Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 30, 2016, 07:09:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94983 Posts in 2312 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 159
4601  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: May 28, 2012, 02:24:05 PM
These are great contributions by BD and CD. 

"[Blackmun] ... said the right to privacy is fundamental."

I will agree to that.  In the context of other applications of the right of privacy, I would be most appreciative of a written expression of what that right is. 

"The viabilty question is medical, no matter how you word it."

Yes, but:  a) the point underlying the question of viability is the acknowledge that the unborn is a distinct human life, and b) medical viability is perhaps a moving target unlike trimesters on a calendar.  Pro-life extremists argue life begins at the instant of conception.  Pro-choice extremists argue there is no life in there of any value or notice until the moment of birth.  Blackmun is saying (my read on what is posted) that life begins at viability.  That is as good of a political or logical compromise as any other, but if I read Crafty's question correctly, where did the Judicial Branch of the federal government derive the authority to make that determination and settle the matter for the states?

While 5 people including Blackmun looked at viability, I doubt in early 1970s imagery they were also able to look at the formation of arms legs and a beating heart at 6 weeks that also could influence what one thinks medically about when life begins. 

4602  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential, Dick Morris on: May 28, 2012, 01:25:21 PM
Interesting that 3 of these 4 states of no consequence to Democrats were carried by Bill Clinton.  That the Dem national party turns away from even their own voters in an entire region and a significant piece of the electoral puzzle elsewhere is a political decision that they made.  In Nov we will find out if it hurt them.  One of my more recent discoveries (of the obvious) is that margin of victory matters.  What both Morris and Taranto point out is telling about Dem side enthusiasm.  So will be the June 5 Wisconsin vote.  The Obama/public employee union side of the vote did not even win the Dem primary.
4603  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Political Rant interesting thought piece- Bill Whittle, Why the Euro has Failed on: May 28, 2012, 12:59:26 PM
Entitled "Why the Euro Failed", this is way too wide ranging to put in the Euro category.  The first half is about why Flight 447 failed and he continues the analogy through the Civil War, Greece, Germany, the Euro and Wisconsin. 6 minutes of your time well spent IMO.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/27/whittle_why_the_euro_has_failed.html
4604  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012 Presidential- Nobody is challenging Obama in the Primaries, and doing well on: May 26, 2012, 12:41:20 PM
James Tarranto of the WSJ has a great sense of humor. He posts a free column during the day called Best of the Web.  Very insightful.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304707604577424401681188544.html

Nobody is challenging Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries this year--and is doing surprisingly well. One of the reasons some commentators thought Obama would be a shoo-in for re-election is that like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, he drew no serious primary opposition as an incumbent president. By contrast, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bush père were challenged by Reagan, Ted Kennedy and Pat Buchanan respectively. Lyndon Johnson abandoned his 1968 re-election bid after Eugene McCarthy's surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire and Robert F. Kennedy's late entry.

The theory goes that presidents lose re-election when they have a strong primary opponent and win when they don't. This requires treating Buchanan as a "serious" opponent, even though he didn't win a single primary in 1992 and his best showing, in New Hampshire, was 37%.

Writing at RealClearPolitics, the delightfully named Sean Trende reformulates the rule and carries it back a century: "There are only seven sitting presidents who have ever received less than 60 percent of the vote in any primary: Taft in '12; Coolidge, '24; Hoover, '32; LBJ, '68; Ford '76; Carter, '80; and Bush '92. All of these presidents, with the exception of Coolidge, were not re-elected." One of Coolidge's challengers, Robert LaFollette, ran a third-party challenge. He ended up with 16.5% of the nationwide popular vote and carried his home state, Wisconsin.
[botwt0524a]

Nobody can beat Obama, they said.

Actually, there's an eighth sitting president who received less than 60% in a primary--in more than one, in fact. That would be Obama in '12, who, as Trende points out, received just 58.4% in Arkansas, 57.9% in Kentucky, 57.1% in Oklahoma and 59.4% in West Virginia. In Kentucky, his main opponent was "Uncommitted," another name for Nobody.

If the Trende trend is predictive--admittedly, a big if--Obama is much likelier than not to lose in November. "I think we can reasonably begin to view this as a sort of organic primary challenge to Obama," Trende writes. "Obama's not likely to lose any states outright in the primaries; think of this more like Buchanan's run against George H.W. Bush in 1992."
...
We now have seen Obama held under 60% by a slate of three candidates--antiabortion extremist Randall Terry, federal prison inmate Keith Judd and Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe--not to mention Nobody. Unlike the recently re-elected presidents, Obama does not have the full support of his party.
...
By all accounts, progressives and blacks are sticking with Obama. Yet the primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and West Virginia suggest that Obama is dividing his party anyway. No, he doesn't need any of those states to win, and he didn't carry them in 2008. But four states Obama did carry "have substantial populations in areas geographically and culturally similar to these 'problem areas': southwestern Pennsylvania, western Virginia and North Carolina, and southeastern Ohio." If Obama loses those four states plus Florida...he is a one-term president.
4605  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Congressional races - Paleface Warren, more questions raised on: May 26, 2012, 11:45:32 AM
Volumes are written about how to survive scandals, Elizabeth Warren does the opposite.  Now her minority status is a symbol for liberal policy and cynical dishonesty of all politicians.  National Review below, then George Will's column follows.  The Boston Globe finally gets in, just yesterday.  Delaying a look into it just gave the story even more legs.  Last beolw, a video parody, as if she wasn't parody enough.
----------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300547/paleface-editors#

"Harvard Law School advertised Elizabeth Warren — blond-haired, blue-eyed, pale to the point of translucence — as its “first woman of color” enjoying tenure. It would later cite her presence on the faculty as evidence of its commitment to “diversity.” And she allowed it.>

"Ms. Warren, who checked the “white” box at the University of Texas before getting in touch with her inner Cherokee when she stormed the Ivies, owes it to the people of Massachusetts to make the records of the Harvard Law hiring committee available to voters. Harvard, though a private institution, owes the people of its home state the same. If Ms. Warren’s undocumented claim to minority status did in fact play a role in the law school’s decision to hire her as a professor enjoying a prestigious, middle-six-figures chair, that is a fact of public importance."   Excerpts, more at link.
---------------
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/18/did-elizabeth-warren-plagiarize-pow-wow-chow-recipes
The credibility of Massachusetts Democratic  Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren took another hit today(5/19) as Boston radio talk show host Howie Carr released evidence that appears to confirm Ms. Warren may have plagiarized at least three of the five recipes she submitted to the 1984 Pow Wow Chow cookbook edited by her cousin Candy Rowsey.
---------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warrens-identity-politics/2012/05/23/gJQAt53clU_story.html

Elizabeth Warren’s identity politics

By George F. Will, Published: May 23

BOSTON

Blond, blue-eyed Elizabeth Warren, the Senate candidate in Massachusetts and Harvard professor who cites “family lore” that she is 1/32nd Cherokee, was inducted into Oklahoma’s Hall of Fame last year. Her biography on OklahomaHeritage.com says that she “can track both sides of her family in Oklahoma long before statehood” (1907) and “she proudly tells everyone she encounters that she is ‘an Okie to my toes.’ ” It does not mention any Cherokee great-great-great-grandmother. A DVD of the induction ceremony shows that neither Warren nor anyone else mentioned this.

The kerfuffle that has earned Warren such sobriquets as “Spouting Bull” and “Fauxcahontas” began with reports that Harvard Law School, in routine academic preening about diversity (in everything but thought), listed her as a minority faculty member, as did the University of Pennsylvania when she taught there. She said that some in her family had “high cheekbones like all of the Indians do.” The New England Historic Genealogical Society said that a document confirmed the family lore of Warren’s Cherokee ancestry, but it later backtracked. She has said that she did not know Harvard was listing her as a minority in the 1990s, but Harvard was echoing her: From 1986 through 1995, starting before she came to Harvard, a directory published by the Association of American Law Schools listed her as a minority and says its listings are based on professors claiming minority status.

So, although no evidence has been found that Warren is part Indian, for years two universities listed her as such. She has identified herself as a minority, as when, signing her name “Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee,” she submitted a crab recipe (Oklahoma crabs?) to a supposedly Indian cookbook. This is a political problem.

A poll taken before this controversy found her Republican opponent Scott Brown trouncing her on “likability,” 57 percent to 23 percent. Even Democrats broke for Brown 40 to 38. Now she is a comic figure associated with laughable racial preferences. She who wants Wall Street “held accountable” is accountable for two elite law schools advertising her minority status. She who accuses Wall Street of gaming the financial system at least collaborated with, and perhaps benefited from, the often absurd obsession with “diversity.”

How absurd? Warren says that for almost a decade she listed herself in the AALS directory as a Native American because she hoped to “meet others like me.” This well-educated, highly paid, much-honored (she was a consumer protection adviser to President Obama) member of America’s upper 1 percent went looking for people “who are like I am” among Native Americans?

This makes perfect sense to a liberal subscriber to the central superstition of the diversity industry, which is the premise of identity politics: Personhood is distilled not to the content of character but only to race, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference.

This controversy has discombobulated liberalism’s crusade to restore Democratic possession of the Senate seat the party won in 1952 with John Kennedy and held until 2010, when Brown captured it after Ted Kennedy’s death. Lofty thinkers and exasperated liberals consider the focus on Warren’s fanciful ancestry a distraction from serious stuff. (Such as The Post’s nearly 5,500-word wallow in teenage Mitt Romney’s prep school comportment?) But Warren’s adult dabbling in identity politics is pertinent because it is, in all its silliness, applied liberalism.

The New York Times Magazine’s headline on its profile of her — “Heaven Is a Place Called Elizabeth Warren” — suggests the chord she strikes with liberals. They resonate to identity politics of the sort Warren’s campaign tried when, on the defensive, it resorted, of course, to claiming victimhood. Playing the gender card, it insinuated that criticism of her adventures as a minority amounts to a sexist attack on an accomplished woman. But an accomplished woman, Susan Collins of Maine, the only Republican senator rated more liberal than Brown (who last year voted with his party only 54 percent of the time on partisan issues), called this insinuation “patently absurd.”

Barack Obama, who carried Massachusetts by almost 800,000 votes in 2008, will win here again, and a senior official of Brown’s campaign thinks that in order to win Brown must run between 250,000 and 500,000 votes ahead of Romney. In the special election in January 2010, Brown defeated a female opponent (women are 53 percent of Massachusetts voters) by 107,317 votes. He won independents 2 to 1.

The turnout this November, with Obama on the ballot, probably will be larger, less white and more Democratic. But just 0.3 percent of Massachusetts residents are Native Americans, even counting Warren.
------
http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-25/metro/31840536_1_harvard-law-school-elizabeth-warren-statistics

Filings add to questions on Warren’s ethnic claims

May 25, 2012|Mary Carmichael,  Boston Globe

US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard Law School had been promoting her purported Native American heritage until she read about it in a newspaper several weeks ago.

But for at least six straight years during Warren’s tenure, Harvard University reported in federally mandated diversity statistics that it had a Native American woman in its senior ranks at the law school. According to both Harvard officials and federal guidelines, those statistics are almost always based on the way employees describe themselves.

