Saturday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, February 23. 2013

Good news: US oil output increased last week to the highest level since August 1992, more than 20 years ago

Useful stuff, oil. It's just well-aged wood. It burns good.

Speaking of wood, Sipp has some nice items for sale.

A
Bright Spot on the Cultural Landscape - Photographs of the astounding art on display at the NYK Academy's
annual open-house party.

Yesterday was day 3 of the Battle of Iwo Jima, 68 years ago. Scroll down for the list of names

How to make friends

Harvard’s VP for Do-Goodery

Good grief. It's not satire.

Video: Criminals for Gun Control

Detroit Property Owners Voting with Their Middle Fingers

The flight from Londonistan

Consumer Spending Plummets After Payroll Tax Increase

Duh.

Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firearms

Can't trust those vets with firearms

The Left is Circling the Wagons against Dr. Ben Carson

The Electric Car Is an Abomination

USA Today asks, “Why not fix the family instead?”

'WaPo' Woes: Advertising Plummets 12%, Circulation Down 8.6%

Via Sultan, Welfare Jihad: Islamist Calls Taxpayers “Slaves”, Encourages Muslims to Go On Welfare:

The 45-year-old former lawyer added: ‘We are going to take England — the
Muslims are coming. Brussels is 30 per cent, 40 per cent Muslim in
Amsterdam. Bradford is 17 per cent Muslim. These people are like a
tsunami going across Europe.”

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:39 | Comments (62) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Feb 24, 08:50

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:

Tony Lee: Consumer Spending Plummets After Payroll Tax Increase

Actually, U.S. consumer spending is higher than last year at the same time.
http://ycharts.com/indicators/consumer_spending

#1 Zachriel on 2013-02-23 08:13 (Reply)

No matter how many examples you show or even live through, the tax 'em more crowd never gets that tax rates have a substantial impact on behavior. That's why the actual estimated revenue from tax increases never meets the estimates, and loss of revenue from tax cuts is usually less than estimated - sometimes, the loss turns into a gain.

#1.1 mudbug on 2013-02-23 10:44 (Reply)

Yes, the economy continues to grow, though at a sluggish rate. So we would expect, year over year, that each January will tend to be a little higher, unless things were quite bad. Nonetheless, there was drop, even accounting for the different shopping patterns of fourth quarters versus first quarters. The most likely explanation is the change in taxation.

In your effort to defend your world-view, you again admit of no qualifiers or justice in another POV.

As for the diversity and vibrancy, cities of economic activity have always attracted many of the poor. Names like Paris or London may come to mind. They are an indicator, but not a creator of wealth. Additionally, you resort to the "you are just a bad person" with your xenophobia line. Such accusations are common these days, but that does not make them intellectually acceptable.

#1.2 Assistant VIllage Idiot (Link) on 2013-02-24 15:31 (Reply)

Assistant VIllage Idiot: Nonetheless, there was drop, even accounting for the different shopping patterns of fourth quarters versus first quarters.

Did you miss our comment?

Zachriel: Actually, U.S. consumer spending is higher than last year at the same time.
http://ycharts.com/indicators/consumer_spending

Assistant VIllage Idiot: In your effort to defend your world-view, you again admit of no qualifiers or justice in another POV.

Our world-view includes facts.

#1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-24 16:15 (Reply)

QUOTE:

: The flight from Londonistan ... 600,000 move out in decade of 'white flight' from London: White Britons are now in minority in the capital

So? Whites are a minority in New York City, which is widely considered the most vibrant city in the world in terms of business, culture, livability, and innovation. Indeed, a third of New York City residents are immigrants.

#2 Zachriel on 2013-02-23 08:21 (Reply)

You miss the point, as usual. Cities, states amd countries can be overwhelmed by "immigration". All immigrants are not created equal. While some immigrants bring more to the table then they take away some do not. Most immigrants to wealthier countries like England and the USA are coming to take more away from the table then they bring to it. The citizens of those cities, states and countries are the losers in this game. As governor Jerry Brown so succinctly said "everyone with half a brain is immigrating to California". But the problem for California is everyone with a complete brain is looking for some way out. The effects of massive immigration of uneducated and those who cannot and will not assimilate is a slow spiral into disaster. The point that 600,000 move out in a decade tells you that the productive smart people who see the handwriting on the wall and are voting with their feet. At some point the equilibrium tips and then the city, state or country spirals down. To look at it early on in this conversion and declare it must be OK because everything hasn't yet gone to hell in a hand basket is to be blind to the obvious.

#2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-23 11:55 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Most immigrants to wealthier countries like England and the USA are coming to take more away from the table then they bring to it.

New York City
36% foreign born
47% white
25% black
27% Hispanic

London demographics
37% foreign born
60% white
45% white Britons
21% Asian (mostly South Asian)
16% black

Yet New York City and London are widely considered among the most vibrant cities in the world in terms of business, culture, livability, and innovation.

