Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 28, 2016, 01:03:43 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
95565 Posts in 2314 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78 79 ... 161
3801  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Political Rants & interesting thought pieces: Jack Kemp - The Wagon on: March 08, 2013, 12:28:03 PM
Jack Kemp in 1979:  "You need both groups, both parties. The Democrats are the party of redistribution. The Republicans must be the part of growth."

In 1979, all of Washington was run by Democrats.

Correcting and sourcing a great analogy that I botched in recent posts.
------------

"Think about a wagon. It is a simple but forceful way of visualizing an important aspect of government. The wagon is loaded here. It's unloaded over there. The folks who are loading it are Republicans. The folks who are unloading it are Democrats. You need both groups, both parties. The Democrats are the party of redistribution. The Republicans must be the part of growth. It is useless to argue, as some libertarians do, that we do not need redistribution at all. The people, as a people, rightly insist that the whole look after the weakest of its members."

Jack Kemp's 1979 book, “An American Renaissance.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/jack-kemp-and-the-contemporary-gop/2011/03/29/AF3EQyQE_blog.html

----------
I told this story at a gathering in a friend's living room after listening to a young woman, daughter of Kieth Ellison's predecessor and a Lt. Governor candidate in her own right, tell us that the difference between the parties was that Democrats care about others while Republicans care only about themselves.  She heard that we need both parties and gasped, "I've never heard that before!"
3802  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Arthur Brooks: The Road to Freedom on: March 08, 2013, 12:00:34 PM
Democrat policies doubled minority unemployment, collapsed wealth and did nothing to alleviate our heavily-demagogued income inequality. 

"Meanwhile, the record of free enterprise in improving the lives of the poor both here and abroad is spectacular."

Yet Republicans haven't yet put a convincing answer on why prosperity-based policies are better for everyone.  Minorities keep choosing failure based policies in the face of these facts.  Brooks is Pres. of AEI.  I think he identifies a key messaging problem.  I'm not sure if he spells out the solution.  Maybe you have to buy the book for that...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324338604578326350052940798.html?KEYWORDS=republicans+and+their+faulty+moral+arithmetic

Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic
Conservative values and money issues are worth less than concern for the poor.

By ARTHUR C. BROOKS

In the waning days of the 1992 presidential campaign, President George H.W. Bush trailed Bill Clinton in the polls. The conventional wisdom was that Mr. Bush seemed too aloof from voters struggling economically. At a rally in New Hampshire, the exhausted president started what was probably the fourth campaign speech of the day by reading aloud what may have been handed to him as a stage direction: "Message: I care."

How little things have changed for Republicans in 20 years. There is only one statistic needed to explain the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. An April YouGov.com poll—which mirrored every other poll on the subject—found that only 33% of Americans said that Mitt Romney "cares about people like me." Only 38% said he cared about the poor.

Conservatives rightly complain that this perception was inflamed by President Obama's class-warfare campaign theme. But perception is political reality, and over the decades many Americans have become convinced that conservatives care only about the rich and powerful.

Perhaps it doesn't matter. If Republicans and conservatives double down on the promotion of economic growth, job creation and traditional values, Americans might turn away from softheaded concerns about "caring." Right?

Wrong. As New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has shown in his research on 132,000 Americans, care for the vulnerable is a universal moral concern in the U.S. In his best-selling 2012 book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," Mr. Haidt demonstrated that citizens across the political spectrum place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak. By contrast, moral values such as sexual purity and respect for authority—to which conservative politicians often give greater emphasis—resonate deeply with only a minority of the population. Raw money arguments, e.g., about the dire effects of the country's growing entitlement spending, don't register morally at all.

Conservatives are fighting a losing battle of moral arithmetic. They hand an argument with virtually 100% public support—care for the vulnerable—to progressives, and focus instead on materialistic concerns and minority moral viewpoints.

The irony is maddening. America's poor people have been saddled with generations of disastrous progressive policy results, from welfare-induced dependency to failing schools that continue to trap millions of children.

Meanwhile, the record of free enterprise in improving the lives of the poor both here and abroad is spectacular. According to Columbia University economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin, the percentage of people in the world living on a dollar a day or less—a traditional poverty measure—has fallen by 80% since 1970. This is the greatest antipoverty achievement in world history. That achievement is not the result of philanthropy or foreign aid. It occurred because billions of souls have been able to pull themselves out of poverty thanks to global free trade, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship.

The left talks a big game about helping the bottom half, but its policies are gradually ruining the economy, which will have catastrophic results once the safety net is no longer affordable. Labyrinthine regulations, punitive taxation and wage distortions destroy the ability to create private-sector jobs. Opportunities for Americans on the bottom to better their station in life are being erased.

Some say the solution for conservatives is either to redouble the attacks on big government per se, or give up and try to build a better welfare state. Neither path is correct. Raging against government debt and tax rates that most Americans don't pay gets conservatives nowhere, and it will always be an exercise in futility to compete with liberals on government spending and transfers.

Instead, the answer is to make improving the lives of vulnerable people the primary focus of authentically conservative policies. For example, the core problem with out-of-control entitlements is not that they are costly—it is that the impending insolvency of Social Security and Medicare imperils the social safety net for the neediest citizens. Education innovation and school choice are not needed to fight rapacious unions and bureaucrats—too often the most prominent focus of conservative education concerns—but because poor children and their parents deserve better schools.

Defending a healthy culture of family, community and work does not mean imposing an alien "bourgeois" morality on others. It is to recognize what people need to be happy and successful—and what is most missing today in the lives of too many poor people.

By making the vulnerable a primary focus, conservatives will be better able to confront some common blind spots. Corporate cronyism should be decried as every bit as noxious as statism, because it unfairly rewards the powerful and well-connected at the expense of ordinary citizens. Entrepreneurship should not to be extolled as a path to accumulating wealth but as a celebration of everyday men and women who want to build their own lives, whether they start a business and make a lot of money or not. And conservatives should instinctively welcome the immigrants who want to earn their success in America.

With this moral touchstone, conservative leaders will be able to stand before Americans who are struggling and feel marginalized and say, "We will fight for you and your family, whether you vote for us or not"—and truly mean it. In the end that approach will win. But more important, it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The Road to Freedom" (2012).
3803  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Senate Budget coming due to Committee changes? on: March 08, 2013, 11:46:57 AM
Interesting observation by Stephen Moore that the reason the Senate has not passed a budget in 4 years in violation of their own law is because the Senate Budget committee was run by Kent Conrad, a moderate Dem from a liberty state (we don't use re-blue designations) who was spending hawk more than a tax raiser.

With Patty Murray in charge now, expect a budget and expect trillions in tax increases coming out of the Dem Senate.  Only 51 votes is required to pass a Senate budget, contrary to what Jack Liar Lew recently said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578344801727234218.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond
3804  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Former Dem Senator citicizes current Dem policies on: March 08, 2013, 11:32:27 AM
Famous people reading the forum, we already touched on this: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1096.msg69803#msg69803

Former Dem Senator criticizing current Dem policies and threats!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323478304578329952822121118.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Natural Gas Exports and the Mythical 'Sweet Spot'
Congressional meddling so warped the market in 1977 that an emergency law was needed to undo the harm.
By J. BENNETT JOHNSTON (former Democratic senator from Louisiana, was chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources from 1986-94.)

"Which brings us back to today's calls for top-down control of the LNG market. Does anyone really think that Congress or the Department of Energy, years in advance, can predict supply and demand or determine which of the 16 applicants can procure the billions of dollars and decades-long contracts necessary to build an LNG export facility?"

"The free market might not always lead to everyone's definition of the sweet spot, but experience has shown that it is a better allocator and regulator than bureaucrats and politicians. We should heed the admonition of Adam Smith that demand begets supply: Allow the free market to allocate the nation's newfound energy bounty."
------
Which party would he join now?
3805  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Government regulations: "New NYC regulations change what we can serve you" on: March 08, 2013, 11:20:53 AM
I don't dine at Dunkin Donuts nor care what they choose to serve.  What I care about is their freedom to make those decisions.  Actual sign explaining new regs:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/03/BloombergCity.bmp
(image too large to post)

Because of new laws, you will have to add your own sugar and you will have to add your own flavor with different rules for different sizes depending on whether your beverage is hot or cold.  Understand?  No one does.

Artificial sweeteners just found to be dangerous in the latest research are not regulated.  Yet.

Good f-ing grief.  Do they think health nuts go into these places?  After cigarettes, we joked about what is next.  The old joke of ordering 6 glazed doughnuts and Diet Coke has become the law.

They can prohibit from buying a toilet large enough to flush but allow you to have a 500 gallon hot tub.  Prohibit sugar in drinks but not in donuts.  Ban Mercury emissions from coal, then require it in light bulbs.  Ban 100w incandescent bulbs but allow unlimited use of specialty bulbs.  Stop the hitting in Football while subsidizing the stadiums where people love that.   Eliminate headers in soccer but allow martial arts. 

Don't joke about what they will regulate next.
3806  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Defense spending on: March 08, 2013, 10:50:55 AM
The wars and national defense did not cause our trillion dollar deficits or the 16.5 trillion dollar debt, but measured in tenths of trillions, cutbacks and wars winding down are at least a little help in curbing spending growth:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/why-defense-spending-dropped-22-last-quarter-and-shrunk-gdp/

Government defense expenditures dropped by a staggering 22.2 percent annual pace between October and December. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Pentagon spent significantly less on just about everything except military pay.

