Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 18, 2017, 10:56:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
105348 Posts in 2392 Topics by 1093 Members
Latest Member: Cruces
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 108 109 [110] 111 112 ... 183
5451  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GDP 'growth' revised downward, First Trust offers chief economist job to GM on: September 27, 2012, 11:57:54 PM
It was Bush, then the headwinds from Europe, unfair trade practices in China, ATM machines, Republican obstructionism.  Now they say it was the drought.

It was not 50,000 new regulations in 42 months or two dozen new taxes coming online with Obamacare or any other attack on employers, investors or businesses.

U.S. 2Q GDP Growth Revised Down to 1.3%

"U.S. economic growth was much weaker than previously estimated in the second quarter as a drought cut into inventories, setting the platform for an even more sluggish performance in the current quarter against the backdrop of slowing factory activity.

Gross domestic product expanded at a 1.3 percent annual rate, the slowest pace since the third quarter of 2011 and down from last month's 1.7 percent estimate, the Commerce Department said in its final estimate on Thursday.

Output was also revised down to reflect weaker rates of consumer and business spending than previously estimated. Outlays on residential construction export growth were also not as robust as had been previously estimated."

Who knew?

For recovery comparison purposes, the 2nd qtr of 1984 growth under Reagan growing out of the Carter malaise was 9.3% (, more than 7 times greater.  They probably had more rain.  Reagan went on to win 49 states.  Obama and his puppet pollsters I think blew a ten point lead with the decline by design strategy.

5452  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Fact checking the missed intelligence briefings, Washington Post on: September 27, 2012, 07:52:12 PM
Elsewhere I have heard the opinion from those who were involved in previous administrations that the intention of the written intelligence briefing is to start the discussion on security risks, not to end it.

"one giant difference between then (Reagan's missed briefings) and now: Sept. 11, 2001"

" interestingly, since my columns appeared, Obama attended his PDB meeting seven days in a row for the first time in seven months. If live briefings are no better than paper briefings, why has Obama suddenly begun receiving briefings in-person?"

A bogus defense of Obama’s intelligence briefing record
By Marc A. Thiessen, Published: September 25

The Post’s Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, takes issue with my report that since taking office President Obama has skipped his daily intelligence meeting more than half the time. So let’s fact check the Fact Checker.

The facts

After hearing from sources in the intelligence community that President Obama was not attending his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis, I asked researchers at the Government Accountability Institute, a nonpartisan research group headed by Peter Schweizer (who is also my business partner in a speechwriting firm, Oval Office Writers) to examine at Obama’s official schedule. We found during his first 1,225 days in office, Obama had attended his daily meeting to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

After Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Libya on Sept. 11, I further reported that Obama also skipped his daily intelligence meeting every day in the week leading up to the attacks. The day after the attack, he scheduled but then canceled his daily intelligence meeting, while finding time to go to Las Vegas for a campaign rally.

These facts are not in dispute. Indeed, before publishing both of my columns, I specifically asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if there were instances where the president had, in fact, held his daily meeting on the PDB that did not appear on the official public calendar. He offered no examples, and not once did he challenge the numbers I presented. Neither has any White House official challenged them in the weeks since this controversy erupted. So, as a factual matter, Kessler offers no evidence that the information I presented on Obama’s PDB meeting attendance is wrong.

What Kessler and the Obama White House do argue is a matter not of fact but of opinion — that it does not matter if Obama attends a daily intelligence meeting because he reads his PDB every day. Kessler compares Obama to former presidents going back to Reagan and Nixon and finds that “many did not have an oral briefing” — and that this means Obama has simply “chosen to receive his information in a different manner than his predecessor.” There are several problems with this.

First, Kessler ignores one giant difference between then and now: Sept. 11, 2001.

Comparing lax presidential briefing habits before and after 9/11 is like comparing lax presidential security habits before and after the Kennedy assassination. After terrorists killed 3,000 people in our midst, everything changed — and the president’s daily intelligence meeting took on dramatically increased importance. President Bush made it a priority to sit down with his senior intelligence advisers every day to discuss overnight intelligence on threats to the country. President Obama has not.

Kessler notes that Bill Clinton’s CIA director could not get a meeting with him, and that Clinton was known to comment that his morning papers were better than the intelligence brief. This is more an indictment of Clinton than a defense of Obama. On Clinton’s watch, terrorists attacked us repeatedly without cost or consequence — from the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, to the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, to the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, to the USS Cole in 2000.

As for Nixon and Reagan, comparing Obama’s briefing habits to those of presidents who served 30 to 40 years ago — in an era when advanced technology consisted of electric typewriters — is irrelevant in an age of 21st-century surveillance and collection capabilities. The volume, speed and complexity of intelligence has changed dramatically in the intervening decades — and with it the need for interactive briefings.

Without criticizing Obama, former CIA director Mike Hayden recently explained the value of the in-person meeting: “With President Bush, I really saw the value of the personal interaction that we had on an almost daily basis. There was rich give-and-take, so that not only did the president get the advantage of knowing the analysts’ innermost thoughts, but they also were able to leave the room understanding what the president believed he needed in order to make the kind of decisions he had to make.”

In addition to the PDB, Hayden said, Bush also received two longer, magazine-length pieces each week, and additional in-person briefings were held on each of these. On Thursdays, Hayden also briefed Bush for a half-hour on sensitive collection programs and covert action.

The Pinocchio test

Perhaps Obama does not feel he needs such daily interaction. But the fact that he has not been having it is indisputable. (Though, interestingly, since my columns appeared, Obama attended his PDB meeting seven days in a row for the first time in seven months. If live briefings are no better than paper briefings, why has Obama suddenly begun receiving briefings in-person?)

It is a fact that for eight years before Obama took office, there was a daily meeting to discuss the PDB. And it is a fact that, on taking office, Obama stopped holding the daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis. Kessler may not think that is important, and he is entitled to his own opinion — but not his own facts.

I give Four Pinocchios to the Fact Checker.
5453  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Extended Quotes and Critical Review of Pres. Obama's speech at the UN Sept 2012 on: September 27, 2012, 07:30:55 PM
First this from the previous post:  "Earlier this month, the Census Bureau released its annual report showing that the number of people in poverty was nearly 3 million higher in 2011 than in 2009, an increase of 6%."

  - I first read that posted by GM on our cognitive dissonance thread.  Can you imagine how many times and how many places that would be running if this were 5 weeks before an election and George Bush was President!

John Hinderaker from Powerline covering Pres. Obama's speech to the UN mixing quotes and commentary, might be easier to read at the link:

Obama’s Speech at the United Nations

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both delivered foreign policy speeches in New York today, Obama at the United Nations and Romney at the Clinton Global Initiative. The coincidence offers an opportunity for comparison. For now, let’s look at Obama’s speech, and I will try to get to Romney’s tomorrow.

The context for Obama’s speech was turmoil in the Arab world and the murder of Ambassador Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi. The speech wasn’t as bad as it might have been; for one thing, Obama offered, for the first time, a reasonably strong defense of free speech. On balance, I give it a C-.

Obama began with a tribute to Chris Stevens’s career, as was appropriate. But at the key moment, Obama characteristically slipped into the passive voice:

    Two weeks ago, he travelled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That’s when America’s compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city he helped to save.