This just comes across as xenophobia.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-23 14:36 (Reply)

you look like one of them Methodies or maybe a Puss 'n Buddhist. you'd better not be. we don't need your kind here.

#2.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-23 16:40 (Reply)

No, not xenophobia! Oh No!! I'm so sorry you can have whatever you want. I put being afraid of being accused of xenophobia ahead of everything including my country. So yes you can have New York City and California if you want because no one can defend against that racial slur of being called xenophobic. I give up you are right...

That was the response you were hoping for you dumb ass! No wait that comment might come across as xenophobia or rude or perhaps... accurate! Did you really think calling people nasty names equates to winning a debate?

The simple fact is we as a country are broke, on the verge of bankruptcy and we can't afford more undeucated poor people who live on welfare for generations (Gee, was that xenophobic?). Most immigrants to wealthy countries come here for the "free stuff". I am sick and tired of being taxed to death to provide more "free stuff" to the lazy welfare bums we already have (that wasn't xenophobic was it?).

You keep saying New York City is vibrant as though: 1)It's true and 2) It means anything. Not to demean New York City or New Yorkers most people think New York City pretty much sucks. Paris and Rome are beautiful cities to visit but New York City is way down on the list of cities that most of the country would like to visit or vacation in. But that isn't the point so I'm just not sure why you think "vibrant" is even important to this discussion.

Wirraway; your race baiting is getting tiresome. Is that really all you have?

#2.1.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-23 17:47 (Reply)

maybe I'm an Irish Catholic from County Clark who resents my people being subjected to virulent anti-immigrant xenophobia, just because we came over in steerage and speak Latin on Sundays.

by the way, I hear that Rome and Paris are full of wasi'chu.

#2.1.1.2.1 wirraway on 2013-02-23 18:48 (Reply)

Maybe you are way too sensitive and look for discrimination where there is none. I grew up in an Irish Catholic nieghborhood (well that and Italian, Greek, Polish and jewish) and had friends in every ethnic group. I spent 20 years in the military and worked with/for blacks, hispanics and every other ethnic group you could imagine and enjoyed working with them and knowing them. I have two 1/4 Indian children and a 1/2 African American grand daughter. I am from a Scottish immigrant family who immigrated to Canada in 1774. I am so far from being a xenophobic that the attempted slur was laughable. This issue is not about ethnicity. I believe there was indeed a time when the U.S. needed immigrants. I believe this is no longer true and hasn't been true for 50 years or more. Our immigration policies are created by special interest groups and forced down our throats and if we citizens dare object then the special interest groups beging the name calling and the attempts to destroy our good name and besmirch our intentions. We are unable to educate and employ the 310 million citizens we have now and our (possibly) well intended welfare policies are destroying us. I truely believe that we the people are our government and our politicians are nothing more then our employees. I would prefer that we decide the issues around immigration by a vote of the citizens and not by the backroom dealings of the special interests. In my opinion what is going on today is citizenship for sale and I would like to see a full investigation and some people go to jail.

You will never hear me say or read where I have written a racist or xenophobic statement. I do tend to ignore the PC rules so if you want to it is possible to construe something I have said in some negative way but that's the price of being outspoken in a society that enjoys being offended.

#2.1.1.2.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-23 20:43 (Reply)

QUOTE:

I would prefer that we decide the issues around immigration by a vote of the citizens and not by the backroom dealings of the special interests.

what's going to happen when you discover you don't get a vote because we live in a republic, and that setting immigration policy is the constitutional mandate of congress through the statutes it enacts and by enforcement by administrative agencies to whom congress delegates such duty.

even worse will be the day you discover that everything in this country is decided by backroom politics and special interests and always has been, and by that, I mean from the day the dudes in the constitutional convention brokered the deal that gave us the 3/5 clause and other compromises.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-23 21:06 (Reply)

I do realize I am tilting at windmills. However I think it would be a great thing if we had national referendums on important issues. We are a Democratic Republic, democracies and republics overlap they are not mutually exclusive forms of government. If the Supreme Court could find a "right" to an abortion certainly they could find a "right" to vote on issues.

I would also like to see all federal laws sunset after five years so that these important issues be discussed again and again. I would like all regulations that are created by bureaucrats be voted on by congress. I would like to see congressmen pay a penalty if they vote for an unconstitutional law, something simple like being removed from office. I would like for the citizens of a state to have the ability for a no-confidence vote on their congressmen that would require an election. I would like all laws to be no longer then 2 pages and written in 8th grade English and be restricted to a single issue. I would like for the citizens to have the ability to call for a referendum on any law that congress passed and if the referendum failed to support the bill then every congressman who voted for it would have to stand for reelection. I would like to see more power for the citizens and less for the politicians.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-23 21:26 (Reply)

I agree with everything you say, except the 8th grade/two pages suggestion. however that most of these reforms are a near impossibility or flat out impossible, and that you must understand that the fewer laws congress writes, the more the administrative agencies have to fill in the gaps.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-23 21:35 (Reply)

Wow! Didn't see that coming. I was pretty sure you would find those ideas to be radical.

