Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 07, 2015, 12:38:21 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
88845 Posts in 2286 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78 79 ... 136
3801  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 09, 2012, 07:10:02 PM
The argument still is that we already do it and Bush did it so too bad to those with different ideas and those who care about principles or cost effectiveness with the public dollar even though we are trillions and trillions overspent. The constituency is large, therefore we should pander.  

That we disagree strongly is reason why we should NOT have one size fits all healthcare.  You really don't see that! You say move on but if you don't care then do that and leave this to people who do.  We should concede arguments with people we disagree with to get their vote? For what?

The woman says she needs $3000 for contraception and she needs it paid for by someone else and the clause in the constitution that authorizes is called focus group  polling.  SHE BROUGHT IT UP, she went public, she reached into GM's wallet even though he had it tucked in a very private place.  She offended a few people, like those who believe in limited government, constitutional government, efficient government or freedom of religion.  And you don't care.  So WHAT?

Repetitive, unresponsive, apathetic and insulting.  Why is this hetero-centric law fair to gays who have no risk of accidental procreation subsidizing sexually active heterosexual women like they are an exploited minority?  Have you answered ANY of the concerns expressed?  No.  If this were dinner conversation in person, would you insult everyone when you don't care about the topic, or politely make an excuse, thank your host and leave.
3802  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 09, 2012, 05:17:32 PM
She doesn't have to contracept cost effectively if it isn't supposed to be with her money.  She may have had no actual activity at all but a girl needs to be ready.

Why (again) did she choose to go public with what ought to be private?

Please provide receipts to the committee.  It is an issue now.  Roger Clemons was indicted, charged with lying to Congress and tried in federal court. 

The operation that went on a mission to destroy Joe the Plumber is shocked and disappointed at a personal attack - from a radio show.  Did you know Joe the Plumber was DIVORCED and his plumbing license was good in only one municipality?  He'll never make a quarter million!  He failed his apprenticeship.  Obama knew his earning potential for the next 4 years was limited and proclaimed that fact nationally and publicly.  It wasn't a radio show that went after him personally.  It was the VP candidate first on a national show and then Obama himself, loud and often, without apology.

What a jackass.
3803  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A question for or about the President on: March 09, 2012, 04:36:57 PM
He had mentors like Ayers, Alinsky, Rev. Wright, the latest to come out is radical Prof. Derrick Bell.  Pres. Obama hired extremists like Van Jones, Anita Dunn, plenty of others, maybe Glen Beck can help with the rest of the names.  He had a Nancy Pelosi-led Dem House for 2 years and he had 60 votes in the Senate for a minute or 2.  He got 'healthcare' done but only in what he considered a transition program to single payer, watered down and necessarily complicated to get the votes of the retiring centrists like Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Joe Lieberman, Jim Webb, etc.

Then he had 2 years still running where he can't get more done because of the nay-saying Republican House and his super-slim majority in the Senate, and he is blaming Republicans, really the centrists for refusing to go any further with his agenda although to an unprecedented extent his is legislating what he can from the Czar level and from the spending and regulatory authorities of the Executive Branch.

I have a serious question that is probably impossible to answer:

Without exaggeration or defamation, what would Pres. Barack Obama's policies be in detail, across the board, if he was not constrained whatsoever by Republicans, centrists, the constitution, the media or anyone else? 

What are his own views?  Is he more centrist now than in his radical days or is he a political survivor and tactician still hellbent on changing the direction of the country?  What would the constitution say about the limits on government if he could write it? What would the tax rates be?  On whom?  What would spending be if it could be set be Presidential decree?  What powers would he ceded to the U.N. or a stronger world government if he could?  What would the borders and immigration policy look like if not hounded by the Republicans and the bitter clingers?  What would energy use restrictions be?  Etc. etc.

We have had roughly 4 years to get to know this guy and he wants 4 more.  What are his real views right now on public policy?
3804  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China on: March 09, 2012, 12:29:26 PM
Bigdog,  Very interesting and surprising implications pointed out at your link.  Thank you.
3805  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 09, 2012, 12:27:22 PM
"she's only needing 10 condoms a day"

In the old days he would have to at least buy her 10 dinners a day for her to not be considered ... (the bad word meaning 'loose in morals or promiscuous').
3806  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics - Sandra Fluke on: March 09, 2012, 12:17:44 PM
The Iranians storming the embassy were only students, if that is funny.  She is an activist of national exposure.  If you deny that, read on and view the video.  She was a leader of an anti-Catholic organization trying to take down Catholic principles in a Catholic university.  She chose her public role.  And she was discovered and pushed forward by others.  That does not mean deserves bad words, it means she is a public figure, not acting as a student, but as a national policy advocate.  She was being put forward to testify on a panel; of experts.  When denied that she went public.  Rush L. did not go to Georgetown interviewing students.  She came to him via the airwaves as a leading advocate on her side's lead issue.  Why do we always have to argue the obvious?
Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham a slut, on air.  Yeah, same word, no provocation.  Rachel hasn't quoted Ed Shultz on the forum, but none other than... Sandra Fluke ... had no problem going on his show a week before the Rush Limbaugh incident.  And she wasn't there to say 'Ed, you misogynist'!  She was there to bitch and whine about the plight of women who go to places like Georgetown of their own free choosing.

Was the 'Ed Show', originator of free on air slut calling okay with Fluke because liberals give better apologies?  No.  This is all a highly orchestrated political act and the Rush mistake was just too good to pass up. 

Did Obama ever reach across the aisle and call the 'talk slut' Laura Ingraham and commissurate? Uh, no.  Did it remind him of his daughters?  What a bunch of bullsh*t.

Now Fluke is on the travel and making the rounds to all the shows and all the networks.  She is booked by her PR agent, none other than ... Anita Dunn.

$9 a month for contraception is outrageous for a busy, taxpayer funded college student.  Coast to coast travel for political speaking engagements?  No problem.

Either the White House or the DNC planted the issue and put forward this 'student'.  It started with the George Stephanopolous question off the wall in a debate where Gov. Romney had to say What?? This isn't an issue in any state!  And Stephanopolous agreed on his own show ABC's 'This Week' the next day that he embarrassed himself badly there, set up by ... he didn't say whom.

This woman Fluke chose the nation's oldest Catholic University to set out on a firestorm against Catholic principles.  Yes, Crafty, there are issues beyond religious freedom at stake, but religious freedom IS at stake.

I don't care for Bill O'Reilly much but he seems to have this one figured out:  "But now we see, alright, that Anita Dunn and her firm have embraced her. Now, she appeared on NBC 1, 2, 3, 4 times, CBS once, CNN once — no, five for NBC — and The View also. And each of these times, alright, there was a shadowy booking process. Because I spoke to some of these people. [...] She appears, she shows up. Somebody pays for all of that."

Fluke claims that only 2% of Catholic women follow the rules and principles of the faith anyway.  Who really cares about such a small religious minority?? ?? ??

Rachel I believer is looking for the big picture, not for herself, on the issue but I would like to ask her in 20 or 30 years how having government enlarged and empowered to screw over and stomp out one faith and its principles has worked out for her religion.  War against religion has not historically been good for ANY religion except the worship for a government controlled life.

You are 2 or 3 more bizarre twists or turns in the road from having a Rick Santorum administration choose the next Secretary of Health and Human Services and you want the federal government in the meantime to accumulate more power over these personal decisions?  Good luck.
3807  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: March 09, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
CCP, Very interesting stuff.  Your point of the $50k fee is just one indicator but to me the risk is all regulatory. Fracking is under attack even though 57 states say no drinking water has ever been contaminated. 

We have enough overall demand for energy that the explosion of natural gas (bad choice of words?) will find plenty of uses. 

CNG burns cleaner than gasoline, I think it is 25% cleaner for CO2 emissions (when did CO2 become a pollutant?) and cleaner for everything else as well.  CNG is not as transportable as gasoline, but good enough for all commuters and metro traffic.  It would take extremely high pressure to get a reasonable sized tank to get the full mileage range of a gas tank, but only a doctor can afford a full tank of gas these days anyway.

There are compressors to fill the CNG tank overnight from your home natural gas line.  The road tax authorities are not wild about this.

Making CNG widely available in Utah where the mountains trap the air pollution in the valley was Gov. Huntsman's claim to fame.  He didn't tout it during his Presidential bid and I don't know what kept the idea from expanding.  In our state, only the gas company has a CNG station and only fleets and a few hobbyists are using it.  Googling a few vehicles, factory CNG models are available with more coming and there are plenty of kits.  There is always the problem of getting people to gradually switch over before widespread availability, like E-85, but if the price, supply and demand are right it can happen fast enough in the metro areas.  If not Exxon then someone else can do it.  The big constraints are cost in getting the right equipment and of course the regulatory issues.