In addition, both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.

The documents suggest for the first time that either Warren or a Harvard administrator classified her repeatedly as Native American in papers prepared for the government in a way that apparently did not adhere to federal diversity guidelines. They raise further questions about Warren’s statements that she was unaware Harvard was promoting her as Native American.

The Warren campaign declined Thursday to answer the Globe’s specific questions about the documents.
-------------

Parody from before scandal:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu61aU4N8mM&feature=related
4606  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Wasserman-Schultz, Apples and Coconuts on: May 26, 2012, 11:27:21 AM
Followup to CCP's post on Politics, DNC attacks, but can't answer it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6j6abQAwZnk
4607  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: May 26, 2012, 10:09:20 AM
Of course there is a right to privacy.  Not an absolute right.  Healthcare tromps all over it, as do most other government programs, like income taxation.

In the case of abortion, there is another life involved.  The courts, the laws, the legislators need to balance that all out.  Missing is where the USSC got jurisdiction.  Missing in the Roe v Wade decision is what changes in trimesters.  Is there a right, is there not a right, what interest are you balancing it against? Nothing? That false ambiguity demonstrates pretty easily that they were out of their realm in 'interpreting' law.  

Rachel acknowledged it is alive and human, even JDN started to by introducing his qualifier in bold in his last post, 'not a person in the whole sense'.

A person yes, but not in the whole sense.  Agreed.  I could say that about quite a few people.  wink 
A fetus at its various points is certainly an underdeveloped-developing person.  For whom is that not true?

The science is settled.  Denying what is in there is alive and human is of no use.  

FWIW, Roe changed her mind.  Has anybody done a followup on the baby?

Norma McCorvey was arrested in May 2009 at a Notre Dame pro-life rally protesting President Obama's visit to the University. http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=33572 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2fC56Cw-Pw
4608  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Surprisingly, Bush Presided over Obama's first year - Politifact on: May 26, 2012, 08:57:24 AM
"It included one time spending such as the spending for the Iraq Surge, TARP 1, "

Yes.  They not only include the emergency spending of Fall 2008 that 100% as much authorized by Obama as much as by Bush and McCain, they also include from inauguration 2009 until the end of the 'Bush' fiscal year on Sept 30, 2009.  During that time he had the Executive Branch, majorities in the House and Senate and a filibuster proof 60th vote during part of it.  What control could they possibly had over spending?

I am so sick of these fact check sites acting like they are one bit more accurate than any other pundit or blog. 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/numbers-dont-lie-but-democrats-do/

Numbers don’t lie, but Democrats do

It’s been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: “Federal spending under Obama at historic lows … It’s clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.” There’s even a chart!

I’ll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on …

This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC. As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed “the big myth” about Obama’s spending: “This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly.” And the truth was, the “growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.”

Note that Schultz also said that the “part of the chart representing President Obama’s term includes a stimulus package, too.” As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie.

Schultz’s guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston, confirmed: “And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president.”

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: “Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama.”

In response, three writers from “The Daily Show” said, “We’ll never top that line,” and quit.

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation’s premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.

That’s not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column. (And if we attribute all of Bush’s spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn’t spend much either.)

Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending. And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”

Nutting acts as if it’s the height of magnanimity to “attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush …”

On what possible theory would that be Bush’s spending? Hey — we just found out that Obamacare’s going to cost triple the estimate. Let’s blame it on Calvin Coolidge!

Nutting’s “and not to Bush” line is just a sleight of hand. He’s hoping you won’t notice that he said “$140 billion” and not “$825 billion,” and will be fooled into thinking that he’s counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama’s spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009. Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Brothers collapsed. By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money. That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president — such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. These, too, are called Bush’s spending.

Frustrated that he can’t shift all of Obama’s spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House’s numbers, the White House’s estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting’s counting Obama’s nine-month spending binge as Bush’s spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won’t they do?
4609  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: May 25, 2012, 01:31:29 PM
"In the absence of a suitable body, then the US Navy will do fine."

 grin
4610  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Life Deniers on: May 25, 2012, 01:29:18 PM
Crafty, Yes, I am pointing out the hypocrisy.  That is not obviously not the core of the objection.  The logic goes both ways.  If this is such a good thing, black women are benefiting disproportionately, affirmative action at its best!  The left amazingly worries that we execute too many black serial killers, but not killing too many black innocents.

(JDN) "As for gender choice in Asia, well China had to do something; it was a hard call, but doing nothing was worse; they would have imploded.  Looking at their economic success, maybe they made the right decision."

  - To kill off those least able to defend themselves.  Your callousness is beyond my comprehension.

(JDN) "I'm not sure it's our place to tell China what to do about an internal matter."

  - Yes, what business is it of me to COMMENT on the policies of the legitimately elected government of the Peoples Republic of China.  Again, your values and mine are different if not opposite.  I wasn't arguing jurisdiction Asia (always return with straw), I was writing about my free speech expression of the difference between RIGHT and WRONG and the outrage that a lot of other people showed.  What you miss completely is the original post was about the momentum of public opinion away from your view.  Rebuttal would be that it is an outlier poll, wrong in methodology or from a biased organization, Gallup??

(JDN) "As for black abortions, with no offense, most on site would argue as a group blacks are disproportionately on public assistance in some way.  Do you really want that many more unwanted babies that you will have to support?  And no one is "killing off" anyone.  No one has been born yet.  It's a voluntary procedure.  Frankly, it's cost effective for everyone."

Unwanted babies? Voluntary procedure? Killing black babies at three times the rate of white babies is cost effective?? It is the adult not the unborn who is guilty of unwanting.  It's the born parents that we have disproportionately screwed up with our culturally destructive policies, not innocent unborn life.  There is no data to show that a black baby has any other disproportionate disadvantage prior to birth.  I had a beer last night with one that turned pretty well.  I find the view that we are better off without them, instead of having an obligation to fix what is wrong in the neighborhood, repugnant, and racist. The unborn 'little one', black, white, Down, or other, has the exact same instincts and desire for survival as any born human life or of any other species.  Every day, not every trimester, the little one looks more and more like the mother and the father.  Do you have scientific or medical information to the contrary.  If so, please post.

I have no idea, after all that is discussed, how you have no awareness that there is another life involved.  

(JDN) "The first trimester, plus rape or incest, danger to the mother, some medical birth defect conditions, that is what the 77% in favor of abortion are talking about.  That is also my position."

'Trimesters' come from 1970s, science-denial thinking.  Human life does not develop in trimesters.  Why not compromise and instead set a standard such as the right to kill it off prior to something distinct and more rational like a detectable heart beat?

These would be good questions for state legislatures, if the people in their states, through their representatives, had the right to vote on life and death public policies.  Have you ever answered Crafty's point that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided law?



4611  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: May 25, 2012, 12:28:50 PM
JDN, Thanks for clarifying your view. (?)  My goal is to defeat that view in the electoral process.
4612  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: May 25, 2012, 11:10:38 AM
"It IS in international waters."

Therefore The Republic of Djibouti and the United States of America should have an equal say in defense maneuvers for example to protect Taiwan or South Korea?

"if not someone like the General Assembly, then who do you have in mind?"

This question is posed backwards.  GIVEN: NOT the UN General Assembly to resolve ANYTHING, then start forming successful, functional, responsible international organizations before ceded rights and powers to them.
4613  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Abortion on: May 25, 2012, 10:55:32 AM
"The share of Americans who believe that women should be able to legally obtain an abortion under at least some circumstances now is 77%."

Straw question answered.  People aren't outraged about the number of medical procedures performed  to save the life of the mother and no serious proposal lacks that exception, and others.  There isn't a serious political movement to crack down on irresponsible choices of rape and incest victims.  

Pro-life, FYI, means that some people are outraged about the 98% of abortions in the US that are committed for convenience reasons.  People are outraged by the hundreds of millions killed off in Asia for gender choices.  Some are actually offended that funded taxpayers abortions in the US to kill off black babies at more than 3 times the rate of white babies.  Is that equal rights or affirmative action, in the morally bankrupt, abortion for any reason movement?
4614  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism: on: May 25, 2012, 10:42:00 AM
"WSJ: Dodd-Frank's too-big-to-fail dystopia
The government expands crony capitalism to insurers, securities firms and other non-banks."

Without crony capitalism and too big to fail would there even be a venue (Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte, NC) large enough to bring the big government people together with the Occupy Wall Street people for the 2012 Obama Acceptance Speech: We all gather here today in the unified fight against big business and big money, now a word from our sponsor, lol.
4615  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans on: May 25, 2012, 02:49:39 AM
It is a George Orwell world where you can take trillions in temporary, one time, emergency spending, make it all permanent, add another couple of percent on top of it, then have a fact check operation verify historic spending restraint!  The benchmark is to compare Obama administration spending, half under Republican congress, with the surge in spending that he advanced as a de facto leader of the Senate.

That didn't happen under his watch?

"Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president"   "Mostly True"

By the exact same logic, this has been the coldest decade in recorded temperature history.
4616  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Food stamps, auto bailouts on: May 25, 2012, 01:57:39 AM
Belatedly getting back to BigDog from the Pres. thread (http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2112.msg62909#msg62909):

"You don't understand the link between nutrition and health, Doug?!?"

My point was to doubt a link between receiving food stamps and improving health.  If there is such a link, please advise.  My link showed that obesity, not starvation, is positively correlated.  My take on the radio ad is that they were advertising for more enrollees.  Your point that they were saying to use the program to improve health is true as well.

Your personal story sounds to me like the program worked exactly as it was designed.  And it isn't me paying for you;  I'm sure you've paid more than your own way.  Just as true (IMO) are the examples I see where the program is not working as intended.

I don't know the answer to it,  I suggested three better possibilities.  I am mostly doubting that a doubling of food stamp usage is a positive sign that things are working.

(BD) "Is helping people eat bad?  Do you want children to starve?"

I posted in specific dollars three different and perhaps better ways of funding it:

(Doug) "Food for the hungry might be the best social spending program possible, but why is it federal?  Why is it government?  Would not closer to home be a better place to know the people, the needs, the  costs?  My county has a budget of $1649528239/yr. (There are over 6000 counties in the US) My state has a budget of $33793000000 /biennium.  (There are 50 states closer to the point ofneed than the federal government) What do they do that is more important than helping to feed people in the community who have no other source of food?  Charitable giving in the US is $290890000000.  What do they have that is more pressing than feeding the hungry.  If food for needy wasn't already paid at the federal level, charities would receive even more IMO.  If further away is better for funding, why not do the whole world via the UN instead of advertising for recipients who don't even know they need help."

If charitable giving in the US is $290890000000, why must food assistance be a federal government program?  Starving the children is not the only alternative to doing things the way we are.  

(BD)"These were not job creation attempts in any way I can recognize.  You know that whole "Buy American" push?  You know the car companies that were bailed out?  You don't recognize the connection to building cars in the US and US jobs?"

I value the system, structure and principles of freedom and enterprise that enabled to the US becoming the industrial giant and technological leader in the world.  I value the level playing field over manipulating the rules to get desired results for preferred operations.  The car bailouts were certainly a manipulation of the free flow of resources to their most productive use, a historic case of changing the rules to suit interests of those in power over other less connected.  