3807  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans on: March 08, 2013, 10:35:02 AM
Mitch McConnell joined in with Rand.  Reince Preibus (sp?) head of RNC says he started the stand with rand tweating.  All the big shows, Beck, Rush, Hannity had Rand on.  Karl Rove on the defensive has celebrated the tea party victories, just not the losses.  McCain and Graham are not party establishment - they made careers out of bucking the party, not joining it.  I'm not sure there is a 'pub' establishment anymore.  If there is it is run by Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and now Ted Cruz.  Very fluid situation. More accurately it is run from the ground up represented by some these people and others.
3808  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: March 08, 2013, 10:07:27 AM
"GDP would have to have grown even more massively, right?"

Not so much.

"real median household incomes declined 1.5% in 2011"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/sequester-republicans-help-rich-hurt-poor

Here is Wesbury predicting 4% GDP growth in July 2009.  (I wonder what G M predicted...)

16 Jul 2009 09:10 AM
Investors can expect to see a 4 percent growth in gross domestic product, say Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein."When we tell people this forecast, we often get looks as if we are out of our minds, and those are just the polite responses," they told Forbes Magazine...  "Adding up all these factors leaves us with an average expected real GDP growth rate of 4.2 percent. We get there with what we think are very conservative estimates on consumption and business investment,’’ they say.
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/gross-domestic-product/2009/07/16/id/331605#ixzz2MuaFfSbI

Here is Investor's Business Daily reporting actual growth for that period, 4 years later, at 0.8%:

"0.8% growth over his entire first term."  "Worst in modern history."  "It was barely a quarter of the tally achieved under President Carter."
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/021213-644194-obama-growth-record-is-worst-in-60-years.htm#ixzz2KuQGawCt

The equities market went up because:
1) QE dollar injection
2) Zero interest rates due to Fed interventions and injections removed all other investment choices, savings, bonds, etc.
3) economic growth elsewhere
4) and yes, the US economy trudged forward, did not collapse

What would 'the market' be at today had the Fed not bought 70% of our debt, had interest rates been at market levels, rising until enough capital went to buy Treasury bonds to pay for our massively deficit spending?

Wesbury was called out by PP for some housing numbers but generally he is as accurate a source as is available for these commonly quoted measures.  The measures themselves have many inaccuracies but that is another matter.

Actual numbers, best that I can find:

Federal Spending in Trillions
 2.7         3.0       3.5        3.5       3.6       3.5
FY2007 FY2008  FY2009  FY2010  FY2011  FY 2012

GDP in Trillions:
14.0       14.3      14.0      14.5      15.1      15.7

Spending % of GDP:
19.3%   21.0%   25.0%   24.1%   23.8%   22.3%

The big jump in spending was at the end of 2008, mostly in fiscal year 2009, partly under Bush in the transition and partly under Obama, all under a Dem congress. The big growth of spending from the Pelosi-Reid congress beyond the alleged stimuli was mostly Obamacare beginning in 2014, not shown in these numbers. Spending growth stopped in the Boehner-McConnell budget fights with Obama.  (Did Crafty know that? smiley ) The growth in GDP is at slow plowhorse speed, artificially propped up by QE at the Fed, authorized by the 'dual mission' legislation of Humphrey-Hawkins of 1978.

The real point I see in these numbers is this - do we realize how quickly we could have grown out of this mess with pro-growth policies?  As Wesbury recognized in 2009 real growth in GDP of 4% was certainly possible.  Run these percentages with those GDP growth numbers!

It is a strange political irony that pro-growth Republican policies will finance far more goodies and freebies for the dependent class constituencies than the economically stagnant, class warfare policies of the Dems.
---
Numbers above from different sources below.  Fiscal years and calendar years don't match up.  Use with caution.
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2012
http://www.ftportfolios.com/retail/blogs/economics/index.aspx
3809  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cyberwar and American Freedom on: March 07, 2013, 10:05:47 AM
Philosophical question:  Which is a greater danger-- thousands of independent hackers or the government tracking everything you read, write, and say?

Both.
3810  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress- Ted Cruz questioning Eric Holder in committee on: March 07, 2013, 09:55:28 AM
Cruz is killing this.  cool



Watch this to the end.  The last question is on Fast and Furious and Executive Privilege.
3811  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process on: March 06, 2013, 04:21:48 PM
"Every lefty I talk to rejects the 100.00 an hour minimum, but can't explain why or give me what a "living wage" should be."

That's right.  If they tell you why 100/hr is absurd to pay for unskilled labor of limited value then they would also be telling you why $9 is also absurd to pay someone producing less than that.

Minimum wage, to belabor the point, is what you pay someone before they develop significant productive skills of value to the organization.  Should a person with no experience, knowledge or skills be paid on the first day enough to support a family of four comfortably?  Not in the real world.

Livable wage today in America is near zero.  People almost do not have to work to support a family of four and still risk obesity with the excesses.

What livable wage implies is the level of income would you need to earn in order to require no assistance from the government and live acceptably.  In America today, that might be reaching the 51st percentile of income or more, roughly 50,000 per household, not per person. 

Should we require all people to be paid above average income??  Only in Lake Wobegon are all the people above average.

The government should focus on getting government sector pay and benefits up or down to market levels.
3812  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs: Minimum Wage on: March 06, 2013, 01:18:13 PM
"Whether support for minimum wages is motivated by good or by evil, its effect is to cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder for the most disadvantaged worker and lower the cost of discrimination."

Walter Williams and Obj have this right.  The media judges our minimum wage argument by how it polls, not how it cuts off employment.


GM: "I think we need to raise the minimum wage to 100.00 an hour, so everyone can be rich!"

It would be interesting to see a big government liberal try to explain why a 100/hr minimum would not be a good idea.  'Well if you set it too high no one would hire the less skilled workers...'  Yes, that's right.


It comes down to who owns the discussion.  If the question is minimum wage at 6 or 7 versus 9 or 10, why not choose higher?  If the question was to let people work versus leaving 20 or 25 million black or minority youth out of the workforce, maybe fewer locked out of the productive workforce would be better.  The question isn't how much pay but how should we value work.  Should we value it in a free and open marketplace or have Soviet style central planners take care of it? 

The real way wages and prosperity rise is to allow more businesses with more money compete to make the very most productive use of a limited supply of labor.  Instead we discourage that. We are blocking out with all means available the formation of new businesses and the expansions of existing ones that would otherwise drive up the demand for labor.
3813  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: March 06, 2013, 12:45:17 PM
Crafty makes great points and poses tough questions.

For starters one might ask before getting irrationally exuberant, what part of GDP growth at 1%/yr is propped up by $4T? of dollar expansion that cannot continue indefinitely?

On allegedly absent inflation, I would warn there is an important distinction between inflation, the dilution of our dollar, and the price increases that tend to follow.  The delay of spiraling price increases is due in my view to the continuing weakness of demand, the sputtering velocity of money.  That continues to work only as long as policies and circumstances keep the economy relatively stagnant.  So far, so good.  (

GM wrote: "As far as those number Wesbury cites, what's the source? I can't imagine how they could be true with record levels of federal spending going on."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z2.xls

Look back to fiscal year 2007 when the budget was most recently closest to balanced (deficit=160B).  Spending was below 20% of GDP while tax receipts had just grown 44% in 4 years following the tax rate cuts being fully implemented in 2003.  Enter the election the Dem majorities of Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Biden-Hillary-Ellison et al promising to move us off that path.  Employment growth ended.   Investors and employers got scared.  Overpriced, overvalued homes started to become unaffordable.  Failingmortgages failing brought down financial markets.

Spending went from 2.7T in FY2007 to 3.8T in FY2012 and 2013, a 40% increase in 5 years.  

Now we have effectively a zero increase in spending, but only after making all that temporary-emergency spending permanent while retreating from two wars and having budget restraint fights every few months.  With spending at a plateau and perhaps 1% consistent real growth in GDP, spending as a % of GDP ticks down a point at a time to still above 22% of the economy just before the BIG new programs kick in.  

Crafty wrote:  "What happens if this trend continues for another two years or so and we are down to the promised land of fed spending 20% of GDP and the deficit and rather reasonable 3% and armageddon has not hit yet?   IMHO we need to reflect upon this."

How can this trend continue?  Repeal Obamacare or believe it won't cost much?  Expect GDP growth to shoot up in the face of new taxes and regulations?

Last time the budget was balanced, spending was at 18.2% of GDP, not 23.3% where we are right now (according to the tables) or the 20% historical average that includes all the big deficit years.  Revenues are still only coming in at 17.8%.   That tells me spending is still 30% higher we can afford just before the world's largest entitlement takes effect.  

These facts may make others optimistic, but not me.
3814  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cog. Diss. of His Glibness, Wash Post: Four Pinocchios for WH Janitors' pay cut on: March 06, 2013, 10:49:58 AM
We originally thought this was maybe a Two Pinocchio rating, but in light of the AOC memo and the confirmation that security guards will not face a pay cut, nothing in Obama’s statement came close to being correct.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/sequester-spin-obamas-incorrect-claim-of-capitol-janitors-receiving-a-pay-cut/2013/03/01/3407535c-82a9-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html

3815  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Big Brother(State and Corporate): Web-connected cars bring privacy concerns on: March 06, 2013, 10:31:25 AM
Web-connected cars bring privacy concerns

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/web-connected-cars-bring-privacy-concerns/2013/03/05/d935d990-80ea-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html
...
More than 60 percent of vehicles worldwide will be connected directly to the Internet by 2017, up from 11 percent last year, predicts ABI Research. In North America and Europe, that percentage is likely to reach 80 percent.