The compound “came under attack.” By whom? At least this time, Obama acknowledged that it was an attack and not a demonstration. And Stevens “was killed.” Again, while Obama was not explicit, he seemed to be backing away from the smoke inhalation theory. But who killed Stevens, and how, and when? We are not likely to learn anything more about his fate until after the election.

The next passage is dishonest:

    If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an Embassy; or to put out statements of regret, and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis.

Why won’t it be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy? The embassy in Cairo was protected by Marine guards, and the mob didn’t sack it, although they did succeed in tearing down the stars and stripes and replacing it with al Qaeda’s flag. More guards could have prevented that. And the consulate in Benghazi apparently wasn’t guarded at all. It should have been. Here, Obama implicitly lets himself off the hook for the needless deaths of four Americans.

Obama expressed enthusiasm for the “Arab spring.” As he ticked off his administration’s actions with respect to each country, he highlighted, certainly unintentionally, the lack of any coherent policy:

    We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspirations of men and women who took to the streets.
    We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy put us on the side of the people.
    We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were not being served by a corrupt status quo.
    We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the U.N. Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents; and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.
    And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop, and a new dawn can begin.

With hindsight, maybe we shouldn’t have “insisted” on regime change in Egypt, or led from behind on Libya.

Obama’s discussion of the “deeper causes” of Muslim unrest included the inevitable denunciation of the YouTube video that ostensibly provoked the protests:

    That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

This is profoundly hypocritical. Certainly the video puts Islam and Muhammad in a bad light, but no more so than countless movies, plays, books, etc. have portrayed Christianity and Judaism. Moreover, compared to much popular entertainment, it is neither crude nor disgusting. As just about everyone has pointed out, Hillary Clinton screamed with glee at “The Book of Mormon,” which is at least as disrespectful toward the Mormon church as the YouTube video is toward Islam, and considerably cruder. It is not the case that America rejects insults to religions; on the contrary, every one of its powerful cultural institutions encourages such insults. But I guess that is a little more truth than Obama thought his audience could handle.

Next, Obama went on to explain why he didn’t ban the video. (The same explanation would apply to “The Book of Mormon,” but apparently no one has suggested that he should ban that play.):

    I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

Yes, that’s right–Barack Obama and Jesus, they are both subject to so much unfair abuse!

    We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
    I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.
    There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. …

All true, although it assorts oddly with the administration’s hauling in the maker of the YouTube video for questioning. Obama went on to discourse on who must and must not control the future, culminating with this:

    The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Really? There is a great deal to criticize in Islam, and in the life of the “prophet,” which was anything but exemplary. Peoples who now labor under the yoke of Islam will never make progress until such critiques are heard and acted upon. My own view is that the future very much belongs to those who “slander”–or criticize, anyway, which is the same thing–the “prophet of Islam.” Obama next tries to draw a parallel with other religions:

    Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.

This is, of course, a false parallel; slandering the prophet is by no means on a par with burning down churches and murdering their congregants, which is what happens in the Islamic world. And the problem with Holocaust denial is that it is not an academic debate, however disingenuous; rather, the danger is that those who deny the Holocaust, like, say, Ahmadinejad and his followers, yearn to repeat it. And whom is Obama kidding? Neither he nor anyone else has any intention of defending Christians and Jews against either symbolic or real assaults. For example, don’t hold your breath waiting for Obama to denounce Bill Maher’s (that would be million-dollar Bill) slurs against Christianity.

Next, this:

    Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, and those who reject the right of Israel to exist.

The Israelis must wonder why Obama had to drag them into it. What do they have to do with the riots that roil various Muslim countries? Nothing. And if the Obama administration protected America’s embassies and consulates as competently as Netanyahu’s government protects Israel’s, Obama wouldn’t have to begin his speech with a tribute to a murdered ambassador.

Well, that’s enough. Obama concluded his speech with what amounted to a plea for his own re-election, which probably puzzled his listeners. Having walked through the speech once more, I think my grade may have been a bit generous. D+ is perhaps closer to the mark.
5454  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney, How about Consent of the Governed as a governing principle. on: September 27, 2012, 01:47:01 PM
JDN,  In the future, will you please not use my name in your posts when you are being UNRESPONSIVE to the points made or the questions posed.  You DO or you DO NOT see a distinction between state and federal legislation?  You didn't say.

One difference between a Massachusetts state plan and Obamacare is ... CONSENT of the GOVERNED.  In Mass, the people wanted the program and sent legislators there to the tune of 85% Democrats to get it done.  The most Romney could do is shape it slightly with the powers of being Governor and spin it positively the best that he could.

In Obamacare, there was no consent of the governed for the people of Texas as an example.  Who in WYOMING wanted this or voted for it?  Pres. Obama rounded up a temporary majority that already has been disbanded to force down the throat of Americans what MOST DO NOT WANT.  

Yet you see no distinction, you never acknowledge where you are wrong, just move on with more deception and blurring.

One candidate has a signature achievement of ramming this down our throats and one has promised to repeal it.  That makes for a VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION.  Why not argue the merits of the legislation or the repeal with one side for it and one side against it instead of the ad hominem attacks that you throw? 

Your example is not a flip flop, it is a distinction you choose to ignore.  Romney's past was too moderate and too compromising for many of us on the right.  So we choose between too moderate and far left - that's easy!

You say he changed a position where he did not and you said he will raise tax rates where he has said he will not.  Why can't you argue policies and positions of the candidates honestly?

Pres. Obama chose to write special deals in the bill for special Dem Senators rather than negotiate on substance to win even one Republican vote.  Did you show where that same thing happened in Masschusetts under Gov. Romney?  If so, I missed it.
5455  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney on: September 27, 2012, 11:18:39 AM
Do we really have a regular poster here that does not know the difference between state and federal legislation?
5456  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Libyan attack, Fool me once, fool me twice, now whose fault is it? on: September 27, 2012, 09:42:36 AM
Libya thread here but writing my 2 cents about the cognitive dissonance of our national security:

Preface all criticisms of our handling of anything to do with a terror attacks with the fact that the blame first goes to the attackers, the enemy. 

However, is an attack attempt on an embassy or consulate on the anniversary of 9/11 in a country that we helped turn over to an al Qaida coalition completely unexpected?  Really??

Al Qaida also blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, pre-9/11.  They blew up the USS Cole, then the Twin Towers - again, hit the Pentagon, took a shot at the Capitol, White House and other America and western targets they found within their reach.

Yet the administration won't call it terrorism and won't take reasonable precautions.

The Ambassador who we held as our most valuable asset in the region and died of smoke inhalation started his September 11 2012 day in an al Qaida stronghold inside an American building without smoke mask or a fire extinguisher.

My daughter's bedroom in our unlocked, super secret, secure upper midwest location has more security than that.

Keep in mind that the UN Ambassador they put up to lie to us about the video, the spontaneity and the who knew defense is auditioning for the job of new Secretary of State.  How did she do? 