If the supplies get too high and the prices too low, the usage can easily switch over to other uses like generating electricity.  Remember that Japan with its nuclear problem and Germany closing nuclear plants and the USA failing to build new plants makes a huge, unfilled demand for clean and plentiful substitutes.  You can put the generator at the point of use, home or business instead of taking electricity from the grid.  Like with solar and wind, you could potentially sell power back to the electric company.
3808  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: March 09, 2012, 12:43:44 AM
CCP wrote: "Scroll to the section for the US.  While converting to natural gas doesn't itself cost much getting a certificate from the EPA will cost a bit more - 50 grand:"

You are correct: "the conversion requires a type certificate from the EPA. Meeting the requirements of a type certificate can cost up to $50,000."

That doesn't make sense to me.  I was wondering where (besides Wikipedia) you came across that.  Maybe it is the fee to Ford, Honda or GM to approve a new model?

CNG is cleaner and we should be all over it for transportation.  Not as a government with credits, subsidies or mandates, but as a people.  Also, consider CNG hybrids for the superclean consumer.
3809  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics: Big fat liar or a slut? One gets you into the Senate. on: March 09, 2012, 12:18:20 AM
"Mandated coverage of abortions is also in play here."

Yes.  The elephant in the room.  I hope there aren't any religious-Americans still hung up on that old 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' commandment.

The writing from Michelle Malkin is powerful.  How did all that happen without the notice of the feminists?  Or did I miss the outrage?  Then we had the Obama million dollar contributor calling Palin a "cunt" and Obama's phony 'Pastor' calling our country "God Damn America".  Then we get the lecture when one conservative pundit calls one liberal activist a slut when he meant prostitute as a bad joke and quickly apologized.

Yes I have quoted Rush L a few times on his political insights and I disapprove of that message and a few others of his.  I also disapprove that liberals made a book calling him a big, fat liar into a best seller with their exuberance and put the author of that trash in the Senate. I do however get the joke that he fumbled, that she was publicly demanding money to have sex and there is a bad word that should have never been spoken for people who do that.  I think the proper word or analogy for the activity was extortion, not prostitution.  Once she got going in the video I posted, the message was clear: Pay me, pay us, or we will make your life a living hell.  We will publicly call all of you out as women haters, with your obnoxious religions and worn-out principles and see that you never hold political power of any kind ever again if you won't pay us for whatever we decide that we need. 
3810  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Politics: What is private or personal anymore? on: March 08, 2012, 02:51:01 PM
I don't accept the name calling.  Repeating what was already apologized for didn't exactly move the civility forward judging the first response.   

This is NOT a question about what the insured and your insurance company agree to include in a private contract.  Why would we care about that?  Fluke was in front of Congress on the issue of what the government will force everyone to pay for.  It isn't "birth control should be covered by insurance carriers", but what government will mandate.  If it reduces healthcare costs, why does it need to be an act of Congress?

Besides Catholics, abstainers, masterbaters and oral sex enthusiasts, gays should be another demographic wondering why they must pay the expenses of women who selectively engage in non-reproductive, heterosexual copulation - without condoms.  All must pay for the activities of some.  I missed the part where this stuff quit being PRIVATE!

Fluke describes this as a necessity.  What other living expenses must be paid by other than the procurer?  Which expenses are our own; where is that line?  There isn't one anymore.  At least it is admitted that: "I suppose there are thoughtful  arguments  against  that position".  Thank you for that.

Why don't you see the disrespect for other people's religions and principles that we are attempting to codify?  Do you see it but figure it is not against your own religion?  An attack against one faith is not an attack against all?

I think you know the man apologized.  That was in the thread while you still quote him and voice the outrage.  Over at one of the other big religions (a different C-word), unbeknownst to the President and Dem opportunists, they preach forgiveness.
Back to Fluke, once again liberals have to lie to make a point?

"...Fluke’s claim that $3,000 would be the cost over her three-year stay at Georgetown Law.
Fluke’s figure seems to have been plucked from thin air. Planned Parenthood estimates the monthly cost at between $15 and $50, which translates to $160 to $600 per year"

At the low end that is $480 for 3 years of continuous coverage.  At Fluke's exaggerated figure with a government 15.5 trillion in debt, maybe we need to look at lower cost alternatives, now that private activity and its consequences are everyone's business.  The point about viagra is equally valid, and sex changes and a lot of other things.

We hand all this power to government over religion and privacy without fully contemplating what the next elected government will do with it.  That is my opinion.

There is no line of separation between Maher and Pres. Obama, tied together by a million dollars given and accepted and other mutual cooperations.  If they draw a line now it is only from being caught up publicly in this hypocrisy.
3811  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Tax Policy: The case for antitax absolutism - Not a Penny More on: March 08, 2012, 12:39:55 PM
Thoughtful piece at City Journal gives a historical and intellectual perspective for anti-tax-increase principles:  Read it at the link and click on the ads:

William Voegeli is a senior editor of The Claremont Review of Books, author of Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State

"...These critics would have you believe that the antitax movement is nothing but belligerent extremism. The truth, however, is that you don’t have to embrace Norquist’s famous ambition—to shrink government until it’s small enough to be drowned in a bathtub—to conclude that opposing tax increases is both smart politics and wise policy. Nor do you have to make the maximalist supply-side assertion that tax cuts always pay for themselves. In rejecting tax hikes, Republicans aren’t trading in fanaticism. Rather, they’re confronting a governing failure—an abiding lack of candor about what our welfare state costs—that voters grasp but Democrats refuse to admit."...

..."When they refuse to raise taxes, Republicans force Democrats to make a deeply unpersuasive argument. Major expansions of the welfare state are indispensable, this argument goes; but the $5.08 trillion of federal, state, and local government outlays in 2010—35 percent of GDP—is already being spent on its very best uses; therefore, our new government endeavors will require corralling more of the 65 GDP percentage points that now roam contentedly beyond the fence.

Such a platform would be helpful for any candidate seeking the presidency—so long as it was the presidency of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. But no Democratic politician will ever use it successfully to win over a large, diverse electorate residing outside our blue ghettos, which is why Democratic presidential candidates avoid it and instead promise not to raise taxes. This silence is a deafening testament to Democrats’ morose conviction that Americans don’t like their party’s agenda enough to give it the only endorsement that really matters: voting to pay for it. It’s hard to see what incentive Republicans have to extricate Democrats from this dilemma."
3812  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Glibness: My plan will cause energy prices to skyrocket on: March 08, 2012, 11:08:19 AM
Must hear the President to be in his own words, in his own voice, on the audio at the link.  (Please also visit the advertisers.)

— Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
3813  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Politics - Rush incident starting to backfire on liberals on: March 08, 2012, 10:31:42 AM
With the apology in hand, some advertisers left, some are allegedly asking to come back while the show is announcing new advertisers.  Mostly the ad agencies buy contracts with the local affiliates and then due to an organized campaign from social media have to say don't run our ads during your highest rated show.  That leaves a gap for new purchases.

There seems to be quite a question emerging now after all the silence about the similar and worse comments that have come out of the left.  Most embarrassing is Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a "c*nt" and giving $1 million to the Obama PAC to advance the political cause of Obama and his wife and daughters.

Here is what for female Dem lawmakers had to say about the liberal misogynists (nothing):

I assume he will have to cancel but David Axelrod followed up his criticism of Rush Limbaugh with a reported announcement that he will be appearing on the Bill Maher show:

"David Axelrod, President Obama's senior campaign strategist, is scheduled to appear on Bill Maher's late-night talk show within the next few weeks, according to Kelley Carville, an HBO spokesman."

Sarah Palin wrote Tuesday on her Facebook page:  "Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters. For the sake of everyone's daughter, why doesn't his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist?"
3814  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 07, 2012, 09:17:26 PM
I don't understand thd format where you quote me and then makde unrelated points, but God Bless your right to do that.
3815  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 07, 2012, 02:26:06 PM
As usual, our points miss each other.  There are many many many many many many choices made in health care, most with which I disagree. 

People inform themselves and get a second opinion in medicine all the time.  You have never second guessed a doctor? 

"do I want the lowest cost, poorly trained doctor to set it?"

There isn't a poorly trained or low cost doctor in this country, but it is under central control where you will lose the power to make that choice.  You don't see that?

