We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, December 27. 2012
This morning's art photo stolen from Moonbattery
Disabled Workers Hit New High in December – Nearly 90,000 Apply For Federal Benefits
The ‘Open for Business’ Tax Plan - Let’s eliminate tariffs and corporate taxes.
David Gregory should be arrested for violating DC’s gun law
End the Food Protectionism Racket - Food protectionism is harmful, rampant, and stupid.
Look At All These Guns People Got for Christmas (h/t Insty)
Not your father's UK: Arrested for having Swiss Army Knife in car
US lambasts China for breaches of trade rules
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Nice piece on dismantling the public schools. Those who claim they want to forego another CT tragedy might consider this more closely.
Thomas Sowell: The more I study the history of intellectuals, the more they seem like a wrecking crew, dismantling civilization bit by bit -- replacing what works with what sounds good.
Liberalism balances liberty and equality, and history since the Renaissance has been a general movement towards greater liberty and equality. While Sowell perhaps exaggerates, it is reasonable to say that liberalism has been a powerful force for change. Institutions have been transformed by this process, including the Church, nobility, suffrage, slavery and serfdom, marriage, governments.
liberals, circa 2012, have hijacked the historical concept of classical liberalism.
do liberals really think peolosi/reid are liberal in the same way that the barons who forced the magna carta on king john? only in their wettest of wet dreams.
today's liberals are the successors of failed experiments in communism.
wirraway: liberals, circa 2012, have hijacked the historical concept of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism refers to free markets. At the time, markets were controlled through royal patents, so free markets meant greater equality and freedom for the majority of people. In the last century, government has had a primary role in both providing greater equality, such as universal education, and providing greater liberty, such as civil rights protections. However, these values can often be in conflict, which is why liberalism encompasses such a wide variety of views.
wirraway: do liberals really think peolosi/reid are liberal in the same way that the barons who forced the magna carta on king john?
Of course not—and that's the very point. As we mentioned the center has moved left over history.
You provide an excellent example. While the barons wanted a share of political power and privileges, they certainly weren't advocating that the peasants be given a place in the government. The barons were to the left of King John, but to the right of just about everyone today. Nevertheless, the barons shifted the center to the left.
thank you, man from the thirteenth century.
"liberal" to the founding fathers had an entirely different meaning than the nanny state charade of liberalism today. to the founding fathers, rights and freedom did not come from the government but were achieved only by placing limitations on government, a notion repugnant to modern liberals who need posted OSHA instructions on when to wash their hands. so the "left" - "right" caricatures fail from the gate.
in the USA, the founders set up a form of government in which the government is not the source of any right or liberty, because what a government can give, a government can take away.
liberals, on the other hand, have perverted the old, worthy ideal of liberalism and turned it on its head. they look to government as the source of rights, entitlements, handouts, giveaways, preferences, bribes, set asides, kickbacks, bailouts, pork and ever increasing deficits to Do The Right Thing.
"leftists" and "liberals" are now thumbnail descriptions of the the degraded meaning of the liberalism of the founders.
they have more in common with the failed revolutionaries of 1848 and those behind iron curtain the last century.
I'm not saying all liberals are ignorant of constitutional theory (some are merely duplicitous) but my cat knows more about Article I than most of them.
wirraway: thank you, man from the thirteenth century.
You're welcome, but King John's conflict with the barons was your own example.
wirraway: "liberal" to the founding fathers had an entirely different meaning than the nanny state charade of liberalism today.
While the definition is much the same, the implementation is different because circumstances are different. During the the period of classical liberalism, free markets meant greater equality and greater liberty. With the rise of industrialism, power became concentrated in corporate trusts, leaving many people without an effective say in their own lives.
wirraway: to the founding fathers, rights and freedom did not come from the government but were achieved only by placing limitations on government, a notion repugnant to modern liberals who need posted OSHA instructions on when to wash their hands. so the "left" - "right" caricatures fail from the gate.
And yet they abandoned a loose confederation in favor of a constitution with a strong central government.
wirraway: in the USA, the founders set up a form of government in which the government is not the source of any right or liberty, because what a government can give, a government can take away.