Many cars already record their speed, direction and gear setting, as well as when brakes activate and for how long. Newer systems also can track whether road surfaces are slick or whether the driver is wearing a seat belt — information potentially valuable to police and insurance companies investigating crashes. (Some car insurance companies already monitor driving behavior in exchange for discounted rates.)
...
One of the prototype vehicles on display here, a dark blue Cadillac ATS sedan, was outfitted with OnStar, streaming video, music apps and cameras aimed at both the interior and exterior of the car. In demonstrations, one of the car’s interior cameras took short video clips of occupants that were incorporated in animated sequences broadcast on the dashboard video screen.

Stefan Cross, an executive with public relations firm Weber Shandwick, which was assisting in GM’s announcement of the new technology, said one possible feature would alert owners by text message if their car is bumped or hit. Owners might then be able to activate the exterior cameras remotely for immediate visual reconnaissance.

“It allows somebody to stay connected to your car even if you’re not in it,” he said.

Cross said GM would protect the privacy of its customers, even as the volume of data increases. “We have that data. We’re just not prepared to release it to third parties.”

Yet experts say that in the absence of strong national privacy laws, valuable data often leaks out. Any information produced by a vehicle and transmitted over the Internet ends up on servers, making it a potential target for authorities, lawyers engaged in court cases or hackers.
3816  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 06, 2013, 10:15:58 AM
Health care merging with cognitive dissonance of the left:  Who knew that the big advances in health care would be coming from the IRS.  Rest assured their life-saving work will continue uninterrupted by the sequester.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/286423-sequester-wont-interrupt-taxes-from-healthcare-law
3817  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science - Snow postpones global warming hearing on: March 06, 2013, 09:52:20 AM
Snow postpones global warming hearing

3/6/13 6:13 AM EST

A House Science Committee hearing on global warming won't go on after all — the committee's environmental subpanel has just announced that it's postponing this morning's session on climate change "due to weather."

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/19965/Snow-postpones-Congressional-global-warming-hearing
3818  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process on: March 05, 2013, 10:54:49 AM
"An increase of 1.0 to 1.5 is a 50% increase yet the same .5 increase from 3.0 to 3.5 is a 16.67% increase."

I believe the left side of the graph is spending in trillions, since close to zero in 1913.  Adjusted for inflation, but otherwise I think it is not manipulated.  Please take a look again.  You are correct on the way percentages can be used in different ways, like when Wesbury says something is up 1% three years in a row from a horribly depressed level instead of saying it is still down 30% from 5 years ago.
--------

"The Fed thinks short rates will eventually go to a 4% average while long-term rates
rise to 4.5%."

Wesbury here is accepting what the Fed is saying to make his point.  Looks like rosy scenario to me.  If our worst fear after multi-trillions of quantitative easing and when real economic growth returns is that interest rates might hit 4%, I wouldn't be worried either.  I don't buy it.  Interest rates could be twice that and have been far worse not that long ago, after much less 'quantitative easing' than now.
--------

"does not Wesbury also make a number of fair points in that he is discussing the consequences to interest payments on the $16.6T?  There are no interest payments to be made on unfunded liabilities."

True.  He makes a good point that paying interest to ourselves isn't much of a cost, but the quantitative easing and future devaluations of our currency have other hidden costs yet to reveal themselves.  

Unfunded liabilities mean future deficits, future debt, future interest, future impossibilities of balancing budgets or lowering tax burdens.  I said interest costs could go to a trillion, but I mean at debt levels that will inevitably be higher than today (and interest rate FAR above 4.5%) before we get a handle on all this, if we ever do.
--------

"both spending as a percent of GDP and annual budget deficits are
declining. After peaking at more than $1.4 trillion in 2009 our forecast for this
year is a deficit of about $830 billion, or 5.1% of GDP. At the same time spending
has fallen from over 25% of GDP at its peak to near 22%."

That $1.4T was about 11% of GDP and now we are at less than half that?
Is that not a BFD?

Is not a 3% drop in federal spending as a % of GDP a BFD as well?

Who amongst us knew this?  I'm guessing not a one."


I think we knew that, we can check the threads.  On the first point, a deficit of 1.4T is mind-boggling.  As that shrunk, it still was 4 deficits in a row all over a trillion.  (Then we measure it as a percentage of the entire economy to make it look smaller!?) The damage of that is cumulative and that has been the focus.  From the disastrous lows, the economy has been growing slowly.  We know that mostly from the Wesbury posts you bring to the board, against all ridicule.  The truth is good to know no matter what it is and you deserve credit.  

I, for one, believe we could survive 16 trillion in debt and 4 trillion in quantitative easing - if we would get our act together today but we aren't.

Don't forget that the control in the increases in spending happened under these horrible PR disasters for the Republican House.  Boehner with his cigarette and his tan who none of us think puts a good face or words on our message surrendered to spending a trillion above where it should be has won the argument from there in the sense that the slope of the spending curve is no longer straight up.  Obama didn't do that, but he 'succeeded' in making a trillion more in temporary, emergency spending permanent.

Federal Spending at 22% of GDP when most people pay zero is still abominable.  At 25% we were at amazingly depressed levels of GDP so the 22% is with no cut in spending.  Yes 22% is better than ratios during utter collapse when we were losing tens of trillions in wealth but if we compare this to 'normal' we are still way off track.  18% of GDP is where spending should have been capped in the Balanced Budget Amendment, maybe 19% in compromise with big government liberals, with super majorities required to ever anything above that level (IMHO).  

Misleading in those numbers (the 22%) is that it takes the measurement after the world's largest entitlement ever (?) Obamacare has been passed but has no spending, speaking of unfunded liabilities!  Also it is the last year of tax receipts before a multitude of new GDP killing tax rate increases, federal and state, apply.  We can't really follow that trend line forward when we know we have already changed the rules.  

We make healthcare more affordable by levying a new tax on medical devices and strive to reach full employment by nailing every company that hits 50 full time employees.  Cause spending to go up and relative GDP growth to go down.  Nothing but cognitive dissonance if getting a handle on spending was anyone's objective.

A simpler way than dollars of changing value is look at the ratio of people who will be pulling the wagon versus how many will ride in it.  We are gaining in population while we are losing people from our workforce.  We are making more and more rules to worsen that and reelecting the people who are causing it.  We are offering to pay for far more of people's basic living expenses to not work, not work full time or to not maximize their income while we increase the penalties on the dwindling numbers who do.  We are chasing existing businesses overseas while putting concrete barriers in front of our would-be startups, the big employers of tomorrow.  Take all current trend lines forward and the budget problem doesn't get solved; it only gets worse.  
3819  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process on: March 05, 2013, 07:49:09 AM
Thomas Sowell:

"Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency's budget were cut, what would it do?

The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/05/budget_politics_117268.html#ixzz2Mfmw6iyv
3820  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process on: March 04, 2013, 06:20:11 PM
That is a great graph GM!  It tells so much more context than the 2 1/2 french fries out of Big Mac meal analogy which is the calorie cutback from the baseline up from the extreme, make temporary spending permanent, peak.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/how-much-would-the-sequester-cut-into-a-big-mac-extra-value-meal.php

How about spending at Bill Clinton levels if that was the last great, Democratic, fiscal President who cared and truily felt our pain.  We would have a trillion dollar surplus right now.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2000_0.html
3821  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Walter Russell Mead: The World and its Leaders on: March 04, 2013, 10:51:00 AM
Walter Russell Mead writing on Friday, March 1, online for the American Interest:

Financial markets around the world reeled when the Italians rejected the European status quo and their own political establishment in the last election. This should not have come as such a surprise; few political establishments anywhere in the democratic world are as spectacularly rotten as Italy's, and the European status quo is the biggest man-made policy disaster since the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Italian voters don't have a lot of use for their leaders, and it's hard to say they are wrong. The left wants to preserve the unsustainable, the right doesn't have what it takes, and the center is dominated by short term, self centered careerists whizzing through the well oiled revolving doors that connect business with government. But how different are politics elsewhere? Voters ultimately weary of repeat policy failure by the well connected and well educated, and whether you look at Europe, the United States or Japan, the failures of national leadership keep piling up.

Americans often like to believe that our problems are as exceptional as our strengths, but our stale and ineffective political establishment looks a lot like its peers around the world. The American elite is not alone in its inconsequential futility and its lack of strategic vision; world leaders everywhere are falling down on the job.

The assumption that the people guiding the destinies of the world's major powers know what they are doing is a comforting one, but there's not a lot of evidence to support it. The "pass it to find out what's in it" health care 'reform' in the United States, the vast stinking policy corpse that is European monetary union, the failure of establishments everywhere to figure out the simple arithmetical problems that our welfare states are encountering because of the demographic transition, the metastasizing tumor of corruption also known as the Chinese Communist Party: none of these suggest that the world is being governed with unusual wisdom.
3822  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: California - people leaving, not only the rich on: March 04, 2013, 10:43:06 AM
"Over the past two decades, a net 3.4 million people have moved out of California for other states."  (The non-rich far outnumber the rich also leaving Calif.)