"I don't care about the motorcycle.  It's trash.  I can buy another one (I've given up and gone to bicycles).  Your theory only pertains to vehicle insurance. "

No! Tedious comes to mind.  We were discussing healthcare insurance.  Please focus.  You can buy a policy to cover the ambulance and all the emergency care, bone setting heart transplant, anything, what on earth is the problem?  In a free market, you might be able to buy a policy to cover only that and not all the procedures that you consider non-essential but others demand.  Still you miss the point and call me wrong.  You WILL lose the right to ride the motorcycle - symbolic for all those types of choices that someone else paying your bills determines to be too risky.

Why don't you push to have government regulate commerce like requiring complete disclosures of prices instead of having government participate in the commerce.

Why don't consumers organize and take over negotiations with the providers if they don't like the way they are treated.  I know someone who did - a major labor union - and they self-insure.  Government isn't the only lever.  Were you going to get me an example of where a free market could not contain costs better than central control?

Rationing who gets what service is not lowering costs.

Why did healthcare go okay the first 200 years of so?

If we want to change the role of the federal government, why not go through the old fashioned process of AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION first, if it is such a good idea?

What other rights involve mandating someone else supply the product or perform the service for you? 

Why no comment on GM's analogy?  No one offers to pay for the right to bear arms but BCP at no additional charge is a right higher than self defense?

"I don't want cripples on the street because they couldn't afford to have their leg set."

Yeah, America was so cruel before Pelosi-Obamacare.  Cripples on the street, that is why we chose tyranny over freedom. Who was denied that type of service, where, when?  Nothing sells liberalism like lying. 
3816  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 07, 2012, 01:02:25 PM
You should be insuring only for the unexpected that you can't afford. That shares the cost with all the people taking the same or similar risks.  We already have free health care for the poor, that is an old and tired argument.  

"...But they don't need it; there is an MRI down the street; why does each town need a surplus of them time whatever multiplier?  Because of Medical Device salesmen (no fault of theirs; that's their job) and the keeping up with the Jones attitude.  It's cheaper to have big brother say you only need 5 MRI's not 15 for example."

Really?  The only successful form of cost constraint is a free market loaded with competition.  Granted healthcare will never be a free market, but that does not justify a full abandon all of what works for tyranny.

I don't know what it is you don't know about medical device sales, but it isn't that easy.  The way you don't take unnecessary MRIs is to PAY FOR THEM.  Do you leave the gas pump on when you leave or fill up on someone else's card, do you buy steaks at the grocery and leave them on the counter and not go back to get them, do you leave your credit card at the golf clubhouse after you charge your green fees and say charge the next several groups too or expect that someone did that for you.  No.  We tie usage to payment; it is quite simple.  We watch our expenses like hawks when it is our money.  

With a federal government running 40% of its expenses unpaid for before Obamacare, it is all a bunch of b*llsh*t to even think taxing the rich or the medical device company is paying for it.  They won't and they don't.   You should be criticizing the political salesmen who say someone else should pay for it when they know no one else is.

"I have no idea why they were implemented, nor do I support any new tax on medical devices."

They were pretending to pay for free health care, BCP for the sexually active, etc.

"If I'm in a motorcycle accident, I break my ribs, injure my knee, and have a concussion, when the ambulance arrives, I'm not going to ask the price.  Nor would I ask the price at the ER room since I'm in pain.  I have no choice...."

You are talking to the wrong guy.  I've been hit by a car (hit and run) and when they finally came they asked me which hospital I wanted to be taken to.  If there was one that had a reputation for higher quality or lower cost, I could have chosen.

Prices are high because of government mandates and third party pay more than any or all other reasons.  Every other industry where these factors are smaller has the natural forces of cost control that are removed from healthcare.  Please point out where this is not true.

The result that will come out of this is losing the right to ride the motorcycle.  Why don't you see that?  You have the freedom to ride and you have the freedom to insure your risk.  Why do you need government to step in - in any way - and limit your choices?

"Third Party Pay is ... a filter actually in many instances reducing costs.  "

Good grief.  Payments funneled through insurance companies to chosen suppliers with bureaucratic decision makers... that is better than free people making free choices?  Why not for all industries instead of just the most crucial ones? FYI, self insured, I was the only one out fixing houses the day after the tornado, half the rest the fully insured were in meetings and negotiations and half with their government mortgages and zero equity never did repair.  God bless your right to vote and post anyway.  I hope the viewpoint expressed is soundly defeated in November.
3817  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: March 07, 2012, 12:17:45 PM
I agree with you on his weaknesses.

"a) were the opposition to Romney not divided, he would be losing;"

But he has multiple opponents now because none of them seal the deal either.  Each had an opportunity.

"b) he lacks the ability to go after Obamacare"

He is poorly positioned to make the argument but his promise to repeal it is in stark contrast to Obama's position.  I don't see exactly how you repeal it or pass anything else when even in a perfect electoral storm they will still lack 60 votes in the Senate.

"c) his wins have come by outspending his opponents-- he will not have this advantage against Baraq, quite the contrary;"

This is true, but in the debates I think he was attacked the most and also super-pacs of the others mostly went after him.  He will have no money advantage against Obama, but no shortage of money either.

"d) he has patrician's guilt complex and will crumple under race baiting and class warfare attacks"

Agree on the first part. 

Romney is conceding that high income earners will see their deductions limited (something to appease the fairness/income inequality argument with), but went on to rather courageously cut their marginal tax rates by the same 20% as all other groups.  He wants to 'preserve the progressivity' in the current tax code, which is bad but the only alternative remaining will be to exacerbate it.  I have seen him Romney change course, but I have not seen him crumble - if that makes any sense.

We are not in the brainstorming time of a year or two ago trying to figure out who could make the perfect President.  The selection process for Republicans is largely over unless something very new develops.  The main alternative still standing, Santorum, isn't the right guy either.  So we are down to electing Romney and trying to shape the actual policies through the congressional elections, or losing our country - that is my take.

Earlier when Newt was being ignored, the tea party bet the farm on Hermann Cain.  I still wonder who it should have been.  Perry, I had hoped - not ready, not the right guy.  Very few are ready. Too bad it isn't Newt making his surge now - without errors!  Almost none have clarity, vision and discipline.  Newt had maybe 2 of those 3.  Romney, who knows.  He has the positioning to win. The hope that he can rise up out of this, win, and be a great President is all I think we have left.

3818  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 07, 2012, 11:07:52 AM
"Proliferation of unneeded and redundant Medical Devices on every corner is just one of the reasons our Healthcare system is out of control......."

Good grief, what does that mean?  Will the new medical device excise tax help us to quash these cures gone wild?

"Cost per day for hospital charges averaged $3,949 in the U.S."

Costs are higher than people can afford because of THIRD PARTY PAY.

3819  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics - Jon Stewart on Rush on: March 07, 2012, 10:56:01 AM
For balance on the forum, Jon Stewart having his liberal fun attacking Rush:
3820  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential Super Tuesday on: March 07, 2012, 10:52:59 AM
Strange to me that the media line (other than that WSJ piece) while Romney wins 6 more states is how Romney can't close it out.  No offense to the others, but really it was Tim Pawlenty who couldn't close it out, and Rick Perry and Hermann Cain and Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, not to mention the crowd on the sidelines who didn't find the gumption to jump in at all, Christie, Daniels, Jeb Bush, Palin et al.

Did someone say winning the Presidency was supposed to be easy?

True it was a brutal campaign.  And through it we learned that Mitt Romney was... faithful to his wife, successful and clean as a whistle in business, paid his taxes, gained executive experience in government, built the best organization, raised the most money, performed solid and consistent in the debates (biggest slipup was the $10,000 bet), is positioned as strong on defense, strong on border security, has a 20% across the board tax rate cut proposal (Reagan only got 25% through), and is not conservative enough for the farthest right elements in his own party.  He has won in the east, the west, the south (FL) and the midwest.  How could anyone position himself better for a general election?

Mitt Romney in 2012 is a far better candidate than John McCain of 2008 who only lost by 7 points to a magical figure who now must run on a record of cluelessness, damage and drift.

Santorum won 3 states that are safe for any Republican in Nov and Newt won his home state decisively.
3821  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 06, 2012, 09:50:49 PM
"Carbonite's stock price seems to be falling faster than Sandra Fluke's undergarments."

I wonder if they will be forced to apologize - and whether the apology will be sincere enough?

Very funny and telling that a right to bear arms never included an obligation for someone else to pay for it - if you even have a right to bear arms at Georgetown University.