The 'who-knew?' defense and the straw man line that the President can't prevent rogue videos from reaching the internet (who said that he should have?) is the shiny object to see if we will look away from the fact that we have terrorism deniers in charge of security and that we left some of our best assets in harm's way unprotected.  MHO

If the argument is that we had protection but it turned out to not be enough (who knew?), I ask again, how many of the enemy were killed in the exchange?

Clint Eastwood nailed it, if they aren't up to the job you gotta let 'em go.
5457  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney on: September 27, 2012, 08:59:44 AM
Nice job by GM of answering the Tax Policy Center left wing opinion piece.  Brookings, Urban Institute and TPC are objective, unbiased?  I wonder if the original poster takes groups like Heritage and Cato as non-partisan as well.

Deductibility of municipal bonds is off-limits?  What kind of an assumption is that when Romney has said explicitly that big deductions will be closed for the wealthiest.  Isn't an end to deductibility of municipal bond interest a certainty if 2nd term Obama triples the tax rate on capital gains?  Otherwise how would ANY private money ever flow into capital investment?

Mathematical impossibility was already proven for the status quo; we don't need a TPC analysis:  “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office", he said.

What did the 'non-partisan' TPC write about THAT?

What standard are we holding the Romney to?  The choice is a competing economic plan that yields 0.0% growth and trillion dollar deficits that will quadruple when Obamacare's full costs materialize and when QE is exposed as witchcraft and interest rates on our debt jump up to market rates.
5458  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues - Pull Polling from the agenda driven media on: September 27, 2012, 08:33:08 AM
In polling, the media is the story unless you think there is some science to slop like this.  Most dramatic of the latest false polls, NY Times and See-BS are putting their names on polls that put Obama up by 10 in Ohio.  Obama is going to win in 2012 by a margin of 5 times what he had in the euphoria of 2008?  And the margin of error is what, 3%?  Ha ha.

Was there any adjustment made after all t he polls were wrong in Wisconsin by 6 points, any change to the turnout model after Obama's party lost by 7 points nationwide in 2010?  I don't think so.

Romney is leading by 10 with independents, has stronger enthusiasm from his base and will lose the election and closest states by 10 or more??

Instead of arguing the internals, let's just watch and see.  The election is soon enough.  Watch them tighten up their own results just before the election as the last one is the only one for which anyone can measure accuracy.  Meanwhile, this crap will linger as the rest of the media follows the poll averages in measurfes like the RCP average.  Readers and viewers should walk away from these failed brands, unless what they print you think is the unbiased truth. Lol.

You think the opponents of Obama's failed agenda will skip voting out of discouragement caused by false polls - good luck with that!
5459  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney on: September 26, 2012, 12:19:48 PM
I did say he will cut the tax rate for the upper class, and he, or the Republicans, are proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs.
i.e. "He is giving to the rich and taking from the middle class."

1. Why would anyone who is middle class need a program?

2. How is allowing people who made money legally keep a bit more of it "taking it from the middle class"?

Yes, admitting middle class dependency is the objective.  They must have worn out the take from the poor, push Granny off the cliff lines or admit those votes are already sewn up within the alleged 47% - while the middle class are starting to see they and their children will be paying for the Obama disaster if we should survive it.
5460  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Pathological Science on: September 26, 2012, 12:09:12 PM
I am pro electric car and pro-hybrid - competing in a free market.

"tax credits, which can be as much as $7,500 per vehicle"

Whether $20,0000 or 200,000, electric or hybrid, that means every taxpayer and every future taxpayer is paying a part of the transportation cost for rich people. 

And it didn't save the planet.  Who knew.  wink
5461  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Economics on: September 26, 2012, 12:01:00 PM
GM, Nice charts.  Welcome back! Ironic that the least free countries have the highest income inequality.  You would think the chart showing the 25 most free countries with 7-fold more GDP per capita that the 25 least free countries telling it all would have some effect on policy makers somewhere...

Crafty: "I remain open to the idea that beggar-thy-neighbor exchange rate policies and capital controls present a problem.   Yes?  If so, how to solve?"

Probably mentioned before but there was quite a debate between some economic legends about fixed versus floating exchange rates between Robert Bartley former WSJ editor and Milton Friedman.  We have a floating and only partially manipulated exchange rate between the US and Europe.  Rates within the Euro are fixed thanks to some work by another legend Robert Mundell who thought that rigidity would force fiscal discipline in places like Greece etc.  Oops.  China and the growth economies of Asia pegged to the US$ and that worked well for them.  By beggar thy neighbor I assume you refer to our accusation that China's rate is locked in too low.  If true, and it probably is, it skews things but in total is no great advantage for China in the long run; that is is my understanding.  So my answer to how to solve is jawbone them like Romney is doing but otherwise what is there? Devalue back?  In a sense we are with QE.  The real answer is in those charts from GM.  Pursue economic freedom, compete in a global market like we mean business and let the chips fall where they may.  If China prospers then they will start spending and consuming and caring what they have to pay for imports as part of their own standard of living.
5462  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness 9/11/2012 on: September 26, 2012, 11:40:12 AM
We knew it was al Qaida within 24 hours, America was attacked again, and they sent out UN Ambassador Susan Rice to all the Sunday talk shows, I saw 2 or 3 of them, and she dished out the known false company line about a video no one saw and spontaneous crowds etc.

Isn't that the kind of deception they were (falsely) accusing of Bush all through the Iraq war?

Begs the questions, why lie and what else are they lying about?
5463  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, market collapse 2012? on: September 26, 2012, 11:33:18 AM
Thanks GM but I was fishing for someone to show where I was wrong. )

Had dinner with execs of the biggest multi-national here, picked up that they are looking at Europe for trouble, which means more trouble than what we all already know and on a scale to have repercussions here.  I mentioned my expectation of collapse-here-now and in a scary way heard no disagreement there either.

I wish no economic decline on anyone but maybe we will get a new awareness of policy bungling get and a new government out of it.  The fiscal cliff in Washington is a refusal to cut spending during a 4th straight trillion dollar deficit and an insistence on raising tax rates when we know that will make things worse.  There are mountains of new taxes and regulations coming,  Europe is on the brink, China: who knows, economic reports are coming from the failed recovery summer 3.0 just ended, and more Obamacare mandates kicking in.  There are way too many more shoes possible to drop on this eggshell economy and no positive seeds have been planted in years to cause an upward turn.

Markets down only a smidgen over the last 5 days so my prediction so far is wrong.  We will see. 
5464  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Paul Ryan on: September 26, 2012, 10:28:04 AM
Paul Ryan was on a roll yesterday.  In this debate season, Joe Biden should be running scared.

48 seconds, take a look.  

    "I got to start off on something that was really troubling that occurred last night. Did you guys watch that Packer game last night? I mean, give me a break," an exasperated Ryan said.

    "It reminds me of President Obama and the economy. If you can't get it right, it is time to get out," Ryan continued.

    "I half think these refs work part-time for the Obama administration in the Budget Office. They see the national debt clock starring them in the face, they see a debt crisis and they just ignore and pretend it didn't even happen. They are trying to pick the winners and losers and they don't even do that very well."
5465  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Shedlock: Free Trade and Fair Trade on: September 25, 2012, 02:25:22 PM

Does this analysis hold with regard to US workers in the presence of Chinese capital and currency controls?