"Roughly 40% of the people leaving are Hispanic."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324338604578326402863024028.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

My guess looking at these figures and circumstances, generalizing, is that the people wanting to work are the most likely to leave and the people comfortably on programs are the most likely to stay.

What could possibly go wrong?

3823  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Govt spending, deficit, debt, Shouldn't the Treasury be borrowing at 30 years? on: March 04, 2013, 10:32:34 AM
A home owner would not want one year mortgage, yet the Treasury keeps doing that even though we know interest rate will return to normal adding interest costs of perhaps a trillion a year to our spending.

WSJ today: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323978104578330320974074546.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

...the maturity structure of U.S. debt is quite short. I estimate that our government rolls over 40% of its debt every year, and 65% within three years, accounting for Federal Reserve holdings, coupon payments and use market values.
-----------------------

Short term at near zero interest is GREAT if you plan to pay it off soon.  Bernancke, Geithner, Obama and Lew are doing more damage to our country right now that what we can immediately measure.

3824  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax bills for rich families approach 30-year high on: March 04, 2013, 08:36:46 AM
That is pretty good reporting by the AP and pretty good analysis by the not always non-partisan TPC.  Still the problem is understated:

"Last week, Senate Democrats were unable to advance their proposal to raise taxes on some wealthy families for the second time this year as part of a package to avoid automatic spending cuts."

No.  They were trying to raise taxes on the rich for the 3rd, 4th or 5th time this year.  More Obamacare taxes just went into effect, plus one might include state taxes like in Calif and Minn if one is really trying to measure the combined effects of failed policies.

"For example, the Internal Revenue Service tracks tax returns for the 400 highest-paid filers each year. Those taxpayers made an average of $202 million in 2009, the latest year available. Their average federal income tax rate: 19.9 percent."

My apologies to civility on the board but it is such a God damned lie for informed people to write so inaccurately.  In order for a top income return to pay at the 15% rate, now 20% rate, they are including long term capital gains which by definition over our entire lifetimes includes an inflation component which is not income in any sense at all.  Also much of those gains were corporate and therefore quadruple taxed while they point out how 'small' one component out of four can be.

Then for the middle and lower income taxpayers they include FICA to make comparisons which I did not think was part of the federal income tax.  But lower income workers get a nice return an social security and medicare payments while higher income people do not.

Other than that, good news that someone is pointing out that we are heading back to the Jimmy Carter days as the alarmists among us have warned.
3825  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science and Military Issues on: March 04, 2013, 08:19:47 AM
Before we close the argument...

a) Suppose we substitute the imprecise term 'third world military' with just a US military unable to address the threats we face.

b) The political movement of unilateral disarmament currently led by Pres. Barack Obama is not a 4 year proposition.  The LBJ programs for poverty, for example, lived on far beyond his Presidency.  The Carter disarmament lasted beyond his years and could have lasted permanently. 

The Obama approach of apologizing and bowing has not had the success that peace through strength and deterrence once had.  The time to oppose all bad policies is early and often.
3826  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues - Woodward regret? on: March 03, 2013, 05:26:26 PM
I did not know until after the “I think you will regret staking out this claim” email that Bob Woodward isn't such a perfect journalist:

Looks like John Cassidy at the New Yorker had a well researched article about Woodward's alleged misses ready to go to print by Feb 28.

I didn't know about this Woodward scandal:

"In 1988, he published “Veil: The Secret Wars of the C.I.A., 1981-1987,” which contained his famous account of a deathbed conversation with William Casey, the former C.I.A. director. Casey, according to Woodward’s telling, admitted that he knew about the illegal diversion of monies from Iranian arms sales to the Nicaraguan Contras. “His head jerked up hard,” Woodward wrote. “He stared, and finally nodded yes.” “Why?” Woodward asked. Casey whispered, “I believed.” Did it happen like that? Even today, it’s a matter of dispute. In 2010, a former C.I.A. employee, who was part of Casey’s security detail, claimed Woodward “fabricated” the story after being turned away from Casey’s room at Georgetown University Hospital. Woodward dismissed the agent’s statement, saying agency guards were not present around the clock. Whatever the truth of this particular detail, there is no doubt that Woodward had a great deal of access to Casey. According to C.I.A. records, the director spoke with Woodward forty-three times while he was working on the book. Whether or not Casey coughed up the deathbed admission, “Veil” contains a wealth of previously undisclosed details about C.I.A. operations."

I didn't know about this criticism of Woodward:

The real rap on Woodward isn’t that he makes things up. It’s that he takes what powerful people tell him at face value; that his accounts are shaped by who coöperates with him and who doesn’t; and that they lack context, critical awareness, and, ultimately, historic meaning. In a 1996 essay for the New York Review of Books, Joan Didion wrote that “measurable cerebral activity is virtually absent” from Woodward’s post-Watergate books, which are notable mainly for “a scrupulous passivity, an agreement to cover the story not as it is occurring but as it is presented, which is to say as it is manufactured.”

How many knew that Woodward's book about praising Greenspan as "Maestro" was so ill-timed:

"Woodward’s 2000 book on Alan Greenspan, “Maestro,” which was clearly based on extensive access to the Fed chairman, is a good example of what Didion was talking about. As an inside account of what Greenspan said and did and thought, it was a useful primer, and, as with all of Woodward’s books, it included some arresting, if largely irrelevant, narrative details, such as one in which the great man, disturbed by his wife, Andrea Mitchell’s, desire for a canine companion, asks one of his colleagues, the chairman of the Philadelphia Fed, “Well, how do you tell your wife you don’t want a dog?” But as a guide to the impact of Greenspan’s policies, or the real significance of his rise to a godlike status, “Maestro” wasn’t much help at all. Less than a year after it was published, the stock-market bubble that Greenspan had helped to inflate burst, and the country was plunged into a recession."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/02/bob-woodward-throws-an-interception.html#ixzz2MWOHpPD3

Now the narrative on Woodward is becoming that he was a Watergate-era, one-hit wonder.  

“I think [Woodward] will regret staking out this claim” about Obama moving the goal posts.
-------------

Some younger journalists were allegedly treated worse than Woodward by the Obama administration:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/beat_the_press_96lFrUNync5zuBZTiZ6aUL

3827  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: March 03, 2013, 01:56:26 PM
Maybe the calling out of Obama by Woodward on the origin of the sequester means the honeymoon is finally over, 8 1/2 years after Obama's 2004 convention speech.  It opens the door for pretend journalists to do real journalism and also for pretend comedians to do real comedy.  They can start coming out and at least consider taking occasional shots at the administration if or when they seem warranted.  Jon Stewart started to dabble in it. 

I don't think you would see any of that at this point in the first term.

The 'threat' as CCP suggests does not mean break you knees regret.  To Woodward they can't even take away all his access but they can throw up small roadblocks and hurdles.   For a newer, younger reporter it means you go further in this town if you play ball with the right team.  Criticism is fine, just keep it all over at Fox and Weekly Standard, etc.

Today I watched David Gregory follow tough questioning of Speaker of the House John Boehner with some far tougher than usual questions for his administration guest which happened to be Gene  You-will-live-to-regret-this  Sperling.  Then gave him the opportunity to tell what a great, long relationship he has with Woodward.  Still, I never heard him give good explanation to the "regret it" comment, nor back off of it.

Some stories are coming out about how Woodward isn't the greatest journalist...
3828  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Scott Grannis on marginal tax rates on the poor on: February 27, 2013, 08:49:26 AM

Excellent work by Scott  G on a very important topic.
3829  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Dollar: Quantitative easing simplified on: February 24, 2013, 11:09:58 AM
Quantitative easing simplified:

#Invalid YouTube Link#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XrJHzbl7ay0

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-22/late-friday-humor-quantitative-easing-simplified

3830  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: February 24, 2013, 11:05:54 AM
"It is highly important that the workmen should be assigned the noble status of citizenship in all our legislation."

Winston Churchill in a 1911 debate on British immigration reform.
3831  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: February 24, 2013, 11:02:30 AM
Just bought gas in the heart of the ND oil boom.  Prices same as at home.  Still need refineries, cars don't run on heavy crude. 

Someone please remind again why Dick Cheney should not have had industry experts advise him on how to meet future energy needs and what the his opponents are using in their tanks.  Harry Potter broom fuel?
3832  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs ,budget process: HAMSTER!! George Will on: February 24, 2013, 10:48:46 AM
George Will hits Obama's slow hanging curve ball out of the park:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-manufactured-crisis-of-sequester/2013/02/22/d22d4466-7c81-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

George F. Will
    Opinion Writer, Washington Post

The manufactured crisis of sequester

The sequester has forced liberals to clarify their conviction that whatever the government’s size is at any moment, it is the bare minimum necessary to forestall intolerable suffering. At his unintentionally hilarious hysteria session Tuesday, Obama said: The sequester’s “meat-cleaver approach” of “severe,” “arbitrary” and “brutal” cuts will “eviscerate” education, energy and medical research spending. “And already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf.”

