective, certainly legitimate and distinct from our approach to trade policies in general.
3678  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012 Presidential: NH Debate October 2011, video and transcript on: October 12, 2011, 12:30:05 PM
GM, That is some major league, big time shrinkage for a man who is only 50!
---------
Another debate gone by, Dartmouth N.H.  
Video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/11/full_bloomberg_republican_debate_in_new_hampshire.html
Transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-debate-transcript/2011/10/11/gIQATu8vdL_print.html

Romney was confident and poised with no gaffes, people say.  Herman Cain is now the main conservative challenger.  They both still have the same strengths and weaknesses that they started with. Perry didn't change the perception that he isn't a great debater considering his strong credentials and isn't ready with his economic plan.  But, this was the economic debate.  Bachmann made a valid point  to Cain's third 9 but mixes in a falsehood (it's not a jobs plan) and ends with a flippant remark.  Ron Paul took to the attack against Greenspan, but Cain had referred to Greeenspan's policies of the early 90's not the loose money policies of post-911.  

Romney I think will win and unless Cain or someone else comes out of the gate winning primaries, it is over.   The candidates should present their own positive agenda and run against Obama-Pelosi-Reid governance, not get further invested into taking down each other.

Those of us to the right of Romney can favor Cain or whoever we want while they are still in, but to really make a difference going forward conservatives IMO can start moving the effort over to the house and senate where these reforms will be written.
3679  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Politics: 99% rally? on: October 12, 2011, 11:34:15 AM
Cranewings:  "Went to my first 99% rally today"

I am curious, CW, as to what the 99% rally main political points are to you or at least what points you wish they were effectively making?
3680  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trade Issues / Freedom to Trade on: October 12, 2011, 10:49:49 AM
The article below is based in current events today, aimed at our hemisphere, but also summarizes nicely the main benefits of free trade, what I call freedom to trade - a basic economic freedom.  Key points:

1) "There are a billion new consumers that are going to join the middle class in Asia over the next 10 years. We have to have access to them."  In other words, with free trade, whatever you invent or innovate or design or build or just source and sell, the larger the market you can sell into the more return you can earn for your effort.

2) 'access to imports is a key contributor to high U.S. living standards'.  Freedom to buy from far away means the freedom to make the best possible purchase transactions available.  Besides standard of living, this is a key component in competitiveness.  

3) Trade war escalations: "If the U.S. puts up new trade barriers to China and attaches "buy American" provisions to federal spending—as the Obama administration did in 2009 and now wants to do again—other countries are likely to feel justified in moving to protect their own domestic markets."  As with the leadup to the Great Depression, protectionism at home leads to other countries doing the same, and trade wars destroy economies, commerce and wealth.
-----
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576616760650005304.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The Case for Free-Trade Leadership   WSJ
Mexico's growth in investment and trade, both imports and exports, shows the benefits of open borders.

      By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

'There are a billion new consumers that are going to join the middle class in Asia over the next 10 years. We have to have access to them."

That was General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt on CNBC Thursday responding to a question about the Senate's 79-19 vote last week to advance a bill that would punish China with antidumping duties if it does not strengthen the yuan.

Bipartisan Washington, as indicated by that vote, is itching to launch a trade war with China. Mr. Immelt warned against it: "Make no mistake. The U.S. will do better if we have a good strong positive engagement with China. I was there last week. It is still growing eight to ten percent. We need to have access to China for our exports."

Too bad President Obama didn't say that.

There is no such thing as a good moment to close markets, but this would seem to be an especially inauspicious time, just as Asians are climbing up the economic ladder, to introduce a policy that is likely to generate reciprocal penalties against U.S. exporters.

But that is only one reason the Senate bill is dumb. The chief reason is that access to imports is a key contributor to high U.S. living standards and American export competitiveness.

A third factor, less often recognized, has to do with the need for U.S. leadership in reaching wider geopolitical goals. If the U.S. puts up new trade barriers to China and attaches "buy American" provisions to federal spending—as the Obama administration did in 2009 and now wants to do again—other countries are likely to feel justified in moving to protect their own domestic markets.

The unintended consequences of a U.S. shift toward protectionism are not hard to predict. Brazil is already loudly complaining about pressure on local industry due to currency weakness abroad—meaning the U.S. dollar. In September it raised duties on some auto imports by 30 percentage points.

Closer to home, Mexico remains vulnerable to internal protectionist forces. Amazingly, the country has stuck to a liberal trade agenda in recent years despite the impact on exports from the 2009 U.S. recession and strong competition from China. But a World Trade Organization commitment it made in 2008 to lift all antidumping duties on some 1,500 Chinese goods this December is stirring up protectionist sentiment. Presidential and legislative elections slated for July will give nationalist populists an opportunity to strike.