There is something about the concept of insurance the activists don't understand.  You insure against expenses uncertain or unforeseen, the regular bills you simply pay.  She is saying the fact women need this is a certainty, not a risk.  For expenses that directly come with life's activities that you choose, like skis for skiers and boxing gloves for boxers, don't you just pay those bills, or do you expect someone else to coercively pay them for you?
3822  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: March 06, 2012, 04:58:56 PM
"I had hopes for Cantor as a voice for our cause, but I have been sorely disappointed in several interviews I have seen of him in recent months.  He sounded far too "inside baseball" and sounded like he was being coopted by the process."

I can't remember when I had seen him but I think I had a similar reaction.  Rubio has sight of the big picture and articulates it best.  It is hard to say which of the inside guys who know the legislation like Ryan or Cantor will be able to communicate big picture best with America if Rubio should either slip or decline the job.  BTW Santarum fell far too far into that inside game in the last debate as well.  Title XX? I was reading the debate and didn't know how to pronounce it.  How many know viewers what it is and whether it is good or bad.  This is a big picture / directional election.  What did Rubio say - if it doesn't help create jobs, I'm not supporting it.

Yes Morris is out of his element as we all are without actual intelligence briefings, but what he says makes sense.  Bombing the reactor site has risks and retaliations associated with it and may only set Iran back a couple of years.  Not disrupting this project and having Pakistan / AQ AND Iran all nuclear is unthinkable.

Another war I heard is that in times of war incumbents are reelected (ex: FDR, a failed economic President).  Obama may want the war.

Of course this is all cynical; they are really only thinking of the best interests of our nation.
3823  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 06, 2012, 02:18:36 PM
Yes, a little reverse protest if Rush listeners all canceled contracts with Carbonite and sent back their sleep number beds.
3824  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: March 06, 2012, 02:14:08 PM
"If he was not doing this the real intent of Iran vis a vis Israel would not be so obvious and thus almost no chance of stopping them from nucs."

His constant saber rattling always raises up oil prices, but you hit a good point: if going nuclear and wiping out Israel was his intention, why wouldn't he hide it?  He has always looked like he was inviting attack and I don't understand why.  Maybe we can get some insane people who relate better to analyze his logic and motives.

Pakistan was far more secretive about their nuclear program IIRC.
3825  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Santorum, wasn't ready to be front runner on: March 06, 2012, 02:05:38 PM
My first Rachel Maddow post? (Maybe I wrote that one other time)  She refers to the Santarum campaign as Amateur Hour and is partly right.  It wasn't only Santorum but not getting on the ballot in Virginia and in parts of must-win Ohio.  Also: "as recently as mid-February, didn't have a national press secretary, a national headquarters, a pollster, or any paid advance staffers to ensure his campaign events run smoothly."

When you run for President, you have to figure out all of the things that have to happen, like getting on the ballots, and work the clock backwards to cover everything that needed to be done.  I think Pawlenty had his plan mapped and realized that he couldn't have zero momentum and zero money at that point and then find funding and staff and volunteers to move 10,000 people in Virginia and have simultaneous motion in 18 congressional districts in Ohio, and all the others.

Obama had no executive experience EXCEPT: he ran a flawless national campaign to win the Presidency.  I'm sure others ran it but still - responsibility goes to the top of the organization.

Santorum ran based mostly on Senate experience and his own compromised version of conservatism.  He got as far as he could without great staff or money, but running a 50 state national campaign is not a one-man job.  He didn't know he had won Iowa and didn't act like a front runner when he finally took the lead.

Now Gallup has Romney up over Santorum 38-22, approaching a 2-1 lead coming into super-"chooseday" today.

We will know more later today.  Gingrich will win his home state of Georgia, Ron Paul might win Alaska in a low turnout caucus, Santorum with his previous momentum might have had the most votes of the day and still have a good showing, but the opportunity if there was one was lost and Romney will take the most delegates and actually start to take on the role of inevitable nominee.
3826  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: March 06, 2012, 11:29:17 AM
"You know the why is Congress' approval at an all time low.  I don't recall them ever asking Democrats this."

If you favor either the R. agenda coming out of the House and lost in the Senate, or the Harry Reid Obama agenda with no chance of passing in the House, you disapprove of the performance in congress.  Independents hate partisan bickering so that makes all three groups in disapproval of divided government.

Instead of arguing forever it would be nice if one side or the other would win the argument.  Dems won the elections of 2006-2008 but not on a clear agenda (hope/change and we are not Geo. Bush).  That is the challenge for Romney now.  He needs to be clear about vision with all its details and win.  Sneaking out a win, even a sweep of the Presidency, House and Senate is not enough.  He needs clear and specific support of the people on the critical items of the agenda.

It was Tip O'Neill's House that passed the Reagan tax cuts against the leadership of the house.  Sure they screwed it up in delays and compromises but they got it done:

Reagan’s 3-Year, 25% Cut in Tax Rate Voted by Wide Margins in the House and Senate
Published: July 30, 1981

In a decisive victory for President Reagan, the House of Representatives today approved the Administration's tax cut bill.

The measure provides for three years of reductions totalling 25 percent in individual tax rates and major reductions in taxes paid by business and by oil producers.

The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill.
3827  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: March 06, 2012, 11:11:51 AM
"Look here:" (signed legislation)

CCP, You will have to look very deep through the links at the link because the names of the bills are often opposite or no correlation to the content.  For example, mandating what people previously deemed to be unaffordable and removing the most effective restraints on costs is called the 'affordable care act'.

Good news to hear of a new post office coming to Staten Island.  Is that a growth industry or a growth market, does anyone know?

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, that was the extension of perhaps the best way to lower tax revenues while creating the least marginal incentive to produce more or create jobs.  It doesn't create jobs and FICA wasn't supposed to be tax in the first place; it is an "insurance contribution".  They didn't even get the year right, it was an extension of a program that also didn't create jobs in 2011.

I would be more impressed with their record if they had repealed 203 laws.
3828  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: March 06, 2012, 10:51:26 AM
"...nary a peep from President Baraq about his fellow Christian..."

You are kind to give him the benefit of the doubt on his religion but the phrase 'his fellow Christian' has a dissonance to it.  I hesitate to call myself a Christian around real Christians if I attend only a few times a year as a non-member of a church.  The point is valid though, what is the supposed leader of the free world going to say or do about the most horrific violations of freedom of religion around the globe.  Nothing. 

Nothing that sounds like: 'Mr. Ahmadinejad, if you seek peace, tear down this wall!'
More cognitive dissonance and glibness on Iran: Pres. Obama has been clarifying his policy toward Iran this week.  Now that it's clear can someone please explain it to me.

We are committed to pursuing patience while Iran perfects its nuclear arsenal OR we are committed to taking action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power?  I heard him say both but which is it?

3829  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential - VP Cantor on: March 06, 2012, 10:29:03 AM
CCP, I agree with you about Eric Cantor, not that he will be VP but that he will be in serious consideration.  Everybody's first pick seems to be Marco Rubio but that is far from certain.  I don't think being a Jewish will matter, but is historic if he becomes President.

'Balancing' a ticket is not always the best strategy; it did not work with Bob Dole picking Jack Kemp or John McCain picking Sarah Palin.  Palin wasn't fully ready and Kemp choked I think because he was uncomfortable answering for the views and record of his running mate. 

If we eliminate Speaker Boehner from consideration, Cantor is the highest ranking member of his party currently in power.  Even then, he is a complete unknown across the country, see below.  I find him to be thoughtful and articulate but we never know how people rise to that kind of challenge.  Putting him on the ballot would also put the record of action of the Republican House on the table for discussion, right while Pres. Obama is trying to blame a do-nothing congress.

The only Eric Cantor national approval ratings I could find:

CNN/ORC Poll. July 18-20, 2011. N=1,009 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
Favorable  18
Unfavorable  21
Never heard of  46
Unsure   15
Pretty much meaningless numbers, a somewhat fresh face with good experience, but from a congress with 80+% overall disapproval.
3830  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: March 05, 2012, 05:11:13 PM
"Obama made 65 domestic trips over 104 days, and six trips to eight countries over 22 days. Not counting six vacation trips over 32 days. He took 196 helicopter trips, signed 203 pieces of legislation and squeezed in 29 rounds of left-handed golf."

Paraphrasing a wise man (Crafty Dog), I wish he had played more golf.
3831  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics, Sandra Fluke, the advertisers, the video on: March 05, 2012, 05:08:08 PM
Swim goggles?  While I was writing this discussion moved forward.