“Forced”? The Navy did indeed cite the sequester when delaying deployment of the USS Truman. In the high-stakes pressure campaign against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, U.S. policy has been to have two carriers in nearby waters. Yet the Navy is saying it cannot find cuts to programs or deployments less essential than the Truman deployment. The Navy’s participation in the political campaign to pressure Congress into unraveling the sequester is crude, obvious and shameful, and it should earn the Navy’s budget especially skeptical scrutiny by Congress.

The Defense Department’s civilian employment has grown 17 percent since 2002. In 2012, defense spending on civilian personnel was 21 percent higher than in 2002. And the Truman must stay in Norfolk? This is, strictly speaking, unbelievable.

The sequester’s critics correctly say it is not the most intelligent way to prune government; priorities among programs should be set. But such critics are utopians if they are waiting for the arrival of intelligent government. The real choice today is between bigger or smaller unintelligent government.

Obama, who believes government spends money more constructively than do those who earn it, warns that the sequester’s budgetary nicks, amounting to one-half of 1 percent of gross domestic product, will derail the economy. A similar jeremiad was heard in 1943 when economist Paul Samuelson, whose Keynesian assumptions have trickled down to Obama, said postwar cuts in government would mean “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.”

Federal spending did indeed shrink an enormous 40 percent in one year. And the economy boomed.

Because crises are government’s excuse for growing, liberalism’s motto is: Never let a crisis go unfabricated. But its promiscuous production of crises has made them boring.

Remember when, in the 1980s, thousands died from cancers caused by insufficient regulation of the chemical Alar sprayed on apples? No, you don’t because this alarming prediction fizzled. Alar was not, after all, a risk.

Remember when “a major cooling of the climate” was “widely considered inevitable” (New York Times, May 21, 1975) with “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976) which must “stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975)? Remember reports that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973)? Armadillos were leaving Nebraska, heading south, and heat-loving snails were scampering southward from European forests (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974). Newsweek (April 28, 1975) said meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that cooling would “reduce agricultural productivity.”

Today, while Obama prepares a governmental power grab to combat global warming, sensible Americans, tuckered out with apocalypse fatigue, are yawning through the catastrophe du jour, the sequester. They say: Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the hamsters of sequestration.
3833  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics - ObamaCare and the '29ers' on: February 23, 2013, 03:40:07 PM
I have referenced the phenomenon in France several times:  Why France has so many 49 person companies.  Of course it is because so many regulations kick in when you hit 50 that new or further employment is thwarted.  Now it is the trend in America brought on by Obama and the Dems who preceded him and supported his policies ending exactly what they were trying to cause more of, companies paying full time benefits to more employees:

ObamaCare and the '29ers'
How the new mandates are already reducing full-time employment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324616604578304072420873666.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Here's a trend you'll be reading more about: part-time "job sharing," not only within firms but across different businesses.

It's already happening across the country at fast-food restaurants, as employers try to avoid being punished by the Affordable Care Act. In some cases we've heard about, a local McDonalds has hired employees to operate the cash register or flip burgers for 20 hours a week and then the workers head to the nearby Burger King BKW +2.39% or Wendy's to log another 20 hours. Other employees take the opposite shifts.

Welcome to the strange new world of small-business hiring under ObamaCare. The law requires firms with 50 or more "full-time equivalent workers" to offer health plans to employees who work more than 30 hours a week. (The law says "equivalent" because two 15 hour a week workers equal one full-time worker.) Employers that pass the 50-employee threshold and don't offer insurance face a $2,000 penalty for each uncovered worker beyond 30 employees. So by hiring the 50th worker, the firm pays a penalty on the previous 20 as well.

These employment cliffs are especially perverse economic incentives. Thousands of employers will face a $40,000 penalty if they dare expand and hire a 50th worker. The law is effectively a $2,000 tax on each additional hire after that, so to move to 60 workers costs $60,000. ...  ( more at the link)
------------------
What could possibly go wrong with these kinds of policies?
3834  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science, Winter is still on - 2013 on: February 23, 2013, 03:33:58 PM
Previously on the thread we see record cold temps in China and Siberia when it was warmer in other places.  The phrase global warming seems to be dead now because the warming isn't consistent or necessarily global.  The climate is always changing so the term climate change is safer to use, can apply to everything and can't be disproven.

The last 5 winters in Germany were colder than 'normal'.  This chart show the cooling trend since 1988:


I keep running into evidence that winter continues at least so far despite humans and their bad behaviors.  Yesterday I took a long drive along the mighty Mississippi only to find it completely frozen over.  Not up north where it is small but in southern Minnesota where it is a mile wide.  A truck parked at at an ice fishing house prompted me to take a picture.  Apologies for the quality of the shot not showing just how beautiful this is, but this is the Mighty Mississippi fully frozen over and blanketed with snow for as far as the eye can see:


Next is an ice road on the world's largest freshwater lake:

http://bayfield.org/bayfield-activities/ice-road/

Maybe next year warming will spiral out of control or maybe from where you are it looks like it already has.  Not so here.

3835  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / America's Inner City; Half of Detroit property owners don't pay taxes on: February 22, 2013, 01:51:00 PM
An estimated 47 percent of Detroit’s property owners pay no taxes, according to recent report from The Detroit News.
(Abortion rights taking a toll?)

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130221/METRO01/302210375/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/22/report-47-percent-of-detroit-property-owners-pay-no-taxes/

“Nearly half of the owners of Detroit’s 305,000 properties failed to pay their tax bills last year, exacerbating a punishing cycle of declining revenues and diminished services for a city in a financial crisis,” the report notes, citing more than 200,000 pages of tax documents.

“Some $246.5 million in taxes and fees went uncollected, about half of which was due Detroit and the rest to other entities, including Wayne County, Detroit Public Schools and the library,” the report adds.

In fact, according to The News, delinquency in the shattered city is so bad that that 77 blocks had only one owner who paid taxes in 2012.

Yes, one person paid taxes in an area covering 77 blocks.
3836  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anatomy of a stoning on: February 22, 2013, 01:03:33 PM

Ughh!!!  The religion of peace, gay rights, women's rights.  One might say that such harsh penalties, no one would commit the 'crime'.  Unfortunately, among the 'offenders' are young female rape victims:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/world/africa/05somalia.html
3837  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: February 22, 2013, 12:55:26 PM
"The left's war on women (and children) continues."

And war on religion.  Also the left's war on science.  By the time you detect a separate heartbeat it is pretty hard to argue this is no living thing. 


"I see that Gov. Cuomo of NY is seeking to expand late-term abortions.  Anyone have details?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/20/cuomos-logical-but-risky-late-term-abortion-push/
Andrew Cuomo’s late-term abortion push
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/nyregion/cuomo-bucks-tide-with-bill-to-lift-abortion-limits.html
guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

I haven't read New York law but there is ALWAYS an exception for when the life of the mother is in danger.  (Look for the iberals lie in the first sentence.)  What child is "viable" when the mother is stabbing it or holding a plastic bag over its head?

We need legal abortion because we know many unwanting mothers will kill the baby anyway in what they used to call back alley abortions.  Why not update the New York code for unwanted spouses.  We know that a good number of them will be killed anyway.  Why not facilitate that in a safer environment?
3838  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance Glibness - Best of times and worst for African Americans on: February 22, 2013, 12:02:33 PM
Pres. Barack Obama:  "And you know, I think these are both the best of times and the worst of times for large portions of the African American community."

No recognition whatsoever of the unemployment and dependency damage that his policies have caused.  All partisanship about the hatred of Republicans.

I can't believe host Al Sharpton didn't ask tougher questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVH8IMm_ulk&feature=player_embedded#!
------

African American Teen Unemployment Rate at a 25 Year High
http://www.laprogressive.com/african-american-teen-unemployment/

155,000 New Jobs Added, But Black Unemployment Rises
http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/01/04/155000-new-jobs-added-but-black-unemployment-rises/

Black teen unemployment still 4 times national average
http://thegrio.com/2011/03/04/is-black-teen-unemployment-the-biggest-threat-to-us-economy/
seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for African Americans between the ages of 16 and 19 reached 49 percent, up from 45.4 percent in August and 41.7 percent for the same period last year.
http://www.laprogressive.com/african-american-teen-unemployment/

once unemployed, Blacks are less likely to find jobs and tend to stay unemployed for longer periods of time. Blacks remained unemployed longer than Whites or Hispanics in 2011, with a median duration of unemployment of 27.0 weeks (compared to 19.7 for Whites and 18.5 for Hispanics).
http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/blacklaborforce/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best of times because of increased opportunities - in an intentionally shrinking economy?

Fool me once, fool me twice, looks like a pattern...
3839  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jack Lew- Forrest Gump at Treasury? on: February 22, 2013, 11:13:45 AM
NYU, a taxpayer owned institution, paid Lew $840,339 in a year and lent him and additional $1.4 million Mr. Lew said that the university "provided a mortgage forgiven in equal installments over five years, and an additional shared appreciation mortgage."  Plus severance when he left voluntarily.  Citi paid him 1.1 million to run a group that lost a billion and required a taxpayer bailout.  Let's put him in charge of the Treasury.  Liberals and leftists are up in arms about this.  Just kidding.
----
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323949404578314412568158962.html

Jack Lew doesn't seem to know much about how or why he got paid.

Senate Democrats are in a hurry to confirm Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury before anyone notices his biography. Otherwise, liberal lawmakers might be embarrassed voting for a man who represents everything they've been campaigning against.