The two largest beneficiaries of the cash for clunkers were Honda and Toyota, an odd form of Buy American.  The general motors deal moved unsecured creditors ahead of secured ones.  It forced closure Republican owned dealerships and moved up the position of contributing unions.  Am I proud of emulating the economic system of a third world country to prop up centrally chosen core industries at the expense of all others? No.

I don't know how we look at the Obama Administration BLS Labor Force Participation chart and call these jobs created or saved.  The jobs below the line are being created or saved - in declining numbers.  

4617  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: May 24, 2012, 04:53:20 PM
"Without going into the details of this law"

  - That would be no way to judge it.

"our Navy supports this law"

  - We do not have rule by military.  This currently is a question for the Senate.  One Senator IMO already lost his seat over it.

 "Clinton AND Bush both supported this law."

  - And Reagan opposed it.  To pick at those two, Clinton bombed an aspirin factory and hit the Chinese embassy by mistake in Belgrade.  Bush in roughly your words invaded a country that posed no threat to us?  I disagreed with roughly half of what he did (Harriet Miers was the wisest Amercian available for the Supreme Court) so his support gives me no guidance.

"If I read it correctly, it only affects "operations beyond 200 miles of our coast" in other words international waters."

  - The have been unable to ratify it for 30 years with Dem and Rep. Senates, so looking at the harmless aspects without the objectionable parts isn't very helpful.  If you want to look at it thoroughly, one of the best resources available on the internet is right here in this DBMA thread.
4618  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law - L.O.S.T. on: May 24, 2012, 10:26:59 AM
"Mr. Kerry promised to keep the debate away from the “hurly-burly of presidential politics” by delaying a vote until after the election."

Right.  Nothing hurts responsible governance more than consent of the governed (sarc.).  Not only some Dems are leaving the Senate, but L.O.S.T. supporter Dick Lugar is leaving too.  I wonder how Washington resident Lugar will vote in a lame duck, what the people of Indiana want or what "everyone" knows is best for them...
-----

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/20/will-u-s-sovereignty-be-lost-at-sea-obama-signs-u-n-treaty-that-redistributes-drilling-revenues/

Will U.S. Sovereignty Be LOST At Sea? Obama Supports U.N. Treaty That Redistributes Drilling Revenues

A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is supported by President Obama but has not yet been ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights.

As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries. This apparently is in penance for America’s audacity in perpetuating prosperity yielded by our Industrial Revolution.

Under current law, oil companies are required to pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury (typically at a rate of 12 ½% to 18%) for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and off the northern coast of Alaska. Treasury keeps a portion, and the rest goes to Gulf states and to the National Historic Preservation Fund. But if LOST is ratified, about half of those Treasury revenues, amounting to billions, if not trillions of dollars, would go to the ISA. We will be required to pay 1% of those “international royalties” beginning in the sixth year of production at each site, with rates increasing at 1% annual increments until the 12th year when they would remain at 7% thereafter.

Like the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol debacle that preceded it, this most recent LOST cause embodies the progressive ideal of subordinating the sovereignty of nation states to authoritarian dictates of a world body. The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free.

And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.

The treaty was originally drafted in 1968 at the behest of Soviet bloc and Third World dictators interested in implementing a scheme to weaken U.S. power and transferring wealth from industrialized countries to the developing world. It had been co-authored by Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist and admirer of Karl Marx who ran the World Federation of Canada. In a 1999 speech she declared: “The world ocean has been and is so to speak, our great laboratory for making a new world order.” Recognizing this as a global grab, President Reagan thought it was such a lousy idea that he not only refused to sign, but actually fired the State Department staff that helped negotiate it.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns that world circumstances are even much less favorable to the U.S. for LOST enactment now: “With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.”

The treaty has been pitched as an effort to protect the world’s oceans from environmental damage and to avoid potential conflicts between nations. Accordingly, ISA would settle international maritime and jurisdictional disputes, possibly even to the extent of overriding our U.S. Navy’s freedom of navigation and governing where ships can and cannot go. ISA’s prerogative to do so would be entirely consistent with a “global test” definition advocated by key LOST proponent Senator John Kerry in 2004.

The treaty contains a clause empowering the ISA to take whatever steps it deems necessary to stop “marine pollution.”  According to William C. G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, its expansive definition of pollution could be read to include “…the potential impact of rising sea surface temperature, rising sea levels, and changes in ocean pH as a consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in sea water.”  Burns warns that this could “give rise to actions under the Convention’s marine pollution provisions to reduce carbon emissions worldwide.” He warns that this can easily be expanded to include anti-global warming measures, and since it would be “self-executing”, U.S. courts can be used to enforce it.

Powerful environmental organizations love LOST because it will afford a legal system for dispute resolution which culminates in a 21-member international tribunal (ITLOS) based in Hamburg which can be enforced against American companies without possibilities of U.S. court appeal. Numerous lawsuits charging global warming dangers linked to greenhouse emissions from ships will most likely supersede binding rules of the discredited Kyoto Protocol which the U.S. wisely never ratified.

The U.S. Navy maintains that we need LOST to guarantee free transit in dangerous waters, such as in the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block, and in the South China Sea which is dominated by China. Yet freedom of navigation has been recognized under international law for centuries. It was policed by the British Navy over 400 years, and by ours since 1775. Since the U.N. has no navy, it will still be up to us to continue this role.

Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry has been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive. Republican Senator Luger, another strong treaty supporter and career globalist, apparently didn’t want to highlight that fact during the course of his hard-fought Indiana reelection campaign. Now, with nothing more to lose following his primary defeat, he can be expected to help push for Senate ratification as early as next month.

U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had both supported the treaty during their tenures, but they never sent it to the Senate for ratification because of opposition over concerns that it will limit commerce and allow international bodies to wield control over U.S. interests. During W’s term of office, then-Senator Joe Biden introduced LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he chaired in 2007, yet it was never brought to the floor for a vote. The Obama administration has now openly supported Senate action since at least 2009 when it released its Treaty Priority List.

Those who support the treaty argue that it will clarify rules regarding the high seas…ocean waters beyond our national jurisdiction and in the Arctic Ocean where the U.S., Russia Canada, and several Scandinavian countries have all claimed territorial rights. During her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said: “If people start drilling in areas that are now ice-free most of the year, and we don’t know where they can or can’t drill or whether we can, we’re going to be disadvantaged. So I think you will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration.”

Peter Brooks, a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and current Heritage Foundation senior fellow disagrees with that rationale. He argues that: “While LOST’s navigational tenets for operations on high seas, including establishing waters and exclusive economic zones, are of little dispute, some of the other ‘non-navigational’ provisions are what really frighten the treaty’s detractors.” And in addition to establishing and having to deal with still another U.N. agency, and giving away many billions of dollars to “any number of bad actor, corrupt or anti-American regimes” at a time when our country is facing enormous fiscal and budgetary challenges, LOST considers the deep seabed as the “common heritage of mankind”.

Brooks continues: “But what they’re really getting at is if you want to harvest Davy Jones’ locker you need to ask pretty please of…tahdah…the ISA. This Mother-may-I would likely limit or discourage the private sector’s economic opportunities in the deep seabed, affecting the provision of this likely-significant bounty to global markets. Global energy demand…and prices at the pump…seem to be going anywhere but down. We don’t want to allow our energy exploration to be held hostage to the whims of some unaccountable international bureaucrats.”

Steven Groves, an international law fellow at the Heritage Foundation agrees, and observes that opposition from Republican members of Congress who have objected reflects a legitimate deep-seated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies, observing: “This seems to me a bit of a Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country’s environmental policy. That’s generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans.”

And why would anyone possibly doubt the U.N.’s objectivity and sagacity as an oversight organization? Well perhaps we might think about the history of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which produced the 1992 Earth Summit Rio Declaration’s rules which have been adopted by a new U.S. National Ocean Council  (NOC) established by President Obama through an Executive Order.  Principal #15 states that: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

In other words, those protections can involve whatever restraints on drilling and other activities an organization such as ISA may deem necessary to protect the planet from global warming… whether or not they can scientifically establish that there is a problem…or whether or not those attempted interventions will make a bit of difference.

Headed by Science Czar and noted climate alarmist John Holdren, the NOC is seen by many as a back door way to sneak LOST in as a “soft law”, the same tactic used when the U.N.’s Agenda 21 failed to pass Congress. This enables it to avoid a 2/3 Senate approval vote hurdle required for all treaties.

What would Ronald Reagan say about what is now going on?  Let me guess.

Maybe, “Law of the Sea…get LOST…this time for good!”
4619  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Abortion, New Gallup numbers: pro-choice at record low support on: May 23, 2012, 12:25:04 PM
While critics were saying I would jail doctors and moms and I maintained that I was just trying to change hearts and minds before changing laws, Gallup reports:

Pro-choice  41%

Pro-life  50%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx

How is that trending for Obama and the extremists going to swing state North Carolina for the Dem convention this September?
4620  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Gender, Gay, Lesbian: Random Thoughts on LGBT on: May 23, 2012, 12:14:50 PM
There is a N. Carolina preacher rant in the news saying to round up and kill off gays. It should go without saying, I condemn that.  We all do.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/north-carolina-pastor-gay-rant-starvation_n_1533463.html

Over the past year or two I have come into acquaintance and friendship/respect with gay men and lesbian women as I have at other times in the past.  This reinforces my belief that all are entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The above does not change the fact that words and institutions have meanings, such as that marriage is when a man and a woman become a husband and a wife, no matter how government chooses to treat that relationship.  Gay people have the same right as everyone else to pursue or decline an opposite gender relationship or to create a new institution of their own.

Somewhere unspoken in the LGBT movement is the strangeness of including Bisexual-Transexual while trying to say we are just like you, except for same sex attraction.  What is to be celebrated about bisexual if the argument is about committed, monogamous relationships?  We don't accept hetero-polygamy.  And what about trans-gender; what is the political issue there?  Can't we agree that is a dysfunction, not something in need of special accommodation.  Can't we, at some point, just ask people to keep their private life private?
4621  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness: The Fainess Czar, SF Chronicle on: May 23, 2012, 11:13:01 AM
May 22, 2012
Obama Thinks He's the Fairness Czar
By Debra Saunders,  San Francisco Chronicle

Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, N.J., came across as a moderate, sensible Democrat when he said on "Meet the Press" Sunday that negative political ads are "nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright."

Booker, a Barack Obama surrogate, later tried to walk back his comments. He posted a video in which he explained that he was expressing his frustration with negative campaigning when he spoke out, effectively undermining the president's re-election narrative. (Booker also referred to the biggest non-story in politics last week, about a political consultant who recommended that a super PAC use Wright in an anti-Obama ad. That ad didn't get made.)

But there is no walking back from Booker's disapproval of the Obama campaign's attacks on Bain Capital, the private equity firm that Mitt Romney founded. Last week, Team Obama released an ad that told the story of a Kansas steel mill that Bain bought in 1993 and that went bankrupt in 2001. In the ad, laid-off steelworkers had some choice words for Romney. Like "vampire" and "job destroyer."