The people are the source of sovereignty, but in practice, it's the balance of power that maintains liberty.
wirraway: liberals, on the other hand, have perverted the old, worthy ideal of liberalism and turned it on its head. they look to government as the source of rights, entitlements, handouts, giveaways, preferences, bribes, set asides, kickbacks, bailouts, pork and ever increasing deficits to Do The Right Thing.
Returning to Sowell's original comment, conservatives have often decried the institutional changes wrought by modernity. At its extreme, the left may try to remake society, and extremists of left or right will justify the means by the ends. This can result in the destruction of valued traditions and institutions. Nevertheless, constructive change has occurred, so much so that reformers of previous centuries would be considered extreme reactionaries today.
wirraway: "leftists" and "liberals" are now thumbnail descriptions of the the degraded meaning of the liberalism of the founders.
Of course, at the time, they were considered extremists. Everyone knew that people couldn't rule themselves. It had been tried and failed in ancient times.
"Liberalism balances liberty and equality, and history since the Renaissance has been a general movement towards greater liberty and equality"
That's simply untrue. A complete falsehood.
"Is not" isn't much of an argument.
Are you saying there hasn't been a general movement towards equality and liberty since the Renaissance? We certainly aren't saying the trend has been monotonic, but certainly, the Church no longer has the final say over matter of conscience, the king no longer has final say over temporal matters, and serfdom is much less common today than in former times, especially in the West.
""Is not" isn't much of an argument. "
It's fine since you provide scant evidence. Oh wait, you tried this time w/ vaguaries that match the substance of your original position.
First point is that you impose a definition of "liberalism" that is neither current nor what Sowell was addressing, so you've simply put out a straw man argument.
Second point is that you say, "a general movement towards equality and liberty since the Renaissance? We certainly aren't saying the trend has been monotonic,"
Which is you going back and forth on whether the trend exists or not. Given that you've covered both sides of the argument (the West has moved toward equality and liberty, except when it didn't), it is hard to disagree, but then you haven't really made a point, have you?
More importantly, you talk about "The Renaissance" by
1. Assuming it true
2. Not defining it explicitly, but implying that it matches your definition of "liberalism", and
3. Assuming that it has continued to this date. Particularly flawed given the disdain for it in the post-modern mindest of contemporary intelligentsia.
Finally, "serfdom is much less common today than in former times, especially in the West" My favorite. Let's talk about "the west" and ignore 75% of the world's population.
DrTorch: First point is that you impose a definition of "liberalism" that is neither current nor what Sowell was addressing, so you've simply put out a straw man argument.
Well, if you mean he conflates the various definitions in order to smear all liberals as totalitarian, sure.
DrTorch: Second point is that you say, "a general movement towards equality and liberty since the Renaissance? We certainly aren't saying the trend has been monotonic," Which is you going back and forth on whether the trend exists or not.
Just because a trend isn't monotonic doesn't mean there isn't a trend. The Church is no longer final arbiter over matters of conscience, literacy isn't just for the few, and democracy is no longer an exception. Are you seriously arguing that the world does not have more liberty than the Middle Ages? Did the revolutionary period not change the world in significant ways?
I understand what the word monotonic is, however you simply provide no evidence. Thus you simply try to make every event fit your model. It's just like the CAGW people try to do, only there when the evidence is being examined the errors are identified.
As for the "world" being more free, once again, you look at a select group of people and call that the world. Your provencialism is showing through.
Your strongest argument is one of semantics over what "liberal" means. But that fails b/c in the specific quote you object to Sowell uses the word "intellectual."
I am likely the stupidest reader of Maggie's Farm, but even I'm not fooled by your trivial logical fallacies.
DrTorch: I understand what the word monotonic is, however you simply provide no evidence.
We have provided evidence, but you continue to ignore it. For instance, there are far more people today living in democratic societies, than there were in the last century.
DrTorch: Your strongest argument is one of semantics over what "liberal" means. But that fails b/c in the specific quote you object to Sowell uses the word "intellectual."
Yes, he throws all the usual shibboleths into the stew. "Liberals", "intellectuals", "know-it-alls", "totalitarian", going on to then say that Obama "despises the basic values of America" and that he is a "glib and warped man". Typical right wing stuff, but hardly coherent.
