Dog Brothers Public Forum

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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 24, 2017, 07:01:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101159 Posts in 2371 Topics by 1087 Members
Latest Member: R.K
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 06:54:07 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAjKyEGDlXA

Bono: 'Capitalism Takes More People Out of Poverty Than Aid'

U2 frontman Bono, who is also an investor, philanthropist, and Christian told students at Georgetown University that real economic growth, not government aid, is what lifts people and countries out of poverty long-term, emphasizing that "entrepreneurial capitalism" is the key to prosperity.

“Some of Africa is rising, and some of Africa is stuck," said Bono while speaking at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business to about 700 students.  "The question is whether the rising bit will pull the rest of Africa up, or whether the other Africa will weigh the continent down. Which will it be? The stakes here aren’t just about them."


"Imagine for a second this last global recession [in 2007-2009] but without the economic growth of China and India, without the hundreds of millions of newly minted middle class folks who now buy American and European goods – imagine that," said Bono.  "Think about the last 5 years."

Then, holding his forehead with his right hand, Bono, who has an estimated wealth of $600 million, said, "Rock star preaches capitalism—wow. Sometimes I hear myself and I just cannot believe it."

"But commerce is real," he said.  "That’s what you’re about here. It’s real. Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce, entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid -- of course, we know that.”

Bono made those remarks on Nov. 12, 2012
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/bono-capitalism-takes-more-people-out-poverty-aid

 2 
 on: Today at 06:42:40 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/25078/9781464809583.pdf
"...success in reducing inequality and boosting shared prosperity in a given period does not necessarily translate into similar success on other economic, social, or political fronts, nor into sustainable reductions in inequality over time."

 3 
 on: Today at 03:28:22 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
We hear about gender 'equality', great word but what they mean is 'sameness'.  It doesn't benefit women be the same as men, nor does it benefit the children.


 4 
 on: Today at 01:15:45 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DDF
Thank you, to both of you.

Doug, I don't disagree at all.

I came across this gem this morning... it is only relevant because there is a government committee attached to it, capable of influencing policy.

"Lean in"? How about lean on?

Australian columnist Sarrah Le Marquand offers this winning strategy for getting more women into the workforce: Make it illegal to be a stay-at-home mom.

Or actually, since she's Australian, make it illegal to be a stay-at-home mum.

Yes, that's the headline for Le Marquand's latest column for the Sydney Daily Telegraph: "It Should be Illegal to Be a Stay-at-Home Mum."

And she's bluntly upfront about what she wants, which is unconditional surrender in the mommy wars:

Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed.
And here's the reasoning:

Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way that men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender.
Only when it becomes the norm for all families to have both parents in paid employment, and sharing the stress of the work-home juggle, will we finally have a serious conversation about how to achieve a more balanced modern workplace.
Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.
So long as we as a nation cling to the lie that only a stay-at-home mum is best placed to assume the responsibilities of caregiver then working fathers will continue to feel insecure about stepping off the corporate treadmill to spend more time with their children.
Take that, Sheryl Sandburg!

Le Marquand's demand to arrest and imprison any woman who dares to spend her time baking after-school cookies for Junior and Sophie instead of slaving in a cubicle could become part of U.S. policy as well. The international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, whose 35 members include the U.S., recently issued a report stating that nations could solve their labor-shortage problems by putting mothers to work full-time. (Part-time jobs, the kind of employment that many women with growing children prefer, apparently don't count in OECD-land.)

The report singled out Australia as a particularly egregious offender in the stay-at-home-mom department. News.com.au reported:

Employment rates of women with children in Australia are 9 per cent lower than those of all prime-aged women, the report declared.
Urging Australia to help this “untapped potential” into the Australian workforce, the OECD recommends the government adopt “facilitation of a better work-life balance” and focus and the provision of affordable childcare.
"Work-life balance"! Whether you like it or not.

- See more at: http://iwf.org/blog/2803166/Aussie-Columnist-Wants-to-Make-It-Illegal-to-Be-a-Stay-at-Home-Mother#sthash.ULZZIY0X.iEmELy0e.dpuf

http://iwf.org/blog/2803166/Aussie-Columnist-Wants-to-Make-It-Illegal-to-Be-a-Stay-at-Home-Mother


 5 
 on: Today at 01:13:55 PM 
Started by ccp - Last post by Crafty_Dog
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1586

 6 
 on: Today at 12:18:39 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
GM:  "The media would never lie to us. They are Professional Journalists! With credentials!"