I agree with the analysis of the author.  It is true that Romney is sounding complaints with unfair practices in China.  That is fine to negotiate tough, but not to the point of imposing tariffs or closing off trade.  A tariff would be a tax imposed on the American consumer, not the Chinese producer.  Tasking our bureaucrats to even out all production irregularities in the world before you can buy a product is no solution.  Our competitive disadvantage right now is mostly of our own making.

Posted before, globalization is both a) inevitable and b) beneficial.  If you don't agree with b) please see a).  We don't want international control over our own businesses and industries and we can't control theirs.  Pollution is another matter from trying to control their labor market.  We are also very capable of competing with and against the Chinese and everyone else.  There are levers of negotiation in the complex relationships of the countries short of stopping trade.

I like to call it freedom to trade, the freedom to buy or sell almost anything almost anywhere in the world. (Not arms to enemies etc.)  Both imports and exports are beneficial and both lead to a higher standard of living at home.  The freest economies will compete the best and benefit the most.  Hard to say if that is the US or China right now; I know they have a lower corporate tax rate.

Questions posed in the article: 
"Are bad jobs at bad wages better than no jobs at all?"  - Yes and I'm not including any kind of slave or involuntary labor as a job.

"Should the US demand third world economies pay "living wages"?"  No.
5466  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate on: September 25, 2012, 01:48:32 PM
I've asked our Pat to comment. He is deep in the trenches of real estate reality as usual, but if he can find a bit of time he will come share his thoughts.

These are minor points of contention I have with Wesbury.  I am really just saying that if this is strength I would hate to see weakness.  Pat can probably tell us more about what the backlog of foreclosures and underwater properties still is.

Another point is that demand I think is shifting to smaller family sizes needing smaller units (with smaller incomes).  It is not all about numbers of properties.

Grow the economy, get the real unemployment rate down from nearly 20% and  home starts and home values will take care of themselves; that's my view.  Most of what government intervention does in the housing market is to screw things up.
5467  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney on: September 25, 2012, 01:37:26 PM
"proposing cutting quite a few middle class programs"

No JDN. You said "take from the middle class" in a statement that YOU called "the Romney tax plan".

Here you were endorsing the Obama elegance while he was lying about Romney's tax plan which I already called you out on:

"Under my opponent's tax plan, 106 fans at the game would get an average tax cut of $250,000, and about 100,000 fans would have to pay for it,"
"Tax" and "pay for it" in terms of public finance have different meanings?? An ugly waste of my time trying to prove to you what YOU posted recently on these pages.  The adventure detoured.

5468  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Housing/Mortgage/Real Estate - Wesbury on: September 25, 2012, 01:25:13 PM
Wesbury from yesterday:

"The two most prominent home price measures, Case-Shiller and FHFA, are both up at about a 7% annual rate in the past six months."

An artificial recovery, those homes were purchase at artificially low interest rates.  In monthly payments, people are not paying more.  Put interest rates at market levels or at levels Wesbury is calling for and what would home prices be? 

"The number of existing homes for sale is down to the same level as 2003-04."

Interesting.  I don't think the prices are back to 2003-4 levels.  He doesn't say that.

"...we now have a shortage of homes on the MLS."

Housing markets are local but that is quite a stretch IMO.  My properties are all for sale in my mind, but not at these prices.

"The market for new homes is even more extreme, with fewer new homes for sale than at any time since at least the early 1960s"

They didn't build new homes lately because of the glut of under-priced existing homes, contradicting IMO some of the above.

"In the past 30 years, home prices have averaged 15.8 times annual rent. Now, they’re only 13.6 times rent... Given loose monetary policy, we expect move up noticeably in the next several years. So, to get back to more normal ratios means home prices will have to go up even faster."

My view is that rents are more closely tied to income than to dollars printed.  Rents and home prices will fully recover only if we pursue policies that enable a healthy business, investment and employment climate.  Forecasting markets and prices without knowing that isn't particularly informative.
5469  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: September 25, 2012, 12:44:22 PM
“I don’t want a reduction in revenue coming into the government,”

No.  We are going to grow revenues by taxing at a lower rate on a higher level of income.

This might be rocket science or voodoo if it was not already tried and proven to be possible by Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton/Gingrich and G.W. Bush.

Conversely, the six years since 2006 has proven that increasing the expectation and uncertainty of future tax rates on investment made by "the wealthiest among us" certainly damaged working people with a doubling of unemployment more than it hurt the rich.
5470  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Troll exposure: Romney's tax plan is to "take from the middle class" on: September 25, 2012, 12:42:45 PM
Did I say Romney was raising taxes or the tax rate on the middle class?  No, I never said that.  I said he was lowering taxes (the tax rate) for the upper class.

Poster JDN wrote:  in Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 18, 2012, 08:55:08 AM
"Romney's tax plan?  It's a give to to rich and take from the middle class plan.  So he and his friends can all own their own private aircraft AND deduct it from their taxes."

Drivel, deception and hate speech.  I regret the time spent going through your posts to find what you don't admit or remember posting.
5471  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 25, 2012, 12:29:08 PM
Doug, while I happen to agree with you, you took the opposite side of the argument when we discussed Feinstein and whether she should debate her opponent.

Basically, your point now was my point then.  

Feinstein's opponent "wants a level of viewership and attention that he (she) has not earned."

You would argue that the Republican candidate for US Senate is a minor party candidate, beneath a 15% support threshold?  That was the question posed.

The irony I was pointing out in yours was treating Romney and Feinstein differently.  Difference on my side is that income details of previous years is arguably PRIVATE information already reviewed by the IRS and others while positions on issues and being pinned down in a debate on how you will vote and held to defend your votes in the senate is RELEVANT to the election.  Neither is a requirement for office.  I said shame on her.  In a debate she would have to answer to a couple of liberal reporters and the viewers, not just to the 15% candidates.  I wouldn't vote for her either way, nor will you for Romney.
5472  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney on: September 25, 2012, 12:16:09 PM
JDN, You are ignoring the corporate tax of the US and Calif, HIGHEST IN THE WORLD, in your Apple stock example. Are they secretly exempt from corporate taxation?  Is Bain?? The income on the 600 in your example was ALREADY TAXED.

The tax rate on that income is roughly 35% + 10% + 15% + 10% and that equals 15% ?? ?? ?? ??  This should be on the education/math thread

In making the same mistake over and over you are also ignoring years and years of posts on the forum that pointed this out ad nauseum.


Huntsman: "the right wing did not accept him"

Nor did the middle wing or left wing.  Someone rational would support Huntsman's economic plan to the right of Romney but then vote for Obama's agenda for collective decline and redistribution? 

"I bet if he was running, he would be ahead in the polls."  - HE DID RUN AND HE LOST!

"I think I've seen Obama's position misstated or simply quoted inaccurately here often enough without the poster being chastised? Is there a double standard?"

No, we don't have to misquote him to make points in opposition.  All you're defeating with that is the straw man.  With everyone else here, inaccuracies caught are followed with corrections and apologies it seems to me.  Romney isn't raising taxes or tax rates on the middle class; that is pure drivel and intentional deception.  Typical of your posts IMO there, you throw your mud while offering NOTHING to back it up.  Where did we lie about Pres. Obama? 