Sorry. I watched in horror from 1982-1994 (approximate years) as 120,000 family farms per year/every year for 12 years disappeared. This was a classic example of what happens when the demorats support the repulicons in an economic policy. The deregulation of agriculture as it was applied during those years--years during which both Regan and Clinton supported the same "ideological theory" led to the loss of nearly 1 million 5 hundred thousand family farms. Those self employed farmers are gone now. Those independent family farms are not huge collectives--just waiting for the demorats to take over when they are ready. Collective farms was a foundation piece in the Russian revolution and is a fundamental keystone to the "brave new America". Meanwhile back in the smoke filled back rooms of repulicon news rooms we hear about the need to stop funding agriculture. We continue to allow huge waste on wall street, but support the mass consolidation of farming to what end I ask? Do you think that the large corporate farms are really going to stay "free" in the brave new world of Obama's rule. People screaming to reduce agricultural subsidies are fools of the highest order on both sides!
The Left today is not "liberal" I was a "liberal" in the 50's and today without changing a single opinion I am a conservative. Today's liberals are Marxist/socialist. Perhaps you don't know this and still believe today's "liberal" means something good. Today's Liberal has broughht our country to bankruptcy, forced jobs and companies off shore and stolen/taxed people into serfdom.
Liberalism brought us the mortgage crisis that created our current great depression. Liberalism has choosen to follow Keynesian economic theory to borrow $6 trillion since Obama took office to try to hide the fact we are in a great depression. Liberalism will bring us higher confiscatory despotic taxes that will extend the great depression just as FDR's policies extended his great depression.
What Liberalsim is noted for is creating destructive programs with high sounding names and then appointing judges and bureaucrats who implment in dystopian ways. Liberalism cannot help itself from falling into a Marxist/Leninist mold which inevitably leads to a oppressive dictatorial government that fears their own people and locks them up and "disappears" them to protect the liberal form of government.
You have fallen in love with a lie and cannot bring yourself to see what Liberalism is, what it becomes and what it has done.
GoneWithTheWind: The Left today is not "liberal"
Some are, some aren't. While liberalism is typically placed on the political left, Left and liberalism are not the same thing.
GoneWithTheWind: I was a "liberal" in the 50's and today without changing a single opinion I am a conservative.
Haven't changed a single opinion in 60 years? Interesting.
In any case, there's no doubt that the political center has moved left. It's been moving since the Renaissance, as we said above. It used to be common wisdom that the Church should regulate matter of conscience. It used to be common wisdom that the king had a divine right to rule. It used to be common wisdom that literacy was only for the elite.
GoneWithTheWind: Today's liberals are Marxist/socialist.
There are few Marxists in the U.S., certainly very few with any political power.
GoneWithTheWind: Today's Liberal has broughht our country to bankruptcy, forced jobs and companies off shore and stolen/taxed people into serfdom.
Republicans are liberal Marxists? Who knew?
GoneWithTheWind: Liberalism has choosen to follow Keynesian economic theory to borrow $6 trillion since Obama took office to try to hide the fact we are in a great depression.
Most of that borrowing was due to policies in place before Obama took office.
GoneWithTheWind: Liberalism will bring us higher confiscatory despotic taxes that will extend the great depression just as FDR's policies extended his great depression.
U.S. GDP grew an average of 9% in constant dollars from 1933-1939.
Some of my opinions have changed but not my opinions about right and wrong.
"Very few Marxists"!!! Most of Obama's hand picked cabinet and bureaucrats are openly communist and Marxist. Are you just unaware of this?
So you are still saying it is Bush's fault?? We haven't had a budget in four years is that Bush's fault? We have printed about $4 trillion dollars to reward left wing Obama voters is that Bush's fault? We have borrowed $6 trillion to continue to reward the takers since Obama was first elected, did Bush do that?
Obama is doing everything he can to destroy our economy and he is doing that with the willing help of many Democrats in congress. I don't honestly know if citizens in this country will ever wake up or like you continue to believe it is all Bush's fault. But soon the reality of what Obama has brought us will become clear to all. So while you can have your own opinions you cannot have your own reality. When that reality comes down on our heads I fully expect you and many mind numbed lefties to parrot that famous excuse "it's Bush's fault".
GoneWithTheWind: Some of my opinions have changed but not my opinions about right and wrong.
That's fine, but many other people's opinions have changed, for instance, over the issue of race, or women's rights. Even colonialism has ended just since the end of WWII.
GoneWithTheWind: "Very few Marxists"!!! Most of Obama's hand picked cabinet and bureaucrats are openly communist and Marxist. Are you just unaware of this?