And that's why they covered this science story so widely and boldly...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170306091927.htm

Cold extermination: One of greatest mass extinctions was due to an ice age and not to Earth's warming
Date:  March 6, 2017
Source: Université de Genève

The Earth has known several mass extinctions over the course of its history. One of the most important happened at the Permian-Triassic boundary 250 million years ago. Over 95% of marine species disappeared and, up until now, scientists have linked this extinction to a significant rise in Earth temperatures. But researchers have now discovered that this extinction took place during a short ice age which preceded the global climate warming.
------------------------------------------------------

Can someone please link the NY Times coverage of this catastrophic global warming refutation.

Correction coming soon to the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24732-2005Jan20.html
Extinction Tied to Global Warming
Greenhouse Effect Cited in Mass Decline 250 Million Years Ago
January 21, 2005

Oops.  No so!



 7 
 on: Today at 12:03:52 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
Addressing another point from ccp: 
...Why can I not be justifiably angry that so many people in this country are getting something for nothing while I struggle for 5 months a year to pay for it.  Why do I NEVER have a voice?  Why is there no one who will stand up for me?  Why am I always taken for granted? ...


ccp, You (we) will NEVER win the political argument that taxes are unfair to the productive and relatively well-paid.  It has to be won on the other side of it.  Big government and all these spending programs are hurting the beneficiaries.  Look at the inner city, the war on poverty and the cycle of dependence and perpetual low income created.  With SSI, Section 8, food stamps, FAFSA and on and on including Obamacare, recipients essentially enter a contract with the government to stay poor or lose benefits.  As the benefits get larger and larger, the contract to be permanently low income becomes unbreakable.

People on the cusp of receiving or losing benefits face a far higher than a 100% marginal tax rate, making the earning of the next dollar of income a very bad economic decision.  They can make $500 or a thousand more and lose tens of thousands of benefits.  They would need to more than double or triple their income to replace what they will lose, and that is not instantly possible.  Crucial rungs of the economic ladder just above them were torn out by our entitlement system.  Obamacare, unrepealed, brings permanent dependency to millions more people.  The rich will need to make more and more to pay for it or it folds and people with currently lower incomes get locked into lower incomes long term.  Who does that help?

The poor in America had free health care before Obamacare - and after it, if repealed.  Obamacare was aimed primarily at the second quintile, to subsidize comprehensive healthcare for those who work for modest incomes and don't get employer healthcare.  It was also aimed at taking the opportunity to enact an irreversible federal government takeover of the whole system that would eventually lead to whatever you want to call it, single, federal government payer, universal care, socialized medicine.

How do you explain to those losing their O'care subsidy is in their best interest?  That where they were paying $100 of an $800 policy, and now will pay 799 because of some minor deregulation will help them?  It is a tough sell.  That is why you look for a wedge in the opposite direction of the ones planted by the left. 

You must make it possible and desirable for them to make more income and rise out of subsidy.  The rising tide, JFK called it.  You make it beneficial for them to make more and more income, not punishing at the lower end (or at the high end).  You make it legal and possible for them to buy less expensive healthcare policies to cover basic needs while they raise their incomes to pay for larger plans if they want them.  You take the part of the cost out of it that is paying for someone else's care, young paying for the old etc.  Your policy cost covers you and your risks, not the ills of the system.  We need to message better.  We are not replacing a system that works; we are replacing a system that already failed, is unfunded and in a death spiral. 

Create an environment where people want to be off the dole, not on it.  If we can accomplish that in less than 100 years, we are doing better than anyone thought possible.  In the meantime, dismantle this new entitlement the best you before it gets any further entrenched.

This isn't going to be easier later.

 8 
 on: Today at 10:53:39 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
ccp:  The doctor who during a meeting I was in who said he thought the Repubs would not be ABLE to repeal Obamster  care because of this simple phrase:  "20 million people will lose their insurance"

An exchange on this thread Oct-Nov, 2016:
Gruber:"The main goal of Obamacare was two-fold. One was to cover the uninsured, of which we’ve covered 20 million, the largest expansion in American history. The other was to fix broken insurance markets where insurers could deny people insurance just because they were sick or they had been sick."

Crafty: Name me a Rep who answers this cogently and tell me what he says.
-----------------------------------------------------

It was 100% foreseeable and unavoidable all along that you would be accused of taking health insurance away for 20 million if you "repeal Obamacare lock, stock and barrel".

