Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2014, 12:38:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82950 Posts in 2255 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 120
5151  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Personal Finance on: April 22, 2010, 11:27:55 AM
Mine is slightly different but I like that rule of thumb Rachel posted as an indicator of when homes are over-priced.  I don't know when we all accepted the idea that it okay to do something (pay too much) just because everyone else is doing it.

A flaw in the analysis (IMO)is the idea that it is the same house you would rent or buy in the same area.  My advice to some who can't afford it all in this time of low prices is to rent a small apartment while you buy the lot you would build on or buy a home in a lower priced area for rental and at least see some of the appreciation and accumulation of equity there that the homeowner would tend to see.

One remaining loophole in tax law is that you can still buy, live and fix up a house for 2 years and pay no gains tax on certain amounts of profit that you could then roll into the house you truly wanted.  If you rent your dream home now, you might find yourself in a tougher situation to buy it later.
5152  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: April 22, 2010, 10:52:44 AM
The argument here makes me think of the times I have been wronged by police, once by their action and others by their inaction over a couple of decades.  In the case of the action they took, they had to deal as I did with a false accusation and the truth sorted itself out over time.  In the cases of inaction, there were limited clues to solve those crimes so indicating there is little they can do about it was probably just the unfortunate truth that I didn't want to hear at the time.

Everybody comes at this with different experiences, but I must come down on the side of GM.  The system we have works pretty well.  Where I live I can't imagine locking my home or car and our town budgets for roughly half a cop.  In the inner city, a house unattended will find its plumbing pipes stolen.  We need some presence and availability of law enforcement, but some possibility of crime is better than living under total surveillance and police control.

Municipal budget challenges are one limiting factor on police forces and the rules they operate under are another.

Many of the complaints against police are really complaints against the laws, as Rarick suggests.  You may want only deadly crimes dealt in a peaceful  area but the Giuliani experience for big cities suggests that when they started writing tickets for littering, loitering and spitting, the murder rate went down.

My main gripes against the strong arm of government are against the other departments like inspectors, regulators, taxing authorities, eminent domain and IRS for examples.  Again, the laws we pass set us up for these types of abuse.  I have twice this year paid civil fines far greater than punishment for a misdemeanor for the crime of converting vacant property into code compliant affordable housing in the city of Minneapolis.  They call it an administrative fee not a fine, but if I don't pay the 'fee' it becomes a much larger fine and ultimately a taking.
5153  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The way Forward? on: April 21, 2010, 05:52:00 PM
Thanks Freki.  I remember you are from Texas and was looking for your feedback on Perry.  As with Mark Sanford, I was hoping to hear they are great guys but will settle for hearing the truth before we head any further down the wrong road.

Anybody from further away have a first impression yet about our governor - Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)?  He is trying to run but not making much of an impact that I can see.
5154  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Warming or Cooling? on: April 21, 2010, 10:24:43 AM
Linear regression trends in temperatures (deg C per century):

US, 1880-2009:  +0.64 deg/century

US, 1997-2009:  -2.50 deg/century

Globe, 1880-2009:  +0.57 deg/century

Globe, 2002-2009:  -0.40 deg/century

Data Source:  NASA/GISS.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/graph_of_the_day_for_april_20.html
5155  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: April 21, 2010, 10:02:44 AM
A new report from Americans for Limited Government (ALG) clearly shows that the Democrats have destroyed our economy since they took control of our lives in January of 2007.

The most eye catching of ALG’s data items is the sad comparison of the rate of 4.6% unemployment at the start of 2007 and today’s alarming 9.7%. In real terms this means while there were about 7 million unemployed workers when the Democrats took over, today that number has more than doubled to 14.8 million out of work Americans.
http://www.getliberty.org/content.asp?pl=10&sl=5&contentid=422
5156  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Toppled Kyrgyz leader insists he is still president on: April 21, 2010, 09:56:30 AM
 I would not want to be this guy's food tester...
-----------------------------------------------------------
AFP - Kyrgyzstan's ousted president Kurmanbek Bakiyev insisted Wednesday that he was still the rightful leader of his country, breaking several days of silence after his flight into exile.
 
"I, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, am the legally elected president of Kyrgyzstan and recognised by the international community," he said, speaking to reporters in Belarus where he took refuge earlier this week
 
"I do not recognise my resignation. Nine months ago the people of Kyrgyzstan elected me their president and there is no power that can stop me. Only death can stop me," Bakiyev said in the Belarussian capital Minsk.
 
Bakiyev was toppled by a popular uprising in Kyrgyzstan two weeks ago that brought a new interim government to power in the former Soviet republic.
 
After holding out in his stronghold in southern Kyrgyzstan for about a week, Bakiyev flew to neighbouring Kazakhstan, and the interim government announced that he had submitted his resignation.
 
On Monday he and several family members left Kazakhstan and arrived in Belarus at the invitation of strongman Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko.
 
Speaking in the Minsk-based headquarters of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a grouping of former Soviet republics, Bakiyev lashed out at the interim government which replaced him.
 
"Everyone must know the the bandits who try to take power are the executors of a external force and have no legitimacy," he said with steely determination.
 
"I call on leaders of the international community: do not set a precedent and do not recognise this gang as the legitimate authorities," he said.
 
"Kyrgyzstan will be nobody's colony. My people want to be free and will become free," Bakiyev added.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100421-kyrgyzstan-toppled-president-bakiyev-belarus-uprising-interim-government
5157  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Rick Perry on: April 21, 2010, 09:33:36 AM
Before we narrow the list of names, we need to expand it.  Among people not running for President I added Paul Ryan recently and today mention the largest red state's longest serving governor.  Roger Simon CEO of Pajamas Media wrote:

    "Perry is a people person on a level I have not quite seen before in politics. You even worry about him, if he ever does make a White House run.

    When Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of New York, he had some of that people person thing, throwing out the ball at Yankee games and taking the role of America's Mayor after 9/11. But he doesn't have as much charisma as Perry."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/ http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/04/19/guns-religion-and-nascar/?singlepage=true
5158  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government Programs, spending, budget process on: April 20, 2010, 12:55:41 PM
"prevented non-union shops from bidding"

Didn't know hope and change included steering lucrative projects to your friends for payback.  When you exclude qualified bidders on public projects, you are stealing from the taxpayers besides steering jobs to the already powerful.

Another form of elitism as unions are the high end of labor.  He risks offending the other 85-90% if they are paying attention.  Some 40% of the union vote is Republican.  Most union members are white males, a group slipping away from Democrats.  And public employees lean hard to the Dem side whether unionized or not.
5159  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Glen Beck on: April 20, 2010, 12:44:44 PM
Crafty wrote: "Like the Founding Fathers, like me, [Glen Beck] believes in a Creator."

CCP:When they speak of reaching to Christ for strength and direction, you need to translate to you own faith for meaning.  I can't remember having a President who just won't go to church except for political reasons and his lack of belief or faith finds its way into policy, like the transfer of power from the people to the bureaucrats.  Liberalism and atheism have a connection that must make liberal Jewish voters cringe.  Wearing Christianity too openly turns them off worse.

I agree in general with CCP that this is no time politically to wear a specific religion on our sleeves.  Fiscal survival - tax and spend issues, basically agreeing to a constitutionally limited definition and role for government should take center stage and difficult and divisive social issues beyond that can wait.

But commentators don't need 51% to succeed.  There is an authenticity to Beck telling his audience who he is, where that focus may need to be different if he were a candidate.
5160  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Glen Beck on: April 19, 2010, 03:44:35 PM
CCP, See what crafty says but it sounds like you are referring to radio and I think Crafty is watching his television show.  I don't see cable shows so I only know him through radio.  There can be a big difference in how they come across on the different media.  Also Crafty may be viewing with commercials cut out (?) which I imagine makes quite an improvement in the quality of the time for the viewer.
5161  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: April 17, 2010, 11:38:27 AM
"the answer to your question, "But I wonder how many of those among the 46 percent would consider voting for an actual Republican", is very few."

CCP, thanks.  I agree and I did read the previous.  The question comes from the powerline post quoted. My point is that any noticable gain with any of these groups is a big deal.  If republicans can win 25%  of Jewish vote it chips away at those historic differences. Same for winning >10% of black vote or >40% of Hispanic vote.  These could be decisive in a divided nation and shift the momentum for the future.