Driving away good posters and bringing down the discussion, is what you are doing intentional?
5473  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential, Gary Johnson: The Parties Are Violating Anti-Trust Law on: September 25, 2012, 11:52:04 AM
My 2 cents on this lawsuit story that BD posted yesterday:

I have sympathies with the Libertarian Party, but that movement needs IMO to fight for market share within the Republican and Democratic parties in order to succeed. 

There is no constitutional basis for a two party system in the first place; all parties have rights and opportunities to compete.

The advantage of a two party dominated reality is that the winner has to try to surpass 50% of the vote to win.  In a split multi-party environment, a candidate can target a much smaller segment for victory.  In other countries for example, coalitions are then formed in back room deals.  That is not better IMO than our system.

Gary Johnson chose to debate and compete in the Republican primaries, then seeing virtually no support he went the 'third party' route  The general election does not need to included a consolation or losers bracket.  If you can get on the ballot, fine.  If you can get a news camera to film you, all the better, but we are not obligated to watch you.

It looks to me like the debate commission, operating under a freedom of association, offers a very open and objective standard for inclusion beyond the two largest current parties:

"...have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election; and have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate..."

That standard could be tighter, it could require getting on the ballot in all 50 states, or looser, it could require polling support of 10% or 5%.  Still none of these other candidates would qualify at this point.  15% is still less than half the support needed to win in a 3-way contest.  If you make the standards too low and the stage too wide, the meaning and importance of the event is lost.  We saw that in the early debates that DID include Gary Johnson.

When there has been a serious 3rd party challenge in the past, the candidate was included in the debates, see Ross Perot 1992.  In a state example, the MN rule was that if a party won 15% in the previous election, they earn major party status in the next election.  A previous independent candidate for Senate, Dean Barkley, made it possible for Jesse Ventura to stand on the podium while Hubert H Humphrey III and Norm Coleman were bickering and win election as an Independent Party Governor.

The fall debates are not designed for publicizing a large list of unknowns, the purpose is to put a final, public focus on the finalists who have already qualified as contenders.  There is no legal requirement that any serious contender must participate as we are apparently seeing in the one party state of Calif with Sen. Stalin, I mean Feinstein.  Add in too much dilution and the major candidates could easily opt out.

There is nothing stopping other parties from forming through freedom of association their own debates or other events sponsored by whatever organizations and media outlets that they can they arrange, just like Republicans and Democrats did.

Gary Johnson wants a level of viewership and attention that he has not earned.
5474  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, market collapse 2012? on: September 25, 2012, 10:47:03 AM
I am no prognosticator, but...  I don't see a path for avoiding a market collapse in 2012.

Capital gains taxes on the rich will triple if Obama is reelected and his agenda is implemented.  It is the end of productive investment as we once knew it.  

If there is a complete Republican sweep in 6 weeks, there is still no mechanism available in 2012 to avoid this before swearing in a new President, House and Senate.  No matter what detail candidate Romney espouses, the sausage making of new policy must necessarily go through a divided senate.

The tax rate on the least rich of the working people who pay income tax will go up 50% (from 10 to 15%) under current policy if nothing is done, and nothing is being done.  The percentages are lower for higher brackets, but the dollar amounts are larger.

If you buy and hold publicly traded stocks, good for you (as Elizabeth Warren says), but you share ownership in these companies with other people who use other strategies and timeframes for ownership and selling.  Good management and profitable returns can not prevent market value corrections in the short run.

The business climate for startup companies is a disaster, but if you have investments with accumulated capital gains over this relatively good market for established, publicly traded companies, you will need to capture those gains (sell) before the end of the year in order to pay the tax before rate increases set in automatically.

Unfortunately, everyone else in the US market is in that same conundrum, so you need to sell before them too or else there will be no gains to capture, just panic selling.  I would start selling by mid-September if I were you (today is the 24th) if not sooner.  (

Investment pullback and market losses tend to spill over into employment and income losses, we recently learned, hurting future business prospects.

This is not 2008 exactly because housing and financial markets already went through some correction, but the fiscal cliff sure looks familiar.

Today at this writing the markets are up slightly.  If it closes down slightly, that would make 4 days in a row and talk of real pessimism at some point could begin.

Please post in detail the error of my thinking - or learn to live with your losses.  - Doug
5475  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney - Illusions of a poster and nothing about Romney on: September 25, 2012, 09:58:30 AM
"this is what I think they hear: he’s going to help himself and his friends, and we’re going to be left paying the bill"

More us versus them, could we just have a separate thread for JDN to express his hatred?

Where is the basis in fact or reality that Mitt Romney wants to help his friends over helping the country?  Just hate speech.  Nothing else I can imagine could be worse for the people who are "going to be left paying the bill" than the path we are on.

Are you better off now than you were SIX TRILLION DOLLARS of new debt ago?
5476  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: September 25, 2012, 09:51:47 AM
From Calif thread:

"This bill allows a child to have more than two legal parents."

The Federal Financial Student Aid App (FAFSA) already changed old words like mother and father to parent one and parent two.  Now even that is too narrow minded - non-inclusive bigotry.  After parent one and parent two, the next question needs to be: how many other parents, please attach additional pages if necessary.

Extremists in the gay agenda do not just want inclusion in marriage, but apparently the destruction of the traditional marriage and traditional family.  Gone are the words husband and wife, mother and father, and the desirability of a child having the opportunity to grow up in a house with a loving mother and father living together married under one roof.

In what way in God's natural creation could a newborn baby have chosen to live in a gay or multi-partner household?

Gay, like celibacy, deserves life, liberty and pursuit of happiness but includes the reality of not bearing offspring.
5477  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 24, 2012, 01:56:05 PM
Romney is within margin of error in latest PA poll.  Watch for headfakes from the campaigns.

Meanwhile for Obama, Israel's right to exist is "noise" and a murdered Amb. is a bump in the road.

Inelegant is a pretty good understatement for the past 4 years.
5478  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney on: September 24, 2012, 01:27:23 PM
When given the opportunity by 60 minutes to blame mistakes like this on the campaign, Romney unflichingly said that was not the campaign, that was me. It's been a long time since a President took responsibility.
5479  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney on: September 24, 2012, 10:49:20 AM
"...did not seem..."    - Keyword: seem, meaning in the head of the author the story admittedly takes place.

Romney did not stand by that statement.  Did THAT fact slip past the author?

No comment on his or your hatred and stereotyping of the rich.  That is acceptable and you don't see the irony?

The correction is that most Obama voters are actually rich, but all rich are stupid.

Deep discussion JDN (sarc.). 
5480  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Romney - Illusions of the rich? on: September 24, 2012, 10:37:30 AM
That story was about the author and his hatred.  I feel sorry for him but don't find that his work fits in the non-fiction section.
5481  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Rules of the Road/Fire Hydrant on: September 23, 2012, 01:14:47 PM

Come back you are missed.


5482  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 18, 2012, 12:15:35 PM
JDN.,  Links to falsehoods published in the media ought to go in media issues, no?