OK, so we coan compromise. How about written at the 8th grade level that existed 50 years ago not today's 8th grade comprehension. The people need to understand the law.

Two pages and carefully worded. It is unfathomable that a group of highly qualified congressmen who are mostly lawyers cannot write a law that is clear, concise and cannot be misinterpreted. The extra effort to be well written and not overly "wordy" would help them accomplish this feat. So I would agree they can use more then two pages but have to give up 1% of their salary for each extra page.

I feel that the various federal departments should not write rules.regulations that expand on a bill. I would rather that there job was to facilitate the process of administering the law. That is rather then setting up road blocks there job is to help us (individuals and businesses) obey the intent of the law. No fines, no penalties but instead assistance and committment to help us get it right. In other words they can't simply tell us "no" but have to help us make it happen the right way. The intent of our laws should be to allow us to succeed while not infringing on the rights of other citizens. Don't tell me I can't build on my property but help me find a way to build so it doesn't have negative impacts on others.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-23 21:59 (Reply)

its a mistake to think of the formal language of the legal codes, models like the uniform commercial code or even of of complex contracts as as a kind of written conversation, because they're not. this is for a couple of reason.

first, the constitution doesn't define due process, or equal protection or freedom of speech, but congress has to acknowledge these ideas when it writes law, so at their best, the laws are very, very exact. english isn't the most precise of languages (which is why its a great language for literature and poetry), and things like whether a clause is dependent or independent, whether "or" or "and" is used, how words are used in relation to other laws becomes critical. if its not, then you have an even worse situation where someone, a cop, or a clerk, or a judge, can just "decide" what's fair.

second, laws are often written like contracts are negotiated. again, every phrase, sentence, word has a specific meaning (google any commercial lease between a major landlord and a master tenant), they can be almost incomprehensibly dense, but they represented negotiated detail. landlord tenant laws are like this, you can almost see what phrases in a sentence were written by tenant advocates and which by landlord attorneys. immigration is extremely complex because of all of the interested parties.

administrative regs are unavoidable. congress decides to give a preference to pollitical refugees persecuted by communist bloc countries, but who is a "political refugee", what is "persecution", how do you prove it, all is left to the immigration authority which has to write regs consistent with the statute.

we're past the point of living in eden, trading apples for snakes. there's a level of complexity in modern life, especially modern commercial life, you can't avoid.

I like the idea of sunsetting all statutes, from a standpoint that if they had to be reenacted one by one congress would have time for little else.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-23 23:10 (Reply)

I agree that the English language is imprecise and easy to be written or spoken in a way that allows more then one interpretation or inference. All the more reason to have laws written precisely. As for 8th grade comprehension level, why not? Who is it we expect to obey these laws and perhaps, sadly to interpret them? I accept that not everything can be written in two pages and so clearly and succinctly that an average American and a learned Chief Justice understand it to mean the same thing. BUT it should be. Our lawmakers owe us no less then this. I cannot accept that it is impossible to do this. I believe our lawmakers use imprecise language and other subtrafuge to serve their own purpose. And I believe that Bureaucrats use this imprecision to bend the law to serve their own agenda. This is not what our lawmakers and public servants should be doing to us.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-23 23:45 (Reply)

we both agree that everyone is entitled to "due process" and that all searches should be "reasonable", but unless you spell it out in detail and walk away with that superficial agreement, you'll have your idea of "reasonable" and "what process is due" and I'll have mine, and the next ten guys will have theirs.

and this is between us, who are mostly on the same side. zach -- a stone cold dedicated commie basterd if there ever was one -- will have his own radically different interpretation of those noble ideas.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-23 23:57 (Reply)

Our views are rather orthodox.

Due process means people have the right to know the charges being brought, be presented before a magistrate to review that the charges and the law are clear and within bounds of human rights and the constitution, that the accused have a right to counsel and to confront witnesses, and that the person be judged by a jury under the law, the right of appeal before properly constituted and independent courts, and only punished when found guilty.

Searches should only be allowed when the causes are specific and explicit, and in the furtherance of the legal powers of the state, consistent with human rights and the constitution, and as authorized by an independent judiciary, again, subject to review.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-24 09:19 (Reply)

Our assessment of your views is that your thumbnail description, while accurate and orthodox, is not a working description for police, magistrates who issue warrants, or other judges called on to determine the validity of the warrant or warrantless searches, or the hundreds of other instances where due process is called into question..

we believe, for example, that how much process is due depends on where one is and other conditions. a border stop and search can be done with less due process than a search of one's home. how a fair trial is undertaken depends on whether you're being tried for theft in Ohio or caught as an al-Qaeda fighter in afghanistan. dropping a bomb on an al-Qaeda leader is actually done with more oversight than some warrantless searches by the police.

so it all depends. orthodox statements without a deeper understanding of what they mean in real world applications leads you people into error by letting it become a slogan rather than an analytic tool.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-24 11:46 (Reply)

wirraway: Our assessment of your views is that your thumbnail description, while accurate and orthodox, is not a working description for police, magistrates who issue warrants, or other judges called on to determine the validity of the warrant or warrantless searches, or the hundreds of other instances where due process is called into question.