Why is this women's rights?  Isn't there a man involved if contraception is needed?  Make him pay to have sex.  Oops, that would be pr..........!
"...several advertisers are pulling ads"

An acquaintance runs one of those companies who 'suspended' their advertising.  He is/was liberal (from my perspective) before this episode just as Rush was conservative and controversial before this.  They advertise to both sides and the middle because that is exactly who uses their product.  They buy enough time to get celebs of all leanings to personally endorse them.  Having to pull the advertising is a setback for the investment they made over a couple of decades building a  business position in that market.  It will appease others but those few with loud voices will not double their purchases nor would that make up the difference if they could.

Interesting would be to know the actual number of complaints that came from actual Rush listeners, rather than detractors.  Roughly zero.  With the apology in place and the scandal fading, the Rush show will still be numero uno on the radio.  They will have to either jump back in to the outrage of these protestors or watch a competitor take that spot.  We will see and I will try to follow up.

Rush's words were vulgar and degrading and the big companies had to respond once the crisis was manufactured, but this is not the Tiger Woods scandal, no one got hit with a golf club, nor is it the biggest threat his show has faced.  It is more a sign of how an energized, small group can make something happen quickly.
Rush was trying to make a point of humor that money for sex has some analogy to prostitution.  The slut comment was a misstep.  We don't know that but could guess she does not have long term, meaningful relationships with men. Whoops scratch that - there go our advertisers.

Sandra Fluke in her own words:

Past President of Georgetown Students for Reproductive Justice, she sounds so sweet until she gets going with her demands for justice.  Then she is more like the welfare lady of a video that went by a couple of months ago.

Is this a right, an entitlement, something congress cannot deny and that must be provided by someone else for free?!  Not just free, but EASY to come by?!  This is a law school.  Which constitution are they studying?

She says she should not have to pay a whole summer's salary for her sexual freedom, you should, when the rest of her year is consumed by her studying at taxpayer expense to derail our form of government.

Rush wasn't far off.
3832  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Men & Women on: March 05, 2012, 03:44:48 PM
In the one breath gender discrimination is still rampant and in the next breath all these 'attractive' single women are burdened with the fact that success in their careers is intimidating men.  Which is it?

Not to judge specific people whom I don't know but by 'attractive' I think you mean visually appealing.  If they are high CEO's, boss of many men, maybe they are not the type men are 'attracted to' for forming family partnerships with.  As you intimate, they made other choices. These women commonly insist on finding a man equal to them in career, not a man with time on his hands and willing to be supported and home with the children.  The men equal to them in their careers tend to be married.  I'm sure they will tell you that, or you can have these successful, attractive single women give me a call to discuss this fuirther.

Written before but I am not very sympathetic to the plight of discrimination of the majority having grown up in a family of high achieving women, and having worked in companies large, medium and small where results always mattered more than gender - or anything else.  The on-to-college rate for girls at my daughter's large public high school is very nearly 100%.  Women make up 57% of college students.  Pretty soon we will have to be offering preferences to men if the alleged discrimination has any scientific basis to it.
3833  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / NY Times: That Old, Out-dated Constitution is like Windows 3.1 on: March 05, 2012, 03:16:27 PM
I came into this thinking it is a gotcha story about liberal, anti-American media but really it is expressing a view held by many, including perhaps all liberals (?), many people who want a new constitutional convention, and at least 2 and maybe 4 Supreme Court Justices.
NYT Says 'Old' Constitution Outdated for Failing to Guarantee 'Entitlements' Like Health Care

By CLAY WATERS, Editor of Media Research Center TimesWatch site,  Feb 11, 2012

Sorry, Founders: The "terse and old" U.S. Constitution has been ruled out of date by Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak for failing to provide such "rights" as free health care.

Liptak made the front of Tuesday's New York Times "Sidebar" news analysis, "'We the People' Loses Followers," the paper's most e-mailed and viewed news story of the morning.

Liptak arrives at his judgment via a new study by two law professors. The analysis, at least after being filtered through Liptak's coverage, seems to hew to the liberal ideology of the Constitution as a "living document," (i.e. whatever a liberal wants it to mean), conflating genuine rights like freedom of religion with entitlements like free health care: "But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care."

Liptak wrote:

The Constitution has seen better days.

Sure, it is the nation's founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.


There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution's waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.

In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. "Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1," he said.

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. "I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in "Our Undemocratic Constitution," "the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today." (Yugoslavia used to hold that title, but Yugoslavia did not work out.)


Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

Liptak failed to differentiate between rights retained by the people from the power of the government, like freedom of speech and religion, and entitlements, which are transfers of money and services established by government either via majority rule (i.e. voting) or judicial fiat. Examples include food stamps, welfare payments, and "free" health care.

Liptak turned up his nose at the right conservatives would say protects all the other ones, the Second Amendment:

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world's constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)

Several "rights" enshrined by the Times via the study (shown in a separate graphic) need unpacking. What exactly does the generic phrase "Women's rights" entail? Access to abortion? And does "Freedom of Movement" include the "right" to other people's tax money in the form of welfare benefits, as the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1960s? Details from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law: "Shapiro v. Thompson (1968) considered the constitutionality of a state law that established a one-year residency requirement for welfare recipients. The Court struck down the law, finding it a violation of the "right to travel" (really, more the right to migrate)."
3834  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: March 05, 2012, 02:46:45 PM
"Bottom line: with an improving pace of economic growth and more inflation, another round of quantitative easing is simply not going to happen."

So the downward spiral of the dollar will be limited to the recklessness already done.  (I don't know which emoticon to follow that with.)

Wesbury has a current job with an investment house that is (mostly) non-political, but he knows that the economic answer to what is happening is political.  We chose this disaster; now we argue and track tenths of a percent of low single digit growth up from the worst economy since the great depression.  At this rate the economy will be hitting on all cylinders by when??

The more 'growth' we have without solving other underlying problems, the more gas prices will go up over the summer and kill off more and more industries - like travel, tourism, manufacturing, product delivery, and commuting to work.  Aka: an economy 'built to last'?

Growth and inflation/devaluation occurring simultaneously without tax brackets indexed to inflation guarantees that a higher proportion of resources is moved over to the public sector - working against the possibility of sustained private sector growth. 

It is hard to be optimistic about investment performance before reforms are seriously contemplated. 
3835  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: March 05, 2012, 02:16:40 PM
Already covered in this thread, but there is quite a news story going around about how Pres. Obama is now talking tough about Iran.  I can't justify the time to read or analyze his words because he so seldom means what he says, especially in 'prepared' remarks.  Iran has been emboldened by weakness.  This didn't start under Obama's watch but it has festered and grown.  It could be argued under Bush that a) we were busy in Iraq and b) still had time to act.

After all that was wrong in other intelligence, it is impossible to know what is right in Iran, but at this point it is very possibly the legacy of Barack Obama that Iran went nuclear under his watch.  Now admitting the danger of that makes it even worse for his legacy if he fails to act.

In related matters, there was a string of negative global security news stories this morning (Iran, China military expenditures, Yemen rebellion) with the same central theme IMO, adversaries and enemies are emboldened around the world by American weakness. 

Where were we when the Iranians rose up in 2009-2010 against the theocratic, military dictatorship? AWOL 

While he was learning and growing into the office, opportunities were lost and dangers escalated.
3836  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media Issues: Contraception is the issue?? on: March 05, 2012, 12:52:56 PM
Stephanoplous brought this up in a debate when there was no issue whatsoever in any state over access to contraception.  Now it is David Gregory's first question to a major party candidate for President on Meet the Press.  Good grief.  Newt handles him well.  Yet Gregory sticks to the script completely ignoring the answer already given. Just terrible, terrible journalism.  Falsehood after falsehood advanced in the question, repeatedly, AFTER being corrected.

The framing was false.

Who is responsible for firing these people?
3837  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: March 05, 2012, 12:33:38 PM
CCP:  "First time I ever recall Rush apologizing."

He lost some advertisers over this and key R's were distancing themselves from his comment.  He didn't take back the meaning of it.  He apologized for the 'insulting word choices'.
3838  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Vetting of the President Part I, by Andrew Breitbart on: March 05, 2012, 12:27:00 PM
Start with the link, must enlarge the poster to see he is on the agenda, 'The Love Song of Saul Alinsky' "with Special Post-Show Discussions. Panelists include: (among others *) (state) Sen. Barack Obama.