The Bombardier manufacturing facility in Queretaro, Mexico

Sensational press coverage of Mexico's narco-violence has obscured the exciting story of the changing economic landscape brought on by openness. In an October economic analysis of the economy, the Spanish bank BBVA says that in 2010 Mexico was among the top 10 destinations in the world for foreign direct investment, which grew almost 22%.

BBVA found that the "main attraction" for that capital was Mexico's "platform" as an exporter of manufactured goods (over $246 billion in 2010) but also as an importer of manufactured goods ($250 billion). Those figures, BBVA said, "place Mexico as one of the economies most open to foreign trade and with the greatest trade activity internationally."

This has allowed Mexico to move up the food chain as a producer. One fascinating development is its evolving role in the global aerospace industry. Using data from the Boston Consulting Group, BBVA found that "in the aerospace category, [Mexico] is the main recipient [in the world] of FDI."

Baja California is home to 52 of the 232 aerospace companies in Mexico today and 40% of the industry's work force. Honeywell and Gulfstream are two household names that have facilities there. In Chihuahua, Cessna manufactures aircraft wiring sets (called harnesses) and ships them to Kansas for airplane assembly while Bell Helicopter manufactures cabins for commercial units. Jalisco is also an aerospace hotspot, with projects "in place," according to the Mexican-government publication Negocios, for "producing engine components, wiring harnesses, cables, landing system components and heat exchangers." By attracting the Canadian firm Bombardier in 2006, the state of Queretaro has pulled in a host of suppliers. A total of 50 local and foreign firms employ 4,800 workers in what is now "recognized as the strongest Mexican aerospace cluster," Negocios reports.

Increasing labor costs in China, and Mexico's low transportation and logistic costs for the Western Hemisphere, its available human capital, and its respect for intellectual-property rights are all conspiring to attract investors. But none of it would be happening without the opening to foreign trade and investment.

It is true that Mexico has not grown fast enough to satisfy its young population. But that's because Mexican competitiveness needs work. Crucial sectors like telecommunications, electricity and oil have to be deregulated to lower costs; and further opening to competitors like China is necessary.

This will entail tough domestic political battles which, if won, will make Mexico a stronger, wealthier democracy and a better U.S. neighbor. A new wave of protectionist thinking out of Washington is not going to be helpful to market liberals who are trying to stay the course.
3681  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics, Tea party vs. Occupy on: October 12, 2011, 10:36:05 AM
So far 'Occupy' looks to me like a continuation of the anti-capitalism demonstrations that go back to anti-WTO in Seattle and others.  From a bias-right point of view, I wish for them full exposure to cameras and microphones. Real corporate welfare is one area where far right and far left should be able to come to agreement and get real reform done.

Tea party rallies grew out of tax cut rallies of the past.  After the overspending deficits of Bush, a Republican,  into the escalation on steroids of TARP, Obama stimulus, QE  and healthcare, the emphasis changed to opposing the massive size and scope of what was supposed to be a limited government.  Taxes have become a minor part of the damage now being done.

Bigdog wrote: "When you focus on a small portion of the entire crowd to make a (snarky) point, you do the same thing that liberals do with the Tea Party when they only take pictures of the signs with misssspelinggs.  I think that both the Tea Party and the OWS have beefs, that if others managed to actually listen to what they are saying, there might (shock!) be a lesson in it."

That seems like a fair point to me.  We will see if the kooks are a small portion or the main portion, and what valid points they make. 

Cameras at tea party rallies didn't really find what they were looking for - bigots and racists, mostly just hard working people who came out to express frustration and work toward positive change. Some cameras found too many white people in view but never did I see any racism as reported, and the main leader to come out of it for the moment seems to be Herman Cain. Allen West is another, and Marco Rubio.  The movement became a political force when they began organizing to take down big spending, unprincipled incumbents inside their own party.  Some tea party candidates won, some, lost, but people in these cases were offered a clearer choice.

If the 'Occupy' crowd is a serious movement, where are their candidates? We will see. Where is their opposition to Obama Corporatism?  He certainly is a corporatist, perhaps the biggest one, by their own standards.  Same with Dodd and Frank.  What were the Fannie and Freddie top salaries of their cronies at the time that they succeeded in destroying the market they took over.

Regarding valid points, my own beef with the obscene profits on Wall Street come from two things: a) when they take in a boatload of money for failure, and b) when the big comes from the cozy relationships of crony governmentalism.  Besides government direct investment, we have created a regulatory system so overly complex in so many industries that only entrenched players with their huge political contributions can survive and new entrants with smaller resources are functionally locked out.  That is the objection of the occupy crowd. Their philosophy would take us to a system where Derek Jeter and his batboy should make a similar wage, if I am reading them correctly.