I find it strange that I am more pro-Israel than Jewish voters, more pro-life than Catholic voters and more protective of the right to keep wealth than the wealthy, more pro-family and pro-marriage as a single father than most intact Hispanic families, stronger on school choice than the majority of those who live in failed districts etc, but those who appear to me to be voting against their own interests offer the greatest opportunity for political change IMO even if it is small and slow.
5162  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Group politics - Jewish vote on: April 16, 2010, 09:43:01 AM
Much as I hate group politics and generalities, group identity plays some role in voting patterns.  Below is a short piece by Paul Mirengoff at Powerline, he says Obama carried the Jewish vote by a margin of 78-21 but that support is falling. (I posted at 'The Way Forward' that the Dem-Repub split is roughly 90-10 for Blacks, and 60-40 for Hispanic.)  Gay vote split is about 75-25 Dem.  Obama won 41% of white males.  Whichever political side you are on in a divided electorate, making progress in any or all of the groups swings elections.
---------------
"There's a new  poll (http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Jewish_Memo_0410.pdf) according to which 42 percent of American Jewish voters say they would vote to re-elect President Obama and 46 percent say they would consider voting for someone else. But I wonder how many of those among the 46 percent would consider voting for an actual Republican. Nonetheless, the poll provides some evidence of intelligent life among my fellow American Jews. In 2008, according to exit polls, Obama carried the Jewish vote by a margin of 78-21" - Paul Mirengoff, Powerline
5163  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy 'Fair Tax' on: April 15, 2010, 01:45:51 PM
Rarick, GM, all
(please see discussion in this thread from around March 2009 on this topic)
In the hypothetical, I like the 'fair tax' as well. Closer to the theme of the founders who had only import duties then which I do not like now.  I like the Laffer proposal with 11% flat income tax plus 11% corporate income tax MUCH better, but is also not possible politically.

The transition to consumption-only taxes from where we are now is impossible at this time.  It requires FIRST a repeal of the federal government's power to tax income.  Otherwise you are creating an additional layer of taxation.  Our opponents are talking about a VAT right now as an ADDITIONAL layer of taxation.  Repeal of the 16th amendment is not going to happen in this political environment, you won't win support from independents, moderates Dems or moderate Republicans, and you need roughly 75% support to end all income taxation when we are more than a trillion a year in the red already. 

This is no time politically for long range hypotheticals.  We need to oppose new tax increases, repeal the most recent 25 new taxes signed by Obama (http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DemTaxIncreases1.pdf), make 'permanent' the expiring cuts, and then CUT SPENDING FIRST! (IMHO!)

5164  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: April 14, 2010, 11:31:40 AM
Thanks BBG, these guys had to at least once study or write about incentives and disincentives even if they deny the effects of their policies today.  Regarding the panhandlers, when they wave the cup of coins past me I always say no thanks, I have plenty.  I am acutely aware that if I throw a buck in the jar I only reinforce their view of how to get money.

In line at a Target store the other day I stood behind 3 cute little girls begging their mom for candy during the wait for checkout.  The mom said 'no' almost a dozen times and I almost congratulated her, but kept my mouth shut.  At the end she said 'yes but just this once'.  Begging insistently led to candy and the lecture after the yes is not the lesson they take from it.  
5165  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Politics of Health Care on: April 14, 2010, 11:19:48 AM
"having nurse practitioners and physician assistants do what [doctors] do"

Except that with public unionization and lack of market discipline on costs and efficiencies, we will be paying the less qualified as much as we would or could have been paying the MD's IMO.

As far as I know the physician shortage is matched with a system of keeping good people out.  The extreme salaries needed to pay doctors (in the eyes of others) comes from the limits on supply and the artificially high cost of higher eduction.  Medical schools have no constraints on costs either until people quit applying and entering at those prices.

I'm waiting for my libertarian friends to call for legalization of private, unlicensed health care if we are moving toward less trained and less qualified practitioners anyway.
5166  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Unemployment extensions "cause person to remain unemployed longer" on: April 14, 2010, 10:40:20 AM
 "The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer."

 - Lawrence H. Summers, 1999, current Obama White House economic adviser
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303828304575180243952375172.html
5167  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate on: April 14, 2010, 10:35:41 AM
Posting about Justice Stevens elsewhere I was reminded again about the Kelo decision where the government gets to decide who owns YOUR house and I noticed that the timing of that decision coincides with the peak of the housing market.  It's not that people don't still need homes or want to own their own and make them nice, it's just that the dream of paying off your mortgages and having 100% control over your small piece of America for a lifetime (and pass it on to your heirs) has became a farce.  Your rights as what we used to call the property owner don't extend much further than having your name appear as 'taxpayer' on the next property tax assessment.

People kept putting large amounts borrowed money into homes but were less and less motivated to invest very much of their own, which happened to make the market less and less stable prior to collapse.
5168  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Good Riddance Justice Stevens! on: April 14, 2010, 10:14:44 AM
This piece by Thomas Sowell covers my view very nicely.  Win or lose it should be good for the Republic to watch new confirmation hearings this summer and have a review of the system we once called limited government.

Good Riddance!
By Thomas Sowell

When Supreme Court Justices retire, there is usually some pious talk about their "service," especially when it has been a long "service." But the careers of all too many of these retiring jurists, including currently retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, have been an enormous disservice to this country.

Justice Stevens was on the High Court for 35 years-- more's the pity, or the disgrace. Justice Stevens voted to sustain racial quotas, created "rights" out of thin air for terrorists, and took away American citizens' rights to their own homes in the infamous "Kelo" decision of 2005.

The Constitution of the United States says that the government must pay "just compensation" for seizing a citizen's private property for "public use." In other words, if the government has to build a reservoir or bridge, and your property is in the way, they can take that property, provided that they pay you its value.

What has happened over the years, however, is that judges have eroded this protection and expanded the government's power-- as they have in other issues. This trend reached its logical extreme in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. This case involved local government officials seizing homes and businesses-- not for "public use" as the Constitution specified, but to turn this private property over to other private parties, to build more upscale facilities that would bring in more tax revenues.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the Supreme Court opinion that expanded the Constitution's authorization of seizing private property for "public use" to seizing private property for a "public purpose." And who would define what a "public purpose" is? Basically, those who were doing the seizing. As Justice Stevens put it, the government authorities' assessment of a proper "public purpose" was entitled to "great respect" by the courts.

Let's go back to square one. Just who was this provision of the Constitution supposed to restrict? Answer: government officials. And to whom would Justice Stevens defer: government officials. Why would those who wrote the Constitution waste good ink putting that protection in there, if not to protect citizens from the very government officials to whom Justice Stevens deferred?

John Paul Stevens is a classic example of what has been wrong with too many Republicans' appointments to the Supreme Court. The biggest argument in favor of nominating him was that he could be confirmed by the Senate without a fight.

Democratic presidents appoint judges who will push their political agenda from the federal bench, even if that requires stretching and twisting the Constitution to reach their goals.

Republicans too often appoint judges whose confirmation will not require a big fight with the Democrats. You can always avoid a fight by surrendering, and a whole wing of the Republican party has long ago mastered the art of preemptive surrender.

The net result has been a whole string of Republican Justices of the Supreme Court carrying out the Democrats' agenda, in disregard of the Constitution. John Paul Stevens has been just one.

There may have been some excuse for President Ford's picking such a man, in order to avoid a fight, at a time when he was an unelected President who came into office in the wake of Richard Nixon's resignation in disgrace after Watergate, creating lasting damage to the public's support of the Republicans.

But there was no such excuse for the elder President Bush to appoint David Souter, much less for President Eisenhower, with back-to-back landslide victories at the polls, to inflict William J. Brennan on the country.

In light of these justices' records, and in view of how long justices remain on the court, nominating such people was close to criminal negligence.

If and when the Republicans return to power in Washington, we can only hope that they remember what got them suddenly and unceremoniously dumped out of power the last time. Basically, it was running as Republicans and then governing as if they were Democrats, running up big deficits, with lots of earmarks and interfering with the market.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/13/good_riddance_105145.html
But their most lasting damage to the country has been putting people like John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
5169  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: How to cut government spending on: April 14, 2010, 12:48:29 AM
Great category! Where to start?!  May I suggest that no program is too small for mention.  Chopping the small ones helps to set the can-do attitude for chopping the big ones. 

There was a federal study of the sexual habits of female college freshman.  We can get people do that for free, and when did that become an enumerated power?

A moratorium on UN dues.

Send NO ONE to the next climate change conference.  Let them meet without us and see if we can get the conference notes free on the internet.

Social Security ratios should be indexed back to where it was solvent.  In other words a floating retirement age that maintains a sustainable ratio of x workers for each retiree.  Means test Social Security.

End all paid brand advertising for food stamps. 

US government out of automobile manufacturing.