Yes, we agree. There's a complex interplay between laws, enforcement, courts, and precedent.

wirraway: so it all depends. orthodox statements without a deeper understanding of what they mean in real world applications leads you people into error by letting it become a slogan rather than an analytic tool.

We agree with this as well. The "thumbnail" was aspirational, but has to be implemented in practice. The rule of law is a blunt instrument, and life is exceedingly complicated. More particularly, no set of laws or regulations, which are discrete descriptions, can encompass the continuum of the real world.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-24 12:02 (Reply)

We shall spare you, for another day.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-24 17:56 (Reply)

Of course I agree about "due process" and that all searches should be "reasonable" and I love and support our constitution. I think the point you are making is that the law can be complex and the definition and clearification or enumeration of the law can be necessarily verbose and complicated. But my point is that more often then not it is unnessarily verbose and complicated and that only makes understanding the law worse. If a law must be amended or worse amended many times the actual legal wording makes the tax code look like a nursery rhyme. Common sense demands that the process be designed to facilitate the end goal of making the law more clear and easier for the citizens to understand. We don't do that, in fact we go to great effort to do exactly the opposite. I'm not suggesting that my ideas would somehow fix all of the problems in our legal system but it would go a long way towards correcting many of the problems. Require that laws be precise, succinct and understandable to the common man. And of course that they be constitutional (that should go without saying but so many of our laws are contrary to the intent of the constitution). It should not ever be used as a way to hide corruption or slip one past an unwitting public. And it should be an open process with a lot of feedback from the people. We shouldn't have to pass a law in order to see what is in it. We shouldn't have to wait until the bureaucrats write tens of thousands of pages of regulations to discover how bad we are being screwed. And everyone should be treated equally under the law. You should not have a case where some unsuspecting citizen carries an empty 30 rd magazine into New York and faces a felony charge while a media member effectively does the same thing in DC and is excused. In my humble opinion we are very close to a time when the citizens may well consider bringing back the guillotine. Our politicians have created this problem/situation/crisis my fervent hope is that it be they who pay the price for it.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-24 10:51 (Reply)

QUOTE:

But my point is that more often then not it is unnessarily verbose and complicated and that only makes understanding the law worse.

example?

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 wirraway on 2013-02-24 11:51 (Reply)

"www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-xINPXcF6M" You will need to paste this and put the correct "http" code in front of it.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-24 16:45 (Reply)

If you liked that one this one is even better.
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtxaXIrZkBI"

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-24 17:16 (Reply)

For those nights when you just can't seem to fall asleep.

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYuwrpi2KLg"

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-24 17:19 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: But my point is that more often then not it is unnessarily verbose and complicated and that only makes understanding the law worse.

What you need is a law that requires laws be simplified. Then it's simply a matter of setting up a committee for the simplification of the legal code. After organizing the staff and setting up procedures, they can then promulgate a series of regulations defining 'simple', how many words and how long of words are allowed, requisite penalties, a system of review and appeal, research on the appropriate level of simplicity based on educational levels of the population, not to mention their own budget and accounting. Shouldn't cost more than £348,000,000, tops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2013-02-24 12:32 (Reply)

No. All you need is the will and intent to make laws more understandable. It is the difference between going to the state motor vehicle office and going to most retail stores. The difference is one group could care less about you and to them you are a huge pain in the ass and if possible they will make life even more difficult for you to amuse themselves vs the other group who consider you their customer and want to make you happy to get and retain your business.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-24 16:51 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: All you need is the will and intent to make laws more understandable.

If only life were so simple.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-24 20:46 (Reply)

It can be. It can be as simple or complicated as we make it.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-25 09:43 (Reply)

You might be thinking of a different animal. We were referring to Homo sapiens bureaucratus.

#2.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-25 09:56 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: You keep saying New York City is vibrant as though: 1)It's true and 2) It means anything.

Because 1) It's true and 2) It's meaningful.

GoneWithTheWind: The simple fact is we as a country are broke, on the verge of bankruptcy and we can't afford more undeucated poor people who live on welfare for generations (Gee, was that xenophobic?).

The U.S. is nowhere near bankruptcy. There are several structural issues, but they are well within the means of the U.S. to address.

GoneWithTheWind: Most immigrants to wealthy countries come here for the "free stuff".

Most people emigrate to rich countries to find work.

#2.1.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2013-02-23 21:11 (Reply)

Zac, first I want to thank you for not calling me names this time.