You will never build a better economic system by ignoring concepts like value added and work done. 
3682  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Latin America: Argentine President Poised for Reelection on: October 10, 2011, 08:47:36 AM
"Fernandez...vows to continue current policies that include a strong state hand in the economy, hefty energy and transportation subsidies and trade protectionism.  She is enjoying approval ratings of more than 60 percent"

And second place is a socialist.

One more place where freedom is not on the ballot?
-----
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/us-argentina-election-idUSTRE7980TM20111009

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez has a massive lead over opponents two weeks before a presidential election and looks set to win more than 50 percent of the vote, two polls showed on Sunday.

Fernandez's support now stands at 53.2 percent, according to the latest monthly survey by local pollsters Management & Fit showed. That puts her more than 40 points ahead of her nearest rival
3683  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Dead Mexicans Killed by a Botched Obama Administration Scandal? on: October 10, 2011, 08:31:08 AM
In spite of how well covered this scandal was on the board I have been very slow to figure out who really was trying to do what.  Still working on my theory and its disjointed components:

The Attorney General Eric Holder felt justified in lying about the year he was briefed.  He knew that he wasn't betraying his higher-ups when he chose to obstruct public and congressional oversight.  That means they already knew.  Cross border arms supplying into a neighboring country's civil was isn't something that starts at Attorney General or below.  If it was and it was unauthorized, he would be fired.

Obama STILL hasn't been briefed?  Still knows nothing?  Do you buy it?  I don't buy it.  We just can't find a reporter to ask him.  Or has someone heard a coherent explanation of policy objectives, risk assessments and controls?

Pres. Obama has no reaction whatsoever to learning that his Attorney General was lying under oath for him.  No firing, no promise to get to the bottom of it.  No call for a special prosecutor or an independent investigator.  Nothing.  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20111007,0,6300714.story

Am I the last guy on earth to figure out that Obama knew about this all along?  It says to me that this operation was the brainchild his own closest political advisersl.  

The same ones that wrote his jobs plan.

Felipe Calderon's knowledge and role in it?  I don't know.

There is one reason I don't believe in conspiracies:  There aren't two people who can keep a secret.  

This was hardly a secret.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20111009,0,6431788.story?track=rss
3684  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Will the China real estate bubble burst? Consequences in the U.S. on: October 09, 2011, 03:38:33 PM
Time magazine piece poses interesting questions:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2096345,00.html
3685  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 6 Years Since 2006, Rep. Keith Ellison Still Thinks Regulations Increase Hiring on: October 09, 2011, 03:13:36 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/09/dem_congressman_keith_ellison_regulations_create_jobs.html

US Unemployment was at 4.4% in between Nov 2006 when the Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Hillary-Biden congress was elected to take the majorty and Jan. 2007 when Catholic-raised Keith Ellison from North Minneapolis first solemnly put his hand on the Koran and swore to hold up the constitution to the best of his ability so help him Allah. 

Neither Jack Webb nor Johnny Carson, both trained professionals, could keep a straight face through the Copper Clapper Caper http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVkZZsS-66c, but Ellison signed on with an agenda of economic destruction, watched unemployment more than double under his policies of unprecedented increases in business strangulating regulation and then look the camera in the eye today to a very well framed question about regulations killing jobs and say... no, he thinks regulations get companies moving with even more hiring because regulations inspire companies to get going with compliance efforts.  I swear to God, that is what he said - it's on the video - and that is what he believes.  The saddest part of it is that there is a 100% chance he will be reelected in 2012 no matter the unemployment rate.

The video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVkZZsS-66c

The BLS data and chart:  http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000



3686  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: October 08, 2011, 12:49:46 PM
GM,  Great Post.  Mark Steyn is very witty and persuasive when he gets going on the right issue.  Just coining the name of the scandal 'Dead Mexicans' ought to get someone else besides about 4 people here to ask WHY did this happen?
3687  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Pathological Science: The New Hockey Stick on: October 07, 2011, 07:42:52 PM
October 6, 2011 by Steven Hayward in Climate
The New Hockey Stick?

Everyone who follows the climate change controversy even casually will know about the “hockey stick” controversy.  Well, Nature magazine this week offers a new graph of interest: the rising trend of retractions of scientific research papers (see blow).  Lo and behold, it looks like a hockey stick!  (Heh.)




The Nature story notes:

    Behind at least half of them lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct — plagiarism, altered images or faked data — and the other half are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400 — even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade.

There’s a lot more here to ponder, such as the essentially hollow and meaningless nature of modern peer review, and the increasingly tribal and ideological drift of much of the academic scientific establishment.  Some other time perhaps I’ll get further into these matters.