Do you have a link to Romney proposing to raise tax rates on the middle class?  Oh, you don't.  Just political opponents including our biased media lying to suggest what isn't so is so. 

On the other side of your ignorance, JFK, Reagan, Clinton/Gingrich and George W Bush all increased revenues by cutting the marginal tax rates.  The most recent example was a 44% surge over 4 years ending with the election of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama congress.  This inconvenient truth has been posted many times on many threads.  You ignore the content but confronted again with these facts do you still deny the truth?

Barack Obama, NY Times and JDN, all pyromaniacs in a field of straw men.  Apologies to Geo. Will.
5483  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs, deficit: The magnitude of the mess we are in on: September 18, 2012, 11:55:46 AM
This great post from Fed/Monetary thread yesterday deserves post into the spending/deficit thread.  (Also the political economics and regulations thread.)  People know we are on the wrong track yet seem to keep voting for the status quo, a direction heading into a train wreck.  Stop accepting this poor excuse for governance.  - Doug
By George P. Shultz, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan, Allan H. Meltzer and John B. Taylor (senior fellows at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. They have served in various federal government policy positions in the Treasury Department, the Office of Management and Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers.)
 [Excerpt with some of the Fed points already posted left out here.]

Did you know that annual spending by the federal government now exceeds the 2007 level by about $1 trillion? With a slow economy, revenues are little changed. The result is an unprecedented string of federal budget deficits, $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and another $1.2 trillion on the way this year. The four-year increase in borrowing amounts to $55,000 per U.S. household.

The amount of debt is one thing. The burden of interest payments is another. The Treasury now has a preponderance of its debt issued in very short-term durations, to take advantage of low short-term interest rates. It must frequently refinance this debt which, when added to the current deficit, means Treasury must raise $4 trillion this year alone. So the debt burden will explode when interest rates go up.

The government has to get the money to finance its spending by taxing or borrowing. While it might be tempting to conclude that we can just tax upper-income people, did you know that the U.S. income tax system is already very progressive? The top 1% pay 37% of all income taxes and 50% pay none.

Did you know that, during the last fiscal year, around three-quarters of the deficit was financed by the Federal Reserve? Foreign governments accounted for most of the rest, as American citizens' and institutions' purchases and sales netted to about zero. The Fed now owns one in six dollars of the national debt, the largest percentage of GDP in history, larger than even at the end of World War II.

The Fed has effectively replaced the entire interbank money market and large segments of other markets with itself. It determines the interest rate by declaring what it will pay on reserve balances at the Fed without regard for the supply and demand of money. By replacing large decentralized markets with centralized control by a few government officials, the Fed is distorting incentives and interfering with price discovery with unintended economic consequences.
The issue is not merely how much we spend, but how wisely, how effectively. Did you know that the federal government had 46 separate job-training programs? Yet a 47th for green jobs was added, and the success rate was so poor that the Department of Labor inspector general said it should be shut down. We need to get much better results from current programs, serving a more carefully targeted set of people with more effective programs that increase their opportunities.

Did you know that funding for federal regulatory agencies and their employment levels are at all-time highs? In 2010, the number of Federal Register pages devoted to proposed new rules broke its previous all-time record for the second consecutive year. It's up by 25% compared to 2008. These regulations alone will impose large costs and create heightened uncertainty for business and especially small business.

This is all bad enough, but where we are headed is even worse.

President Obama's budget will raise the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 80.4% in two years, about double its level at the end of 2008, and a larger percentage point increase than Greece from the end of 2008 to the beginning of this year.

Under the president's budget, for example, the debt expands rapidly to $18.8 trillion from $10.8 trillion in 10 years. The interest costs alone will reach $743 billion a year, more than we are currently spending on Social Security, Medicare or national defense, even under the benign assumption of no inflationary increase or adverse bond-market reaction. For every one percentage point increase in interest rates above this projection, interest costs rise by more than $100 billion, more than current spending on veterans' health and the National Institutes of Health combined.

Worse, the unfunded long-run liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid add tens of trillions of dollars to the debt, mostly due to rising real benefits per beneficiary. Before long, all the government will be able to do is finance the debt and pay pension and medical benefits. This spending will crowd out all other necessary government functions.

What does this spending and debt mean in the long run if it is not controlled? One result will be ever-higher income and payroll taxes on all taxpayers that will reach over 80% at the top and 70% for many middle-income working couples.

Did you know that the federal government used the bankruptcy of two auto companies to transfer money that belonged to debt holders such as pension funds and paid it to friendly labor unions? This greatly increased uncertainty about creditor rights under bankruptcy law.
When businesses and households confront large-scale uncertainty, they tend to wait for more clarity to emerge before making major commitments to spend, invest and hire. Right now, they confront a mountain of regulatory uncertainty and a fiscal cliff that, if unattended, means a sharp increase in taxes and a sharp decline in spending bound to have adverse effect on the economy. Are you surprised that so much cash is waiting on the sidelines?

What's at stake?

We cannot count on problems elsewhere in the world to make Treasury securities a safe haven forever. We risk eventually losing the privilege and great benefit of lower interest rates from the dollar's role as the global reserve currency. In short, we risk passing an economic, fiscal and financial point of no return.

Suppose you were offered the job of Treasury secretary a few months from now. ...Today, government officials are issuing debt to finance pet projects and payoffs to interest groups, not some vital, let alone existential, national purpose.

The problems are close to being unmanageable now. If we stay on the current path, they will wind up being completely unmanageable, culminating in an unwelcome explosion and crisis.

The fixes are blindingly obvious. Economic theory, empirical studies and historical experience teach that the solutions are the lowest possible tax rates on the broadest base, sufficient to fund the necessary functions of government on balance over the business cycle; sound monetary policy; trade liberalization; spending control and entitlement reform; and regulatory, litigation and education reform. The need is clear. Why wait for disaster? The future is now.
5484  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed repeals the law of compound interest on: September 18, 2012, 11:11:47 AM
From Crafty's post:
"Bernanke and the Fed Repeal Einstein
Near-zero interest rates, which are expected to last through mid-2015, make a mockery of thrift.."

Excellent point.  Too many of us look at interest rates as the cost of borrowing.  It also was the reward and incentive for savings.  It is true that the law of compound interest was repealed when interest approached zero and then stayed there long term.

In a healthy economy there is a balance between savings and lending/borrowing.  Now the savings is at zero and our borrowing demand is met with pretend money that is artificially manufactured by devaluing our existing supply of money.

What could possibly go wrong?
5485  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pres. Obama, Pyromaniac of straw men on: September 18, 2012, 10:41:34 AM
JDN,  I am surprised you quote Obama still showing no grasp of economics and offering no plan for solving any of our problems.  He is still willing to lie and deceive in the hope of getting 4 more years of aircraft privileges.

"Under my opponent's tax plan, 106 fans at the game would get an average tax cut of $250,000, and about 100,000 fans would have to pay for it," he said.

   - There is no Republican proposal to raise taxes on the middle class tax.

"the ones who would get the tax break are the guys in the box seats."

   - The Romney plan will take away deductions for the upper income earners.  Don't let facts get in the way of a great opportunity to build and exploit class hatred for his own personal power gain.