Saying NY City is vibrant is an opinion. Sant Cruz, Ca. is vibrant, so is San Francisco. Seattle was vibrant 20-30 years ago and some parts of it still is. Salt Lake city was vibrant once and parts of it still is. NY City was dangerous and avoided until Giulani became mayor it is much safer now and thus a more likely destination but still not vibrant.

You call it structual issues I call it bankrupt. Could we this year: 1)Borrow no money and 2)begin paying our existing debt sufficinetly that we could pay it off in 10 years??? The answer is NO. In fact without borrowing a trillion or so, paying nothing on existing debt and printing another trillion or so we would go belly up. If that isn't bankrupt then what is it?

If most immigrants move here to find work and our "real" unemployment level is 15% why would we allow immigration??? I'm stumped. Is it because we hate our citizens so much we want to make sure they can never get a job? Is it because we need people who don't speak English, refuse to assimilate and take advantage of our "safety net" and turn it into a hammock? Or is it because special interest groups help politicians get elected, offer them payola and that the immigrants are easily duped into voting for the "right" political party? We, the citizens, are getting screwed by an immigration policy most of us disagree with, have to pay substantially higher taxes for and are personally negatively impacted by on a daily basis.

Why wouldn't we, the citizens, be better off with zero immigration???

#2.1.1.2.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-23 21:42 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Saying NY City is vibrant is an opinion.

A reasoned opinion. New York has a hugely successful commercial sector, and attracts businesses from all over the world. It is also the home of some of the best of the world's art and culture.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/the-worlds-26-best-cities-for-business-life-and-innovation/238436/#slide26

GoneWithTheWind: You call it structual issues I call it bankrupt.

The U.S. has assets of about $200 trillion and produces $15 trillion per year; and with reasonable growth, will produce $500 trillion over the next 25 years. The U.S. is far from bankrupt. Sorry, you're not going to get out of paying your bills by pleading poverty.

#2.1.1.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-24 09:13 (Reply)

The U.S. is nowhere near bankruptcy. There are several structural issues, but they are well within the means of the U.S. to address.

One of those "structural issues" is a profligate Federal government. Another is, financially speaking, an innumerate public addicted to wishful thinking.

Love the smell of whistling past the graveyard!!

#2.1.1.2.2.2 T.K. Tortch on 2013-02-23 21:55 (Reply)

At least one real expert in economics, unlike a certain know-it-all, thinks the US is bankrupt, but just doesn't know or accept it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html

"The fiscal gap is the value today (the present value) of the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years…..Based on the CBO’s data, I calculate a fiscal gap of $202 trillion, which is more than 15 times the official debt. This gargantuan discrepancy between our “official” debt and our actual net indebtedness isn’t surprising. It reflects what economists call the labeling problem. Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future."

#2.1.1.2.2.2.1 Agent Cooper on 2013-02-24 01:53 (Reply)

Agent Cooper: At least one real expert in economics, unlike a certain know-it-all, thinks the US is bankrupt, but just doesn't know or accept it.

Kotlikoff is clearly not using the term "bankrupt" in its economic sense, but as political rhetoric. We know this because he first says the U.S. is bankrupt, then says that economic restructuring can prevent a default and ensure economic prosperity.

#2.1.1.2.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-24 09:21 (Reply)

There may only be one legal definition of bankrupt but there is more then one real life definition. Lets assume you are correct and we will not be "legally" bankrupt but that all the other countries and financial institutions see through the legal fanagling and consider us bankrupt. We cannot sell our debt we cannot defend our dollar and we have to resort to subtrafuge and deals made in the dark to keep the home fires burning. We allow our military to fall to pre WW II readiness levels just so we can keep other promises we have made. We print money by the wheelbarrow full and debase our currency to the point where other nations shun us. Our citizens scramble to buy the necessities of life with inflated dollars and our businesses shutter their doors because the financial system has collapsed. At that point what difference does it make to claim you are not using the term "bankrupt" in its economic sense but rather in some esoteric sense???

#2.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-24 11:02 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: There may only be one legal definition of bankrupt but there is more then one real life definition.

Bankruptcy means being unable to meet one's legal monetary obligations.

GoneWithTheWind: Lets assume you are correct and we will not be "legally" bankrupt but that all the other countries and financial institutions see through the legal fanagling and consider us bankrupt.

U.S. long term bonds are in high demand.

GoneWithTheWind: We print money by the wheelbarrow full ...

You're confusing being bankrupt with being on a path to bankruptcy, which Kotlikoff clearly stated was avoidable. His use of the term was rhetorical, which is very odd coming from an economist; but then again, he's also a politician.

#2.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-24 12:08 (Reply)

Zach: Bankruptcy means being unable to meet one's legal monetary obligations.

The implication is that the value of what is used to meet those obligations is approximately the same value as the original promise. That's not happening and won't happen. The value of the dollar is being debased and it hasn't really started to lose value yet.

Zach: U.S. long term bonds are in high demand.