Dan Sarewitz, always worth reading

Elsewhere in this week’s issue of Nature, Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University, one of the truly honest brokers in the academic science and policy world, offers a terrific essay on what’s wrong with so-called “consensus” science reports.  (Dan is a pal, but hat tip to RH for bringing Dan’s piece to my attention.)  The article may be behind a subscriber firewall, so here’s a relevant excerpt:

    When scientists wish to speak with one voice, they typically do so in a most unscientific way: the consensus report. The idea is to condense the knowledge of many experts into a single point of view that can settle disputes and aid policy-making. But the process of achieving such a consensus often acts against these goals, and can undermine the very authority it seeks to project. . .

    The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice.

    Yet, as anyone who has served on a consensus committee knows, much of what is most interesting about a subject gets left out of the final report.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20111006
3688  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: October 07, 2011, 07:37:11 PM
"I prefer a little higher income tax and no federal sales tax as in his 9 9 9 idea."

This is my view as well and both need to be in the teens.  He can go back to his same experts for the revenue neutral number on that and offer the country through their representatives a choice that includes a President Cain with each. 

3689  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / WSJ not buying the third nine in the Cain Plan on: October 07, 2011, 02:00:18 PM
First this comment on Crafty's previous post:  The gunrunning scandal is breaking VERY slowly which could turn it into a political nightmare for the President.  You may have nailed something BIG  here.  For whatever his motives were, by arming criminals entering Mexico they were showing zero respect for the safety of the Mexican people and zero respect for the sovereignty of the Mexican nation.  Meanwhile, amnesty cuts through politics about like gay marriage.  They say what a key interest group wants to hear while giving them roughly the same policy of their opponents.  Why wasn't it amnesty/comprehensive reform instead of healthcare when Dems controlled all branches of government?  Just more disrespect, if that is what the people really wanted.  Then up come minor executive orders at the press office just in time for an election while stonewalling congress over the arming the wrong side of a civil war out the back door of the White House.  When the pandering wears off Hispanics will be left to vote based on same issues that the rest of us face, like jobs and growth.
-----------------------

Cain's tax plan is very, very good in so many ways, however you do not give the powerful bureacracy within the swinging pendulum of politics a new federal tax to escalate without  ending the old ones.  WSJ has fallen a month and a half behind on their reading of the forum, but I expressed these same objections right away when it came out: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg53361#msg53361

"Better to reform the devil we know—the income tax—than to introduce another devil and end up with ever-rising rates of both."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576607393103173806.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Cain's Tax Mutiny
Creating a new national sales tax on top of the income tax is a political killer.

With Herman Cain's leap in the Presidential polls, the businessman's campaign is suddenly being taken seriously and his plan to overhaul federal taxes is coming under scrutiny. Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan would certainly help the economy, but its political flaws may well be fatal.

The plan is nothing if not bold, throwing out the current tax code and replacing it with three new taxes: a 9% flat rate personal income tax with no deductions except for donations to charity; a 9% flat rate tax on net business profits; and a new 9% national sales tax.

The plan abolishes the current payroll and estate taxes, as well as those on capital gains and dividends. All capital expenses of businesses would be expensed in the year of purchase and foreign profits could be repatriated without a tax penalty. The plan is designed to raise as much revenue as the current tax code, and the Heritage Foundation estimates it would not increase the budget deficit.

The plan's chief virtue is its sharp reduction in marginal tax rates, to 9% from 35% for businesses and top-earning individuals. Another benefit is that it would eliminate the current double taxation on savings and investment. When this is combined with expensing of capital investment and the sales tax on retail sales, Mr. Cain's plan would in effect convert the federal tax system into a de facto consumption tax.

In an instant, the U.S. would have the lowest corporate tax rate among our major trading partners, from the second highest today. All of this would provide a significant boost to U.S. domestic investment and global business competitiveness. If Americans want more jobs, this plan would produce them in a hurry.

The simplicity of 9-9-9 is also a selling point, as is its elimination of loopholes. Businesses, for example, would deduct all of their legitimate business expenses (except wages paid) from their gross receipts. The provisions that have allowed companies like General Electric to pay little or no federal income tax would be gone.

The main beneficiaries of the current tax code are already howling in protest, notably the housing lobby. But this is not a reason to oppose the plan. The U.S. economy has over-invested in housing thanks to tax and other subsidies. Any tax reform worth its name will have to reduce this favoritism that robs scarce capital from the rest of the economy.

With a low 9% tax rate, deductions like the one for mortgage interest become much less attractive in any case. The key to an immediate housing recovery is to let prices find a bottom, while the key to a durable housing industry is a growing economy that lifts personal incomes. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan cut the after-tax value of the home mortgage deduction by more than half—by cutting the tax rate to 28% from 70%—but home sales and values surged.