End insurance company bailouts, investment bank bailouts.

End all agricultural subsidies.  (Keep the Food Safety Inspection Service.)

No retirement packages for elected officials.

End all public unions.  If you work for 'we the people', there is no evil capitalist.

Privatize the mortgage business.

Strategic changes in military and defense:  Bigger sticks, shorter wars, cut 10% off the budget.

Repeal Obamacare. Repeal Obamacare. Repeal Obamacare. That was worth repeating.

Severely limit paid congressional staff.

Shorten the Census form to its original purpose.

End earmarks.

Switch to flat tax and send home 90% of the IRS.

End federal funding of local transportation systems such as light rail.

Identify all the programs that are not the federal government's responsibility, for the ones that you can't end instantly phase them out on a 7-10 straight line cut to zero.

Sell off 10% of federal lands over 10 years and reduce land management staff by 10%.
5170  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: April 13, 2010, 10:46:49 AM
I missed the discussion of 93 degrees in NJ in April.  As that was posted I was driving through a brutal winter storm with glare ice coming out of the I-70 Eisenhower tunnel in Colo.  Skied 19 inches of fresh wintery powder at Vail the next day, not the slushy stuff you normally associate with spring skiing.  This week they are closed for the season because of Forest Service rules, not because the snow is gone.  Snow depth is still around 70 to 80 inches at many of the areas.

At home (MN) it was a brutally long and cold winter (even for us and that is long and cold), followed by a warm spring so far.

My take:  If you are truly noticing an increase of about .0023 degrees warming per decade, then maybe it is human caused global warming.  But if it is 40-50 degrees warmer than usual on a particular day, then it is weather.

Head of the IPCC after climategate admitted no statistically significant warming since 1995.
5171  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How Will the Economy Affect Midterm Elections? on: April 13, 2010, 10:22:43 AM
A couple of points and a piece continuing on the projection that the economy of this year's elections will have a mixture of statistics for both sides to point to as evidence of why they deserve your vote.  The Dems are better at finding and using obscure stats to make their point than the R's are at findinig and using obvious ones.

1. Remember 1992.  The smallest of slowdowns was spun as the biggest recession since the great depression and our unenthused Presdent, who was guilty only of signing on with a promise breaking Dem budget, took the entire hit even though the tax and spend bills all came out of a D-congress. 

2. Remember 2006. We were on a 50 consecutive months roll of job growth coming out of the crash of 2000 and the attacks and recession of 2001.  Dems found a twist or two in the statistics to make record, explosive growth look like a bad economy.

3. Dems took power Jan 2007, announced a full list of anti-growth agenda items and killed off all growth with the most inflated of all bubbles crashing first and hardest, but with unemployment from anti-growth policies becoming the lagging and enduring result.  Despite this sequence, most voters in 2008 blamed Bush and the Republican congress that has been gone since 2006 for the problems coming into the Obama Presidency and most may still blame them today.  Certainly every administration official is required to re-state that blame in almost every economic sentence.

4. There are and will be signs of growth in Nov 2010, if current projections are at all accurate.  We (if you are conservative leaning or Republican)have been losing the PR battle in all but the most obvious of situations.  So don't take this electoral shift opportunity for granted.

That said, here is a piece from the Atlantic warning Dems that recovery won't be strong enough or soon enough for them to count on:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/how-will-the-economy-affect-midterm-elections/38801/

How Will the Economy Affect Midterm Elections?

It is by now conventional wisdom that the economy is going to cost Democrats big in the midterm elections . . . so it's refreshing to see folks like James Surowiecki challenge that wisdom.  After all, the economy has started growing again, and, in what must be an astonishing coincidence, we're just about to get a big river of stimulus money sluicing through voter pockets.

Possibly.  But conventional wisdom has a lot going for it.  I agree with Surowiecki that what matters is not the headline numbers on the newspaper page, but peoples' actual felt experience with the economy, particularly real income growth.  That felt experience is maybe improving a tiny amount.  Consider the following, however:

    * At this point, there is not enough time for employment to recover significantly.  We lost a lot of jobs, and if analysts are right that this represents mostly structural change in the economy (rather than a temporary collapse in aggregate demand), employment will rebound only slowly.  It took years under the Bush administration to work off the relatively modest collapse around 9/11.
    * Most peoples' major asset will still be worth a whole lot less than it used to be.  And people who are pinched will not have the housing piggybank to cushion their anxiety.
    * Delinquencies are finally slacking of, but the backlog of foreclosures is eventually going to come on the market, further pushing down home values in many areas.
    * We can't really afford to expand the various forms of housing support much further . . . but if we stop them, housing markets will look even worse.
    * Low inflation means the cost of living doesn't go up . . . but people are now conditioned to expect nominal wage increases.  Money illusion is going to make people perceive the labor market, and income growth, as worse than they actually are.
    * Health care costs are going up due to selection effects in individual and small business markets--healthy people are cutting the expense when they lose their jobs, landing companies with a smaller, sicker pool.  That's going to further cut into any wage growth.
    * Budget deficits are almost certainly going to keep going up in the short term.  People get especially touchy about deficits when they are personally strapped.
    * Oil prices are still rising.

I'm not saying the Democrats can't pull it out.  Nothing is impossible, and they have GDP growth on their side.  On the other hand, they're facing some pretty strong headwinds--much stiffer than Bill Clinton faced when he lost the House to the Republicans in 1994.  And contra what I was assured by many Democrats, health care reform has not gotten more popular since it passed; arguably, it's gotten slightly less popular.

That base had better be very motivated.
5172  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Russia-- Europe on: April 12, 2010, 11:41:28 PM
Besides mass murder speculation, another thing that follows from the list of violations by Russia brought to light here is what a joke it is that we still go through the UN 'Security Council' for crucial matters of global security with Russia sitting as an equal 'partner'.

I hope that in the next generation of leaders someone has the courage to stand up to this farce a la Reagan addressing the value of the wall:  Mr. Secretary General of the UN, tear down this phony security council.  To the Ways and Means chair and the UN, we wont pay one dollar more than Uganda or Congo pays ever again or bring important issues before the security council until the council includes only countries with a sincere interest in global security.
5173  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Russia-- Europe on: April 12, 2010, 06:45:21 PM
Didn't Russia just foment the overthrow the govt of Krygyztan...invaded Georgia without consequence...uses its status as a natural gas supplier to squeeze and nudge Europe towards desired behaviors...backed down the US from anti-missile defense for Europe...?

Yes, and shame on us.  They are ruthless and on a roll. Why would they risk all that for an inefficient takedown of a Polish leader who annoys them?  There is a difference between assassination and terrorism.  Downing an airliner doesn't make sense to me. I like the other story about a powerful person thinking this can't or won't happen to them better, it fits the aviation mentality of JFK jr, Paul Wellstone, Ron Brown and maybe John Denver.  Not excusing Russians from their other crimes.
5174  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: April 12, 2010, 01:47:43 PM
"If everyone is paying a flat percentage, or a pay as you go fee, then everyone is paying a fair share."

I am with Rarick on this one (unfortunately that only makes two of us).  Every dollar earned should be taxed the same.  Then we all have the same stake in our nation when we vote for or against programs, taxes and expenditures.  That is the way public spending gets scrutinized and contained. Necessary assistance should be addressed only on the spending side and better yet on the private charitable side. 

Since this is politically impossible, then the compromise has to be to move only in the direction of flatter, wider and simpler taxes that reach further into the electorate, not to target or isolate any group as the party of free lunch and class warfare proposes.
5175  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Russia-- Europe on: April 12, 2010, 01:34:55 PM
"I hope the Polish investigators have the skill sets required to do a proper forensic analysis of the evidence."

Agree and they should seek assistance from whoever are the best at this.  My doubt isn't that Putin is morally incapable of this, just that I assume the Polish President is more an annoyance than a threat to him. Putin is a shrewd politician and downing an airliner full of innocent people could hurt even his reputation.
5176  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: April 12, 2010, 01:25:33 PM
A justification for opposing meth lab next door is the unusually high risk of explosion and contamination.  Liberties tend to end when they cross over and take away someone else's liberty - (like abortion).

Over the weekend, a neighbor of a property of mine had a huge barn fire very close to my property.  My tenants were downwind and evacuated; any further spreading could have certainly taken lives.  Cause unknown so the lesson from it is unknown, point is that some regulation can be justified.  This was in a very unregulated, unenforced area, my other properties are in the highly and overly regulated city where virtually nothing is allowed.  Yet all my real damage seems to occur in the regulated area including vandalism, crime and continuous threats of closure from the regulators as I try be a law abiding citizen and eek out a living providing affordable housing.  They can't regulate reasonably and stop there. They can't send a statement or notice without a threat of closure, because that is their power. It becomes an occupation, a power and an entity all its own.