There is a perception that the US is in a somewhat better position than most other countries so you are correct that our bonds would demand a bit of a premium of those other countries, but I believe the real reason is because the Fed is the major purchaser of US govt. debt. Who would bet against someone with a known agenda (low interest rates) and unlimited funds to make it happen.

#2.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2013-02-24 16:37 (Reply)

mudbug: The implication is that the value of what is used to meet those obligations is approximately the same value as the original promise.

The U.S. has assets of about $200 trillion and produces $15 trillion per year; and with reasonable growth, will produce $500 trillion over the next 25 years. The U.S. is far from bankrupt. Sorry, you're not going to get out of paying your bills by pleading poverty.

mudbug: Who would bet against someone with a known agenda (low interest rates) and unlimited funds to make it happen.

Anyone who thinks the dollar will drop in value more than the interest on the bond.

#2.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-02-24 20:44 (Reply)

I knew a man who was a self employed contractor. He was behind in his house payments, couldn't find work and was thousands of dollars in credit card debt. He was using the credit card to meet day to day living expenses. He WAS bankrupt but... not yet legally. Then his credit ran out and no one else would offer him credit so he filed the legal papers to declare bankruptcy. At what point do you consider he was bankrupt???

The FED has essentially set interest rates at zero. You and I pay a few percentage points more but for the big borrowers and banks it is as good as zero. The rest of the world or most of it is falling apart economically and people and with money are desperate for a "safe" place to park their money. That is why U.S. Bonds are still in demand. I call your attention to gold and silver. By comparison if you were to consider U.S. bonds in demand precious metals are the holy grail. Why is that? Why are PM's in much greater demand then U.S. bonds??? PM's pay no interest and their downside if we recover is huge. So why is gold in the high $1600's and silver above $28???

"You're confusing being bankrupt with being on a path to bankruptcy" Oh! That makes me feel SO MUCH better. But you are wrong. I am not confused but you are in denial. We are bankrupt, we cannot recover and it will collapse. The best we can hope for is: 1)The rest of the world goes down the tubes as well so by comparison we are no worse off. 2)We promptly re-evaluate the dollar (perhaps 10 to 1) and begin an austerity program. 3)That we pay off our debt with our inflated printing press money as the first step to our recovery. 4)That we elect a conservative president and congress who begins the process of rebuilding the economy.

#2.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-02-24 17:06 (Reply)

QUOTE:

All immigrants are not created equal.

damn straight. No Irish Or Catholics Need Apply. next thing you know they'll be allowin' Chinamen into this here country.

#2.1.2 wirraway on 2013-02-23 16:34 (Reply)

re Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firearms

This article leads me to wonder:

Could the Government force you to waive your 2nd Amendment rights in order to qualify for benefits like SS and medicare? IOW The choice would be yours. If you want Social Security and Medicare you must surrender your guns and agree never to buy anymore. OTOH keep your firearms and it is no SS and medicare for you.

And it wouldn't have to be restricted to SS and Medicare. Suppose they extended it to things like the home mortgage deduction?

Could they legally make you waive constitutional rights to receive a benefit?

#3 feeblemind on 2013-02-23 08:48 (Reply)

--related, this is a snip (bolding mine) from

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/163883/

'' ...Goodlatte, in one of his first interviews about gun violence since taking over the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee in January, said the administration’s recent enforcement of gun laws has been “pathetic.” He noted that the Justice Department rarely prosecutes those who attempt to buy firearms illegally by lying on federal forms that ask prospective buyers to assert that they are not among a group of prohibited purchasers. He pointed to statistics, cited in the Judiciary Republicans’ letter to Obama, that the Justice Department prosecuted just 62 of more than 76,000 such cases in 2010.''

===

If it was 62 of 760, that'd be a terrible example of selective enforcement (which is historically among the select tools of tyranny). 62 of 7,600 would be well-nigh unbelievable. But 62 of 76,000?

That's so far off in the blue sky one can only wonder what the 62 have in common.

#3.1 buddy larsen on 2013-02-23 09:36 (Reply)

PS, if as in the olden days of the republic (before it became the ''republic''), WaPo would send an investigative reporter to find out what the 62 did wrong politically within their statutory wrong-doing, then the list of links above would likely not include 'WaPo' Woes: Advertising Plummets 12%, Circulation Down 8.6%

#3.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-02-23 09:47 (Reply)

an educated guess: no. the offer itself is a kind of infringement, and any infringement on a constitutional right has to pass the balancing test weighing private rights against public interest, with the fulcrum biased towards the private rights. and there has to be some kind of rational connection between the benefit denied and the constitutional right infringed.

#3.2 wirraway on 2013-02-23 11:38 (Reply)

Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firearms

Can't trust those vets with firearms

This is one of those things that is true, yet it isn't true. Its a way over exaggeration of the process.