The real political defect of the Cain plan is that it imposes a new national sales tax while maintaining the income tax. Mr. Cain's rates are seductively low, but the current income tax was introduced in 1913 with a top rate of 7% amid promises that it would never exceed 10%. By 1918 the top rate was 77%.

European nations began adopting national sales and value-added taxes on top of their income taxes in the 1960s, and that has coincided with the rise of the entitlement state and slower economic growth. Consumption tax rates usually started at less than 10%, but in much of euroland "the rates have nearly doubled and now are close to 20%," according to a study by the Cato Institute's Dan Mitchell. Because a sales tax would raise huge sums with small increases in the rate, we would see regular campaigns like "a penny to fight poverty," or "one-cent for universal health care" that would be politically tough to defeat.

The politics of a national sales tax is bad enough on its own. A 9% rate when combined with state and local levies would mean a tax on goods of 17% or more in many places. The cries for exemptions would be great. The experience of the so-called Fair Tax that would impose a 23% national tax rate isn't favorable, as even Jim South Carolina's DeMint learned when he nearly lost his first bid for the Senate after Democrats attacked the sales tax.

Mr. Cain's campaign argues that the after-tax price of, say, potato chips or a new TV will be no higher even after the 9% tax because current prices have current taxes embedded in them. "We rip out the bad taxes (lowering prices) then put the sales tax back in," writes Rich Lowrie, a top economic adviser to the Cain campaign in an email. "It is not an add on tax. It is a replacement tax." That is right economically, but it's a hard political sell to a family that sees the tax on its grocery bill.

Part of Mr. Cain's appeal is his willingness to challenge political convention, and he certainly has with his tax proposal. Voters like that he isn't a lifetime politician but a successful business owner who has met a payroll and created jobs. But his endorsement of a sales tax on top of the income tax is a political gamble that would eventually finance an even larger entitlement state. Better to reform the devil we know—the income tax—than to introduce another devil and end up with ever-rising rates of both.
3690  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The War on Drugs made easy on: October 07, 2011, 01:13:21 PM
Not finding a stupid criminal category I will stick this here:
-------------------------
Man Busted for Marijuana After Petting K-9
Friday, Oct 7, 2011  |  Updated 8:35 AM EDT

Man Busted for Marijuana After Petting K-9

Good advice:  If you have marijuana in your pocket, it's not a good idea to pet a patrolling police dog.     

The Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin reports that 48-year-old Kelly Simpson was busted Wednesday after he stopped to pet K-9 Tarah, who was on foot patrol with her handler in Endicott.

Police say Tarah smelled marijuana and alerted the officer.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Marijuana-Dog-K-9-Man-Arrest-Dumb-131317779.html (via Drudge!)
3691  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: October 07, 2011, 12:50:24 PM
The original story mentioned is posted in 'Tax Policy'.  I offer this excerpt of a WSJ letter to the editor in partial answer to Marc's point about answering anger about bailouts:

"Regarding Stephen Moore's "Flat Is the New Fair" (op-ed, Sept. 30): The flat tax should have been implemented years ago. It would have ... [/b]denied Congress the means to reward favored groups with special benefits[/b]..."

Since Obama claims there is no real progressivity in taxes now, what on earth would we lose by agreeing to tax all income of all people evenly, instead of based on who do you know and how big is your group.

That simple reform wouldsolve half of the problem and isolate the rest to be tackled over on the spending side of the ledger.
3692  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Illogical Economics, if growth or jobs was your goal on: October 07, 2011, 11:59:43 AM
"Doug what is your take on this:  As noted on Drudge the payroll rate up 103K this month.  Yet 45K is simply Verizon workers going back to work after a strike!  What kind of crap is this?  Those are not 45K new jobs.  What are we all this stupid?  Why can we not have honesty if nothing else in our government?"

CCP,  Great point, thanks for that!  All economic measures are flawed so you work through it the best you can, knowing that your own lying eyes could have better accuracy than their data. If those people were getting unemployment compensation then I guess going back to work means new jobs  created???  Unbleapingbelievable, but no surprise to me.  I have posted for years that we measure the poverty rate while excluding their main sources of income and we measure oil reserves without including most known oil reserves.  The real question is why do voluntarily striking workers qualify for compensation while choosing to not work during contract negotiations?  The freedom to strike should be matched with the freedom to not get paid.  