Perhaps. Do you know what "Marxism" means?
GoneWithTheWind: So you are still saying it is Bush's fault?? We haven't had a budget in four years is that Bush's fault?
In case you forgot, the U.S. experienced the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression. It typically takes several years to recover from a collapse of the banking system.
GoneWithTheWind: We have printed about $4 trillion dollars to reward left wing Obama voters is that Bush's fault? We have borrowed $6 trillion to continue to reward the takers since Obama was first elected, did Bush do that?
Most of the deficits were due to policies in place before Obama.
GoneWithTheWind: But soon the reality of what Obama has brought us will become clear to all.
Just curious. How long have you been predicting the economy's demise?
I guess you are implying you have learned that racism is bad while I am saying I always knew that. What else have you recently learned?
So economics is not your strong suite! If the recovery had been handled correctly we would be beginning the third year of a strong recovery today. Keynsian economics fails where ever and whenever it is tried.
Obama seems incapable in your opinion and that seems to be the only area we agree on. The Democrats and Obama took $200 billion a year deficits and created $1.5 trillion a year deficits. Yet you blame this on Bush. I am only suprised you did not try to blame it on racism since that is what the left seems to go to first.
The economy will collapse of that you can be sure. Our debt is too great now to recover. We can kick the can down the road as long as we can borrow and print but sooner or later that will no longer be possible. I cannot predict how long the Democrats can push off the inevitable if I could then I could make millions by timing my investments. But it is rather naive to look at our massive debt, our massive printing of money and all of the negative indicators of our economies health and believe that it will be all right if we keep doing what we are doing. As Obama's favorite mentor once said "America's chickens are coming home to roost". Most intelligent people can see this about the only area of disagreement would be that I believe Obama has created this mess intentionally. A left wing wet dream would be a crisis so big they could sieze power and usurp the constitution and that is exactly where we are headed.
We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
GoneWithTheWind: I guess you are implying you have learned that racism is bad while I am saying I always knew that.
Nope. We note there was a change in views regarding race. Views of race that were once widely held would be considered extremist today.
GoneWithTheWind: If the recovery had been handled correctly we would be beginning the third year of a strong recovery today.
Perhaps, but avoiding or mitigating the financial meltdown would have been far better.
GoneWithTheWind: The Democrats and Obama took $200 billion a year deficits and created $1.5 trillion a year deficits. Yet you blame this on Bush.
A cursory look at the numbers shows that the majority of the deficits were caused by the recession and by preexisting policies.
GoneWithTheWind: Our debt is too great now to recover.
The U.S. has huge economic resources, a motivated and highly educated workforce, and a leadership role in the world economy. There is no reason to suppose they can't pay their debts.
We could have mitigated the financial meltdown if Clinton's administration and Dodd & Frank had not forced lenders to make sub-prime loans.
100% of the deficit since Jan 20th 2009 was because of policies Obama and a Democrat congress had 100% control over.
You don't get it! Not only can't we pay our debt but we can't and won't be able to pay the interest or stop borrowing. We are on a fast track to bankruptcy. We would have to implement a $2.3 trillion budget immediately JUST to keep it from getting worse. Just doing that is HUGE, so difficult that we clearly won't do it. No one thinks we will. So we intend to borrow and spend into the future with no end in sight. This is not sustainable! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that. Then if you also take into account that we have been printing close to $1 trillion a year for the last four years you begin to understand the magnitude of the problem. The simple fact is that about three years ago we passed an event horizon in our debt, once we crossed that point of no return we began a spiral which can only end in an economic collapse. Worse, everything we do to mitigate the effects between now and then will make it worse. Raising taxes will equate to fewer jobs and more people needing welfare. Raising taxes will also stifle business and create a diminishing return effect which will encourage the government to raise taxes even more (see California to see this in action today). Borrowing more money will increase our total debt AND increase our budget. Printing money will create inflation which will increase the interest on our debt and increase our total budget. There is no acceptable set of policies that will see us avoid the inevitable economic collapse. Having said that I do believe that it is possible to pay off the debt and stop borrowing money a but I also know our politicians and voters are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices. So we will all ride this runaway train together over the economic cliff.