Investor in Cayman Islands tax haven? Check. Recipient of a bonus and corporate jet rides underwritten by taxpayers at a bailed-out bank? Check. Executive at a university that accepted student-loan "kickbacks" for steering kids toward a favored bank? Check. Excessive compensation with minimal disclosure? Check.

Like a financial Forrest Gump, Mr. Lew keeps walking into the frame of the business-political dramas of the last decade. But unlike the lovable movie character, Mr. Lew is playing the villain of liberal financial lore. One very compelling role, highlighted by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), was Mr. Lew's star turn as an administrator at a university that encouraged students to borrow from his future employers at Citibank.

Prior to working at Citi, Mr. Lew was the executive vice president for operations at New York University from 2001-2006. He was responsible for NYU's budget and finances. During his tenure the university agreed to recognize Citibank as its primary private lender for student loans. Citibank in turn paid NYU 0.25% of the value of the loans.

Mr. Lew and the school say that Citi offered the payments to NYU only after winning a competitive process to offer low rates to students. Mr. Lew says he doesn't recall much about the arrangement, and he responded to a Grassley inquiry by saying, Gump-like, "I do not believe that I approved the selection of Citigroup as C +0.61% a preferred lender for NYU students."

We never thought it was the crime of the century for universities to get a cut of loan revenue when they recommended particular lenders to students. But politicians like Senator Max Baucus (D., Mont.) referred to these payments as "kickbacks." Yes, the same Max Baucus who has spent his career howling about the Cayman Islands. Yes, the same Mr. Baucus who has now forgotten how outraged he is while supporting Mr. Lew's nomination.

Anyway, after Mr. Lew had left NYU to work at Citi, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo charged in 2007 that the school's payments from Citi had not been adequately disclosed to students and that the school's policy toward Citi created a conflict of interest and violated state laws. NYU settled without admitting any wrongdoing and agreed to a new code of conduct.

We'd have thought this story would offend principled liberals, but then they're also giving a pass to Mr. Lew's fabulous compensation from the tax-exempt school. NYU students shoulder one of the highest collective debt burdens in the country as they struggle to afford one of the nation's most expensive universities. For those who claim after watching Mr. Lew's confirmation hearing that he doesn't understand finance, we say: Check out his NYU compensation package. He sure knows how to get paid.

According to a 2004 report in NYU's student newspaper, Washington Square News, Mr. Lew was paid $840,339 during the 2002-2003 academic year. This meant that Mr. Lew earned more than most of the country's university presidents that year, including his own boss, John Sexton.

After more Grassley inquiries and reporting by the New York Post, it's not clear whether even that astronomical figure covers all the compensation paid to this employee of an ostensibly nonprofit outfit.

The Post discovered in NYU's IRS forms that the school lent Mr. Lew at least $1.4 million. When Mr. Grassley asked the Treasury nominee about it, Mr. Lew said that the university "provided a mortgage forgiven in equal installments over five years, and an additional shared appreciation mortgage."

Mr. Lew says that NYU reported "income related to housing assistance" on his W-2, so it's possible the loan subsidy was counted in the $840,339 figure. We asked NYU and the Treasury to disclose Mr. Lew's total compensation from the school, including benefits. NYU suggested we review their public tax filings and White House spokesman Eric Schultz said only that, "Mr. Lew has answered more questions than any Treasury Secretary nominee in history. He has been fully transparent and responsive to the Committee and deserves a vote as soon as possible."

What Mr. Lew has told Mr. Grassley is that "in addition" to his salary, he received other benefits, including "a one-time severance payment upon my departure." The website for the Obama Department of Labor notes, "Severance pay is often granted to employees upon termination of employment." That's our understanding as well—severance is typically paid to employees being laid off. But NYU says he left voluntarily.

Why would the school shovel still more money to an employee as a parting gift before he heads off to Wall Street? NYU is a university that gets favorable tax treatment on the premise that it is pursuing an educational mission, not a commercial or political one.
***

The Grassley inquiry is unlikely to derail Mr. Lew's nomination, because Senate Democrats, the White House and most of the media really don't care. But Mr. Grassley is doing a public service in revealing how liberals redistribute income to themselves. And Mr. Lew is finally delivering educational value to youngsters by providing a lesson for the Obama era: If you want the big bucks, go into the world of taxpayer-backed enterprises.
3840  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues - Charles Krauthammer: The Lesser of Two Evils on: February 22, 2013, 10:49:47 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-immigration--the-lesser-of-two-evils/2013/02/21/d20213cc-7c63-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

Immigration — the lesser of two evils

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: February 21

The president suggested he would hold off introducing his own immigration bill as long as bipartisan Senate negotiations were proceeding apace — until his own immigration bill mysteriously leaked precisely as bipartisan Senate negotiations were proceeding apace.

A naked political maneuver and a blunt warning to Republicans: Finish that immigration deal in Congress, or I’ll propose something I know you can’t accept — and flog the issue mercilessly next year to win back the House.

John McCain responded (correctly) that President Obama was creating a “cudgel” to gain “political advantage in the next election.” Marco Rubio, a chief architect of the Senate bill, called Obama’s alternative dead on arrival.

They doth protest quite a lot. Especially because on the single most important issue — instant amnesty — there is no real difference between the proposals.

Rubio calls it “probationary legal status.” Obama uses the term “lawful prospective immigrant.” But both would instantly legalize the 11 million illegal immigrants living here today. The moment either bill is signed, the 11 million become eligible for legal residence, the right to work and relief from the prospect of deportation.

Their life in the shadows is over, which is what matters to them above all. Call the status probationary or prospective but, in reality, it is permanent. There is no conceivable circumstance (short of criminality) under which the instant legalization would be revoked.

This is bad policy. It repeats the 1986 immigration reform that legalized (the then) 3 million while promising border enforcement — which was never carried out. Which opened the door to today’s 11 million. And to the next 11 million as soon as the ink is dry on this reform.

The better policy would be enforcement first, followed by amnesty. Yes, amnesty. But only when we have ensured that these 11 million constitute the last cohort.

How to ensure that? With three obvious enforcement measures: (a) a universal E-Verify system by which employers must check the legal status of all their hires; (b) an effective system for tracking those who have overstayed their visas; and (c) closure of the southern border, mainly with the kind of triple fence that has proved so successful near San Diego.

If legalization would go into effect only when these conditions are met, there would be overwhelming bipartisan pressure to get enforcement done as quickly as possible.

Regrettably, there appears to be zero political will to undertake this kind of definitive solution. Democrats have little real interest in border enforcement. They see a rising Hispanic population as the key to a permanent Democratic majority. And Republicans are so panicked by last year’s loss of the Hispanic vote by 44 points that they have conceded instant legalization. As in the Rubio proposal.

Hence Rubio’s fallback. He at least makes enforcement the trigger for any normalization beyond legalization. Specifically, enforcement is required before the 11 million can apply for a green card.

A green card is surely a much weaker enforcement incentive than is legalization. But it still is something. Obama’s proposal, on the other hand, obliterates any incentive for enforcement.

Obama makes virtually automatic the eventual acquisition of a green card and citizenship by today’s 11 million. The clock starts on the day the bill is signed: eight years for a green card, five more for citizenship. It doesn’t matter if the border is flooded with millions of new illegal immigrants (anticipating yet the next amnesty). The path to citizenship is irreversible, rendering enforcement irrelevant.

As for Obama’s enforcement measures themselves, they are largely mere gestures: increased funding for border control, more deportation judges, more indeterminate stretching of a system that has already demonstrably failed. (Hence today’s 11 million.) Except for the promise of an eventual universal E-Verify system, it is nothing but the appearance of motion.

And remember: Non-implementation of any of this has no effect on the path to full citizenship anyway. The Rubio proposal at least creates some pressure for real enforcement because green-card acquisition does not take place until the country finally verifies that its borders are under its control. True, a far weaker incentive than requiring enforcement before legalization. But that fight appears to be totally lost.

In the end, the only remaining vessel for enforcement is the Rubio proposal. It is deeply flawed and highly imperfect. But given that the Obama alternative effectively signs away America’s right to decide who enters the country, the choice between the two proposals on the table today is straightforward.
3841  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: February 21, 2013, 11:53:36 PM
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/20/what-causes-government-spending-to-go-do
From the article:
...
The biggest surprise of all, of course, is that real, per-capita spending has not just flattened under Barack Obama but has actually declined.

[Crafty already nailed this but I post my thoughts as they were written.]

Surprising because it is both false and misleading.

Covered somewhere in the threads here, these discredited studies put the first 8+ months of Obama's Presidency in the Bush budgets.  The federal fiscal year is Oct 1-to the following Sept 30.  That kind of budget tracking makes sense in ordinary times, runners left on base, but in this case it included amazing amounts of "emergency spending" before and after inauguration.

The emergency spending between the election and the inauguration was on Bush's watch but in consultation and agreement with President-elect Obama, and also with direct approval of Obama as a de facto leader of the Senat majority that approved the spending.  The lie in Washington was that these emergency disbursements were temporary.
 
What is most dishonest is to put the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress with all Democrat majorities in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009 by President Barack Obama onto George Bush's budget year.  