The main news of the day I thought had to do with some positive revisions of previous months figures.  That makes just slightly better news than downward revisions, about like having Wesbury telling us that 0.3% growth is upward movement even if it is statistically identical to 0.3% in decline.  Either way this economy sucks, everyone knows it, and the inflection point on the curve happens to be not when Obama assumed the Presidency, but  exactly when Pelosi-Reid and Obama took the majority in congress and control of the domestic agenda.  The record of the Obama administration has been only to lock us in at our very lowest point

As my daughter's sports team heads into the heat of their playoff season I can say that in economics like sports, if you focus on doing the fundamentals correctly the scoreboard will take care of itself.

The fundamentals in a nutshell right now are:

Unprecedented over-regulation which includes an uncertainty and fear right now at terroristic levels when it comes to business growth and expansion.  The potential hirers do not even know if Obamacare is coming much less what it will mean to them, much less everything else to do with employment law.  They don't know what EPA carbon rules will mean or what energy will cost.  They are getting just killed with property taxation in the populated areas where workers live.  They don't know what a dollar is worth today or tomorrow and they don't know to the nearest ten percentage points what their tax rate will be tomorrow will be on an investment made today.  What they know is that we are not currently addressing ANY of our underlying problems.

Liberals and leftists actually have a stronger, blind belief in capitalism than right wing supply siders like myself do.  They believe that you can keep piling little things like family leave, layoff notification laws,escalating healthcare penalties and ongoing threats of profits surcharges  on top of OSHA and everything else already on them ini terms of state, federal and local tax, penalties and regulations and that the amazing American economy will still hit on enough cylinders to keep running.  I am amazed that under this level of incompetence, uncertainty and restraints on economic freedoms that anyone goes to work or pays a bill at all.

For every stupid and piddly little $100 million in federal beekeeping or monkey-mating studies we have taken another dollar away from every member of the current workforce.  How many more of these wealth transfers and boondoggles can we keep piling on before every worker and every investors just gets up and quits?

The less I make right now, the more that YOU will be paying for my daughter's college.  What could possibly go wrong with that?  Let me guess.  Doctors our age are taking early retirement in droves, ready to scale back their earnings and their tax contributions.
http://americasmedicalsociety.com/first-casualty-of-obamacare-the-american-physician/

I have posed this question elsewhere without a serious answer:  Please name for me, anyone, every tax and every regulation at every level of government that one must know inside and out before venturing to start a successful lemonade stand.  You can't.
3693  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar & other currencies, & Gold/Silver on: October 07, 2011, 11:01:16 AM
GM,  You raise a very important point here:

"it's important to note that all paper currency is relative"

The two main currencies are the US$ and the Euro.  It is measure at this point the damage we are currently doing to our currency and our standard of living if central point of comparison is the currency of an economic union in collapse.  Like judging the 0-4 Minnesota Vikings against the 0-16 2009 Detroit Lions, the 2011 Euro isn't exactly the gold standard, nor is the Obama-Bernancke dollar.

Why on earth are we striving to copy the economic policies that put Europe in this mess?
3694  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Real (U3) Unemployment rate under Obama = 11.3%. U6 = 16.5% on: October 07, 2011, 10:47:03 AM
If we measured the number unemployed now against the total of jobs considered available when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.3%.

  - James Pethokoukis, Biased Blogger at the right wing media outlets of Reuters and CNBC.  He was Economics Columnist and Business Editor at U.S.News & World Report magazine.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/08/17/obama-vs-perry-on-jobs/
-----
Those results are after $6 trillion of artificial 'Keynesian Stimulus' with no plan of lessening much less pay back..  Don't tell me we aren't moving backwards.  

U6 = 16.5%  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

Do you know what caused all this economic carnage? ...  Government at all levels just got too small, Bush's fault, and economic liberties were too large and too widespread. People across the country, in all states and all industries, were under-taxed and under-regulated.  We must correct urgently - with a new and improved government program.
3695  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: October 07, 2011, 10:07:13 AM
CCP: "I don't think I need to go into detail on Brick Brock's political diatribe this AM."

Besides bad policies, he suffers from over-exposure.  For the last couple of big policy speeches he got zero bump in the polls.  He was the lyricist who could put out words that people could fill with their own meaning.  Amazing that it worked once or worked twice.  He outwitted and outlasted Richardson, Biden and Kucinich to inherit the anti-Hillary vote and outwitted and outlasted McCain to ride the anti-Bush vote in.  But it was all meaningless blather.  His claim to fame was to be the most consistent anti-Iraq-war candidate.  We are still in Iraq.  Then the strongest on anti-Guantanamo and the base is still open.  The one who could get healthcare done but it is now further from done facing the Courts, the polls and new elections than it was before it passed.  We are lazy or cowards if we yawn at Stimulus Seven yet they have not found even an economist who could explain a plausible economic theory behind robbing job creators to pay interest groups in an election.

 CCP: " "F" (I mean "forget")  solar."