* Read on to find out who are the others.  Breitbart wrote:

So, what’s in the play? It truly is a love song to Alinsky. In the first few minutes of the play, Alinsky plays Moses – yes, the Biblical Moses – talking to God. The play glorifies Alinsky stealing food from restaurants and organizing others to do the same, explaining, “I saw it as a practical use of social ecology: you had members of the intellectual community, the hope of the future, eating regularly for six months, staying alive till they could make their contributions to society.”

In an introspective moment, Alinsky rips America: “My country … ‘tis of whatthehell / And justice up a tree … How much can you sell / What’s in it for me.” He grins about manipulating the Christian community to back his programs. He talks in glowing terms about engaging in Chicago politics with former Mayor Kelly. He rips the McCarthy committee, mocking, “Everyone was there, when you think back – Cotton Mather, Hester Prynn, Anne Hutchinson, Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson … Brandeis, Holmes … Gene Debs and the socialists … Huey Long … Imperial Wizards of all stripes … Father Coughlin and his money machine … Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd … and a kicking chorus of sterilized reactionaries singing O Come, All Ye Faithful …”

And Alinsky talks about being the first occupier – shutting down the O’Hare Airport by occupying all the toilet stalls, using chewing gum to “tie up the city, stop all traffic, and the shopping, in the Loop, and let everyone at City Hall know attention must be paid, and maybe we should talk about it.” As Alinsky says, “Students of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your juicy fruit.”

The play finishes with Alinsky announcing he’d rather go to Hell than Heaven. Why? “More comfortable there. You see, all my life I’ve been with the Have-Nots: here you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of money, there you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of virtue. I’d be asking more questions, organizing them. They’re my kind of people – Hell would be Heaven for me.”

That’s The Love Song of Saul Alinsky. It’s radical leftist stuff, and it revels in its radical leftism.

And that’s Barack Obama, our president, on the poster.

This is who Barack Obama was. This was before Barack Obama ran for Congress in 2000—challenging former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush from the left in a daring but unsuccessful bid.

This was also the period just before Barack Obama served with Bill Ayers, from 1999 through 2002 on the board of the Woods Foundation. They gave capital to support the Midwest Academy, a leftist training institute steeped in the doctrines of -- you guessed it! -- Saul Alinsky, and whose alumni now dominate the Obama administration and its top political allies inside and out of Congress.

Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief

, described the Midwest Academy as a "crypto-socialist organization.” Yet almost no one has heard of Midwest Academy, because the media does not want you to know that the president is a radical's radical whose presidency itself is a love song to a socialist "community organizer."

The reason Newt Gingrich surged in the Republican primary contest in January is that he was attempting to do the press's job by finding out who the current occupant of the White House actually is. Millions also want to know, but the mainstream media is clearly not planning to vet the President anytime soon. Quite the opposite.

For example, Miner tries to turn Obama’s appearance on the Alinsky panel into a plus for the president:

    Obama was on the panel that talked about Alinsky the last Sunday of the play's run at the Blue Rider Theatre in Pilsen. Neither Pam Dickler, who directed the Terrapin Theatre production, nor Gary Houston, who played Alinsky, can remember a word Obama said. But he impressed them. "You never would have known he was a politician," says Dickler. "He never said anything at all about himself. He came alone, watched the play, and during the panel discussion was entirely on point and brilliant. That evening I called my father, who's a political junkie, and told him to watch out for this man, he's going places." Houston was just as taken by Obama—though he remembers him arriving in a group.

But is it a good thing to impress the sort of people who show up to laud The Love Song of Saul Alinsky? Here are the other members of the Obama panel:

Leon Despres: Despres knew Saul Alinsky for nearly 50 years, and together they established the modern concept of “community organizing.” Despres worked with secret Communist and Soviet spy Lee Pressman to support strikers at Republic Steel in Chicago in 1937; the strike ended in tragedy when 14 rioting strikers were killed and many wounded in a hail of police bullets.  Despres worked with another Communist Party front, the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, but eventually left because of the “Stalinism” of its leaders.

Also in 1937, Despres and his wife delivered a suitcase of “clothing” to Leon Trotsky, then hiding out from Stalin’s assassins in Mexico City. Despres and his wife not only met with the exiled Russian Communist, but Despres’s wife sat for a portrait with Trotsky pal and Marxist muralist Diego Rivera while Leon took Rivera’s wife Frida Kahlo to the movies.

Quentin Young: From 1970 until at least 1992, Quentin Young was active in the Communist Party front organization, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights – a group dedicated to outlawing government surveillance of radical organizations.  He was also a member of the Young Communist League. Young, a confidante and physician to Barack Obama, is credited with having heavily influenced the President’s views on healthcare policy.

Timuel Black: An icon of the Chicago left, Black was originally denied officer training because military intelligence claimed he had secretly joined the Communist Party. Black also worked closely with the Socialist Party in the 1950s, becoming president of the local chapter of the Negro American Labor Council, a organization founded by Socialist Party leader A. Phillip Randolph.

In the early ‘60s Black was a leader of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center, where he worked alongside former radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and the aforementioned Communist Dr. Quentin Young.  Black served as a contributing editor to the Hyde Park/Kenwood Voices, a newspaper run by Communist Party member David S. Canter. By 1970, Timuel Black was serving on the advisory council of the Communist Party controlled Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights.

Timuel Black says he has been friends with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, “going back to 1968, since long before I knew Barack.” In April 2002, Black, Dohrn and Democratic Socialists of America member Richard Rorty spoke together on a panel entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” The panel was the first of two in a public gathering jointly sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals and the University of Illinois, Chicago. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama spoke together on in the second panel at that gathering. Communist academic Harold Rogers chaired Timuel Black’s unsuccessful campaign for Illinois State Representative.

Studs Terkel: A sponsor of the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace in 1949, which was arranged by a Communist Party USA front organization known as the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions.

Roberta Lynch: A leading member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and a leader of the radical Marxist New American Movement (NAM).

Are we expected to believe that “Baraka Obama” was a countervailing voice of reason on a panel of radicals?
The reason that Obama's Alinskyite past, and his many appearances in political photography and video from the 1990s, are conspicuously missing from the national dialogue is that State Senator Barack Obama's reinvention as a reasonable and moderate Democratic politician could not withstand scrutiny of his political life. 

Because the mainstream media did not explore his roots, the American public remains largely ignorant of the degree to which Obama’s work with ACORN and his love of Alinsky were symbolic of his true political will.

If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newt’s strategy into a nomination, we’ll have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real “Baraka” Obama, not the manufactured one the media prefers.
3839  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential - This Is the Big One on: March 05, 2012, 12:12:04 PM
George Will on Drudge is predicting Mitt can't win.  Repubs should be happy to win the house and try to get control of the Senate.  I predict otherwise.  Obama will lose and Mitt will win.

Bill Krystal (famous people reading the forum) makes the point that this is the big one and we who care have to do everything we can to win it.  Will apparently is saying if the presidential is lost at least go out and win congress.  That is not enough.

2010 was quite an election for Republicans after the country got to know Obama, Pelosi and Obamacare.  Now there are five parts remaining; all are must-wins to save the republic: 1) Must win the Presidency, as Krystal points out, can't repeal Obamacare and the rest without the White House. 2) Hold the House. 3) Win the Senate, but that still is not 60 votes 4) Win the public - and that means not for the day on Nov 6 2012, but with mandate and like-minded thinking with force and leverage to get things done and repealed through a roadblocked Senate.  5) The Supreme Court.  As bigdog said (something like) it is not rule by the elites because we choose who nominates and confirms them.  So choose wisely!

Will’s Wrong
12:05 PM, Mar 2, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

The estimable George Will is almost ready to hoist the white flag on the 2012 presidential election. Neither Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum, he writes in his column for this Sunday (an advance copy of which was obtained by Politico), “seems likely to be elected.” And while conservatives, Will advises, should vote for whichever is nominated, there may well “come a point when … conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than . . . electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate. . . . [C]onservatives this year should have as their primary goal making sure Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013.”

After all, Will argues, if Republicans control Congress, “their committee majorities will serve as fine-mesh filters, removing President Obama’s initiatives from the stream of legislation. . . . [A] re-elected Obama — a lame duck at noon next Jan. 20 — would have a substantially reduced capacity to do harm.”

Rarely has an intelligent man been so wrong.