The problem with such ads, Booker said Sunday, is that "we're getting to a ridiculous point in America." Pension funds, unions and others invest in companies like Bain Capital. Bain's record has been to grow businesses. To Booker, Bain Capital has been good for America. To Obamaland, Bain Capital has been bad for America.

As a mayor, Booker said, he, too, has had to lay off workers "because it's the only way" his "government would survive." He added, "Call me a job cutter if you want."

I should note that PolitiFact rated as "mostly true" this statement from the Obama campaign: "After purchasing the company, Mitt Romney and his partners loaded it with debt, closed the Kansas City plant and walked away with a healthy profit, leaving hundreds of employees out of work with their pensions in jeopardy." Missing from the story: the fact that Romney wasn't in charge anymore and that in 2001, the steel industry was in a world of hurt -- with low steel prices and high production costs -- which drove a lot of mills out of business.

I would add that the steelworkers in the political ad were talking about the heyday of the steel industry, which occurred long before Bain stepped in to rescue an ailing mill.

Monday, a reporter asked Obama about Booker's remarks and the role of private equity. The president explained that the goal of private investment is to "maximize profits," whereas a president's job is to make sure that everyone has "a fair shot" and that everyone pays his or her "fair share" of taxes.

That's the problem with Obama; he thinks he's the fairness czar. He didn't say that a president is supposed to create an environment that nurtures business success. He said a president is supposed to make sure that nobody walks away with too much.

When you're president, Obama said, "your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying for their retraining." Obama's war is a war on private money. He thinks his job is to create job training programs, not create an environment that creates real jobs.
4622  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: May 23, 2012, 11:09:46 AM
" "Deductions, exclusions, credits...." have always been my complaint.  "

Deductions, exclusions, credits keep getting put in there because the rates are too high and the high rates are known to kill off businesses and investment- if not for the targeted mercy of our gift horse elected officials help9ing key constituencies.  That is the point behind across the board rate cuts; they alleviate the need for all the loopholes.  Eliminating real loopholes and lowering the tax rates correspondingly is something we all should be able to agree on.  The Huntsman Plan. http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/08/huntsman-unveils-economic-plan/EaG9972xXVpV487E3dsENN/index.html

Targeted alleviation of tax burden is unequal treatment under the law.  There ought to be a constitutional amendment against it.

Keep in mind though that deducting normal business costs is how you accurately calculate income, such as the cost of a pharmaceutical company's research or an oil company's cost of drilling both producing and non-producing wells.  These are not loopholes no matter how often or loudly one demagogues them.  Eliminate the deductibility of legitimate business expenses and the job creating investment and production in those industries will dry up.

ROI.  Investors look at return on investment.  It is not what you send to the government, it was you keep after all that.  The Man from Marx calls it 'maximizing profits" - with an evil sound to it.  More simply, investors look for a return.  If the return is not there or not sufficient, they invest elsewhere or not at all.

Uncertainty is worse.  It prevents an accurate calculation from being made and acts to delay investment/expansion decisions, which means job growth lost.

If we had a coherent set of governing principles, then policy changes from day to day and year to year would only be minor adjustments to current policy, keeping uncertainty within a very narrow range.  That is not the case today.  Instead we are arguing today over whether we even want a free enterprise based system at all.
4623  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market: 'dead man walking'. Need Startups! on: May 22, 2012, 08:21:23 PM
From Wesbury yesterday:

"What we have on our hands is a sustainable, self-reinforcing economic recovery. It could be better. What’s holding it back is bad policy choices coming out of Washington, DC. Government spending is robbing the economy of potential and uncertainty about future taxes and regulation is a wet blanket.
 
Amazingly, the plow horse keeps moving forward. That’s the real news here - unending pessimism being defeated by the American entrepreneurial spirit."
-----------------

I did not see where we have overall growth yet above breakeven levels.  I do not see any projection of current growth rates that ever grows us out of the current deficit and debt crisis.  Other than a potential electoral shift next Nov sending key people packing, I do not see any movement whatsoever on any of the "bad policy choices coming out of Washington, DC".   Government spending is projected to keep growing, "robbing the economy of potential".  Uncertainty about future tax rates is a certainty through summer and fall and longer unless the election is decisive one way or the other.  Regulations at this point in time are scheduled to keep getting worse.

Regarding the entrepreneurial spirit, we are starting hundreds of thousands fewer new businesses today than we could or should be.

Decline / stagnation is a choice.
--------------

Bringing this post forward: 

http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1467.msg41884#msg41884
   
   
Political Economics - What grows an economy?
« Reply #811 on: October 21, 2010, 08:25:47 AM »
   
“The single most important contributor to a nation’s economic growth is the number of startups that grow to a billion dollars in revenue within 20 years.”

The U.S. economy, given its large size, needs to spawn something like 75 to 125 billion-dollar babies per year to feed the country’s post World War II rate of growth. Faster growth requires even more successful startups.

http://blogs.forbes.com/richkarlgaard/2010/10/20/what-grows-an-economy/?boxes=opinionschanneledito

Current policy is to stop this from happening.
4624  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate - Wesbury on: May 22, 2012, 07:50:35 PM
"Housing starts rose 2.6% in April to 717,000 units at an annual rate, well above the 685,000 rate the consensus expected. Starts are up 29.9% versus a year ago."

Other than the previous years in this downturn and the deep recession years of 1981-1982, this is still the worst level of housing starts in more than 50 years!  http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=554  http://www.urbanfutures.com/reports/BTN%20US%20Housing%20Starts.pdf

Up 29.9% from 2011?  And that is still Fed-subsidized housing starts with interest rates close to zero.  Put another way, it would take a 300-400% to come back to ordinary levels of the last half century.

The good news is that with personal income at these levels, we don't need any more houses or house payments.

4625  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney faith, POTH on: May 22, 2012, 07:23:43 PM
That is a pretty good piece.

"Mr. Romney speaks so sparingly about his faith — he and his aides frequently stipulate that he does not impose his beliefs on others — that its influence on him can be difficult to detect."

Begs the question of whether there will be a companion piece on the opponent's religious upbringing, Muslim in Indonesian, or the 20 years of 'Christian' "God Damn America" themed inspiration he received in his adult life in Chicago.  It's 'influence on him' can also be 'difficult to detect'.
4626  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's 1983 College Magazine Article: Campus Activism (Unilateral Disarmament) on: May 22, 2012, 06:56:14 PM
A pdf keeper of Barack's only known published article at Columbia:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/198/198.pdf

The piece drifts from journalism about groups on campus to his own views.  Written about anti-militarism, freeze and disarmament at a time when the opposite, peace through strength, was about to bring down the Soviet empire.  Or as Barack put it, "By being intransigent, Reagan is playing directly into the Russians' hands."

Young Barack was no more succinct then, and his views on negotiating with the Russians have not changed either.  This is only his closing; read it all at the link.

"Indeed, the most pervasive malady
of the collegiate system specifically, and
the American experience generally, is
that elaborate patterns of knowledge
and theory have been disembodied from
individual choices and government policy.
What the members of ARA and (Student groups: Arms Race Alternatives and Students Against Militarism)
SAM try to do is infuse what they have
learned about the current situation,
bring the words of that formidable roster
on the face of Butler Library, names
like Thoreau, Jefferson, and Whitman,
to bear on the twisted logic of which we
are today a part. By adding their energy
and effort in order to enchance the possibility
of a decent world, they may help
deprive us of a spectacular experience-
that of war. But then, there are
some things we shouldn't have to live
through in order to want to avoid the
experience,
and soon, it is quite probable that the
Germans will do something on their
own. The Reagan administration's stalling
at the Geneva ta1Iks on nuclear weapons
has thus already caused severe
tension and could ultimately bring about
a dangerous rift between the United
States and Western Europe. By being
intransigent, Reagan is playing directly
into the Russians' hands.


In 1933 the German establishment
thought it could use Hitler to restore a
modicum of order to the confused and
confusing Weimar Republic. In fact,
Hitler did strengthen the German establishment,
but not exactly in the way
the bankers and businessmen had
wanted; and now, fifty years later, it is
clear who was using whom.


Nevertheless, the Western World
did not complain in 1933 because Hitler,
though a fascist and a totalitarian, was
seen, like counUess American puppet
dictators today, as someone who leaves
the established order in place.


Not so the Greens. If a group of
young, anti-establishment pacifists
v,ith unusual ideas and uncomfortable
answers to hard questions terrifies us
more today than Hitler, Himmler,
Goering and Goebbels did back in 1933,
our terror says more about us than it
does about the Greens or the Germans.
It indicates that we have failed to comprehend
the meaning of Nazism and
hlind obedience to authority in their full
horror, and that we, unlike the Greens,
have yet ourselves to learn the dem<>cratic
lesson that we have taught the
Gennans so well.


Since the European peace movement
has long since become the American
peace movement, and since America
now has its own Green Party, the rise
of the Greens in Germany has profound
significance here. It is at once a warning
to us that the old solutions of more weapons
and again more weapons will no
longer be accepted in a Europe that is
already a powderkeg waiting to go off;
and it is an invitation to work towards a
peace that is genuine, lasting and nonnuclear.
4627  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / IBD: BO Bio grows even sketchier on: May 22, 2012, 09:15:57 AM
"So too with the unasked questions about Obama’s radical past. The media saw nothing to report about Obama starting his political career in the living room of ex-terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn."...
"Then there’s the Reverend Jeremiah “God-damn America” Wright, whom Obama credits with leading him to Christianity, who officiated at his wedding, who gave him the title of his second book, and whose church he attended for 20 years."

You wouldn't think their glass house strategy would be to go hard after Romney's background, lol.

Investors Business Daily goes further with the Obama phenomenon today tying questions in his background to questions in his character:
--------------
IBD Editorials
 
Obama's Bio Grows Even Sketchier

 Posted 05/21/2012 07:00 PM ET

The Obama Record

The Obama Record: The discovery of the president's false book bio claiming Kenyan birth fits an increasingly disturbing pattern. We've long described Obama as radical, but he's also deceitful.

The mix of these two traits in the Oval Office is toxic. But the Washington media are anything but alarmed, still believing as they do the mythical savior figure they created in 2008.

The other night, MSNBC's Chris Matthews argued on his "Hardball" show that Americans would be wise to re-elect Obama because he's "the candidate we know." He claimed he's a trusted brand who "is who he seems to be."

He went on to describe the president as "a fairly pragmatic progressive" and "tough defender of the country." Therefore, he argued, he's the safer choice vs. GOP foe Mitt Romney, whom Matthews warns is an unknown commodity — "Brand X" — who could turn out to be a nutty puppet of the "radical right."

Of course, Obama isn't at all who he seems to be. And judging from Obama's sinking poll numbers, this is becoming more apparent to the electorate — thanks in part to the new media's revetting of Obama after the old media's half-hearted attempt in 2008.

Voters who don't watch MSNBC are starting to see that the president's public persona is merely a hologram created by media shills like Matthews, who define his identity and ideology and redefine it when facts disrupt the carefully constructed narrative.