Any pure conservative, libertarian or federalist can see that health insurance is not the domain of the federal government for a host of reasons.  And any honest historian can tell you that we have not only never ended a major entitlement after it is in effect, have we ever even cut the growth rate of one?!   CBO was wrong on Medicaid by 17-fold as it grew and expanded.

At the very minimum, moving forward on repeal/reform requires consensus of 50% plus one vote of the House, 50 Senators and the White House.  A pure view that the federal government has no business at all in health care may be exactly right but isn't going to ever reach that threshold, no matter what Ted Cruz and the Freedom caucus say.  Do any of them say they have the votes?

Pointing out that the 20 million is really 10 million, http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1411.msg102499#msg102499, or that more than 20 million lost their policies because of Obamacare doesn't make the question go away, what are you going to do about the 20 million (that is really 10 million) that will lose their healthcare if Obamacare is repealed?

Republicans propose tax credits - violation of our principles, new entitlement.  Another option is a transition period, two year delay or phase-out.  It still begs the question, what are we going to do with the 20 million (10 million)?

It partly comes down to policy and it partly comes to surrendering the war of messenging over the last over the last 8 (or 100) years.

To the naysayers of the Ryan and Trump plan, you better do something because doing nothing is worse and will truly lead to socialized medicine if not stopped now.

And to the writers of the Ryan and Trump 3-part plan, this better be good - and prove the naysayers wrong.

 9 
 on: Today at 10:12:47 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG

He makes a number of good points.

 10 
 on: Today at 10:10:59 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by DougMacG
I see in my open tabs, this didn't get posted a couple of days ago when written.  I was going to point out today that Mark Steyn was making this same point on the radio yesterday:  

"Democrats face a simple choice, how would they like to lose?"

[Leftist commentator, Nina Totenburg was also making this point.]

Steyn says, they can lose fast or lose the slow way, but lose this battle is what is going to happen for them.  Schumer says they will filibuster and press for a different nominee.  Really?  Who is a better nominee for a President like Trump to pick and a Republican majority Senate to confirm?  I predict it will be Dems that fold on the filibuster.  Better yet, break the log jam via the rules and require the Senate to do it's job, advise and consent on Supreme Court nominations.
-----------------

I am embarrassed for my Senators, Democats Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken.  [On the good side, they have been nationally exposed for what they are, boring, petty and disingenuous, not 2020 Presidential material as some previously thought.]

Amy [Sen. Klobuchar D-MN] tried to prove the point that originalism is bad by pointing out that the constitution includes multiple references to the President with the pronouns he or him.  But the women's right to vote IS part of the constitution, added in the 19th amendment in 1920, and Article 2 defining how we choose the President also refers to the list of possible candidates as "Persons", never using the word man or men.  What a reckless idiot.  [The next day she opened by denying she was making this false point.]   Amy was a County Attorney and should have been able to handle the job as opposition questioner.  Instead it was quite obvious that she was only reading questions handed to her by others.  One way you know that is that the series of questions doesn't correctly anticipate the nominee's answer to the previous question.  It doesn't flow and the questioner keeps getting thrown off track.  Example, the next day, after losing an exchange with the judge, she reiterated her off the mark point, didn't give the witness another chance to respond and then just said she needed to move on.

As Hennepin County Attorney (Hennepin County is bigger than 8 states), was she a prosecutor or was she a driveling politician who had prosecutors on staff?  Quite obviously the latter.

Enter Al Franken.  Besides his lack of humor, he showed his lack of legal knowledge and preparation.  First he went after one of Gorsuch's 3000 decisions, Trans Am Trucking.  Franken took his speaking time 99-1 over the witness and used his time to demonstrate that he not only didn't understand the pivotal point of the case, but he couldn't pronounce it either, "scrivener's error", and HE'S the one who chose the case to discuss!  [Or did the people who wrote his questions pick it?]  All his other points failed too, What did Reince Priebus mean by ...?  Gorsuch didn't even have to say, it's none of his business what one politician thinks of him.  

Democrats face a simple choice, how would they like to lose? They can delay - as Chuck Schumer is proposing.  They can filibuster.  They can vote no.  And they can cause the creation a new, nuclear option precedent and break the filibuster via a rules vote that would then make Trump future appointments pass too.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!