5486  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 18, 2012, 10:28:48 AM
Inelegant, yes.  It also gives an indication to his backers that he gets the political challenge we face.  What is missing in the 'gotcha' film is how he would cut those SOB's money off as soon as he gets in.  In fact, the baseline for a zero increase in spending is a ten trillion increase in spending, and the Ryan budget for one goes above that.

Whether you want a job, a good economy to open a new business in, or the security of knowing a legitimate safety net entitlement check will be funded into the future, you should be choosing the candidate with the best plan to grow the economy.

Yesterday in my studies of the dependency crowd I took the opportunity to visit a liquor store in one of the seediest areas of our inner city.  In the center front of the store sidewalk was the Obama - register the vote table with one paid worker ready to help.  I must say from my short period of observation coming and going that this is not 2008.  People came and went with their liquor purchases but no one showed any interest in the table or even offered a sign of approval.  Sure, if polled, the demographic is Dem or left of Dem.  There is a strong racial pride (in all of us) that America in 2008 elected Barack Obama as President.  But there is zero enthusiasm or optimism left from 2008 that 4 more years of Obama will make a personal and positive difference in their lives.  

For one thing, poor people already had free government health care.  Obama chose a middle class entitlement for his signature achievement; money that could have gone to the poor.  The poor gained nothing, the middle class was the group that lost the most in terms of income, wealth, opportunity and jobs in the 6 years since Dems took over Washington in Nov. 2006, and the rich are openly targeted.  Who is left to get excited about a second term?
5487  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential - the 47%? on: September 18, 2012, 09:09:22 AM
Famous people reading the forum, I thought Romney was just commenting on a CCP post made here.   wink

No one could survive a remark like bitter clingers, 47% are dependent on government or that "I will have more flexibility after my election" to negotiate against the best interest of Americans?  An interesting question would be, what would the vote result have been in 2008 if candidate Obama had not gotten caught ripping the bitter clingers?  About the same.

The candidate better than Romney was ... Huntsman?  With 1/10th of the support, a tax plan to the right of Romney and a little less charisma than Pawlenty?  The Republicans had an open contest and Romney won.  Dems suppressed theirs.  No one is asking who should have been the Dem candidate to change the course of this American-led, global decline.

The Romney remark is imprecise, but the problem is real.  It is not the exact same group that are both dependent and are the hard core Dem vote.  Obama also wins with liberal elites, trust fund babies, the college professor crowd, the rich mainstream media, and also the anti-government felon vote.  And quite a few of those receiving a check or not paying in are Republicans who understand the balance of keeping opportunity alive while taking care of those in real need.

Romney is the only person in the world right now capable of replacing Obama as President and preventing a second Obama, decline by design, Presidential term.  Rip him at your own peril.

5488  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 15, 2012, 05:15:07 PM
Also the Pres. does not understand the nature of the enemy. He believed his own rhetoric. They hated the Texas swagger of George Bush and cannot resist his apologies and charm , but in fact they hate us because we exist and understanding that is crucial to our security.
5489  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 15, 2012, 04:54:11 PM
I agree w/ obj he is not interested in Am. exceptionalism or military superiority.

He enacted the beginning of his agenda and the results are horrible. He is just wrong about economics. You don't help the poor and the middle class this way.

He has contempt for much of what is great about America.

Hitler analogies fail unless someone has murdered 6 million Jews.

The delicate part is to get at the voting pattern of the very few among us who are truly swing voters.
5490  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 15, 2012, 09:55:37 AM
Ok but there was still NO security. Was the boss aware of this?

It would have taken Axelrod telling him it affected his reelection to get his attention. MHO
5491  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 15, 2012, 09:34:37 AM
Brietbart reporting chaos at State Dept. Hillary ordered no bullets, no marines at Benghazi.

Who is her boss and how much time does he spend overseeing her work?

I reported earlier Amb Huntsman never met with the Pres in person or otherwise regarding China policy. Add to that Crafty's point about the Afghan commander and the cluelessness on jobs and growth, this man does not want the job; he wants the perks.
5492  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 15, 2012, 08:09:02 AM
There are follow up questions. Don't only read half of it. He reads, and then there ARE discussions held, though usually electronically.

Are you satisfied with that in a time of war?

Same for the jobs council?  What if he misread the part about 50,000 new regulations killing job creation.  An error smaller than that in  national security could cost a Consulate.
5493  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential - Romney to receive intelligence briefings on: September 14, 2012, 10:25:44 AM
This should add to our security by forcing the President to receive intelligence briefings too - for political purposes.

The President's team is saying he reads them instead of having then presented in person more often than not and that he is perhaps the smartest person to have ever read them. 

Clods like Reagan and George W bush were slower; sometimes when told a summary of all the complexities of all the greatest threats in the world against the United States they even had to ask ... a FOLLOWUP QUESTION.
5494  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Libya - death toll on: September 14, 2012, 10:18:34 AM
The horrific death of the Americans is widely reported but I have not yet heard how many of the enemy were killed while trying to attack our consulate and diplomatic corps in this most dangerous place - facing a known threat.

Pres. Obama has more backup on a golf course.
5495  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Libya and on: September 12, 2012, 05:14:51 PM
I thought it was our presence on the Arabian Pennisula. Now it is free speech at home.  I blame the enemy but those blaming.ourselves perhaps take a look at spiking the football, 22 more times during the DNC.

How about we defend our facities and diplomats with out 600B defense budget.

Embassies also attacked in 1979 and 1998. Not a new threat.
5496  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: September 12, 2012, 02:43:57 PM
JDN, you missed the pronoun in front of 'dont blame Feinstein'. You don't blame her. I do and you won't be dictating my view. You also missed completely the point about blatant hypocrisy. Might want to go back and read it before saying it isn't there.

I keep reading but don't see an example of an R incumbent in Calif getting away with no debate or any recent MN contest having no debate. Unresponsive replies make our own debates less fun.
5497  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Political Economics, "Double down on trickle down" on: September 11, 2012, 07:18:37 PM
Getting back to CCP on a great post over on Media Issues:

The questions posed partly apply to a number of threads, Pres 2012, but I thought I would take it up here.  

Excerpt from CCP:

"... Today Art Laffer was on FOX and was asked specifically and directly an important question that goes to the heart of today's neo civil war.

He was asked why is should people believe that "trickle down" economics is better for the majority of people?  Do not the rich keep getting richer and the rest of the people stagnate?  Why not increase tax rates on higher earners, Clinton did it and the economy boomed.  Laffer was a complete failure at articulating a logical rational simple response that most people would agree to.

I guarantee Doug McG would do a far better job at answering these questions ina way the average could understand and immediately agree to.

I do not understand why these core questions are not being answered by the MR team.  All they do is talk "jobs", the "debt", and other buzz words that DO NOT specify why history proves them/us right and the socialists wrong.

If they can learn to answer these types of questions then the game is won. ..."

First off, it warms the heart to receive a nice compliment like that, but I am an armchair commenter compared to a legend like Prof. Laffer.