The latest fly in the ointment for Team Obama is a promotional bio Obama's book agent put out in 1991. The old copy, dug up last week by Breitbart.com, says he was "born in Kenya." Asked about the mistaken birthplace, the agent claimed it "was nothing more than a fact-checking error."
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

But that's not just any error. Getting a job title wrong is one thing. But screwing up a client's place of birth is a major — and bizarre — boo-boo.

More than likely, Obama supplied the error as fact, since the agency requires clients to submit their bio information. Adding to suspicions, Obama failed to correct it. For 16 years. He allowed his agent to continue to publish the error — despite several updates to his bio posted online — until 2007, when Obama ran for the White House and abruptly switched agents. Only then was the bio corrected.

Why would Obama fictionalize his life story? For answers, let's go back to 1991. At the time he got his book deal, Obama was graduating from Harvard Law School, which required strong grades for entry. Yet by all accounts, Obama had weak grades. Did he juice his application — a la his Harvard law pal, Elizabeth "Cherokee Liz" Warren — to hedge his bet in case his minority status wasn't exotic enough to overcome his grades?

Northwestern University professor John McKnight said a desperate Obama approached him for a letter of recommendation to Harvard, because he couldn't get any of his undergrad professors to pen one due to underwhelming academics. McKnight was one of Obama's radical Alinsky trainers and a key mentor, but not one of his professors.

The embellished bio makes the circumstances surrounding Obama's Harvard admission curiouser. And all the more reason to demand this president do what every other modern president has done, including Democrat candidates John Kerry and Al Gore, and turn over his academic records for public review.

At bottom, this is an issue of trust.

The notion that his author's bio, which played up high the phony foreign-born status, was simply a typo is about as credible as Obama claiming he never heard his radically anti-American preacher say anything unpatriotic while sitting in his pews for over two decades. Or that he hardly knew his Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist who launched his political career from his living room. And who sat with him on the board of a few radical organizations. And who claims to have actually written the very memoir Obama and his agent began promoting in 1991.

Just who is this man sitting in the people's house? Increasingly, he appears devious and dishonest.

Character matters.

http://news.investors.com/article/612225/201205211900/voters-do-not-know-the-real-obama.htm
4628  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential campaign: Private Equity, David Brooks on: May 22, 2012, 09:01:47 AM
Even former Obama supporter David Brooks, NY Times, understands the role of private equity and what a distortion the Obama campaign has made, column below.

Pres. Obama struggled with the question of private equity yesterday at his press conference, rationalizing his campaign focus on Romney's old firm while exposing his own sketchy knowledge of how our economy works.  He can't explain the unexplainable, how you can attack capital without injuring labor.  The heart of capitalism and free enterprise is the free flow of resources to their most productive use; the concept is lost on this President.  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/21/remarks-president-nato-press-conference  "private equity is that it is set up to maximize profits... I think there are folks who do good work in that area."
-------
How Change Happens  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/opinion/brooks-how-change-happens.html?_r=1
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: May 21, 2012

Forty years ago, corporate America was bloated, sluggish and losing ground to competitors in Japan and beyond. But then something astonishing happened. Financiers, private equity firms and bare-knuckled corporate executives initiated a series of reforms and transformations.
Josh Haner/The New York Times

The process was brutal and involved streamlining and layoffs. But, at the end of it, American businesses emerged leaner, quicker and more efficient.

Now we are apparently going to have a presidential election about whether this reform movement was a good thing. Last week, the Obama administration unveiled an attack ad against Mitt Romney’s old private equity firm, Bain Capital, portraying it as a vampire that sucks the blood from American companies. Then Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. gave one of those cable-TV-type speeches, lambasting Wall Street and saying we had to be a country that makes things again.

The Obama attack ad accused Bain Capital of looting a steel company called GST in the 1990s and then throwing its workers out on the street. The ad itself barely survived a minute of scrutiny. As Kimberly Strassel noted in The Wall Street Journal, the depiction is wildly misleading.

The company was in terminal decline before Bain entered the picture, seeing its work force fall from 4,500 to less than 1,000. It faced closure when Romney and Bain, for some reason, saw hope for it in 1993. Bain acquired it, induced banks to loan it money and poured $100 million into modernization, according to Strassel. Bain held onto the company for eight years, hardly the pattern of a looter. Finally, after all the effort, the company, like many other old-line steel companies, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001, two years after Romney had left Bain.

This is the story of a failed rescue, not vampire capitalism.

But the larger argument is about private equity itself, and about the changes private equity firms and other financiers have instigated across society. Over the past several decades, these firms have scoured America looking for underperforming companies. Then they acquire them and try to force them to get better.

As Reihan Salam noted in a fair-minded review of the literature in National Review, in any industry there is an astonishing difference in the productivity levels of leading companies and the lagging companies. Private equity firms like Bain acquire bad companies and often replace management, compel executives to own more stock in their own company and reform company operations.

Most of the time they succeed. Research from around the world clearly confirms that companies that have been acquired by private equity firms are more productive than comparable firms.

This process involves a great deal of churn and creative destruction. It does not, on net, lead to fewer jobs. A giant study by economists from the University of Chicago, Harvard, the University of Maryland and the Census Bureau found that when private equity firms acquire a company, jobs are lost in old operations. Jobs are created in new, promising operations. The overall effect on employment is modest.

Nor is it true that private equity firms generally pile up companies with debt, loot them and then send them to the graveyard. This does happen occasionally (the tax code encourages debt), but banks would not be lending money to private equity-owned companies, decade after decade, if those companies weren’t generally prosperous and creditworthy.

Private equity firms are not lovable, but they forced a renaissance that revived American capitalism. The large questions today are: Will the U.S. continue this process of rigorous creative destruction? More immediately, will the nation take the transformation of the private sector and extend it to the public sector?

While American companies operate in radically different ways than they did 40 years ago, the sheltered, government-dominated sectors of the economy — especially education, health care and the welfare state — operate in astonishingly similar ways.

The implicit argument of the Republican campaign is that Mitt Romney has the experience to extend this transformation into government.

The Obama campaign seems to be drifting willy-nilly into the opposite camp, arguing that the pressures brought to bear by the capital markets over the past few decades were not a good thing, offering no comparably sized agenda to reform the public sector.

In a country that desperately wants change, I have no idea why a party would not compete to be the party of change and transformation. For a candidate like Obama, who successfully ran an unconventional campaign that embodied and promised change, I have no idea why he would want to run a campaign this time that regurgitates the exact same ads and repeats the exact same arguments as so many Democratic campaigns from the ancient past.
4629  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The personal Pronoun President: "my one congress" on: May 22, 2012, 08:35:05 AM
My = the possessive case for I and me.  And I thought it was the people's congress.

President Obama yesterday: "...this euro project...means that there’s got to be some more effective coordination on the fiscal and the monetary side and on the growth agenda.  And I think that there was strong intent there to move in that direction.  Of course, they’ve got 17 countries that have to agree to every step they take.  So I think about my one Congress, then I start thinking about 17 congresses and I start getting a little bit of a headache.  It’s going to be challenging for them."  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/21/remarks-president-nato-press-conference

They are separate articles, one and two. The legislative branch defined first is not any part of his executive branch, but is where fiscal bills originate.  The Federal Reserve was also an act of congress.

The President rightfully has some frustration with his congress and his budgets.  The House voted down his budget 414-0 and the Senate voted it down 99-0.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/227857-senate-rejects-obama-budget-in-99-0-vote
4630  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ed Koch endorses Obama on: May 22, 2012, 07:44:06 AM
President Obama's best endorsement to date because it comes from a Dem who has been critical of him, on foreign policy and support for Israel but always with Dems on economic issues.  Posted in the interest of balance on the forum; I don't agree with him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/21/why_i_support_the_reelection_of_president_obama_114217.html

"Most important, convincing me of the President’s firm commitment to the security of the state of Israel was our personal extended conversation on that issue on September 21, 2011."
4631  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: May 21, 2012, 01:34:10 PM
CCP,  Interesting stuff.  I notice that the Bill Gates "4th generation nuclear" is still a version of fission:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1072.msg61665#msg61665
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577299343742435580.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_Top

Earlier reports had this as being fusion.  I don't think that is right: http://www.smh.com.au/business/nuclear-fusion-bill-gates-joins-forces-with-toshiba-20100323-qt10.html
4632  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / MN R's pick Libertarian Kurt Bills for Amy Klobuchar's Senate seat on: May 21, 2012, 11:31:32 AM
One term state representative Kurt Bills, a high school economics teacher, beat the party favorites easily on the second ballot with 64% of the vote at the state convention over the weekend.

Dem Incumbent Amy Klobuchar, an ideological clone of Hillary and Obama, is a considered a 100% bet to win reelection, so not much is risked in choosing the unknown.  I had no awareness of him before hearing this surprise result and viewing the speech linked below.  I did not attend but can tell that to go up from 53% on the first ballot to well over the 60% required for endorsement on the second ballot in a 3 way contest means that he spoke very persuasively from the podium and won votes from across the (far right) spectrum.  He instantly won the endorsement of his rivals.  "Whatever our differences are, they pale in comparison to what we have in common."

Even if he loses, it will still be interesting to see what he can do to advance limited government principles in one of the bluest states.  In his issues statements he is more clear than other libertarians about supporting the Reagan principle of Peace through Strength, but also has a Ron Paul skepticism for nation building operations.  Not exactly my view but perhaps more in tune with independent voters at the moment.  With fewer interventions, the US could fund a very strong, well-equipped military within reasonable budget constraints.

I predict he will start this race trailing by more than 20%, making victory in Nov. all the more impressive!

Watch a local convention speech.  I don't see a teleprompter or see him even glance at notes or a hesitation about what he wants to say. This is worth 7 minutes of your time! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMh9p-Iyt8o&feature=plcp

He makes a great delivery; could make Newt look like a timid debater, lol.  A great point he makes is that with teaching high school kids you've got 30 seconds at most to get their attention, so he has been preparing for this contest for 15 years.

Or go to about 6:45 of his acceptance speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMh9p-Iyt8o&feature=plcp
"These are not extreme views.  They are views that win. We believe in liberty.  We believe in limited government.  We believe in free enterprise.  We believe in family values and the sanctity of human life.  And we believe that Washington needs a good dose of Econ 101."

Give money at http://kurtbills.com/ or give it to your own candidate, but now is the time to do something.  Find your candidates and get behind them.

People like Kurt Bills from MN and the newcomers from Nebraska and Indiana joining people like Marco Rubio  and Ron Johnson from Wisc can help keep President Romney.
4633  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Time machine issues with the current President: gay marriage on: May 21, 2012, 10:03:38 AM
"Using this thread for time machine issues with Baraq":  

Many people evolve on issues, McCain on tax cuts, Reagan and Romney on life, etc.  Politicians sometimes pay a price for that, but it beats total close mindedness or being stone deaf to what the people you wish to represent are wanting.