That's very funny!  What he doesn't get is that if solar is 15 times the cost of coal, then a little push here and little pull there doesn't take it to the front of the line and shut down all the coal and nuclear with energy to burn.  In a prosperous society, people can CHOOSE little clean wind and solar supplements installed with pride on their abode without caring how that compares with current electric billing rate.  When you have lost your job and are losing your house, that is not so.

Has he visited the Bakken fields in North Dakota, the state with zero structural unemployment to see what is working?  Not even curious about surging state revenues and surpluses that has the looking at repeal of the state income tax.  These are red states.  He didn't even make it to the "Midwest Katrina of 2011".  http://www.allamericanblogger.com/tag/flood-of-2011/

Natural gas use has carbon emissions but is far cleaner than clean coal.  The Obama brain trust fights it and uses its dupes in the media to bring up new objections.  Nuclear is 100% carbon free and now we can learn how to survive an earthquake with 100 times stronger force than the Loma Prieta quake that brought down the Bay Bridge and World Series in San Francisco 1989.  We know where the fault line are and we have made amazing advances in transmission technology.  The Obama plan: fill your tires and eat your peas.  Rob Peter, pay Paul. 

If we aren't going to fix anything that is wrong under his watch, why should we tune in? 
3696  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Political Economics: What would YOU do? on: October 06, 2011, 12:44:16 PM
The president's jobs bills isn't a jobs bill and it isn't going to pass either chamber.  If it passed it isn't going to grow a single job.

To ALL:  The President today said that people who oppose his 'jobs bill' need to answer, what would YOU do?  Anyone and everyone, this is your shot.  Post the answer - right here.  Let's find some agreement, and start writing to Washington.  Waiting for a year from November, or really January 2013 and hoping a new group will win and do something isn't soon enough or good enough IHMO.  Let's step up the pressure to fix this right now...
3697  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Pathological Science: 5 obvious truths about climate change on: October 06, 2011, 12:33:30 PM
Has anyone heard from BBG?
-----

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203388804576612620828387968.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Five Truths About Climate Change
During the decade that Al Gore dominated the environmental debate, global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 28.5%.

By ROBERT BRYCE

Over the past two months, environmental activists have held protests at the White House and elsewhere hoping to convince the Obama administration to deny a permit for the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Some of those same activists have launched a series of demonstrations called "Moving Planet" to move "the planet away from fossil fuels towards a safer climate future." And next month, leaders from dozens of countries will meet at the 17th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Durban, South Africa.

But for all of the sturm und drang about climate change, what has actually happened? It's time to acknowledge five obvious truths about the climate-change issue:
Related Video

Robert Bryce on why global warming alarmists are losing their crusade.

1) The carbon taxers/limiters have lost. Carbon-dioxide emissions have been the environmental issue of the past decade. Over that time period, Al Gore became a world-renowned figure for his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," for which he won an Oscar. In 2007, he, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), collected a Nobel Peace Prize for "informing the world of the dangers posed by climate change." That same year, the IPCC released its fourth assessment report, which declared that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions." (Emphasis in original.)

Two years later, Copenhagen became the epicenter of a world-wide media frenzy as some 5,000 journalists, along with some 100 world leaders and scores of celebrities, descended on the Danish capital to witness what was billed as the best opportunity to impose a global tax or limit on carbon dioxide.

The result? Nothing, aside from promises by various countries to get serious—really serious—about carbon emissions sometime soon.

Here's a reality check: During the same decade that Mr. Gore and the IPCC dominated the environmental debate, global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 28.5%.

Those increases reflect soaring demand for electricity, up by 36%, which in turn fostered a 47% increase in coal consumption. (Natural-gas use increased by 29% while oil use grew by 13%.) Carbon-dioxide emissions are growing because people around the world understand the essentiality of electricity to modernity. And for many countries, the cheapest way to produce electrons is by burning coal.

2) Regardless of whether it's getting hotter or colder—or both—we are going to need to produce a lot more energy in order to remain productive and comfortable.

3) The carbon-dioxide issue is not about the United States anymore. Sure, the U.S. is the world's second-largest energy consumer. But over the past decade, carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S. fell by 1.7%. And according to the International Energy Agency, the U.S. is now cutting carbon emissions faster than Europe, even though the European Union has instituted an elaborate carbon-trading/pricing scheme. Why? The U.S. is producing vast quantities of cheap natural gas from shale, which is displacing higher-carbon coal.

Meanwhile, China's emissions jumped by 123% over the past decade and now exceed those of the U.S. by more than two billion tons per year. Africa's carbon-dioxide emissions jumped by 30%, Asia's by 44%, and the Middle East's by a whopping 57%. Put another way, over the past decade, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions—about 6.1 billion tons per year—could have gone to zero and yet global emissions still would have gone up.