By every objective measure, the GOP has a reasonable chance to defeat President Obama—probably between 1-in-3 and 1-in-2. Given this opportunity, it would be crazy not to do everything one can to effectuate an outcome so devoutly to be desired. This doesn't mean falling in line early behind an inevitable nominee or suppressing criticism of the likely nominee. If some of us have tried to expand the presidential field, it's because we've been unconvinced that the current field offers us the best hope of victory. If some of us have resisted Romney inevitability, or an early Romney coronation, it's because we don't think that Romney's nomination—or at least his easy and early nomination—would increase Republican chances of winning the presidency. Others differ on these questions. But whatever differences conservatives have in March about candidates, strategy and tactics should not affect our determination in the fall, when there is a Republican nominee, to turn our energies to defeating President Obama.

Why? Obamacare. Iran. Debt. The military. The Court.

Obamacare can't be reversed from Congress. Iran can't be denied nuclear weapons by Congress. The debt crisis can't be fundamentally addressed by Congress. The military can't be protected from being hollowed out by Congress. Judges can't be appointed by Congress.

If you think the country's in decent shape, go for control of Congress. If you think it's the mid-1990s again, go for control of Congress. If you're fatalistic about American decline abroad and the end of limited, constitutional government at home, go for control of Congress. If current trends don't deeply alarm you, or if you think alarm is futile because the rot is too deep, the decline too long-standing, the problems too un-fixable—then, go for control of Congress. Try to limit the damage and slow the collapse.

But if you reject such fatalism as a failure of nerve, and such declinism as a failure of understanding—and conservatives should—then do everything you can to win the White House. Perhaps always, but certainly in 2012—there is no substitute for victory.
3840  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: March 05, 2012, 11:16:25 AM
"I don't know the solution, but the WSJ's Subscriber Agreement (similar to most other publications) is quite clear...."

The solution from our point of view is to do no harm to them, and from their point of view to send a friendly letter or cancel my subscription anytime they find me to be an annoyance.

The WSJ is not run by the lawyers.  The business side of the publication is thrilled to have their columns quoted and talked about across the talk shows and the internet - right up to the point of where is starts to take money out of their pocket. 
3841  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant - protected material discussion on: March 05, 2012, 11:08:35 AM
From Media Issues, edited and added here.  The gist of it is that we are being careful not to harm or damage them as we promote their product.  From the comments above, I often only put only passages of interest in my post, but putting the entire column in protects the context and integrity of the piece. There is a tradeoff between protecting content and getting the word out so that there will be awareness and demand for their content.  A couple of my own thoughts to add using the Wall Street Journal as an example:

a) There is an expectation when you subscribe that you will share content with a small or reasonable amount of people such as their eagerness to have it in the waiting room of the dental office - or the public library.  Granted that the online world is more complicated and they write rules starkly to protect them when necessary, but there is no indication that people come here for the purpose of getting around that subscription cost they otherwise would have paid themselves.  If anything the random promotion and discussion of stories and columns makes people more likely to subscribe.

b) Their own promotional strategy is to give away a mixture of free and protected content to draw attention, praise and subscriptions.  Often times my own awareness of a good column comes from their own efforts to submit material to other best of the web sites like Real Clear Politics for widespread dissemination to non-subscribers across the internet.

c) I post some things because they are expressing my own viewpoint, but give credit to the source as a matter of honesty.  Pulling out just the passage that supports my view may not preserve the context or meaning intended by the author.

d) I often suggest people subscribe and include subscription links as Crafty has done for various publications.  Here's one (save over 80%!):

e) The content is intentionally mixed to get non-subscribers lured part way in, but as you read signed in as a subscriber there is no indication provided as to what is or is not protected.  Note that this discussion started as a reader was pulled part way in requesting more.

f) My own awareness of the WSJ editorial page began after my economics professor passed photocopies around of his own contributions.  My copy got lost or damaged.  I replaced it at the library and found out that he was only being published for his opposing view and that the lead editorials (opposite view) made far more sense.  While the liberal universities were pushing Keynesian economics as the only way to proceed in macroeconomics, the WSJ lead editorial was writing that "Keynes is Dead" in the late 1970s with simultaneously exploding inflation and unemployment.  Former editor Robert Bartley was a genius at putting a team together and current editorial page editor, Green Bay Wisc. native Paul Gigot, is one of the most insightful people in Washington IMHO.

g) Besides reading and subscribing, I have contributed material to the editorial page that they had no hesitation in using.  They credited me but forwarded no payment.  Other times it appears that they have been reading the forum before writing - without credit.   We have rules here too!  "© 2011 Dog Brothers, Inc. Martial Arts"  I don't think they want to risk having a cease and desist order be mutual!    wink

"The adventure continues."
3842  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues - protected material on: March 05, 2012, 09:59:59 AM
A discussion of note went by on a different thread about copyrights while I was gone. There is a tradeoff between protecting content and getting the word out so that there will be awareness and demand for content.  A couple of my own thoughts to add.

Using the Wall Street Journal as an example:

a) There is an expectation when you subscribe that you will share content with a small or reasonable amount of people such as their eagerness to have it in the waiting room of the dental office - or the public library.  Somewhere I read in the online world that is sharing with 4 people, but in the example above such as at the public library all day that is certainly more.  There is no indication that people come here for the purpose of getting around that subscription cost they otherwise have paid themnselves.  If anything the random promotion and discussion of stories and columns would make people more likely to subscribe.

b) Their own promotional strategy is to give away a mixture of free and protected content to draw attention, praise and subscriptions.  Often times my own awareness of a good column comes from their own efforts to submit material to other best of the web sites like Real Clear Politics for widespread dissemination.

c) I post some things because they are expressing my own viewpoint, but give credit to the source as a matter of honesty.

d) I often suggest people subscribe and include subscription links as Crafty has done for various publications.  Here's one (save over 80%!):

e) The content is intentionally mixed to get non-subscribers lured part way in, but as you read signed in as a subscriber there is no indication provided as to was is or is not protected.  Note that this discussion started as a reader was pulled part way in requesting more.

f) My own awareness of the WSJ editorial page began after my economics professor passed photocopies around of his own contributions.  My copy got lost or damaged.  I replaced it at the library and found out that he was only being published for his opposing view and that the lead editorials made far more sense.  While the liberal universities were pushing Keynesian economics as the only way to proceed in macroeconomics, the WSJ lead editorial was writing that "Keynes is Dead" in the late 1970s with simultaneously exploding inflation and unemployment.  Former editor Robert Bartley was a genius at putting a team together and current editorial page editor, Green Bay Wisc. native Paul Gigot is one of the most insightful people in Washington IMHO.

g) Besides reading and subscribing, I have contributed material to the editorial page that they had no hesitation in using.  They credited me but forward no payment.  Other times it appears that they have been reading the forum before writing - without credit.  I don't think they want to risk having a cease and desist order being mutual!   wink

"The adventure continues."
3843  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Men & Women on: March 04, 2012, 07:10:52 PM
Raising the children is not a 'daily chore', it is an honor and a privilege and a gift beyond anything that you know.

Yes, men can raise children.  I did it.  But besides being plumbed differently, women are actually wired differently - in general.  The freedom to have careers should not pull with it a stigma for choosing not to.  Some women want to be homemakers and raise children.  That does not mean zero other work ever outside the home in a dynamic economy, which is why your 7% stat is highly misleading.  Taking months or years out of the continuity in your career has an enormous and measurable negative impact on future income - for any gender.

"why doesn't the husband stay home and raise the children while his wife supports the family."

Unless you are that husband or that wife, what on earth business of ours/yours is it to second guess what they do, and what happened to a right of privacy?

Two parents both work today for one reason more than any other: the public sector is directly consuming nearly half the resources in the economy and it is more than half if you count the private sector time directly spent on government regulation compliance activities.

Equal is a synonym for same.  The genders are not the same.  Ending discrimination (that happened how long ago?) is not the same as making gender differences go away.

The Equal Rights Amendment failed to be ratified.  Why?

"Following Doug's logic ..."  Of all your strong points, that has never been one of them.   wink
3844  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: March 04, 2012, 01:27:26 PM
Yes, Canada and Rest of the World benefited from the advances and care available that came out of what freedoms we had left in our healthcare system.  

Rule One in economics: tax something and you will get less of it.

Rule One in Obamanomics: New excise tax on medical devices.

I had a discussion last week with a person who is head of strategy for a major medical device manufacturer. I did not know the person's politics but asked if the new tax on their product would be helpful to them. The answer was No.

Killing off the medical device industry here hurts people everywhere.

Side Effects: Obamacare Tax Will Kill Jobs, Strangle Medical Device Industry

Alyene Senger and Brett Ryan,  February 14, 2012

Last week, the IRS released its proposed plan to implement the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices designed to help foot the bill for Obamacare.