The oddest part of Pres. Obama giving his sudden historic support for gay marriage, being ahead of the curve, is that he held that position also in 1996-2004, renounced it for seeking high office, invoked God as a reason for his new, temporary view, now is back in favor of gender free marriage for any spouse one and spouse two.  It is Biden who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act who has 'evolved'.  The President has only weaseled.  For him, this was always about focus groups, fund raising and the desire to gain and hold political power.
-----------
http://www.mediaite.com/online/final-answer-president-obama-did-fill-out-1996-questionnaire-supporting-gay-marriage/

Final Answer: President Obama Did Fill Out 1996 Questionnaire Supporting Gay Marriage
by Tommy Christopher | 5:58 pm, June 20th, 2011

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer resurrected a longstanding controversy Friday when he said that President Obama had not personally filled out a 1996 questionnaire that indicated support for gay marriage. At today’s White House briefing, The Washington Blade‘s Chris Johnson was finally able to get confirmation that the President did, indeed, fill out the questionnaire. Despite Jay Carney‘s protests to the contrary, the White House has not been at all forthcoming in answering that question.

During a Q&A this past Friday at the Netroots Nation conference, Pfeiffer was asked about the questionnaire, and in his response, made the same mistake that Robert Gibbs did when Johnson asked about it in January, confusing it with two other 1996 questionnaires about gun control. The gun control questionnaires were filled out by Obama’s then-campaign manager Carol Harwell.

“If you actually go back and look,” Pfeiffer said, “that questionnaire was actually filled out by someone else, not the President.”

Following Pfeiffer’s remarks, the White House issued a statement explaining the confusion, but still did not confirm that Mr. Obama had filled out the document in question:

    “Dan was not familiar with the history of the questionnaire that was brought up today, but the president’s views are clear,” (White House spokesman Shin) Inouye said. “He has long supported equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian couples and since taking office he has signed into law the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ signed into law the hate crimes bill, made the decision not to defend Section 3 of DOMA and expanded federal benefits for same sex partners of federal employees.”

This statement is all too familiar to me. Following Gibbs’ January response, I explained to Gibbs that he had been thinking of the gun control surveys, and that the gay marriage questionnaire had never really been addressed, save an oblique reference by then-Senator Obama in a 2004 interview, which seemed to indicate he had filled it out.

He referred me to a deputy press secretary for followup, and after two weeks of emails, I finally received this statement, from Shin Inouye:

    The President has made his position on this issue clear – as a candidate in 2008, in his public writings, and in his on the record comments on at least three separate occasions. He’s also made it clear that he supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples, supports a repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and opposes divisive measures like Proposition 8 in California. His Administration has also taken numerous steps to help secure equal rights for LGBT Americans, such as extending benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees and ensuring equal access to HUD programs, and we hope to continue making progress.

For a guy whose views are clear, President Obama’s press office sure went to a lot of trouble to avoid answering that question. Yes, confirming this would make it appear he had flipped on the issue, but he handled that very well in that 2004 interview:

    The Windy City Times, which later acquired Outlines, said it interviewed Obama in 2004, when he was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate. In a January 2009 article recapping the interview, the newspaper quoted him as saying he no longer supported same-sex marriage “primarily just as a strategic issue,” and not because he had changed his philosophy.

    “I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation,” Obama said, according to the article. “I know that’s true in the African American community, for example.” Instead, he endorsed civil unions, a designation that did not exist in 1996.

That strategy later evolved to include saying he personally didn’t believe in gay marriage, but opposed efforts to ban it. At that time, there was some resonance to the argument that in order to help gay people, Obama needed to get elected, even if that meant taking a lukewarm porridge position on gay marriage.

At Monday’s White House briefing, Johnson asked Carney about it again, and among the “we love the gays” boilerplate we have come to know and love, Carney confirmed that it was his understanding that the President had completed the questionnaire himself, and Carney acted as though this had always been common knowledge: (transcript via The Washington Blade, additional transcription by Tommy Christopher)

    Washington Blade: Jay, I just want to follow up on remarks that Dan Pfeiffer made last week on the president’s 1996 questionnaire response on marriage. The statement from the president in 1996 reads, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibits such marriages.” Pfeiffer said someone else filled out this questionnaire for the president. Can you confirm that it’s the White House’s position that someone else filled out this questionnaire and —

    Carney: Chris, I think you know because you’ve read it multiple times since then that we’ve corrected it beginning Friday that he — that that is not the case, that he was mistaking with another questionnaire.

    The president’s position on gay marriage has been clear since ’08 — is clear, again, since he’s been president.

    Q: Jay, will you clarify whether the ’96 survey was signed by Obama?

    Carney: It’s my understanding that it was.

    Blade: But did the president, in fact, support same-sex marriage in 1996?

    Carney: Again, what I know is what his position was during the campaign and what it is now. He’s been very clear about it. He was very clear in the campaign. He was very clear about the fact that his position on the views — that’s it evolving. And I really don’t have anything to add to it.

    Blade: On Thursday, the president is attending an LGBT fundraiser in New York. This state could have same-sex marriage by the end of this week. It’s very possible. Next week, he’s hosting a Pride reception here at the White House. Isn’t the president selling this audience short by saying he supports them and wants their money for his re-election campaign, but also saying at the same time he does not support their right to marry?

    Carney: Chris, I think you know that this president is very supportive of and strong on LGBT rights. And his record is significant with regard to that. He’s been very clear about his position on gay marriage, he’s been very clear about how that position is evolving. I don’t have any new announcements to make, but I think you know his record, and he’s proud of it.

Johnson also asked Carney if the President might share his “evolution” on marriage equality at an upcoming LGBT event, to which Carney replied, “I don’t anticipate that.”

Here’s the problem: the President’s views are clear; as I told Carney a few weeks ago, any reasonable person would conclude, from his words and actions, that President Obama believes in the right of same sex couples to marry, yet he still has not said so, publicly. It’s not 2008 anymore, and while the entire 2012 GOP field (save Ron Paul and Herman Cain) hasn’t progressed, the rest of the country has. For the first time, a majority of Americans support marriage equality, and civil unions have become the 8-track tape of gay rights.

The Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, and no chance to repeal DOMA, so this is no longer a strategic fight. It is a fight for the hearts and minds of those who still don’t grasp the inequity of second class citizenship, many of whom, as Don Lemon pointed out, are part of a key Obama constituency.

It’s a fight for the hearts and minds of those Democrats who are still stuck in Clinton triangulation mode.

It’s also a fight for the hearts and minds of the tens of millions of LGBT people, and those who love them, who are encouraged by the strides that the President’s press team rattles off, but who are confused by his refusal to stand by them and say, “I believe you are equal.”

It’s a fight for the hearts and minds of all the kids who really need to hear him say that, the kids we keep telling, “It gets better.”

Nobody believes that the President is sitting around, thinking and thinking about this issue, unable to push that boulder over the hill. As Carney’s answers demonstrate, it could not be more obvious that President Obama believes in marriage equality. With so many people who need to hear it, why won’t he say it? (That was in 2011)
-----------
“What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,” he said when running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-returns-to-1996-position-says-he-supports-gay-marriage?v=1
----------
Obama on Gay Marriage
• 1996, running for Illinois state Senate: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriage."
• 2004, running for U.S. Senate: "Marriage is between a man and a woman.
• 2010, as president: "My feelings are constantly evolving" on gay mar riage.
• 2012, as president: "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577394332545729926.html
4634  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations on: May 19, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
Jumping around threads a little, really not necessary because regulations are a tax...

JDN:  "On another subject, bureaucracy, Doug, you are in the real estate investment business.  I don't know about MN, but in CA there are so many hoops you must jump through, not to mention jump at the right time, have everything in line and I mean everything, or simply your permit is denied.  Now I'm all for safety in construction, but sometimes government is simply ridiculous.  No common sense."

Yes regulations in my business are my worst nightmare.  They either think it has no cost, that the cost can't be passed on or they don't care.  Mostly it makes me inefficient.  I have to work on what is on their radar screen because every order comes with the threat of closing my business, instead of working on what I know is most urgent or the most productive use ofmy time and resources.

Regulations at the locals can be the worst.  I noticed a headline in a small community this past week, something like, Council Might Act on Grocery Store Proposal.  Who knew that selling groceries was illegal, that only some really well connected people can do it. 

When I worked in the export business there was quite a good rule in place for the feds to act on an export license application.  We did not want to be selling weapons technologies to our enemies, but we also wanted to be the world leader in technology sales around the globe.  On certain applications for export license, if one of the federal agencies did not respond within a short, reasonable time (72 hours IIRC) and block the shipment, you were authorized to ship.  In local grocery sales, why is that different.  Inform the proper agencies that we will be selling food.  If the USDA wants to come in and see the health standards of the operation, then do that.  If we are unsafe or unhealthy, shut us down.  If the state revenue dept wants to see our payroll withholding system, then do that. If the locals want to be certain that we are not creating parking problems and traffic jams, then come check us out.  Instead you cannot even contemplate a business opening without all their blessings, and they know that and load up the rules with all kinds of unrelated crap.  In third world countries that process can take years and require bribes and maybe never happen.  In America - same thing.

A friend building an indoor tennis facility and teaching center needed approvals from 6 levels of government in order to build with charitable donations a place for introducing inner city children to a life sport that builds character and can open all kinds of doors of opportunity for them in the future.  They got it approved and built, but the regulatory hoops were far tougher than raising money or laying bricks and mortar.  http://www.innercitytennis.org/

In another example the city of Minneapolis shut down a church clothing shelf operation days before Christmas that was giving donated winter coats to poor people in below zero weather - due to parking and ordinance restrictions.  And they call themselves the 'regulatory services' department.
4635  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: May 19, 2012, 10:30:23 AM
"Bottom line this failed ideology will never be defeated.  Only kept at bay."

By defeated, I only mean mean to win by something like 53-46% like Obama did.  Better would be to win by some margin in almost all demographic groups and states so that we the people would mean we are all part of pulling together to solve this.

The rob Peter, pay Paul, tax the guy behind the tree thing is not my idea of equal protection, we the people or consent of the governed.

Go ahead and soak the rich - at any rate of taxation that YOU want to pay on your first and every dollar.  Go ahead and start a new program - that you can provide for EVERYONE and is paid for by getting rid of all the old failed ones.
4636  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The United Nations/ US Sovereignty/International Law on: May 19, 2012, 10:20:13 AM
"Is this the type of thing you had in mind, Doug?"

YES.  Not that I know exactly what our interests in the gulf should be, but we should be in alliances with people who share our interests.  We should not so much be giving people like Chavez and Ahmedinejad a platform for credibility or trading away our interests with regimes like China and Russia to get their approval, when their own interest peace and freedom is noticeably insincere.
4637  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: May 19, 2012, 10:12:35 AM
"Anyway, we agree that it is elastic.  We disagree on the curve.  I contend that a minimal tax rate increase will have a minimal impact if any on new investment.  But I concede, 2.00% this year, 2.00% next, eventually it becomes real money, eventually it will have an impact on new investment.  But IMHO we are not there."

Crafty already got on this point with some great questions.  I would just point out that in the context of Calif, they already are rated worst perhaps for business climate, obviously they compensate for some of that with their positive qualities, but every 2% added to every tax rate that is already too high just makes the decision to invest elsewhere or not at all easier.

For the US Corporate tax rate, same thing.  We are already worst.  link below.  Staying the same makes us uncompetitive.  Raising it 2% would be just stupid.