What the flawed accounting accomplishes is to move the increases to Bush and then when President Obama breaks the temporary spending promise in the legislation and makes nearly a trillion a year of emergency spending permanent and then steps up and says he slowed or ended the increases in spending.

Besides screwed up budget years, the red-blue designations for President ignore the makeup of congress - where spending bills originate.  The 2008 surge is under a Dem congress.  The Clinton spending restraint 1995-2001 was under a Republican congress.  The people at Reason should know better but libertarians opposing Republicans and vice versa is part of the problem.  

I prefer to tie policies more than people or party or calendar dates to economic results.  For tax revenues, it is not what year did Reagan or Bush get elected, but what date did their policies take effect.

The effect of the Nov 2006 election that elevated Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Hillary-Biden-Ellison et al to the majorities in congress was that tax rate cuts could not and would not get renewed, meaning to investors faced higher tax rates going forward.  Investment is forward looking on tax rates.  A 50+ month employment expansion that began with the full implementation of the Bush tax rate cuts ended at that time and unemployment hit its bottom at 4.7% and headed up. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts  Unemployment rising means structurally higher spending.  In 2008 facing apparent certainty of tax rate increases at year end the financial markets crashed.  Whether one buys my economic theory or not, to put a red bar on spending for 2008 and then characterize the budget fights of Obama, Boehner and McConnell as Democratic spending restraint is not just simplistic, but flagrantly deceptive.  

Other than that, I like Nick Gillespie, Reason magazine and economist Veronica de Rugy.

[another good point from Crafty is that Obamacare which had zero Republican votes and no dollars to speak of on that congress' record or this President so far, is supposedly unrepealable in divided government, yet will count against the spending record of the next President - trillions over budget.  Very unfair. Again, tie the policies, not calendars or names on the door, to the results when you are serious about policy analysis.

The war point is also very good.  The 'Bush' wars were arguably a result - partly - of Clinton's intelligence defunding and Clinton not really addressing either of those known threats in his Presidency.  From the same chart, was Truman a wild spender in 1945 or did he wrap up a Hitler/FDR/Imperial Japan war?]
3842  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: February 21, 2013, 09:02:50 PM
On the first part regarding unanimous cases and interesting splits, point taken!  I admit reading only high profile cases.


"A person is most secure in his home. And if you don't agree with Roe, why cite it?"

The womb is where a person first felt secure. Whoops: http://www.numberofabortions.com/

I agree wholeheartedly with the finding of a right of privacy in the womb in Roe and a right of privacy in the home as seen by the dissenters in Kelo, and in my health insurance records and choices.  The right of privacy in the home would not shield you in the event of a killing or even a case of mistreatment of animals, see Michael Vick.  Ditto for the womb, in my opinion.  Short of the interest of protecting another life, all the choices and records of the womb are hers.

My point bringing up Roe may be lost because it is not the same Justices on Roe, Kelo and ACA.  That said, I think these four Justices recognize privacy quite clearly even while an innocent life is taken in one situation yet don't give it a thought or a mention that I noticed for the citizen who is home minding his or her own business.  That neglect troubles me.

"Is there another argument to be made without so much fallout for your own beliefs?"

I will accept your help in answering that.  I gave my best shot above at making the distinction.  For me, privacy is recognized in all cases but not past the point where the health policy records, the home or the womb become tied to a terror case, a killing, evidence of mistreatment, endangerment of others, etc.  That's when privacy ends and the authorities can come in - to protect others.  These Justices are in effect sending in the authorities when you are sitting home, harming no one, paying your property taxes and all the healthcare expenses you incur (actual, not ACA) in full and on time.  For that, they can still take your home.


3843  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion Horror for both mother and daughter/son on: February 21, 2013, 01:54:58 PM
Mother sues Planned Parenthood over forced, botched abortion
    by Heidi Miller
    February 20, 2013
 
When Ayanna Byer scheduled an appointment at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains to take an abortion pill to end her pregnancy, there was no way for her to foresee the horrors ahead of her.  Earlier this month, Byer, through the assistance of the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom, brought a lawsuit to hold Planned Parenthood liable for the botched abortion that she did not consent to.

According to that complaint, when Byer arrived at the Planned Parenthood clinic, it was determined that her pregnancy was too far along to be terminated through the use of a pill, therefore a surgical abortion was recommended. Ms. Byer agreed upon the condition that she would receive IV anesthesia, for which she would be charged extra.  Although the employees could not get the IV started, the doctor came to start the procedure anyway.

The complaint states:

    At this time, Plaintiff immediately told the Planned Parenthood Doctor to stop and that she did not want to go through with the abortion procedure because she had not received any anesthetic.  Plaintiff also informed Planned Parenthood Doctor and agents or employees of Planned Parenthood Defendants that she believed this to be a sign she should not go through with the abortion.  The Planned Parenthood Doctor did not stop despite Plaintiff’s request, and assured Plaintiff the I.V. would be administered and the procedure would only take a few minutes.

    At this time, the Planned Parenthood Doctor turned on the vacuum machines and told Plaintiff it was too late to stop.

Seven minutes later, due to Ms. Byer crying from pain, the procedure finally stopped. She received an apology and a prescription for a painkiller and antibiotics and was sent on her way. Planned Parenthood never followed up with her.

About two days later, Ms. Byer went to the hospital due to pain and bleeding, where it was found that part of the aborted baby was still inside her, resulting in an infection. She had to have emergency surgery.

Sources: NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post.  Just kidding, maybe they will cover it tomorrow
http://liveactionnews.org/mother-sues-planned-parenthood-over-forced-botched-abortion/
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ByerComplaint.pdf
3844  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: February 21, 2013, 12:46:35 PM
Thanks Bigdog.  When Justice Stevens said Kelo was the most unpopular decision in his entire career I assumed he was caught reading the forum.   wink

Do you see some of these same problems in the healthcare decision?  Roberts view aside, the other four never seem to object to expansions of government powers and the corresponding losses of individual rights and freedoms.  As much as owning a home, isn't something as basic as the right to choose what services you want to buy or insure in my opinion a basic right in a free society?  Aren't healthcare choices part of a right to privacy?  Especially in the wake of Roe!
3845  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: February 21, 2013, 11:17:15 AM
The Republicans on the cable shows keep going after Obama.  I think this is off the mark. 
The target is too narrow.  They should not go after him.  They must go after all leaders of the Democrat Party.
I mean Hillary is on deck while she begins a speaking tour just like Bill did for her in 2008 ; a quarter million a pop.
If we focus only on Brock we will miss the rest of the enemy assault.

It is the governing philosophies, not the person, we oppose, and the criticisms just deflect off of him anyway.  But still this is a people business.  We need to do both, impugn these policies and hold specific people accountable for their results.

The lost popularity of George Bush in his second term cost him (us) 1) the House, 2) the Senate, 3) all of his second term domestic agenda including energy.  It meant that tax rates cuts would expire instead of becoming permanent.   And the agenda that never happened should have included housing finance reform that might have prevented or alleviated the severity of 4) the financial collapse.  Bush's lost popularity 5) guaranteed the election of the other party in the next Presidential election.  That is a big swing for just convincing the people they have a lousy President.  Bush partly deserved that.  So does Obama.

If Pres. Obama is tied personally to the failed economy, even after reelection, it hurts his ability to move more legislation, more spending,more taxes.  It hurts his ability to help Dem House and Senate candidates next year, it hurts the prospects of the next Dem nominee, and it hurts the future reputation of leftism. 
3846  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care - Ezekiel J. Emanuel on: February 21, 2013, 10:11:15 AM
CCP, I looked up Rahm's brother Ezekial and found many columns at the NYT:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/author/ezekiel-j-emanuel/

Reading through I found him to be somewhat reasonable and restrained for a liberal.  I didn't find anything overly provocative or controversial like a Krugman for example.

For a question in a room full of doctors I would look for something where both the question and the answer might resonate with the audience.  Perhaps something along the line of asking how can we limit government's role to informing, but not interfere with or replace the judgment of the attending physician.

A not very timely and more hostile question: Given that the more an industry is controlled by government the less they are able to innovate, improve services or control costs, why do we turn over our most important industries to the entity with the worst track record for performance?

His most recent column:

February 14, 2013, 9:11 pm158 Comments
Health Care’s Good News
By EZEKIEL J. EMANUEL

THINK about it. When was the last time you heard the phrases “good news” and “health care costs” in the same sentence?

I can’t remember either.

Most of the recent talk about health care spending has been pretty bleak. Just take a look at the Rate Review Tool on Healthcare.gov and you’ll know why. Major insurers are proposing painful, double-digit premium increases in 2013. In California, Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Aetna all announced rate increases of 20 percent or higher for some of their customers. Many are taking this as a sign that, despite its intentions, the health care reform law is failing and costs are going up as a result.

But there is something bigger going on here, though commentators may not be shouting about it. Health care spending is still going up, but the rate at which it grows year to year has actually been declining for about a decade now.

This is truly a sea change. Look at Medicare: over the last 43 years, costs per beneficiary grew 2.7 percent faster than the overall economy. That’s why Medicare spending rose from $7.7 billion in 1970 (or 0.7 percent of gross domestic product) to $551 billion in 2012 (almost 4 percent of G.D.P.). But this trend has finally reversed; over the last three years, Medicare costs per person have grown 1.3 percent slower than growth in the overall economy. In January, a Department of Health and Human Services report showed that Medicare spending per beneficiary grew just 0.4 percent in 2012. And last week, the Congressional Budget Office lowered its 10-year Medicare spending projection by $137 billion, because “health care spending has grown much more slowly” than “historical rates would have indicated.”