GoneWithTheWind: We could have mitigated the financial meltdown if Clinton's administration and Dodd & Frank had not forced lenders to make sub-prime loans.
No one was forced to make sub-prime loans. If you are referring to the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, that was passed after the financial meltdown.
GoneWithTheWind: 100% of the deficit since Jan 20th 2009 was because of policies Obama and a Democrat congress had 100% control over.
No. Most of the deficit is due to financial meltdown and ensuing recession, the worst since the Great Depression.
GoneWithTheWind: We are on a fast track to bankruptcy.
The U.S. has assets of about $188 trillion, a growing economy with GDP of about $15 trillion, debt of about $16 trillion (including intra-government holdings), has ready access to credit at very attractive interest rates; and assuming reasonable rates of growth will create $0.5 quadrillion in goods and services over the next 25 years. The U.S. budget is unbalanced, but they have more than enough resources to set it right. You might be a bit uncomfortable with some of the adjustments that might be necessary, but most of the world would love to have America’s financial problems.
Zach I'm starting to think you are quite young and were perhaps not paying attention in the 90's. No I was not talking about the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. That is going to bite us in the ass big time but hasn't been fleshed out yet by the anti-business bureaucrats. I am obviously talking about the Clinton era effort to force private banks to make mortgages to people who could not afford mortgages. You could not have been alive and sober in the 90's and be unaware of this.
It does not matter what you ascribe the deficits to the fact remains that 100% of the deficit since Obama's election is 100% his fault. I might add that his continued use of failed keynesian policies of borrow and spend does not constitute fighting the meltdown and ending the recession. It is nothing more then a convenient policy to loot the treasury and give the assets to friends and supporters. when this era/error is over we will look back at the most dishonest criminal administration in our history.
To your last point I say prove it!! Not on paper and not by opinion but by action. Cut the total federal budget to equal revenues (about $2.3 trillion) and then allocate a substantial portion of that (say 10%) to actually paying off the debt. Prove it!! Put your money and actions where you mouth is. The simple answer is we won't do it and we can't do it. We are absolutely locked into a deficit budget that grows by 10% a year into the foreseeable future. We are "screwed" !
GoneWithTheWind: I am obviously talking about the Clinton era effort to force private banks to make mortgages to people who could not afford mortgages.
Yet the housing bubble didn't start until well into the Bush Administration. Most analysts see the cause as gaming of the ratings system and a bubble in demand in the shadow security market. You're probably referring to CRA loans, but those only constituted a small fraction of subprime lending during the runup.
GoneWithTheWind: It does not matter what you ascribe the deficits to the fact remains that 100% of the deficit since Obama's election is 100% his fault.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The president is not a dictator, but a limited constitutional office. Other than the stimulus, most federal spending is due to policies predating the Obama Administration. Do you think Obama can simply not spend on Social Security and Medicare?
GoneWithTheWind: Cut the total federal budget to equal revenues (about $2.3 trillion) and then allocate a substantial portion of that (say 10%) to actually paying off the debt.
That isn't necessary for fiscal health. If the deficit is less than 2-3% of GDP, then economic growth will erode the debt as a percentage of GDP over time. The real problem is the growth in medical costs as the population ages.
buddy larsen (linking Gateway Pundit): New Study Finds Democrats Fully to Blame for Subprime Mortgage Crisis that Caused 2008 Financial Disaster
Um, no. That's not what the study found. The study found that CRA increased the incidence of risky loans, however, CRA loans constituted only a small fraction of subprime loans. In addition, the increased risk was due to unobservables, so it wasn't due to relaxed lending standards.
Zach, you simply >must< expand your list of reading material. Here's a simple search wityh the leading terms as you see. Both point and counterpoint exhibit here:
Also, dunno if you scrolled to the bottom of the Gateway comment thread, but my name is there twice, both entries bearing a URL, one of which is a Reuter's article detailng MERS and the Covington Burling law firm, showing very clearly the depth of the planning for what we call ''the crash of 2008''.
The other link is to an article by a DOJ whistleblower naming names. Her name is Abigail C. Fields.
You should read these pieces, young feller, before recess if possible.
buddy larsen: you simply >must< expand your list of reading material
Um, we read the Agarwal et al. paper that was cited and misrepresented in the link YOU provided.
But, Zach, i have millions of cites. Millions and millions, chock-full-o-facts and facts and facts.