Explaining freedom is quite a challenge and quite a skill is required.  I struggle to write the posts here but the act of trying helps me to have thought these questions through when the issues come up in real conversations and debates.  Every once in a while someone lays out the freedom argument so plain and simple that it all makes sense.  Reagan had that gift.  Gilder in Wealth and Poverty.  Having government do less is not sexy and easy to sell.  I remember Jack Kemp saying what we need is not a war against the rich, we need more people to become rich.  

Speaking to the opposite, the crony government state case I think is much easier to make. I remember Pres. Bill Clinton's state of the unions always went like this for about 100 minutes: we can do more for police (not a federal function), we can do more for teachers (not a federal function), we can do more for infrastructure (largely not a federal function), we can do more for struggling parents (some targeted program you have no shot at ever seeing) and so on.  How about cure diseases, how can anyone oppose any of that?

Bill Clinton in Charlotte said that a potential Romney administration would be a "double down on trickle down".

Trickle down is a lie in itself and a straw argument.  Trickle down is a term only used by people who oppose growth economics and want wealth creation slowed and punished.

There is no tax proposal on the table now or ever to give something to rich people in the hopes that it will trickle down to working people.

The rich do not pay less, that is a fallacy.  The top 20% of earners make 50% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes.

Extending tax cuts or creating new ones "gives" nothing to anyone.  A tax rate only defines what portion you can keep out of what you earn.  "Gifts" are on the spending, entitlements and welfare side of the ledger with no legitimacy on the tax side.  The deception is intentional.

We live and operate in a interconnected and interdependent economy.  Labor depends on capital just as capital depends on labor.  These are not different people.  As it turned out in the gulf oil spill, the number one class of share holders of British Petroleum turned out to be  the pensioners of Britain.  A store or a service company relies on customers, and suppliers.  Anyone can start a company, buy a share of stock or apply for a job in a free economy.  We do not have classes of people, middle or otherwise.  In fact, 70% of children did not end up in their parent's quintile of income.

We just lived through one of the greatest attacks on capital possible and we learned that when you handcuff investors and threaten them with greater and greater penalties for accomplishment, labor is hurt the worst.  An investor who pulls back his money still has most of his money, but the people who would have worked there do not have those jobs or any other if the problems is all across the economy.  A downside to federal control of industry and economy.  Today the stock market is glowing in value, barriers to entry block out potential competition for the listed and entrenched companies, while the labor market is in the tank.  Unemployment is at roughly 20% if you count people working part time that can't find full time and count the increase of people leaving the workforce among the unemployed.

What is the Obama administration doing wrong?  50,000 new regulations in 42 months and threatening to raise all relevant tax rates.  Uncertainty in all regards is at third world levels.

Example:  The new federal definition of a full time employee is eighteen pages long.  Why is that important?  Number of full time employees is a key criteria in the plethora of federal strangulations.  Please search the article posted on 'why there are so many 49 employee companies in France' for a clue.

It is not "trickle down" to take an already progressive tax code and lower and simplify the rates for everyone across the board.  It is pro-growth or supply side economics.

Marco Rubio for one has been consistently clear on this.  Romney and Ryan, sometimes.  

You cannot balance the budget or solve the unemployment crisis without encouraging robust job creation in the private sector.  For every government idea or piece of legislation you need to ask one question: what does this do to grow jobs in the private sector?   A surcharge on millionaires, does that grow jobs?  No.  Does increasing progressivity in the tax code grow jobs?  No. An Obamacare excise tax on all medical device sales, does this grow jobs?  No.  Blocking the drilling in ANWR and blocking a pipeline from Canada, does this grow jobs?  No.  QE4 and another round of not exactly shovel ready crony expenditures, does this grow jobs across the board?  No.  50,000 new regulations, does this grow jobs?  No.  Taking over an entire industry to bureaucratic control, stifling innovation, does this grow jobs?  No.  Regulations for public leave, plant closing notices, mandatory health coverages, does this kind of well intentioned do-gooding grow jobs?  No.

Does a better policy toward allowing energy production help employment in that industries and nearly all other industries?  Yes.  Do lower, simpler and more predicable marginal rates on income help job creation?  Yes.  Would getting our corporate down from worst in the world help job creation in America?  Yes.  Would eliminating all unnecessary regulations at the federal level increase job creation?  Yes.

Is there anything in the past, present or future Obama agenda that across the board falls on the side of growing jobs?  No.

Is the entire original Romney 59 point economic plan all about increasing job creation?  Yes.

You can't stomp out capital formation and economic freedom and put the focus on government controlled equality of outcomes without hurting employment and job creation.  I don't know how to say that in a way that persuades anyone not inclined to believe it, but it is empirically true.

Going back to the original quotation:  "Why not increase tax rates on higher earners, Clinton did it and the economy boomed."

This is not true.  Clinton raised taxes in his first action and the economy only sputtered ahead, a very weak recovery.  When he switched to the Dick Morris triangulate tact, he lowered capital gains tax rates, ended welfare as we knew it and deregulated industries.  Also he passed hemisphere-wide free trade with majority R support and majority D opposition.  It is quite a clever buffoon in Clinton to now tell us that job growth then, in the tens of millions, was a victory of Democratic policies over Republican policies in the context of the 2012 election choices.

As it was said of the Clintons at the time, they lie with such ease.
5498  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races on: September 11, 2012, 05:54:16 PM
"You know as well as I do that front runners, if they are clearly front runners rarely debate their opponents."

Where I come from we have debates and at the national level level we have debates.  Why don't you post what you8 know and I'll post what I know.  More efficient that way.

"There are quite a few precedents."   - On both sides I presume.  All those words but you don't cite any.  When was the last time a Republican incumbent in Calif refused to debate to hold high office? 

You did not address the blatant hypocrisy point. 
5499  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The US Congress; Congressional races. Feinstein won't debate? on: September 11, 2012, 05:20:30 PM
"don't blame Feinstein for being popular"

I clearly blamed her for refusing to debate her opponent and I compared her unfavorably to Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin and Mao.  If you need to change my words in order to argue against them, that means you actually agree with me?

Is there precedent for no debate because you are popular and your competitors are poorly funded and the media refuses to cover their campaigns?  In our state (MN), minor parties who get 15% of the vote in one election get a seat at the table in the debates of the next election.  (That law or tradition made possible the election of a wrestler as Governor while the two major parties were bickering.)

In the People's Republic of California, even a measure that gets 52.24% of the vote cannot become law if it is not liberal orthodoxy.

Romney needs to release more tax returns than Ronald Reagan (says same poster) but Diane Feinstein does not need to even agree to a liberal hosted and moderated debate.  We need to know more personal stuff about a man accused of doing nothing wrong since high school but we don't need to have the views and votes of an incumbent Senator challenged whatsoever.  The blatant hypocrisy makes discussion useless.
5500  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Bailouts are profitable on: September 11, 2012, 05:02:06 PM
The government's sale of about $18 billion shares of stock in rescued insurance giant American International Group locks in a minimum $12.4-billion profit for taxpayers on one of the most controversial bailouts of the financial crisis, the Treasury Department said late Monday.

President Obama was quick to point out (?) that the credit for this responsible use of artificially manufactured public funds most certainly goes to then Pres. George W Bush for stopping the financial meltdown and making his one-term proposition recovery possible.
Pages: 1 ... 108 109 [110] 111 112 ... 183
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!