At our own home the neighbor built a tall home on a narrow lot and blocked all mid-day winter sun from our house forever.  There should a law against that. Actually 13 different ordinances prohibit what they built, so variances were approved to get the 'improvement', much like Kelo.  My pet peeve is the certain laws come with exceptions.  Real laws against real crimes like murder don't require exceptions.  For zoning and regulating people's lives and properties, the exceptions always bring us back toward third world bribe and corruption and power of the state, and away from equal protection.
5177  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Russia-- Europe on: April 11, 2010, 11:09:16 AM
I have heard no foul play.  What a tragedy for all 97 aboard.  I'm sure no tears were shed though by Putin regarding Kaczynski.  Can't help being reminded of whistle blower Alexander Litvinenko with the radioactive poisoning and Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin poisoning.
5178  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics on: April 11, 2010, 10:57:11 AM
I noticed that Brian Wesbury predicts 4% GDP growth by year end.  The campaigns of both sides will have a variety of statstics to claim as their evidence of success and failure.  I would assume unemployment will stay high as long as investment taxes remain punitive.  Republicans will need to make the connection to working people that overtaxing employers does not bring in free money.
5179  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Poland on: April 11, 2010, 10:40:08 AM
Freedom lost a friend in the plane crash that killed Poland's president. 
-----
http://www.newsweek.com/id/236220
What's Next for Poland

In the United States, all you have to do is say "Pearl Harbor," and everyone knows what you are talking about. In Poland—a country that was invaded countless times by Russians from the east and Germans from the west—there are far more names of places that everyone instantly recognizes because of their tragic symbolism. But one stands out above all others: Katyn. The fact that the plane carrying Polish President Lech Kaczynski and 95 others, including a who's who of the Polish political and military elite, crashed as it was attempting to land in the western Russian city of Smolensk near the Katyn forest, makes this national tragedy overwhelming in its emotional impact.

Kaczynski and the others on the ill-fated flight were supposed to go to the Katyn forest to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the execution of 21, 857 Polish POWs and civilians on the direct orders of Joseph Stalin and his Politburo. When I was growing up in our family's new home in the United States, my father—who had served in the Polish Army in 1939 and then fled to the West, joining Polish forces under British command—made sure that his children knew the full meaning of Katyn. Poland hadn't only been invaded by Hitler, he reminded us; it had also been invaded by Stalin's armies, and then they had attempted to wipe out any future source of opposition by executing so many of its top officers and men.

The fact that Stalin and subsequent Soviet and Polish communist regimes insisted on blaming this crime on the Nazis, who invaded Russia only much later, just magnified Katyn's potency as a symbol. When I started visiting Poland as a student and then as a journalist in communist times, people only had to whisper the word "Katyn" to signal their opposition to the government and its wholesale falsification of history. You could talk openly about the truth of Katyn only in the West, where Polish exiles like my father and grandfather, who served in the Polish government-in-exile in London during World War II, kept insisting that the cover-up was as bad as the original crime.

But things began to change after the fall of communism in 1989, triggered by Solidarity's successful battle for freedom in Poland, which included the freedom to tell the full truth about Katyn. In a goodwill gesture to Poland in 1992, Russia's new President Boris Yeltsin finally released the order from Stalin's Politburo that confirmed Soviet responsibility for the murders. While this briefly improved Polish-Russian relations, Yeltsin's successor Vladimir Putin took a harder line on history, initially encouraging a more positive view of Stalin ("the most successful Soviet leader ever," proclaimed a Russian teacher's manual in 2007) and renewed equivocation about his record of mass murder. That included new efforts by some Russians to deny the truth about Katyn.

The irony is that this year, on the 70th anniversary of those murders, there was renewed hope that the truth would really set both countries free.  Four days before the fatal crash, Putin had accompanied Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to Katyn and admitted Stalin's responsibility for what happened—although he also tossed in a pseudo-justification by claiming the Soviet leader was avenging earlier mistreatment of Russian POWs by Poles in the two countries' war of 1920.

That was precisely the kind of statement that still infuriated Poles, and particularly someone like President Kaczynski, 60, whose experience as a Solidarity activist in the 1980s made him instinctively distrustful of Russian leaders who weren't willing to come completely clean about their history. When I interviewed Kaczynski shortly after Russia's brief war with Georgia in August 2008, he was uncompromising in his language. "There was a test of strength, and Russia showed the face it wanted to show—an imperial face," he told me. He also blasted the West for its passive response.

Yet even Kaczynski, as tough as he was on the Russians, could imagine a better day—so long, as he put it, that the world would "convince Russia that the imperial era is over." And the very fact that such high-level Polish delegations, representing so much of recent Polish history, were flying often to commemorate the Katyn massacre demonstrated how times have changed. Among those who died today was Ryszard Kaczorowski, the last Polish president-in-exile in London, who officially gave up his post when former Solidarity leader Lech Walesa was elected president of a newly free Poland in 1990. Kaczorowski's government was a largely symbolic continuation of the first Polish government-in-exile during World War II, the government my grandfather was a part of. To Poles, all these connections feel personal.

And then there was a whole new generation of parliamentarians and government officials who died today as well. Among them was Undersecretary of Defense Stanislaw Komorowski, a gifted former scientist who then embarked on a diplomatic career. I met him at a small dinner party in Warsaw in October. As he juggled urgent calls on his cell about Vice President Biden's visit to Poland to discuss missile defense plans, he was both witty and highly knowledgeable, covering a broad range of issues in a coolly analytical way that was quite different from the more impassioned style of slightly older ex-opposition activists like President Kaczynski.

But nothing can be coolly analytical about the way Poles are thinking about Katyn. Now it's not only a name that connotes a past tragedy with continuing political overtones; it will also live in the memories of today's Poles as a symbol of the loss of so many of their countrymen who experienced the full range of the country's recent history—and its battles over the meaning of the place where they, too, came to die.

Newsweek's former Warsaw bureau chief Andrew Nagorski is now vice president and director of public policy at the EastWest Institute. He is the author of  The Greatest Battle: Stalin, Hitler, and the Desperate Struggle for Moscow That Changed the Course of World War II.
5180  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Health Care, 2 questions on: April 05, 2010, 10:44:36 AM
First, remember poor people have free coverage, elderly have coverage, the rich have coverage (even if it is self insured) and the employees of most medium and large firms have plans, so we are filling a gap mostly where the cost doesn't show value to the person declining coverage.

I'll go with the easy one first: "2) What should be the rules for insurance companies when someone develops a serious condition?  Should the insurance company be allowed to drop them?"  

No.  That is what you are carrying healthy insurance for, IMO, so it will be in place when you are not healthy or eligible for affordable coverage.  The policy pays up to the policy lifetime limits if the premiums are maintained.  Otherwise, who would ever insure while they are healthy?

1)  What should be the rules concerning someone with a pre-existing condition?  What is the conceptual basis for your opinion?

Conceptually, there is no easy answer.  We can deny coverage but we don't deny treatment.  This current law will requires 'repeal and REPLACE'. You can't politically just repeal and this is the heart of it.

Generally when I see a 3-way financial dispute, in this case the taxpayer, the insurance company and the patient, I say split it 3 ways in compromise.  There should be a one-time settlement to allow all people with pre-conditions now to get in.

Going forward without an individual mandate, the incentive needs to be to take coverage now while you're healthy and a strong disincentive to wait.  All you can really do is require a spend down of people's future assets and income if they wait.  Isn't this done with nursing home costs now?
5181  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China on: April 04, 2010, 11:35:18 AM
"Sec'y of the Treasury Geithner has recently been talking a bit about how the Chinese should revalue the renminbi.  Coincidentally we now begin to hear that the Chinese may get on board for some lesser level of sanctions against Iran." 

The Geithner report trashing China over currency manipulation was supposed to come out Apr 15.  Hu visits the 12th. Geithner 'delays' the report trashing China.  China presumably will agree not to fully block watered down sanctions which we all agree are just symbolic, not effective.  This pressures Israel not to strike because the international 'community' is 'doing something'.  And then what? We all live happily ever after?

No one can say ever again that the Obama administration doesn't have experience with this type of negotiations, not after healtcare via the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, the federal hospital for Connecticut and the State Bank of North Dakota.  These guys know how to put a deal together!
------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azQRzn_a9eP8
 April 4 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner delayed a scheduled April 15 report to Congress on exchange-rate policies, sidestepping a decision on whether to accuse China of manipulating the value of the yuan.