This slowdown is not limited to Medicare, nor is it simply the result of belt-tightening in the wake of the Great Recession. Since 2004 — nearly four years before the economic downturn — the rate of health care inflation per person has been just 0.8 percent higher than the growth of the G.D.P. Between 1965 and 1993, for comparison, it was 3.2 percent higher.

So if the growth of spending is decelerating, why are premiums increasing? First, the big increases were in relatively small parts of the market, among individual and small-business policies. Second, like everyone else in the health care industry, insurance companies are uncertain about the future, particularly about what will happen to their margins when the new exchanges open in October. The natural response to uncertainty is caution, and for insurance companies, the cautious approach is to increase revenue and profits as much as possible in the short term in case Obamacare lowers them in the long term.

But once the exchanges begin to facilitate competition, this fear should dissipate and premiums should come down.

Regardless, the good news on health care costs shouldn’t make us complacent. Despite the slowdown, total Medicare spending is still rising, because more and more baby boomers are becoming eligible for the program every day. The number of beneficiaries is projected to grow 3 percent each year. As a result, total Medicare expenditures are projected to rise to over 4 percent of the G.D.P. by 2023 and to 6.7 percent by 2037. This is a looming threat to the nation’s long-term fiscal stability.

So what more can be done? Here is another piece of good news: there are many common sense reforms that should appeal to both Democrats and Republicans.

One example is competitive bidding. Historically, the government has effectively set prices through Medicare for wheelchairs, hospital beds and other medical equipment. But a demonstration project begun in 2011 introduced competitive bidding in roughly 100 metropolitan areas to see if market forces could bring down prices. The results have been dramatic. Prices for oxygen equipment went down 41 percent; wheelchairs, 36 percent; hospital beds, 44 percent; and the cost of diabetic testing equipment, like glucose strips, dropped by a whopping 72 percent. And research has shown no adverse effects on beneficiaries.

The Affordable Care Act will expand competitive bidding for these items to the rest of the country in 2016. But why wait? We should roll it out nationwide next year. And it shouldn’t just be for medical equipment. In his last budget, President George W. Bush recommended expanding competitive bidding for blood tests and other lab procedures. It could also work for X-rays, CT scans, pacemakers — for all medical commodities. This would drive health care spending growth closer to the increase in G.D.P.

The moderating of health care spending is fantastic news. But now we just have to work harder. If we can push the rate of growth even lower, we will come close to solving our nation’s long-term financial problems.
3847  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Debate Commission Co-Chair says selection of Candy Crowley was a "mistake" on: February 20, 2013, 01:54:14 PM
Frank Fahrenkopf, co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates, admitted that the selection of CNN's Candy Crowley to moderate the second presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney in October 2012 had been a "mistake."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/19/Debate-Commission-Co-Chair-Yeah-Candy-Crowley-Was-a-Mistake
---------

Fahrenkopf is a Republican.  Democrats disagree.

Crowley stirred controversy by intervening in the town hall-style debate to support Obama's contention that he had referred to the Sep. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after it had occurred. In fact, as Crowley herself later admitted, Obama had not done so, referring only to "acts of terror" in general. In a CBS interview taped the same day, Obama declined to refer to the attack as a terrorist act, and subsequently supported a false story about a protest over an anti-Islamic video that never took place.

After Crowley backed up the president, some members of the audience burst into applause, in violation of the rules. The effect was not lost on the audience, which scored the debate as an Obama win--nor was it lost on Romney, who was sufficiently chastened that he refused to bring up the Benghazi issue again in the third presidential debate, even though that debate was specifically focused on foreign policy and national security.

Though it was likely not the only factor, or even the major factor, in Romney's defeat, Crowley's error slowed the new momentum that Romney had enjoyed since defeating Obama soundly in the first presidential debate. Her intervention also reinforced the media lack of interest in pursuing the Benghazi issue with the president.
--------------

As Crafty pointed out, Gingrich would have known he was there to debate both of them.  Romney was blindsided.  Never saw it coming.  He looked worse than Rubio needing water.

Not mentioned is the insinuation Pres. Obama made to Candy that the two of them had already discussed this:

"Get the transcript".  "Can you say that a little louder Candy."

"He did, in fact, sir..." "He -- he did call it an act of terror."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/crowley-challenges-romney-on-libya-138693.html

Once again talking out of both sides of the mouth leaves a quote on record for all purposes.  Too bad that in the age of information we still have a partisan, lapdog press.
3848  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cyberwar and American Freedom on: February 20, 2013, 12:17:57 PM
"China’s Army Is Seen as Tied to Hacking Against U.S. "

Interesting that it was the need to create a virtual private network to get around the Chinese firewall and censorship policies that allowed the discovery and geographic pinpointing of the espionage to a 12 story Chinese military building.

Obama administration:  "We have repeatedly raised our concerns at the highest levels..."
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/19/white_house_we_are_talking_cyber_espionage_with_china

Phew!!  That ought to do it.

On second thought, if they believed "raising concerns at the highest level" will stop it, why admit the need to do it "repeatedly"?
3849  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Retired Justice Stevens in defense of Kelo on: February 20, 2013, 11:57:24 AM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/1.pdf
A speech by retired Justice Stevens defending Kelo.

Justice Stevens makes my blood boil but I am glad you posted this.  Stevens thinking on full display illuminates the differences between the competing ways of viewing the constitution and its role in limiting government and protecting individual rights.  

Before I go off on a layman's rant, may I ask of Bigdog, Crafty, others, do you agree with Stevens, or if not, what are the flaws of his thinking?

Stevens: "neither the text of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, nor the common law rule that it codified, placed any limit on the states' power to take private property, other than the obligation to pay just compensation to the former owner."

Huh?

Justice Steves alleges that Kelo is model of judicial restraint.  Judicial restraint to Stevens is to look the other way when faced with government oppression of basic individual rights and liberties.

What individual right is the New London redevelopment plan tromping all over?  Obviously the right of private property ownership, the right to own your own home.  Is that right fully enumerated in the constitution?  No.  Was the right of privacy in Roe which Stevens concurred enumerated?  No.  Do you have the right to live in your home without being judged by coveters or tyrannical government about whether your usage, with no complaints on record, is optimal for the community??  Not under the Kelo/Stevens legacy.  

What did the constitution say about unenumerated or under-enumerated rights?  See the 9th amendment:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Did the founders and framers see a right to property ownership?  Yes, obviously so.  See the 5th amendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".  Does this literally prohibit takings for any other purpose than public use?  No it implies it.

Were the framers aware of threats to private property ownership existing before the constitution was written?  Yes.  When was the following written, by whom, and how many framers owned a copy:  "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house..."??

What did Madison say when he originally opposed the Bill of Rights?   A listing of rights could be dangerous, leading to the erroneous conclusion that only those rights specifically listed were actually protected?  Prescient.

Had the framers written in greater length on "private property...taken for public use", wouldn't they just risk even more of the danger that Madison warned above?  The 5th amendment reference contributes powerfully to the idea that private property ownership was very much an unenumerated right in the framing, to be violated only for "public use".  Stevens is grasping to find that doesn't say "only" public use.  Would he also conclude that takings for other than public use do NOT require just compensation?  Why doesn't he conclude that?  Where was his narrow textual reading of the articles and amendments during his finding of trimesters in Roe?

When did we go from "public use" to public purpose meaning any purpose?  In previous case law he points to Berman.  Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the “slum-clearance” project upheld by this Court in Berman were black, Justice Thomas happened to notice.  (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html)  No matter to Stevens.  Expanding on the creeping powers of government and eroding the rights of individuals in each incremental case is judicial restraint in Stevens' view.  Maybe we need a little less of that!

Justice Thomas wrote:  "The Constitution’s text, in short, suggests that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to employ it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking."

Like the stunned dissenters in NFIB v. Sebelius repeatedly questioned, what powers doesn't the federal government have if they have all of these?  Stated differently since this is about local government powers, what rights have you retained now that you lost all of these?  Very few.  If you follow the Stevens hypocrisy of original text selectivity carried forward by enough others, you will retain only those rights that are recognized by 5 elites on a given day, generally those linked in politics to liberal causes.  
3850  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: European matters on: February 19, 2013, 09:35:35 PM
Crafty wrote recently: "I note how hard the first Euro downturn hit the US markets."

That was back in the good old days when the European problem was Greece.  Then Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy. 

Now we have France making Obama look like a supply-sider and Germany shutting down all nuclear and choking itself over energy:

http://rt.com/news/germany-poland-nuclear-fukushima-574/
Germany is facing rapidly climbing energy costs after turning away from nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster, instead relying increasingly on renewable energy. Meanwhile, its neighbors are building nuclear power stations on its doorstep.

Who holds up Europe when France implodes and the German economy stalls?  The steady UK economy where they raised tax rates from 40% to 50% and panicked and lowered them to 45%, all since 2010.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/13/uk-low-gdp-growth-bank-england-inflation
UK set for low GDP growth for at least two years, Bank of England warns.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/198468.Margaret_Thatcher
Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78 79 ... 161
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!