You're arguing against what has become common knowledge.
It's hopeless, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Honestly, you're not even tilting at windmills --you're tilting at empty spaces where windmills used to be.
Why do you DO this? You MUST know how wrong you are. Very mysterious, why you keep up the absurdist sophistry.
...find by clicking on link  a study by Sreekanth (2009) which says (para 4.5):
“The input flux rate of carbon into atmosphere from combustion (LESS THAN 5%) is too small compared to other natural sources (GREATER THAN 95%). CO2 also being the 2nd most important greenhouse gas after water, we can conclude that anthropogenic CO2 generation has no effect on global warming.”
Interesting that you think the increased debt is due to social security and medicare. Social security takes in about $840 billion a year and pays out about $825 billion. SS is solvent and if it was run under generally accepted accounting principles it would remain solvent forever.
Medicare does not take in enough to fully fund costs but that could easily be fixed. A combination of increased payroll taxes dedicated to medicare and a increase in the amount the beneficiaries pay as their cost share would fix it. But you did not mention medicaid. medicaid is 100% paid for from the general fund and you somehow missed that fact when you were scouring the budget to discover why the costs went up. You also missed welfare! Welfare cost the federal budget about $1.2 trillion I don't understand how you missed that. Welfare consists of 2400 programs administrated by five cabinet level departments of the federal government; now that's a lot of bureaucracy. That doesn't include the state's share of welfare which is roughly the same amount. That is a lot of money to support the 49% who can't seem to make it in a country full of opportunities. Why do you suppose they hid 2400 different welfare programs under five departments? Oh never mind, I'm sure it had nothing to do with making it impossible for voters to know how much welfare costs us.
In a nutshell the deficit is a result of welfare spending, excessive federal bureaucracy, payoffs/bailouts for Democrat cronies, Obamacare and waste.
GoneWithTheWind: Interesting that you think the increased debt is due to social security and medicare.
That's not what we said. The expected growth in medical costs as the population ages is the greatest threat to the U.S. fiscal situation over the long term.
GoneWithTheWind: Medicare does not take in enough to fully fund costs but that could easily be fixed. A combination of increased payroll taxes dedicated to medicare and a increase in the amount the beneficiaries pay as their cost share would fix it.
Yes, increased taxes could help solve the problem, but reining in medical inflation is also essential. In any case, you seem to have abandoned your original position.
You have bought the meme that somehow it is SS that is going to bankrupt us. This is a diversion/red herring and simply not true. Welfare is 100% paid for from the general fund whereas SS is fully funded by a dedicated revenue stream, i.e. the payroll tax. The problem that SS has always faced is congress. Congress has "awarded" people SS for the rest of their lives without regard to what they might have paid into the system. For example if you come here as a immigrant at age 67 you can retire on SS without ever having worked in this country or paid any payroll taxes. There are numerous examples of SS eligibility that are outside the basic rule of having worked and contributed for 40 quarters (ten years).
So to save SS make it a semi-private system run by accountants and get congress out of it. Second: treat it like an annuity, that is if you did not contribute then you get nothing, if you contributed a little then you get a little where if you contribute more you get more; simple and fair. Third Invest the "clients" money!! If you contributed to SS for 45 years and the money was invested like a 401k or IRA then the average worker would have a nestegg worth in excess of $2 million. If these changes were made SS would never go broke, never need support from the general fund and would be a better retirement for those who participated in the system.
Don't buy into the lie that it is SS that is our fiscal problem that is pure left wing misinformation.
Obama's connection with communism:
How did you do that? Post the pic, i mean? Special instructions from KGB? No really.
Use square brackets instead of curly brackets. Use sparingly, and choose images that are reasonably sized.
The Hell you say. Looks like fascism and totalitarianism from where I stand. Close up, well, I see dead people. Stacks and stacks of them, piled high.
At least two writers in the 19th century foresaw the advent of totalitarianism. The first was Dostoevsky and the second was Nietzsche. Both writers grasped the intellectual trend of their day. As education advanced, as the human spirit was given new opportunities for understanding, the result was intellectual radicalism. In the 18th century Edmund Burke warned his contemporaries that education without religion or aristocratic principles would turn against mankind. Burke wrote: “Learning will be cast into the mire, and trodden down under the hoofs of a swinish multitude.” Burke added, “In the groves of their academy, at the end of every vista, you see nothing but gallows.”