4) We have to get better—and we are—at turning energy into useful power. In 1882, Thomas Edison's first central power station on Pearl Street in lower Manhattan converted less than 3% of the heat energy of the coal being burned into electricity. Today's best natural-gas-fired turbines have thermal efficiencies of 60%. Nearly all of the things we use on a daily basis—light bulbs, computers, automobiles—are vastly more efficient than they were just a few years ago. And over the coming years those devices will get even better at turning energy into useful lighting, computing and motive power.

5) The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere.

Furthermore, even if we accept that carbon dioxide is bad, it's not clear exactly what we should do about it. In September, Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder published a report that determined "switching from coal to natural gas would do little for global climate." Mr. Wigley found that the particulates put into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants, "although detrimental to the environment, cool the planet by blocking incoming sunlight."

If Mr. Wigley's right, then using sources that emit no particulates, like nuclear and natural gas, will not make a major difference in averting near-term changes in the climate caused by carbon dioxide. But then—and here's the part that most media outlets failed to discuss when reporting on the Wigley study—widespread use of renewables such as wind and solar won't help much, either.

Will Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton and a skeptic about global climate change, recently wrote that the "contemporary 'climate crusade' has much in common with the medieval crusades." Indeed, politicians and pundits are hectored to adhere to the orthodoxy of the carbon-dioxide-is-the-only-climate-problem alarmists. And that orthodoxy prevails even though the most ardent alarmists have no credible plans to replace the hydrocarbons that now provide 87% of the world's energy.

It's time to move the debate past the dogmatic view that carbon dioxide is evil and toward a world view that accepts the need for energy that is cheap, abundant and reliable.

Mr. Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His latest book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" (PublicAffairs, 2010), was recently issued in paperback.
3698  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 5% Tax on Job Creators on: October 06, 2011, 12:26:30 PM
The Reid proposal to put a 5% surcharge on incomes over a million by will NOT close the deficit by 3% even in a theoretical case where millionaires were stupid and did not adjust their behavior whatsoever to fend off the additional  punishment on achievement and reported income.  http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/printer/27547.html

Best case is to raise revenues in an between zero to 2% of the current deficit at the expense of a huge percentage, job killing, marginal tax increase.  In the real world, this kind of rate increase will actually DECREASE government revenues.

How long ago was it that our commander in chief just said that everyone knows you don't raise taxes in a recession?
3699  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media Issues: NY Slimes on: October 06, 2011, 11:08:47 AM
160 years and 106 Pulitzer Prizes and THIS passes for journalism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/opinion/wheres-the-jobs-bill.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

"...The Republicans have used that cowardice to embarrass Mr. Reid, his party and Mr. Obama. On Tuesday, when the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, prankishly offered to bring up the jobs bill, Mr. Reid was forced to object, leading to all sorts of merry, if hollow, taunts from the Republican side.  The Republicans’ willingness to play political games while millions are out of work is inexcusable, ..."
-----
The bill is more of the same of what did not work and dug our debt deeper at frightening pace.  This continues and extends our problems, does not solve them.  Mr. Reid isn't a coward. Slimeball maybe but not a coward.  They know better than that and lie to their own trusting readers.   Majority Leader Reid has a number of Democrat members who reject the bill outright and a good number more with serious doubts.  Mitch McConnell isn't a prankster.  Voting down the bill in the senate just like they voted down an Obama budget 98-0 IS how you call the question and begin to move forward with real solutions.  How can it be a prank to call for a vote on the President's own agenda tight while you are being publicly berated as an obstructionist?

Believe or not, people have honest disagreements in policy with their failed view of economics.  That does not make people cowards and pranksters.  Hard to believe people pay for drivel passed off at the highest levels as journalism. 
3700  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cain to protestors: If you aren't rich, its your fault on: October 06, 2011, 10:50:08 AM
While Pres. Obama tried to express how he shares their frustration, Herman Cain had a different message.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/10/05/2011-10-05_herman_cain_to_occupy_wall_street_protesters_if_youre_not_rich_blame_yourself.html

Unemployed Wall Street protesters only have themselves to blame for lacking a job, so says Herman Cain.

The Republican presidential candidate insisted that the demonstrations were being "orchestrated" to help President Obama.

"I don't have the facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration," Cain told the Wall Street Journal.

The Tea Party favorite then argued that the plight of the unemployed was their own fault.

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed," the ex-Godfather's Pizza CEO declared.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/10/05/2011-10-05_herman_cain_to_occupy_wall_street_protesters_if_youre_not_rich_blame_yourself.html#ixzz1a18IDhte
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 123
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!