Geithner in a statement yesterday urged China to move toward a more flexible currency and said a series of meetings over the next three months will be “critical” to bringing policy changes that lead to a stronger, “more balanced” global economy. The delay comes as Chinese President Hu Jintao is scheduled to visit Washington for a nuclear summit April 12-13.
5182  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: April 03, 2010, 01:08:35 PM
I agree with Prentice.  Your money needs to go directly to the right candidates and the right causes and you get to decide what that is.  After the nominees are set for each race, then you may have to hold your nose and vote, but there is no reason to have your hard earned money support candidates elsewhere around the country who will later be stabbing you in the back.

For example, McCain's career of being a maverick kills conservative candidates in other states. Dem incumbents excuse their extremist votes by saying it was a bipartisan vote, that they were joined in that vote by the respected R-senator from Arizona so therefore it was a reasonable position.

CCP I agree with you about Michael Steele, but think firing him now will only make things worse.  The RNC is not the republican party, the power today is from the ground up.  Let the party succeed in spite of the so-called leaderhip.  If the RNC does not earn your dollar then just go after the candidates and causes who will.  A group of MN businessmen have put up some attention grabbing billboards, here's one in Michele Bachmann's district this year:


5183  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: April 02, 2010, 01:53:15 PM
If we define 'rightist' as someone who believes in a less intrusive, controlling government, pretty hard to find fascist in that definition.  Wanting the Pledge of Allegiance recited is about as far as we go, but we are asking them to pledge to keep our liberties.

With most leftists, the charges of fascism are exaggerated.  They don't really want to control ALL of your life cradle to grave.  Far more than they should but not all of it.

When you look at the kooks who commit the atrocities, I thinks the ties to their politics either way are mostly irrelevant.  Their violence does not further their agenda in any of the examples.  They are mentally ill, criminally deranged or physically missing a crucial connection in their brain, whichever political side they say they are on.  Bill Maher flipping the bird doesn't move the moral or economic arguments for or against national health care or closing Guantanamo one iota in either direction.  It just means he's a jerk.
5184  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: April 02, 2010, 01:34:54 PM
"...Israel  still existing  January 20,2013?"

Placing my bet on Israel.  In some ways better able to defend itself if they don't feel they need to clear their actions with their (former) ally.  We may gain from what they may need to do for themselves in this crisis.  Unlike most places receiving US aid over the previous decades, I don't think they squandered theirs. I imagine their intelligence, planning and strike capabilities are in pretty good shape, with high readiness.  Opponents may have warheads but I question their accuracy.

I am pleased to read that Obamas will leave after one term. smiley  At first it looked like they would stay 16 years, but I doubt Michelle will run if he is still eligible.

9% of Israeli Jews see Obama as pro-Israel.  Is that just the margin of error or what is wrong with those people? http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171849
5185  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Stratfor China - Crunch Time on: April 02, 2010, 02:26:58 AM
I finally took the time to go through this. Thanks Crafty for posting. A synopsis and a few comments:

They see the Chinese economic system as "inherently unstable.", basically a house of cards. Economy held up by exports, but exports are down 20%.  Exports won't recover until 2012 (if then), held up by subsidies until then. 

The state tripled its infusion to banks for lending. A third of GDP is from propped up loans.  A fourth of that lending is for non-productive uses (most of the rest questionable too).

The US may 'force' China to both appreciate their currency and accept more exports which, in Japan, caused a collapse and long term stagnation.

They only wonder which will bring down China first, its own internal imbalances or the U.S. decision to take a more mercantilist approach (export orientation) to international trade."
-----------------
The China economy as we know it hasn't had to survive a downturn.  Downturns have a good sides, easing bubbles and clearing out dead wood to make room for new, healthier growth.  Politically, China's ruling party hasn't gone through bad times.  Their 'legitimacy' comes from the security they bring, including economic.

Real numbers are probably worse / far worse than the ruling parties published data.

From a previous Strat, the (silly) tire issue with tariff imposed in Sept. was a warning shot from the Obama administration to the Chinese of what powers are at his disposal and what his willingness is to use them. 

The US, presumably in recovery, could instead dip downward again and further.  US consumers have more disposable income than all of China's other markets combined.  If our dip is long term, chances are China can't keep pretending things are fine and subsidize their way out of it.

If China quit buying our debt, it would force fiscal discipline in the US government.  If the US either tanks or heads into protectionism or both, China could collapse economically, leading also to a political crisis IMO.

OTOH, all previous reports of their demise have been premature.
5186  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: April 02, 2010, 01:24:35 AM
Rog, Regarding your examples I don't know whether you refer to their politics or their tactics.  Operation Rescue wants to stop the killing of innocent life.  I wouldn't think PETA is fascist unless they want to control more aspects of our lives than protecting animals.  They don't necessarily want the government to control your lives, just want to stop what they see as an injustice. The killing of Tiller the late term abortionist was not a pro-life act and Operation Rescue condemned it in the strongest terms: "The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, which runs a "Tiller Watch" feature on its website, released a statement condemning the shooting. "We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/george-tiller-killed-abor_n_209504.html

McVeigh's politics could easily be considered right wing.  He was a gun rights advocate and anti-government, both to extreme levels.  His connection to Nazis seems to be that blowing up the building was inspired by a neo-Nazi novel.  But Nazis or fascists wouldn't allow private citizen gun ownership or forming private militias to protect liberties, or limited government, so I don't see the connection between Nazi-ism and his politics at least before he fell off the deep end.

Reading around I found this trying to make a connection between the Bush and what someone calls the 14 points of Fascism: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm.  I admit to my biases, but I don't see the connection of any of them.

I follow you in the hypothetical.  If the huts were Christian extremists and wanted the government to force all to practice Christianity, and force their way with the powers of government into your life to enforce it, then I agree.  But I doubt that was their view.  If it was, they are Fascists, not Christians or limited government advocates.

If being anti-abortion is really sexism in disguise where what they really want is more control over women, then they are fascists. But I think it is all about the unborn.  It doesn't mean people don't have compassion for the situation of the unwanting parents.  It's just that it doesn't rise to the level of death penalty for the unborn.

From the link above, if Bush, as accused, was using terrorism as just an excuse because he really wanted to wiretap more Americans, empower government and limit freedoms, then fascist he was.  But I don't buy it.  And now Obama is caught up in the same wiretaps, Guantanamo and an executive order ending federal funding of abortion.  Surprisingly, no fascism update at that website for the new administration.
5187  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: March 31, 2010, 04:38:25 PM
Crafty wrote: [New Health care law]"contains the seeds of destruction for the remainder of private sector health care insurance."

Obama came out of closed door sessions with supporters of single payer - one system heath care, including Dennis Kucinich,, with their vote switched from no to yes based on assurances made and a road map to the satisfaction of those representatives. 

Promised with openness and specifically with negotiations publicly broadcast.  Delivered with tricks, deals and back room buy-offs and sell-offs.  Invites the charge of ... illegitimacy. 

Obama still says you won't lose your current plan, but I will lose mine, please see HR-4872 Section 202(d)(2).  Be careful googling that.  I locked up my computer downloading and searching the various versions of the Multi-Kilo-Page 2010 Federal Simplification of Health Affordability Mandates (FED-SHAM-2010).  sad
5188  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: March 31, 2010, 12:21:06 PM
"If you look black, you're 100% black as far as most people are concerned, regardless of your actual percentage." - No.  The Majority leader of the senate disagrees.  Being "light skinned and with no Negro dialect" makes the difference.  smiley

Lynchings and car draggings? No. He grew up with every advantage most whites don't have, the best private schools growing up, plus Columbia University and Harvard Law School.  He was in Harvard law School and President of the Law Review either partly because of race or else it obviously didn't hurt. Now private schools for his kids. Hardly a lynching. If it was all for academic achievement, why not release college transcripts? Who paid for college and how did he get into the best ones? Harvard Law School with a 3.3 GPA?  It all reaks of special treatment, fine, but accompanied with thanklessness for it - as I see it. 
-----
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Barack_Obama%27s_grades_in_college

What were Barack Obama's grades in college?
In: US Presidents, Barack Obama, Nobel Prize Winners
   
Barack Obama has not released transcripts for his grades from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law. He has also not released his SAT and LSAT scores. No explanation has been offered for not releasing them.