First, the veteran has to be declared incompetent by reason of mental illness, PTSD (the threshold seems to be a 50% disability rating for PTSD for evaluation), major mental incapacity of some sort caused by injury or trauma. A family can request an evaluation, a doctor may request an evaluation, but the VA cannot just declare any veteran incompetent without due process. A judgement and a declaration will be made, but the veteran has the right to present opposing evidence and a declaration of competence, has a right to outside counsel and examination. This whole process takes about a year or so if the veteran opposes the judgement and declaration. And even at that point, there is a judicial process that has to be completed outside the VA system by a civilian judge/court.

So it's a little over hyped based on some nebulous language. Lawyers are famous for this - writing something to say one thing and mean another. That's why I'm firmly in the Shakespearean camp - "Kill all the lawyers".

#4 Tom Francis on 2013-02-23 10:30 (Reply)

PS: the letter thing is not true. The whole thing started with a Twitter bomb, everybody reacting and nobody looking for the truth.

There is one letter to ONE veteran who was legally diagnosed as mentally incompetent to own a fire arm. And that veteran is appealing the ruling.

This all started, as usual, by some half assed lawyer who thinks he sees commies behind every sentence. In my opinion this was a purposeful attempt to promote a false message and get people stirred up. And Red Flag News either fell for it, or did it on purpose to drive traffic to their site.

#4.1 Tom Francis on 2013-02-23 10:38 (Reply)

I agree completely with your statement. this is argument by innuendo. the author who claims to be an attorney with a military background would know how administrative procedures work: the Dept Vet Affairs acted based on evidence supplied by the local VA. the vet (and we only know of one) could contest the decision with the Board of Veterans Appeals, then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans.

so the author has twisted some facts, left others out, what this makes him I leave for the Farm to decide privately, considerin' libel laws.

#4.1.1 wirraway on 2013-02-23 11:54 (Reply)

LOL, subtle Tom.

"It's lawyer hyperbole! Kill all the lawyers!"

#4.2 buddy larsen on 2013-02-23 12:14 (Reply)

Damn straight. :>)

#4.2.1 Tom Francis on 2013-02-23 13:18 (Reply)

Hahvahd VP--not sustainable investing.

Detroit: The blue model gets the blues. Ain't sustainable, either.

Spending: When Walmart's complaining...

VA: Hasn't sent me a letter. Yet.

Carson: Now they call him the GOP's "house n*****"; he's off the plantation!

Electric cars: The coming thing for 100+ years. The only ones I ever heard of that worked as well as a gasoline or diesel car were in a story by Heinlein--powered by "Shipstones", which as best I recollect were like nuclear-powered batteries that were swapped out at the stations along the road.

USA Today: Not a right-wing-media paper. (Is there one? I've heard of the Manchester Guardian, but not for a long while.)

WaPo: Mah heyart buhleeds fer 'em.

Londonistan and Welfare Jihad: Fox Butterfield territory, here.

#5 Sam L. on 2013-02-23 11:23 (Reply)

"USA Today: Not a right-wing-media paper."

On a 1-to-10, Conservative-to-Liberal scale, I'd give them a 6. They lean that way, and tend to follow the Democratic Talking Points, but at least they're not blatant about it. I'd give CNN and WaPo an 8, MSNBC a 9. I don't read any of the New York sites.

"Is there one?"

IMHO, closest of the MSM would be The Washington Times. I'd give them a 4; leaning to the right, but overtly so.

As far as other right-wing news sites go, my latest fave is CNS News. They tie into some of the better conservative writers of the day, like Star Parker and Michelle Malkin, and it's slightly more than just a political site. They also cover the important events of the day, like the upcoming Oscars.

#5.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-02-23 13:23 (Reply)

The letter to vets (you can get the whole letter from the website you link to) is extraordinary. The language used is worthy of a Soviet bureaucrat working for Stalin.

Since the vet has to pay for representation of his interests by an attorney if he or she does not want "representation" by some VA bureaucrat, he must pay for it himself.

You would think the vets organizations would be up in arms about this.

#6 LHF on 2013-02-23 11:31 (Reply)

The Truth shall set you free.

And this.

I don't meant to be a jerk to the Field Hands here on the Farm, but you gotta check things out before you leap to conclusions. Just because some supposed Constitutional Attorney (by the way, this Michael Connelly can't be found so take that for what its worth) completely misrepresents the situation and its taken up on Twitter and the next thing you know it's a full blown riot of words and posts doesn't mean it's true.

It's not only the low information voter that's the problem in the US, it's also the low information reader - those who don't take the time to carefully check and recheck to determine what the truth is.

We used to say back in the ARPAnet days that nobody knows you're really a dog. Think about it.

#6.1 Tom Francis on 2013-02-23 11:55 (Reply)

These things spark because there is an underlying truth bed of hot embers. It's the Franfurt School/Yuri Andropov psychological attack through psychiatry, that we see featured in this administratioon by the shrewd utterances of one Janet Napolitino of the Dept of Homeland Security.

http://www.amazon.com/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

Two things little known about Andropov (because he died little more than a year in office): he picked Gorby, and his plan was Gorby's mastermind of both the 'fall' of USSR and the rise of western militant environmentalism, and two, he is Putin's favorite and model.