Using round numbers for Calif or MN, if the top individual tax rate is 10%, a 2% increase takes it to 10.2% not 12%.  Let's get our math straight.  Don't tell me that a 20% or 40% increase on rates that are already the worst will not cause economic carnage.  It most certainly will.
---------------

China lowered it's corporate rate in Jan 2008 that was already lower than ours, coincidentally they largely avoided the financial collapse while the USA was transitioning from a Pelosi-Reid congress with Obama in the majority committed to raising the top individual tax rates to a government where that philosophy would control all branches of government.  Then we act so shocked when the asset selloff exploded just months before the tax rate changes - that didn't even happen.  The fact that "communist" countries have lower tax rates in the first place should be our first clue of the problem.
------------------

I searched and found this in Reuters, but this story, like the cuts in China in 2008 certainly went by the American press without much notice.  How stupid and dysfunctional can we be to not know that have the highest rates of quadruple taxation in the world does NOT yield greater revenues - as we hit our what, 4th year in a row of trillion dollar deficits.  How are those high rates to punish big businesses for doing big business working out for us??  This was delayed one year by the earthquake.  We have had a long time to know it was coming.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/usa-tax-japan-idUSL2E8EU5VV20120330

US displacing Japan as No 1 for highest corp taxes         MARCH 30, 2012


* Japan's corporate tax rate dropping to 38.01 pct on Sunday

* Combined U.S. 39.2 pct rate will be developed world's highest

By Patrick Temple-West and Kim Dixon

WASHINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) - The United States will hold the dubious distinction starting on Sunday of having the developed world's highest corporate tax rate after Japan's drops to 38.01 percent, setting the stage for much political posturing but probably little tax reform.

Japan and the United States have been tied for the top combined, statutory corporate rate, with levies of 39.5 percent and 39.2 percent, respectively. These rates include central government, regional and local taxes.

Japan's reduction , prompted by years of pressure from Japanese politicians hoping to spur economic growth, will give that country the world's second-highest rate.

This has triggered complaints from U.S. politicians and business groups.

"This isn't an April Fool's Day joke," said Senator Orrin Hatch, the leading Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

"Every industrialized country around the globe understands that tax rates can determine whether or not businesses succeed or fail," Hatch said in a statement.

Across most of the political spectrum there is broad agreement that the U.S. corporate tax rate is too high, though few corporations actually pay that rate because the loophole-riddled tax code gives them lower "effective" rates.

Republicans and Democrats agree that the tax code needs work. It has not been thoroughly overhauled in 25 years.

In February, President Barack Obama proposed a corporate tax reform blueprint that included a 28 percent top rate.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has said he wants to cut the corporate rate to 25 percent.

COMPETITIVE EDGE

The average 2012 corporate tax rate for the 34 developed countries is 25.4 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

"As countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom have moved to reform their tax systems and lower rates to encourage economic growth, America's inaction puts American worldwide companies at a competitive disadvantage and threatens our economic recovery," said Bruce Josten, an official at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Some U.S. companies pay close to the 35 percent top corporate tax rate; some pay nowhere near that, thanks to tax breaks that let them lower their "effective" tax rates.

Of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones industrial average, 19 told shareholders their effective rate for their 2011 fiscal years, mostly ending Dec. 31, was below Obama's proposed new tax rate, according to a Reuters analysis of securities filings.

Of these companies, three - telecom company AT&T, Bank of America, and insurance company Travelers - posted a tax gain.

For the index's other 27 companies, effective rates reported ranged from 2.7 percent for telecom giant Verizon Communications to 43.3 percent for energy group Chevron Corp.

These figures are taxes for shareholder accounting but not necessarily what was paid last year because Congress lets companies defer parts of their income tax for future years.
4638  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: May 18, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
The Breitbart website has made a claim that they will vet him if no one else will.  If this was their only piece or best shot they would not be using it in May.  Born in a faraway land was what he was comfortable with saying to make himself hip, mystic or popular.  Same with changing the pronunciation of his name, same with other things.  Romney I think gets it. Concede all the hip and glib qualities to the opponent.  If you need a rock star, if you want the best delivered Greek column cliches and platitudes, the guy who hangs with the most NBA stars and hollywood types, a guy who can slow jam the news best on late night, I'm not your guy.  If you want policy change in Washington that will get the economy going again and give your kids and grandchildren a better future, then please take a look.

The problem with birth certificate type thinking is that we need to defeat Barack Obama on the issues, in the polling booth.  We need to have that argument in order to win it.  2010 was like an outlier type poll unless it can be followed up with a direct win, in a Presidential year, on the issues.

In MN we went through something like the idea that Obama could be removed by ballot ineligibility or caught in a personal failing.  Sen. Paul Wellstone was a liberal as they come, way left of even Minnesota, but popular.  He died in a plane crash, Republicans even took the seat for a term, but never defeated him on the issues.  Today Al Franken sits in that seatand didn't need a cornhusker kickback to support every new power of government.  The failed ideology did not die and never was defeated.
4639  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Taxes play a role on investors and job creators, persuading them to quit on: May 18, 2012, 04:21:15 PM
This quote is too good to just leave over on the health thread:

"I noticed that taxes do play a role in persuading people to quit.  Demand is elastic; as the price goes up, less people smoke or they smoke fewer per day. "  - JDN

JDN (or whoever stole his sign-in ID this week) refers to smoking, yet smoking is perhaps the least elastic product with a physical addiction component and still has proven price elasticity. 

Paraphrasing for something with far greater elasticity:

Taxes play a role on investors and job creators, persuading them to quit

Imagine the elasticity of someone who owns hotels to not build another hotel if the tax (and regulatory climate) is perceived as hostile. What is the elasticity of GE or 3M to not build its next facility in America or to not build it at all when threatened with higher taxes of just a failure to lower them to keep up with OECD competitor nations.  The answer is nearly 100% elasticity at some range on the curve.  There is an amount of tax or threatened future tax that will cause them to delay an investment or not make it at all, an investment or plant or facility construction project or other employment expansion they otherwise would have made.  Delayed investment is lost business in an economic sense and the effect spills over to employees, customers, suppliers and supporting businesses.

There is an old American proverb, if it doesn't move, and it should, use WD40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.  High tax rates (and excessive regulations) are the duct tape of the economy.
4640  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Why would his agent have said this in 1991? on: May 18, 2012, 10:13:38 AM
I will stick to my story that he was not born in Kenya.  I believe there was one Kenyan relative who said he was but misspoke.  Obama Sr had other wives with other children so it can be confusing.  Her statement caused a story but proved nothing.  This story is different, and strange. 

Literary Agent now says it was a mistake. Yes it was!  But by Whom?
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/17/literary_agent_says_1991_booklet_was_a_mistake.html
"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me -- an agency assistant at the time.  There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii."

His denial on beholf of the President could be true.  He also could be covering for an Elizabeth Warren type mistake where he caused or allowed that story to run when convenient but not when it prevents hius current eligibility.  Whatever he said to the agent left the impression that he was he was not from around these parts and they billed it up as a headline.  If these were autobiographies, wouldn't the answer be in the book?

Was Obama SO BIG and so detached in 1991 that he never read what his own agent was writing on his behalf?  I don't believe that, nor that the books were non-fiction.  I am visualizing a more likely scenario that he has his promotional materials taped on his bathroom mirror for when he asks the who's the fairest question each morning.  He liked the promotion (my guess), and didn't until later see the conflict with his future aspiration.

An "agent", BTW, "is one who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him".  Not a pundit, stalker or casual observer.

The leaflet with the retraction means nothing, but it it validates the request to see and judge ther birth certificate.  The birth certificate was released and created its own confusion.  I think Sheriff Joe is the most prominent person to question it, no offense to him.  It had a number of strange things about it but it certainly has not been proven to be a forgery.

In contrast, take a look at what happened with a 'real' forgery just minutes after 60 Minutes released it's National Guard letter.  Readers of Free Republic and Powerline blog ripped it to shreds and by this point in the process Dan Rather was unemployed, Powerline was Time Magazine's blog of the year and SeeBS had quite a black eye.

The 61st Minute  (The unraveling of the fake but true forgery)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/09/007699.php
4641  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: May 17, 2012, 12:18:39 PM
"Why should people be driven from their homes because property values have changed?!?"

Let's start with that point.. Amen!

If 2% is not the right escalator limit then the answer is 3% or 4, not double digits compounded continuously.

Regarding the rest of the budget problem, go back to the spending arguments.  After Prop 13, it was unfair for Calif to raise property taxes so much on the others, when they can't assess them evenly.  Another example inefficient taxation.  Also, irresponsible to spend what you don't have the tax base to collect. 

The capital gains on your house is a point well taken.  Most people can get a one time exclusion on that.  Also I think one main difference is that there at least is money to pay the tax with at the time of the sale of the asset, whereas a residential property tax taxes you for existing, the money has to come and keep coming from somewhere else.  On the cap gains tax on a home, you are mostly taxing an inflationary, illusory gain.  The asset didn't change much; it was the value of the dollar received back at the tail end that has changed.  In the case of a stock sale or a dividend, the capital gains tax is generally an additional two layers (state and federal) of taxation on an after-tax distribution of income that has already been taxed twice (state and federal).

Meanwhile, while Calif contemplates more income tax rate hikes (as do other high tax rate states in trouble), they still have to compete with: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Tennessee, all with no individual income tax on ordinary income?? How do all of those do that?  North Dakota is looking at repealing their income tax too, because of oil boom revenues.  Too bad that California lacks natural resources...
4642  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: May 17, 2012, 01:50:31 AM
JDN,  That is really a good answer.  On the first part, how to simplify it and get it done?  Basically you need to start paying public sector employees market based compensation - whatever it takes in the marketplace to get the right person to do a necessary job well.  In the pay plan or out of it, the employee can buy heathcare and retirement plans like everyone else.  Isn't that better than bankrupcy and financial collapse.

How you chop excessive administration in the public sector? As you say, run it like a business.  Apply careful scrutiny and pressure to every function, every job, every department, every budget line item.  In the private sector when it is failing, you cut at the top, you cut at the bottom, but you can't cut much at the level where the work gets done.  If you fire or layoff the people who do the main work, you still have to get the work done.  In education as you point out, that is the teacher in the classroom.  Not the staff diversity awareness coach or the Director of interdepartmental communications or whatever these other people do.

On the property tax question, You make a good point.  My suggestion would be a hybrid calculation, not solely based on runaway market values and not solely based on obsolete purchase price data.  Prop 13 was a great idea but it is so extreme that it locks people in place. like a welfare dependency.  At the other extreme, we have no protection like that.  Before the current correction I had the bad luck of seeing my value go up 8-fold.  Same house, same location, a couple of decades more worn out and the taxes go up roughly 8-fold - for the privilege of being able to see new construction for the wealthy.  That isn't right either.  My ability to pay doesn't change with my new neighbors income.  I shouldn't get a free pass on my value increase but I also shouldn't be forced out because of it.  'Fairness' is some balance in between.

On taxes in general:
"I have no problem with lowering taxes, but take off the deductions that usually favor the rich."
"Take away the numerous deductions. And yes, then lower income taxes."