Per the Wall Street Journal September 11, 2008, "Obama's Lost Years," Obama graduated from Columbia University (to which he transferred after his first two years at Occidental College in California), with a degree in Political Science without honors, so had a GPA less than a 3.3.
------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202325.html
Washington Post  Saturday, January 3, 2009

HONOLULU -- When President-elect  Barack Obama visited the lush campus of his old high school for a game of basketball in the waning days of his vacation this week, he returned to no ordinary Hawaiian school, but one with a rich history of teaching the island's elite and an array of distinctions: the nation's No. 1-ranked athletic program, the largest U.S. independent day school and the oldest west of the Mississippi River.
----
The Punahou School campus covers 76 acres at the edge of lush Manoa Valley. Students occupy 44 school buildings, including three libraries and learning centers; computer areas and language labs; an impressive physical education facility (that includes a gymnasium, 50-meter pool, Mondo track, playing fields, racquetball and tennis courts, and weight and training facilities); and art facilities that include jewelry, ceramics and glassblowing.

No record of lynchings.
5189  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Way Forward for the American Creed on: March 31, 2010, 11:42:17 AM
Replying to what CCP wrote here and what Crafty wrote over on Immigration: "[Latinos] tend to vote strongly Democrat.  Groups that tend to vote Republican tend to be aging and in decline, both in absolute numbers and as a % of the population.  The Republican party is already fairly irrelevant in the northeast of the US and with demographic trends in place will become a shrinking minority.  THIS was Bush-Rove-McCain's impetus in supporting amnesty-- to remain competitive for the Latino vote."

Selling conservatism to groups that are traditionally non-conservative has two choices, support policies that violate your own principles to split their vote or articulate your own view better of an America built on founding principles and invite them in.

In 2008, African Americans went 95% to 4% for Obama and Hispanics 67% to 31% Obama.  That was an exceptional Democrat year based on many things, first person of color on the ballot, economy in the tank, Republican brand name on a par with syphilis, etc.  Besides the margin, turnout was at record levels.

In 2004, it was African Americans 88-11 Democrat and Hispanics 53-44 Democrat.

So the split today is maybe 90-10 Blacks, and 60-40 Hispanic, give or take.

Yet the country is evenly divided.  So winning one or two more percent of either or both groups is a BIG deal.  We don't need to win all or even majorities of them to win, Just need to reach more of them.

I hate generalities, but... Blacks favor school choice, tend to be more religious and are getting KILLED by abortion policies and see neighborhoods destroyed by failed policies they were taught to favor.  Hispanics are very family oriented, mostly hard working and also heavily pro-life.  Both groups  have more kids so they will take on our debt if we keep spending like we do today.

CCP wrote: "(Latinos) are in higher proportions unemployed, uneducated, single parent, and thus far more likely to love the idea of someone else paying for higher education, medical care, and to need and willing to take medicaid, food stamps and the rest."

True,  but also that means they are voting their circumstances that should be improving over time, as they join and move up our economic ladder.  As they take root they will see their children as bearing the burden of our increasing debt and unfunded future liabilities.  Maybe we can get that written into the amnesty agreement.  smiley

My words of course are colored in wishful thinking.  But in the 100% liberal northeast, Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat. It is possible for liberals to go too far and lose portions of their base.  Liberals going too far also tends to clarify Conservatism and unite opposition.  The Nov. elections this year and the 2012 elections are our Olympics and what we do now to move forward is analogous to Apollo Ohno's workout regime.  Are we doing everything we can to reach these people, putting in something like his 2 hour hard sessions 4 times a day (or leaving it to others and hope it gets done).  Is the clarity of our arguments equal to 1000 pounds on the leg press.  Do we keep a journal and review it every night to see if we are doing everything we can do to reach ALL of these people.  Or are our leaders relaxing at topless bondage clubs? On election day we need to know we did everything we could do to make a difference.

Ignoring these demographic groups longer and losing ground further will be catastrophic to the future of traditional American (conservative) governing principles.  Opposing Amnesty means we have to work that much harder getting the message out on the other issues.
5190  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: March 31, 2010, 10:50:12 AM
"Doug, Crafty, was it reasonable or accurate, in your opinions, for Glenn Beck to say (about Obama):This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.  I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. He has a -- this guy is, I believe, a racist."

 - To me, yes.  I didn't like his referral to Grandma as a typical white person and references of that sort in his books, though he is entitled to that view.  Same for clinging to God, gays and guns, not expressly race but disdainful and condescending to a group he dislikes that happen to be white.  That was prior to his election.  Now he represents all of us and hopefully has shaken that off.

I hate race identification and race politics. I oppose Obama based on his policies.  So does Rush and Beck. It is crazy to think Rush would be more tolerant if Hillary had won, or Joe Biden!  You don't believe that.(?)  Or that Beck would simmer down if it was a white Ralph Nader bring Maoists and Marxists into the White House to help on economic policy and inch toward socialized medicine.  Rush's right hand man is black, his fill-in host is black.  His song the magic negro is a parody on a piece in the LA Times that no one else criticized. Harry Reid made the negro gaffe, same for Biden, also about Indians at 7-11. No career ending uproars there. I didn't hear the boy king nickname.  If so, I see that point, but also true that his party picked the youngest candidate with the least experience and opponents think he behaves like a king - or a religious figure.  He has much more often been called 'the Messiah'. Nothing racial there.

Barack Obama is half black and half white, Kansas I think.  He identifies himself as black. Where he has expressed pride in his white heritage?  Will he lead the charge to start a white history month in Kansas?  smiley
5191  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: March 31, 2010, 12:33:31 AM
GM wrote: "Please cite some quotes of the "coded speech" mentioned above."

GM, As I read your post I heard liberal co-host of 'The View' (I don't know her name) on the Tonight Show say "Karl Rove was attacked today at a book signing - HA HA HA!!!" followed by several derisive comments about him.

An example of not very coded speech, but on the other side.

Rog: The thing with Beck, Limbaugh, etc. is that they fill a gap in the market, not try to cover all stories evenly (obviously).  I haven't listened during any of this, but if everyone is already condemning the wackos, there is nothing of value for them to add.  But when liberal politician x or y tells a lie or breaks a promise and few in the main stream call him on it, then they add value at least to some by filling the void.

Limbaugh has a strong set of views and he wants you to keep listening to the show. That's it.  He makes a big deal that election results don't affect the success of the show.  He plays golf, smokes cigars, looks out at the ocean.  I kind of doubt he has ever thrown a punch or shot a squirrel much less led a militia.  Tells people they can be anything they want to be.  He is an expert at timing the monologues and getting smoothly into commercial breaks. Doesn't do motivational rallies.  Inciting violence is quite a stretch from everything I've heard on the air. 

Beck I find more rambunctious and more open about asking the similar minded to get out and make a difference.  But I have many times heard him say what that doesn't mean, anything overboard especially violence and how anything like that just sets the cause back.  He prays for the health and safety of the President everyday and I find it genuine.

These guys actually love the challenge and set the example of taking on liberal ideas with words, arguments and persuasion.  Beck wants you to punch out the phone calls and be a watch dog for freedom. That is the opposite of telling people they are powerless except to plot and plan to go out and shoot up the place.
5192  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: March 30, 2010, 09:39:50 PM
Good to see opposing views Rog.  Answering from my point of view: Assuming what we are hearing is true, I deplore the terrorists and applaud law enforcement for stepping in preemptively. Saying so seems too obvious, like opposing wife beating, racism The rest I don't buy, that  anything I've heard on popular shows or from prominent conservatives caused this.

The piece immediately answered my first point, these people aren't Christians, though you called them the Christian right in your first sentence and they referred to themselves that way.

From the piece: "It is disingenuous...to dismiss groups such as the Hutaree by saying that there are "crazies on both sides." This simply is not true."

 - Unibomber Ted kuzinski, St. Paul homemaker, 'Sara Jane Olson' and Obama friend Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn come to mind.  I don't know the numbers but..."there are crazies on both sides".  He dismisses these as things of the past, but that has more to do with who is in or out of power than right vs. left IMO.  Remember the violence in Seattle 1999 over trade rights, environmentalists attacking loggers etc., it goes both ways.  Today it is the right who feel powerless, that does not justify violence.  No one mainstream and prominent said it did.

Anyone following the uneven recount of the 60th senator (Franken) or the polls tanking on health care and disregard for constitutional limits could easily feel powerless to change government using convention means.  The fringe who act on that with terror plans or war can expect to find themselves arrested, and they did.  

"we should never forget that the worst act of domestic terrorism ever committed in this country was authored by a member of the government-hating right wing: Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City."