His influence from inside KGB (and as longtime head of same) was seen in the memetic attack on USA during the Vietnam War (he put the 'new left' in the streets, he gave us John Kerry), and follow on, the now accepted premise that it is worth argument the notion that everything we do is suspect, because our system is cruel, and there is something wrong with markets and individualism and thus with American men (feminism's flank attack, but larger, the mental attack is always upon the target's self-image --once that target internalizes the premise he must attack it --and thus become the meme war's reactionary.

Ask yourself, is 'homeland' even a word Americans used, esp in an official nomenclature? Where --on which continent --would you have guessed, before the WTC attack, the venue of a "Department of Homeland Security"?

Whoever hit those towers, whoever organized the suicide terrorists in the airplanes, that's who is responsible for the national jumpiness over such as the ''vet's letter''. And everthing else that is making us think the way we are thinking about the way we are thinking.

#6.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-02-23 13:19 (Reply)

http://www.amazon.com/wiki/Sluggishly_progressing_schizophrenia/ref=wp_la_151?ie=UTF8&ingressSource=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fwiki%2FPolitical%5Fabuse%5Fof%5Fpsychiatry%5Fin%5Fthe%5FSoviet%5FUnion

Here's the model. If you like guns, you are in the early stage of a sluggish progression toward using them to murder innocents. The medical community would be alarmed if this was a process --so the medical community is being slowly brought in on it.

Mass schizophrenia might have symptoms such as patriotic Americans opposing their own government. The apex of patriotism, uniformed military servicemen, soldiers, coming home 'against' the government they fought for.

Common denominator of all this ''sluggish scizophrenia''?

Obama's backers says it's guns. Others say it's Obama. That the very idea of a magical shape-shifting government busily destroying the country before the citizens' very eyes is crazy-making, and the government understands that perfectly well, and is waiting with a soothing therapy for us, as soon as it has driven us sufficiently crazy.

That soothing therapy? Somewhere along the continuum with 'acceptance' at one end and 'dead' at the other.

#6.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-02-23 14:07 (Reply)

(from the link --read closely --bolding mine)

The classification of schizophrenia types attributed to Snezhnevsky[14]:278 is still used in Russia,[15]:371 and considers sluggish schizophrenia an example of the continuous type.[16]:414

A carefully crafted description of sluggish schizophrenia established that psychotic symptoms were non-essential for the diagnosis, but symptoms of psychopathy, hypochondria, depersonalization or anxiety were central to it.[12] Symptoms considered part of the "negative axis" included pessimism, poor social adaptation and conflict with authorities, and were themselves sufficient for a formal diagnosis of "sluggish schizophrenia with few symptoms".[12] According to Snezhnevsky, patients with sluggish schizophrenia could present as seemingly sane but manifest minimal (and clinically relevant) personality changes which could remain unnoticed by the untrained eye.[12] Patients with non-psychotic mental disorders (or who were not mentally ill) could be diagnosed with sluggish schizophrenia.[12] Along with paranoia, sluggish schizophrenia was the diagnosis most frequently used for the psychiatric incarceration of dissenters.[12]

According to Snezhnevsky and his colleagues schizophrenia was more prevalent than previously thought, since the illness could present with relatively mild symptoms and progress later;[11] ((editor's note: "I'll BET!")) schizophrenia was diagnosed more often in Moscow than in other countries, as the World Health Organization Pilot Study on Schizophrenia reported in 1973.[11]

The incidence of sluggish schizophrenia increased because, according to Snezhnevsky and his colleagues, patients with this diagnosis were capable of socially functioning almost normally.[11] Their symptoms could resemble those of a neurosis or paranoia.[11] Patients with paranoid symptoms retained insight into their condition, but overestimated their significance and had grandiose ideas of reforming society.[11] Sluggish schizophrenia could have such symptoms as "reform delusions", "perseverance" and "struggle for the truth".[11] As V.D. Stayzhkin reported, Snezhnevsky diagnosed a reform delusion in every case where a patient "develops a new principle of human knowledge, drafts an ideal of human happiness or other projects for the benefit of mankind".[17]:66

===

okay, enough outta me on this. Posting all this lurid crap is to act as an agent of the very thing opposed --another fiendish luciferian twist in all this!

#6.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2013-02-23 14:34 (Reply)

indeed, and here is Michael Connelly, Esq. he's also listed on the La. Bar Ass'n, as an alleged attorney.

#6.1.2 wirraway on 2013-02-23 18:58 (Reply)

The Participate in Sports poster is a hoot!

Were they available, I would be sorely tempted to purchase one.

#7 feeblemind on 2013-02-23 13:23 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, February 23. 2013

Saturday morning links