Harmful effects of the health law’s new taxes and requirements on business continue to emerge as its implementation continues. As Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains, “All tax increases have negative economic effects because higher taxes take resources from the productive hands of the private sector and transfer them to the wasteful hands of politicians.”

As the National Center for Policy Analysis shows, the medical device manufacturer tax is already hurting Americans by reducing employment:

    In November 2011, device maker Stryker Corporation announced its intention to layoff 1,000 workers in order to cut costs in advance of the tax.

    Another firm, Covidien Plc, announced the layoff of 200 U.S. workers and plans to offshore production to Mexico and Costa Rica.

Congress can legislate who collects a tax, but it cannot legislate who actually bears the tax’s economic burden. So it is surprising only to Congress that American workers have to bear the brunt of a tax that Congress assumed device manufacturers would pay.
3845  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Men & Women on: March 04, 2012, 11:28:48 AM
"Your POV seeks to disrespect and degrade a choice that millions of parents make..."

I could not help but notice and be offended reading a view that washing his dishes and fetching his drink is put on the same plane as raising his family.  I visualize a fat slob on the couch belching after his 3rd beer and demanding another from the woman/wife who chose this man as the love of her life now trapped doing all the work with no options as if that is an issue or reality in true stay-at-home-by-choice relationships.  As a single parent I cannot tell you the value of having one person available to observe and communicate everything that is happening with the children and having the other free to hunt and gather or whatever it is we do today to responsibly pay for the enormous costs that make up living even frugally in today's society.  One side or the other of that simply does not get done without an amazing partnership.
3846  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Nuclear Power - Fukushima aftermath revisited on: March 04, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
Death toll from earthquake-tsunami: 20364. 

Deaths directly resulting from the nuclear accident: 5
Time magazine, of all places, is noticing that the risk for those exposed to the Fukushima release of dying from cancer has increased 0.001%.

Meanwhile we hopefully learned: a) how to build to withstand the worst earthquake imaginable, and also b) not to build in a known, worst-imaginable earthquake zones.

"scientists have begun to compile early assessments of the health impacts of Fukushima—and the conclusions are less than catastrophic. Researchers speaking at a conference for the Health Physics Society said that the health threat to Japanese from radiation exposure looks to be extremely low. Even the brave workers who stayed behind at the plant had radiation exposure that was more than 10 times lower than that levels received by the half-million people who helped entomb the Chernobyl reaction more than two decades ago. They estimated that the risk of getting cancer for those exposed would increase 0.002%, and the risk of dying from cancer would rise by 0.001%. “I received more radiation on my transcontinental flights from Tokyo to Washington than I did at the reactor site,” said John Boice, a professor at Vanderbilt University and the incoming president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements."
3847  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media Issues - NY Times: Leftist Takeover, Now They Tell Us! on: March 04, 2012, 10:53:50 AM
John Hinderacker at Powerline has been a consistent media critic of this publication with no quest for truth of its own.

A reader writes:

    From today’s New York Times:

        During the McGovern-Mondale era, the Democrats were exactly where the Republicans are now: the party had been taken over by its most extreme liberal faction, and it had lost touch with the core concerns of the middle class….Those terrible losses in 1972 and, especially, in 1984 were the Democrats’ shock therapy.

        What happened in the interim? In effect, moderate Democrats wrested the party back from its most liberal wing….“We had become a party that had stopped worrying about people who were working and only focused on people who weren’t working,” [Al] From told me. “The party didn’t understand how big a concern crime was. It had stopped talking about opportunity and growth.”

Just for fun, I looked up the Times editorials in 1972 and 1984 in which the paper endorsed George McGovern and Walter Mondale, respectively. Needless to say, those editorials contain no trace of any acknowledgement that the Democrats were in the grip of the party’s far-left wing, or that either candidate had “stopped talking about opportunity and growth,” had “lost touch with the core concerns of the middle class,” or was “focused on people who weren’t working.”

On the contrary. Here is what the Times had to say about McGovern back in 1972:

    The New York Times urges the election of George McGovern for President of the United States. We believe that Senator McGovern’s approach to public questions, his humanitarian philosophy and humane scale of values, his courage and forthrightness can offer a new kind of leadership in American political life. …

    A McGovern administration, the Times believes, would reverse the unmistakable drift in Washington away from government of, by and for the people. …

    On virtually every major issue from the war to taxes, from education to environment, from civil liberties to national defense, Mr. McGovern…seems to us to be moving with the right priorities, with faith in the common man, and within the democratic framework.

Which is to say that McGovern was just about as left-wing as the Times editorial board. This is what the Times had to say about Walter Mondale when it endorsed him in 1984:

    [Mondale's] election would mean franker, fairer decisions on the hard economic choices that the President has concealed during the campaign. Mr. Mondale would offer an enlightened and humane conception of what Government should, and should not, do. Most of all, he would bring to the White House the will to control nuclear weapons. …

    Walter Mondale believes in a sturdy defense. He also stands in the middle of the bipartisan community that long ago learned to abandon the fruitless quest for nuclear superiority. In this election, he represents all those Republicans and Democrats determined to tame the nuclear threat.

    Lawyer Mondale offers pragmatic skill at making the best of reality. … Walter Mondale has all the dramatic flair of a trigonometry teacher. His Nordic upbringing makes it hard for him to brag. The first debate may have been the high point of his political personality. But there’s power in his plainness.

    Precisely by not dramatizing issues, he has consistently produced consensus and agreement, as a Senator and as Jimmy Carter’s Vice President.

In the Times’s view at the time, Mondale was trudging stolidly down the middle of the road. Meanwhile, it is interesting to see that the paper’s current obsessions were just as prominent 28 years ago:

    Who is likely to do better in arms negotiations in the next term, Walter Mondale or the President who tickles the religious right by reviling the Soviet Union as an Evil Empire?

    To Henry Steele Commager, the historian, the 1983 speech in which Mr. Reagan described the Russians in that way was “the worst Presidential speech in American history, and I’ve read them all” – not because it was undiplomatic but because “No other Presidential speech has ever so flagrantly allied the government with religion. There was a gross appeal to religious prejudice.”

Religious prejudice? What a bizarre way of looking at the Cold War! Of course, it goes without saying that the Times failed either to foresee or to wish for the downfall of the Evil Empire.

One final digression before returning to the main point: the 1984 edition of the Times should be applauded for its concern about deficit spending:

    Unless most economists are crazy, the country can’t keep borrowing $200 billion a year.

Give the paper its due; it was right. Deficit spending of $200 billion a year couldn’t continue. The Democrats had to increase the deficit to over $1 trillion to cover their extravagant spending habit.

The Times, of course, has no credibility at all, but it is nice to see that after more than a quarter century, it is willing to publish a column by its own reporter that admits the truth about the inept candidates that it backed out of partisan fervor and ideological extremism.
3848  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: R.I.P. Andrew Breitbart on: March 04, 2012, 10:45:48 AM
Lesson from Breitbart is that the media is the problem.  This site (dog brothers public forum) is a perfect example of what he was also trying to do - reach through all the information out there and try to get at the truth.

A big part of what they did at Drudge was release stories that the big media had on their desk but weren't releasing.  Interesting that besides being part of the genius behind the Drudge Report, Breitbart also helped found the Huffington Post.
3849  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Uninsured of Health Care on: March 04, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
"The number of chronically uninsured people who would prefer to have insurance but can’t afford it is likely 10-12 million people"

Yes, out of 310 million people.  Other proposals on the table as alternatives to Obamacare including end of pre-existing conditions clauses, tort reform and allowing cross state line competition would have shrunk the 10 million figure significantly.

'Can't afford it' is a function of two variables: income and cost of health care.  One party's policies have the effect of lowering national income or at least stopping its growth, while implementing hundreds and huindreds of programs that drive up the cost of health care.  The other party is struggling within itself to decide how large the (negative0 role of government should be.
3850  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Tax Policy: Britain - Highest marginal rate up, Revenues decreased. Who knew? on: February 25, 2012, 07:02:13 AM

    FEBRUARY 23, 2012

David Cameron's Tax Lesson
A 50% tax rate yields less revenue than advertised.

Speaking of higher taxes (and President Obama always does), there's news from once fair Britannia.

Preliminary figures out this week show that Britain's 50% top marginal income-tax rate may have reduced tax revenue from top earners by as much as 5%, compared to the old 40% top rate (That's a 25% increase!). Tax revenue from those filing self-assessments due January 31 was down some £500 million
Pages: 1 ... 75 76 [77] 78 79 ... 136
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!