 - And that was RECKLESSLY blamed by President Clinton on Rush Limbaugh.  I listened to the show more than Clinton did and I never saw hint toward violence, much less cause and effect.  Are you saying, or is he saying, dissent should not be expresses because it could be taken the wrong way??  What were those inciteful words and if so where was the federal prosecution??  Clinton's reaction was political opportunism and so is this.

"The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day...is calibrated not to inform but to incite."

 - An example or three might be fitting with a charge like THAT!

"they shouldn't be surprised if some listeners take them literally."

 - If they took them literally, they would go out and vote, lol.  Did I miss some story that these militias interrupt their training exercises at 'show' time and huddle around their radios for marching orders or words they can overreact to.  I seriously doubt these folks look to aging political analysts, entertainers or columnists to find what is wrong in Washington.

So what were those fighting words?

"government is illegitimate" - Also heard that a zillion times about Bush Cheney - not mentioned.  Hard not to notice the people in power today got there using an amazing number of false promises and are exercising and expanding powers not authorized in the constitution.  That does not equate with a declaration of war.

"that their country has been taken away" - true that many freedoms have been taken and things like the work ethic and entitled to the fruits of your labor are replaced with people taking power from the welfare rights side of the spectrum.  Even if done by the majority, mostly by proper procedure, with courts and RINOS signed on, still a part of what many of us value was 'taken'.

"that their elected officials are traitors" - I did not hear that from mainstream conservatives and I listen more than he does.  Fact is the other side is STILL calling for war crimes prosecution against the previous administration.  Those who made such sounds still frequent the oval office.

Hard to conclude 'cause' or that this goes only one way.  But good to see a post that goes too far the other way.  We need the balance.
5193  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A Birthright? Maybe Not on: March 28, 2010, 11:44:49 AM
A Birthright? Maybe Not
By George Will  March 28, 2010  Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to illegal immigrant mothers. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."
5194  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Way Forward: dependency and groups on: March 26, 2010, 01:54:16 PM
I have been following CCP's argument/observation that Dems are the party of giving out goodies and they will win forever (unless we can think of something fast) by making more people dependent on the government while flooding the voter pool with new people who also see the government as a provider.  True on both counts, at least that is their strategy.

The Way Forward, if there is one, I think centers around the way these concepts fit together: spending, debt and a vision of the future that young people will live in.

If you ask an immigrant worker what their income today is, you likely get a low number, well below what today is admitted to be targeted for new taxes, so all new spending is free, right?

But take a longer view.  Past income mobility data indicates that 86% of bottom quintile workers exit that group within 9 years: http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/mobility/mobility.htm 

The children of today will either grow up and be primarily dependent on (a bankrupt) government or they will grow up to be productive members of society and pay the bills for our expanding older generation.  Then ask which group your immigrant children will likely be in, the ones getting a free ride or the ones paying the bills?  That is a different question.

People have a pride and optimism in the ability of their own children to grow up and achieve and succeed.

Immigrants, using the term loosely to include trespassers/illegals, might see themselves today as needing a hand up, minimum wage protection, OSHA laws, food stamp help and healthcare etc. but did not for the most part come here to have their children grow up to be dependent on a bankrupt government in the nation they risked everything to enter.  Immigrants also tend to be younger and the expenditures for health care go more heavily to the older generations.

I don't believe their vote can't be won.  The question needs to be, what kind of future do they want.  Is it a dependency-based society?  If so, not what is your income today, but do you like the idea of your kid footing the bill for the excesses we create today?

Hard to change the views of 5th generation welfare recipients and hard to win over the highly Democratic felon vote they are racing to register, but we need to fight hard for the votes of young people, immigrants and illegals who will live with the impact they make with their vote.



5195  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: March 23, 2010, 10:38:18 AM
CCP,  Very much appreciate the kind words.  I've kept up reading in my posting absence and always enjoy your insights as well.  Crafty's post certainly warns us not to have false optimism, even with the Pravda disclaimer and knowing that there are plenty of 'experts' like the Yale Professor to argue for the other side.  Yet in justification he points to rulings where feds stopped a farmer from growing wheat (or pot) on his own land for his own consumption, while I pointed to where they found the constitution could prohibit the city from entering a private home, but not from bulldozing it!

Like referees in the NFL or in hockey, maybe they sometimes know when the have gone too far in one direction and the next call goes the other way, as with campaign finance restrictions versus freedom of speech.

I really hate the idea and actually going in to read this garbage that these lawmakers never read, but it seems to me these mandates are backed with fines or penalties rather than a tax and the language they used is all about mandate, not choice or taxpayer option. 

Either way, the NY Times got one part right.  They won't strike down the whole deal, only certain provisions, which can be tweaked to conform with the guidelines set by the court, if they still have the votes.

In the meantime I pray for the health of all the justices, 5 in particular.
5196  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Constitutional Law: Individual Mandate on: March 22, 2010, 12:12:45 PM
The politics will continue but for now the two branches have spoken on health care, largely forgetting there is a third branch overseeing their work.  For certain there will be a challenge to various aspects, but the big one seems to be the individual mandate.

I have no faith in the chances of 5 justices getting this right, considering Kelo etc., but offer my view of how they should rule.  

The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This power is not delegated elsewhere by the framers so it is therefore a) reserved to the states, as in RomneyCare, and b) requires a new amendment to the constitution in order to delegate this authority.

The reason the proponents did not seek a new amendment is because they do not have 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate and 3/4 of the legislatures on their side.  Not because they didn't think it was necessary; they even said it was a right, which is something you would want enumerated in the constitution if you could.  Same goes for McCain Feingold campaign finance limits.  They knew people weren't going to support, at super-majority levels, a bunch of fine print bullsh*t exceptions inserted into the first amendment that otherwise prohibits congress from limiting political speech.

There is no question in my mind that 4 justices will support the political aspect of the legislation and will pretend to find this power as some unenumerated power into their imaginative readinig of a living and breathing document where it does not exist.  Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito will see this as it is - a violation of the limits on federal powers(MHO).  So the whole bleepin' shooting match regarding the future of our constitutional republic sadly comes down to one spineless 'centrist', Justice Anthony Kennedy, who just 5 years ago concurred on Kelo, taking private homes for other private enterprises in the 'public interest' of allowing a city to collect more property tax on the improvements (that never happened).

Two things have changed since then. 1) two new very sharp and persuasive conservative justices were added to the court in Roberts and Alito, and Kennedy has leaned more conservative since, and 2) Kennedy wrote the corporate campaign finance decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that was specifically the target of Obama's public bitch-slap of the court at the State of the Union to a thundering applause on national television.  

Wouldn't it be ironic if that one blatant act of arrogance costs this one term President his only signature accomplishment.  We will see.
5197  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 2012: Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) on: March 19, 2010, 12:47:46 PM
Win or lose on health care, one person emerged as holding his own with the leftists policy wonks, with vision and with clarity on crucial policy issues.  Paul Ryan was chosen by his colleagues to open at the bipartisan Obama health conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V8l5HGNBB0

The points and questions he makes on the bill remain unanswered by his opponents.  

Today, with the new bill published he is ready, informed, articulate, correct and available.Holds his own with the President and makes a nice contrast with the current speaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Ib57sAH_c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYxNqhCPMpY

I've previously at least thought that I didn't see him as Presidential, not the type who can shout rhythmic platitudes from in front of fake Greek columns in large stadiums with adoring fans.  I prefer the executive experience of a governor, but in fact it is Presidents like Clinton and Obama who can sit and look very comfortable all day defending the details of horrible legislation and the cost of 'doing nothing'.  We will need someone who knows the legislative issues up and down to stand next to this incumbent President and debate persuasively.

If not this guy, we better find someone just as informed and articulate, without the baggage of previous mis-steps and flip-flops, and not someone who has stepped back from fighting these fights, to offer the country a seriously different direction, message and vision from the current leftist machine.

For example, I love Sara Palin (not necessarily for President).  If she is the candidate, she will be the issue.  If Romney is the candidate, Romneycare and other past works and positions will be the issue.  Far worse yet for Huckabee.  If someone like Ryan is the candidate, I think the issues will be the issue and leftists will be forced to defend the indefensible, like calling a new national health entitlement a step toward closing the deficit. MHO.
5198  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / ACTION item, Call and write your congressman TODAY. on: March 19, 2010, 11:37:38 AM
Obama got one thing right, the time for debate is over.

The bill is out overnight with one business day to read it, digest it and spit it out.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28571851/Senate-Health-Care-Reconciliation-Bill

Totally unreadable because you have to back and forth with the senate bill http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf to add and strike provisions for "reconciliation".

CALL AND WRITE TO OPPOSE, just google your Representative.  You will need a valid address/zip code in their district to get through email screening.