Not to be anal on this, but please train yourself to distinguish always between taxes and tax rates.  Calif for sure needs revenues to go up, question is how to get there.  No ones knows exactly where, but there is a point where the higher rates bring in no additional revenue.  If a lower rate can bring in nearly the same revenue, that means income, especially take home.  More take home pay has a multiplier effect; everyone connected gets a potential bump up too from the contact, a restaurant, a waitress,  the martial arts school, your motorcycle mechanic, etc.  It is not trickle down, it is interconnectedness.

Another way to think of it is in terms of velocity of money.  If you tax capital less, if you tax each transaction less, if you tax labor less, etc. money is free to move around better, easier, faster.  At lower rates of taxation - and regulation, transactions happen that otherwise wouldn't, and things get done faster. Money gets paid and spent again sooner.   The same money at the end of the year has generated more income.  Revenues to the US or Calif treasury won't ever go up without rising incomes.

Cut spending first, you can cut out deductions that have no justification as you say, better yet cut regulations, but it is the marginal rate of what is kept that pushes earning, spending and Job creating investment forward, even on the left coast!  smiley

4643  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / UN, Sovereignty/Intl Law: Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) -- Again on: May 16, 2012, 11:31:39 AM
"I do not see the need for a UN treaty."  [International Children's rights]

Agree!  For many reasons.  The desire of some to give up our sovereignty is not tied to one or two individual issues.  I don't see the need for the UN at all except as a speakers forum and a place where representatives can make contacts for voluntary  cooperation. I would keep the UN, move it out of NY, scale down our contribution, and form other organizations that address specific global needs that are in our best interest.
--------

LOST, Law of the Sea Treaty
Moving on, my first Phyllis Schlafly post on the forum.  Same argument to some extent, we don't need decision making bodies that give Cuba for example an equal say as the US.

http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2012/05/16/defeat_law_of_the_sea_treaty__again/page/2

There's no need for a 18-nation organization to regulate offshore and deep-sea production everywhere in the world, mostly financed by American capital, and then allow it to be taxed for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. The riches of the Arctic, for example, can be resolved by negotiation among the five nations that border the Arctic.

Environmentalists, the third leg of the unholy coalition to ratify LOST, are salivating over its legal system of dispute resolution, which culminates in a 21-member international tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany. The tribunal's judgments could be enforced against Americans and cannot be appealed to any U.S. court.

This tribunal, known as ITLOS, International Tribunal of LOST, has jurisdiction over "maritime disputes," which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. But radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the discredited Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. properly declined to ratify.

A paper just published by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation lays out the roadmap for how the radical environmentalist lawyers can use LOST to file lawsuits against the U.S. to advance their climate-change agenda.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President Ronald Reagan rejected it: "With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims." Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S. access to what China claims is its "Exclusive Economic Zone" extending 200 miles out into international waters.

The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another global organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans. LOST must be defeated.
4644  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: california on: May 16, 2012, 11:13:40 AM
From the deficit crisis and the Christy Brown comparison and comments that Calif is different on 'Decline, Fall, and Resurrection of America' and discussions that we should be having about Scott Walker's reforms in Wisconsin, the question I would pose to JDN and all California centrists is: what should Calif be doing to fix itself?

What spending should be cut if any, what spending should be off the table.  What rates should your property be taxed at.  What income tax changes would actually bring in more money instead of chasing it away.  Which regulations are excessive and ripe for repeal?  What reforms should voters support and their representatives enact?
----
It's an easy question for conservatives (spend less, make the taxes and rules friendly again to business and wealth creation), but Calif is not populated with conservatives.  To me it all comes down to basic principles of governance.  You cannot control spending while you operate in an environment where most voters think that costs will be borne by someone else.

Passing it all on to the next generation only works if you close the exits.
4645  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 15, 2012, 07:05:47 PM
"Should you wish to continue, I invite the two of you to carry on on some other thread e.g. Govt. Programs"

I was wondering if the fight should go to a political thread or over to Martial Arts.   wink
4646  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential - The food stamp President on: May 15, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Bigdog,  Okay it was a radio ad; I stand corrected on that.  For the rest, I strenuously disagree.  

"Food stamps is meant to be a temporary helping mechanism.  Nothing the FOX "report" argued otherwise."

The food stamp ad argues healthy and fun, not temporary or even for people in need.  For many, it is a way of life. The ad implies that.  "You use it too?"  "Yes I do!"  "Ha ha ha!"  "Hoo Hoo Hoo!"  

"The rules were relaxed because of the increased average unemployment and subsequent, hopefully short term, poverty rates."

This was a man-made crisis.  We didn't get hit by a flood or volcano.  Part of the cause of private sector collapse is the toll that public sector transfer payments spending puts on every aspect of the productive economy.  That burden for me is greater than the family cost of food, shelter, clothing, transportation and healthcare combined - by far.  The burden is so heavy that 47% of the people need some kind of assistance - in the richest country in earth's history.

"People bitch about Obama's job creation attempts, and then bitch about people not having jobs."

Yes, we bitch.  These were not job creation attempts in any way I can recognize.  Shovel ready job is now a laugh out loud line in any circle.  Of every way that I know to increase the rate of private sector job creation, President Obama did none of them and moved us in the opposite direction on most.  If you disagree, then what would you say was the catalyst for the financial collapse with its resulting job losses, and why is the workforce participation rate still falling after all these fiscal and monetary (pretend) stimuli?  The chart is the BLS worforce participation rate from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 Workforce falloff coincides almost perfectly with emergency federal dollars spent.

"Complain about healthcare and then complain about a ad designed to get people to recognize that with foodstamps they can make healthy choices in the short term that will keep them out of the ER and doctors' offices in the longterm."

I complain about who pays for healthcare because third party pay screwed up the natural forces of market based cost restraint - for everyone.

"...with foodstamps they can make healthy choices in the short term that will keep them out of the ER and doctors' offices in the longterm?"  - Looking forward to the link on that!

Here's the link for food stamps and health: The largest nutritional problem in the United States causing healthcare issues today is obesity.  Obesity is positively correlated with food stamps. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12840184  

Food for the hungry might be the best social spending program possible, but why is it federal?  Why is it government?  Would not closer to home be a better place to know the people, the needs, the  costs?  My county has a budget of $1649528239/yr. My state has a budget of $33793000000 /biennium.  What do they do that is more important than helping to feed people in the community who have no other source of food?  Charitable giving in the US is $290890000000.  What do they have that is more pressing than feeding the hungry.  If food for needy wasn't already paid at the federal level, charities would receive even more IMO.  If further away is better for funding, why not do the whole world via the UN instead of advertising for recipients who don't even know they need help.

As an inner city landlord, I interviewing families about their income and expenses.  Random observations are also telling, such as yesterday at a CVS store.  The guy in front of me had to ring up his items separately, mini-donuts for 3.25 on the card (food stamps) and 2 mini-cigars for 4.50 cash, no problem. No stigma whatsoever and ready to take on the day!

Is there is no moral hazard or 'learned helplessness' problem with food stamps? (The original point)

Besides obesity and alleviating the urgency to go back to work, the fertility rate is 3 times higher for welfare families than non-welfare families.  www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf  Pay more for more mouths to feed and there are more mouths to feed.  Who knew?  No proof of causation, but that is quite a difference.  We may need for a new program and more spending.
4647  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential - “earned success,” or slide into “learned helplessness” on: May 14, 2012, 07:42:36 PM
"“earned success,” or slide into “learned helplessness.”"

Methinks that a catchy and pithy phrase worth remembering , , ,

Yes.   That pretty much nails it.  We spend a lot of money teaching helplessness, then judge the programs by how many recipients they can attract.

http://www.myfreedompost.com/2012/03/obama-marketing-food-stamps-with-your.html  Watch the ad!
4648  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Senate races: The L thing, I’m (still) proud of my Native American heritage on: May 14, 2012, 07:28:15 PM
Elizabeth Warren, keeping the scandal alive.  Ever hear of admitting wrong?

This is today??
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/14/elizabeth_warren_im_proud_of_my_native_american_heritage.html

“You know, I’m proud of my Native American heritage,” Warren said. “I’m proud of my family. It’s now the case that people have gone over my college records, my law school records, every job I’ve ever had to see that I got my work. I got my jobs because I do my work. I work hard. I’ve been a good teacher.”

Hard work, good teacher, does not make you Harvard Law Professor.  We have those at the local schools.
-----------------
Wasn't there a Dem candidate in 1988 who plagiarized and lied about his background - was out of the race by this point.  Never to make tomake anything of himself again. 
Oh yeah, Joe Biden: 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2008/08/the_write_stuff.html  The Write Stuff?
Why Biden's plagiarism shouldn't be forgotten.

By David Greenberg|Updated Monday, Aug. 25, 2008, 

Slate:  "the unusually creepy kind" of plagiarist.
----
Biden announced his candidacy in June 1987, and was considered one of the potentially strongest candidates in the field. However, in September 1987, newspaper stories stated he had plagiarized a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock. Other allegations of past law school plagiarism and exaggerating his academic record soon followed. Biden withdrew from the race later that month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_1988
4649  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Political Economics: Why France Has So Many 49-Employee Companies on: May 14, 2012, 04:50:00 PM
Wesbury at his best!  Cut spending first.  But also cut through excessive regulations and inefficient tax rates.
-----------------------

A recent piece from Bloomberg worthy of consideration as we copy their economic plan:

Why France Has So Many 49-Employee Companies

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-03/why-france-has-so-many-49-employee-companies

French labor code: Once a company has at least 50 employees inside France, management must create three worker councils, introduce profit sharing, and submit restructuring plans to the councils if the company decides to fire workers for economic reasons.

French businesspeople often skirt these restraints by creating new companies rather than expanding existing ones. “I can’t tell you how many times when I was Minister I’d meet an entrepreneur who would tell me about his companies,” Thierry Breton, chief executive officer of consulting firm Atos and Minister of Finance from 2005 to 2007, said at a Paris conference on April 4. “I’d ask, ‘Why companies?’ He’d say, ‘Oh, I have several so that I can keep [the workforce] under 50.’ We have to review our labor code.”
------

They also 'skirt' regulations by not starting businesses in the first place.
4650  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy - Jim Webb bill on humanitarian interventions on: May 14, 2012, 01:04:14 PM
Speaking of redundancy, Jim Webb is now saying congress should authorize the use of federal funds, declare wars, etc.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2012/may/14/tdopin01-webb-is-right-ar-1912177/

Sen. Jim Webb is wrong on certain issues, but not on this one.
By: Richmond Times-Dispatch Opinion Staff
Published: May 14, 2012

Virginia Sen. Jim Webb has introduced legislation requiring the president to obtain congressional say-so before sending American troops abroad for humanitarian interventions where U.S. interests are not directly threatened.

Few people should find any grounds to challenge such a notion. Even Barack Obama has said that "the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Of course, Obama made those comments as a candidate. Since assuming the presidency he has taken a rather different tack — especially with regard to Libya, where — Webb says — he "failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale" based on U.S. security interests for ordering military intervention.
Pages: 1 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 159
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!