--io think what Nietzsche may've meant with ''there's no other way it CAN be'' is that, soon enough after the mob takes their property, the successful (and even the heirs in most cases inherit the qualities that made the erstwhile family nut) will be hard at work & getting ahead again. Ergo, the bottom half of the gene pool will stay the bottom half, unless they kill the top half.
If anyone is interested, the holster pictured on the blonde is available here:
As a guy, I wear mine higher. It does have velcro adjustable shoulder straps and pockets for 2 magazines on the opposite side. I guess it depends on individual build whether this is comfortable, but it does conceal well over a tee shirt and under a dress shirt.
Never hide the bulge. The bulge is what informs people to behave properly.
What handgun? All I see are two 38s. (It's the Spillane in me.)
I understand the rationale for eliminating corporate income taxes but....
Corporations are "persons" created by the state. That process grants the individuals involved in the corporation certain advantages over other individuals. That "corporate veil" is real and worth something.
That's why I think a nominal flat corporate tax should imposed, just as pay-back for the advantages of incorporation. 5% would satisfy me.
Every business passes on their costs to their customers. All corporate taxes are passed through and the people pay them; that is "real persons". Government likes this because it becomes a hidden cost. A starbucks coffee might cost you $2-$4 but it never occurs to the buyer that the high price has anything to do with taxes. But taxes are like a parasite, they make the host weak and less able to perform essential functions and in most cases if the parasite infestation becomes to great they cause death. The government will if unchecked levy taxes until they kill the golden goose. Where it is possible a company takes their business off shore where the business environment is more welcoming. I would lobby for zero business taxes. This would make American based companies more competitive and increase job opportunities. I would also lobby for greatly reduced government bureaucracy and regulation as well as requiring all regulatory bodies to actively assist companies in meeting regulations, but that's another arguement for another time.
If you want more of something then tax it less, if you want less of something then tax it more. We need to decide if we are happy with higher prices and our companies and jobs moving offshore or if we would prefer to downsize government. Sadly it won't get better because in our system it is the parasites who decide.
CORRECTION. My piece above about farms and agriculture should read "family farms are NOW huge collectives". That is to say large corporate farms today--will become collectives in the brave new Obama world. Hardly any difference at all.
AP, somewhere between the Cross of Gold speech, and S510, we dangle, twisting slowly in the wind.
The force behind S510, Rep. Rosa D'Lauro (D-CT) is a pioece of work. Search her name, plus Monsanto, plus BP, plus Rahm, plus Nalco
GoneWithTheWind: You have bought the meme that somehow it is SS that is going to bankrupt us.
Where did you get that idea? Without any changes whatsoever, Social Security is fully funded until 2033, then will pay 75% of benefits in perpetuity.
You were the one arguing the U.S. was facing bankrupty, not us.
That's correct! SS is not the problem. AND if it were managed under generally accepted accounting rules it would never be a problem. The congress in it's desire to buy votes with our money keeps expanding SS both the benefits and the eligibility. Run it like an annuity and take it out of the hands of politicians.
We are facing bankruptcy because of expanding and expanded welfare, excessive federal bureaucracy, payoffs/bailouts for Democrat cronies, Obamacare and waste. Cut the federal budget so that we can live within revenues. Eliminate 5 or 6 cabinet level departments and fire the employees. Roll the handful of legitimate programs from the eliminated departments into the few remaining departments and then cut the staff in the rest of the federal bureaucracy. Set some reasonable pay scales at least 20% lower then current pay. CUT, CUT, CUT; NOT TAX, TAX, TAX and SPEND, SPEND, SPEND!!!
buddy larsen: i have millions of cites.
That's fine, but the one you provided doesn't support your contention that democrats are the sole cause of the subprime meltdown.
buddy larsen: ...find by clicking on link  a study by Sreekanth (2009) which says (para 4.5):
That's funny. You cite an unpublished paper on climate by a graduate student in mechanical engineering to argue about the causes of the financial meltdown.
From the paper, "Most of the government agencies and their reports ignore the importance of water as a greenhouse gas." That is so wrong. Water vapor is the primary feedback the results in climate sensitivity. He also says not to confuse the response time and residence time of CO2, then goes on to do exactly that.
Anyway, it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.