Huge tax increase on investment.  Job killing and promise breaking provisions.  Health care enforcement through an expanded IRS.  Unconstitutional individual mandate.  Nauseating deem without voting procedure.  Mis-under-estimating future costs in the tens of trillions.

The number of new tax increases in the healthcare bill: 19

The number of tax increases that unquestionably violate President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise “any form” of taxes on families making less than $250,000:  7

The top federal tax rate on early distributions from HSAs under this bill: 59.6%

Tax rate increases kill off new jobs.  With unemployment in some areas of this country over 12%, Where is the "laser-like focus"??

As one whose small Republican town with a little more effort could have kept Al Franken out of the senate, everyone knows this vote is within a vote or 2 out of 435. Don't sit still!

Vote is scheduled for SUNDAY.  Passage is likely UNLESS everyone opposed does everything possible to communicate the damage coming.  Call, write and spread the urgency!

Demand:

No vote without reading it!
No job-killing tax increases.
No unconstitutional mandates.
No Presidential level Promise Breaking.
No deem without a recorded up or down vote on something this BIG.
No re-election for abandoning our founding principles.
5199  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Income Distribution - Thomas Sowell on: January 12, 2010, 09:18:25 AM
About a year ago I tried to answer the deception of Robert Reich regarding income distribution.  I was pleased to see that Dr. Sowell reads this forum and took the time to expand on this in his latest book.  smiley

Read Thomas Sowell new book: Intellectuals and Society (and all of his books).
Investors Business Daily is running a series on it at:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517564

Dr. Sowell is a Professor at Stanford, grew up in Harlem.  During his 20s, when he was a self-described Marxist, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard with a B.A. in economics. He also has a master's in economics from Columbia and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago.

Read just this one section and see the lies exposed of people like Paul Krugman, Reich and the politicians like Pelosi and Obama who base their shallow, class warfare politics on the lies of the liberal economists with their simple sleight of hand.

Simply put, the lowest income workers become richer and leave the lower quintiles.  New workers enter the work force, some previously had no income, some came from far away to double their income though still low by our standards and they make up the new lowest quintile.  Middle income earners become wealthier and enter the higher quintiles.  The highest income earners and business owners retire, sell, die, scale back, whatever and the new high earners make even more than the rich of old used to make.  Then some liberal economist perform a phony quintile analysis to conclude that no one has improved their economic standing over an extended period of time.  All the liberal blogs and politicians pick up on it and take down our economy based on false information and analysis.
--------------

 How Data On Income Distribution Are Misunderstood And Misapplied

Most intellectuals outside the field of economics show remarkably little interest in learning even the basic fundamentals of economics. Yet they do not hesitate to make sweeping pronouncements about the economy in general, businesses in particular, and the many issues revolving around what is called "income distribution."

Famed novelist John Steinbeck, for example, commented on the many American fortunes which have been donated to philanthropic causes by saying:

One has only to remember some of the wolfish financiers who spent two thirds of their lives clawing a fortune out of the guts of society and the latter third pushing it back.

Despite the verbal virtuosity involved in creating a vivid vision of profits as having been clawed out of the guts of society, neither Steinbeck nor most other intellectuals have bothered to demonstrate how society has been made poorer by the activities of Carnegie, Ford or Rockefeller, for example — all three of whom (and many others) made fortunes by reducing the prices of their products below the prices of competing products.

Lower prices made these products affordable to more people, simultaneously increasing those people's standard of living and creating fortunes for sellers who greatly expanded the numbers of their customers. In short, this was a process in which wealth was created, not a process by which some could get rich only by making others poorer.

Nevertheless, negative images of market processes have been evoked with such phrases as "robber barons" and "economic royalists" — without answering such obvious questions as "Just who did the robber barons rob when they lowered their prices?" or "How is earning money, often starting from modest circumstances (or even poverty-stricken circumstances in the case of J.C. Penney and F.W. Woolworth) the same as simply inheriting wealth and power like royalty?"

The issue here is not the adequacy or inadequacy of intellectuals' answers to such questions because, in most cases, such questions are not even asked, much less answered. The vision, in effect, serves as a substitute for both facts and questions.

This is not to suggest that nobody in business ever did anything wrong. Saints have been no more common in corporate suites than in government offices or on ivy-covered campuses. However, the question here is not one of individual culpability for particular misdeeds.

The question raised by critics of business and its defenders alike has been about the merits or demerits of alternative institutional processes for serving the economic interests of society at large.

Implicit in many criticisms of market processes by intellectuals is the assumption that these are zero-sum processes, in which what is gained by some is lost by others. Seldom is this assumption spelled out but, without it, much of what is spelled out would have no basis.

Perhaps the biggest economic issue, or the one addressed most often, is that of what is called "income distribution," though the phrase itself is misleading, and the conclusions about income reached by most of the intelligentsia are still more misleading.

Variations in income can be viewed empirically, on the one hand, or in terms of moral judgments, on the other. Most of the contemporary intelligentsia do both. But, in order to assess the validity of the conclusions they reach, it is advisable to assess the empirical issues and the moral issues separately, rather than attempt to go back and forth between the two, with any expectation of rational coherence.

Given the vast amounts of statistical data on income available from the Census Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service and innumerable research institutes and projects, one might imagine that the bare facts about variations in income would be fairly well known by informed people, even though they might have differing opinions as to the desirability of those particular variations.

In reality, however, the most fundamental facts are in dispute, and variations in what are claimed to be facts seem to be at least as great as variations in incomes. Both the magnitude of income variations and the trends in these variations over time are seen in radically different terms by those with different visions as regards the current reality, even aside from what different people may regard as desirable for the future.

Perhaps the most fertile source of misunderstandings about incomes has been the widespread practice of confusing statistical categories with flesh-and-blood human beings.

Many statements have been made in the media and in academia, claiming that the rich are gaining not only larger incomes but a growing share of all incomes, widening the income gap between people at the top and those at the bottom. Almost invariably these statements are based on confusing what has been happening over time in statistical categories with what has been happening over time with actual flesh-and-blood people.

A New York Times editorial, for example, declared that "the gap between rich and poor has widened in America." Similar conclusions appeared in a 2007 Newsweek article that referred to this era as "a time when the gap is growing between the rich and the poor — and the super-rich and the merely rich," a theme common in such other well-known media outlets as the Washington Post and innumerable television programs.

"The rich have seen far greater income gains than have the poor," according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson. A writer in the Los Angeles Times likewise declared, "the gap between rich and poor is growing."

According to Professor Andrew Hacker in his book "Money": "While all segments of the population enjoyed an increase in income, the top fifth did 24 times better than the bottom fifth. And measured by their shares of the aggregate, not just the bottom fifth but the three above it all ended up losing ground."

Although such discussions have been phrased in terms of people, the actual empirical evidence cited has been about what has been happening over time to statistical categories — and that turns out to be the direct opposite of what has happened over time to flesh-and-blood human beings, most of whom move from one category to another over time.

In terms of statistical categories, it is indeed true that both the amount of income and the proportion of all income received by those in the top 20% bracket have risen over the years, widening the gap between the top and bottom quintiles.

But Internal Revenue Service data following specific individuals over time show that, in terms of people, the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the bottom 20% in income in 1996 rose 91% by 2005, while the incomes of those particular taxpayers who were in the top 20% in 1996 rose by only 10% by 2005 — and those in the top 5% and top 1% actually declined.

While it might seem as if both these radically different sets of statistics cannot be true at the same time, what makes them mutually compatible is that flesh-and-blood human beings move from one statistical category to another over time.

When those taxpayers who were initially in the lowest income bracket had their incomes nearly double in a decade, that moved many of them up and out of the bottom quintile — and when those in the top 1% had their incomes cut by about one-fourth, that may well have dropped them out of the top 1%.

Internal Revenue Service data can follow particular individuals over time from their tax returns, which have individual Social Security numbers as identification, while data from the Census Bureau and most other sources follow what happens to statistical categories over time, even though it is not the same individuals in the same categories over the years.
5200  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Federal Reserve earned... on: January 12, 2010, 08:55:54 AM
Fed conspiracists (often Libertarians, also far left anti-capitalists) seem to be able to read that headline: "Federal Reserve earned $45 billion in 2009" and not the following sentence: They returned all the profit to the U.S. Treasury.  "Bernanke...now makes $199,700, with no bonus at all."  - About the same as your local superintendant of schools and a fraction of the typical NCAA public university basketball coach salary.

I love to criticize and second guess the Fed's work but they aren't at least directly stealing from us. 
Pages: 1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 120
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!