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
Friday, April 13. 2018
Dog rescuers, flush with donations, buy animals from the breeders they scorn
A Gentleman's Guide to the NBA: When Players Agree to Take Plays Off
Teens are dumping McDonald’s for Chick-fil-A
Sperm costs too much
Why Literary Scholarship Matters
Learning How to Not Be a Snowflake - Resilience depends not only on what happens to us but how we interpret what happens to us.
Willie Parker: Aborting Babies Is My Christian Calling
Court forces Harvard to publish confidential admissions documents in Asian-discrimination lawsuit
We’ll Make You Neurotic And Dishonest, Just Like Us
March For Our Lives Isn't a Youth Movement
Why the Social Engineers of the Sixties Failed to Make a "Great Society" - The State clearly knew best what "these" people really needed for them to have some minimum form of a "decent life."
Entitlement Reform Is Dead
Scott Pruitt, Warrior for Science - Democrats and liberal journalists attack the EPA head for insisting on transparency, shared research, and rigorous peer review.
New Zealand Warmist Signals By Banning All New Oil Exploration Permits
CUNY Students Tried to Shout Down Josh Blackman. Here's Why They Failed.
" Because having the government decide what is and is not true, and what can and cannot be criticized, always works out so well."
HAS MCCONNELL FINALLY HAD ENOUGH OF DEMOCRATIC OBSTRUCTION?
Trump Is a Low-Information Gasbag
He was not elected to be Intellectual -in-Chief
Alan Dershowitz Predicts FBI Will Leak Privileged Information About President Trump
Tracked: Apr 15, 09:09
Tracked: Apr 15, 09:36
Tracked: Apr 15, 09:47
Tracked: Apr 15, 10:37
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This penchant to "reform entitlements" is always about SS and Medicare. The only two programs the government runs that is paid for by the recipients. No talk about the 2300 various welfare programs that cost in excess of 1.2 trillion at the federal level and a similar amount at state level. You didn't know there were 2300 forms of welfare did you? Of course not, that was the intent to bury these programs in five different cabinet level departments.
SS and Medicare could be improved of course but that is not the intent of "entitlement reform". The intent is to slyly convert SS and Medicare to a welfare based system, to allow congress a free hand to redistribute the money as they see fit. I do not trust this congress to fix the SS system or Medicare.
SS is not paid for by recipients in the form of return from savings. Your SS taxes paid the recipients during your working life. Your SS benefits are paid via currently collected SS payroll taxes. The so-called 'lock box' is simply a redirection of money via bonds to and from the general budget, the same as moving a dollar bill from your left to right pocket.
SS is welfare. Always has been, always will be.
I'm not an expert on fiscal policy, and I don't fully understand the SS business model, but I do know that a whole buttload of my money has been scabbed off each and every paycheck that I have taken home over the past 45 years, so please don't try to get me to swallow the 'social security is just welfare' nonsense. Because even I can see that it's complete horseshit. I can do it by comparing my situation to people that are on welfare and have put nothing into system, ever.
If the SS money (being deducted from paychecks) had been properly managed by our government, the only challenge would have been absorbing the demographic bell curve (i.e. budget conservation before, during, and after the baby boom) which is a big challenge, but not nearly as big as the monster that has been created by combining a demographic problem with a budget promiscuity shell-game nightmare. How man politicians can you name that enforced fiscal discipline on SS since its inception by FDR? Yeah, me neither.
Christopher B: SS is welfare. Always has been, always will be.
Welfare usually refers to means-tested programs. Social Security is not means-tested. You qualify based on your contributions over your working life.
Aggie: If the SS money (being deducted from paychecks) had been properly managed by our government ...
Social Security is a generational income transfer program, not a savings account. Your contributions pay for the previous generation. The next generation pays for yours.
As for the fiscal deficits, the American people apparently want benefits, but not the taxes required to support those benefits. Good luck with that.
"Social Security is a generational income transfer program..."
You misspelled 'Ponzi Scheme.'
You have swallowed the blue pill.
SS is an annuity system that was poorly designed and changed for the worse over time. So while it is technically true that current SS revenues pay out current SS annuties, it changes nothing. SS was set up so that the retiree actually contributed to their own retirement account and got paid back as an annuitant. During the 50's 60's and after the federal government regularly "borrowed" money from the SS trust fund because it was so large and of course because they wanted the money. NOW they don't want to pay it back, it's around $4 trillion and they would like to just write it off. That is part of the intended scam that is known as "entitlement reform".
GoneWithTheWind: SS was set up so that the retiree actually contributed to their own retirement account and got paid back as an annuitant.
That is incorrect. Social Security was set up as a generational income transfer. The Trust Fund was minimal until planning began for retirement of the baby boom generation.
Dog rescues- The portrait of every do-gooder out there. It's all about feeling virtuous, and showing it off, so they happily propagate the evil, all to show the world how they're fighting the good fight against it.
I don't know. I've got a few friends who are involved in rescues - usually breed specific. I watched them solicit money to go to these auctions (a lot in Missouri). There they will spend around 1500 for a dog that's usually in pretty rough shape medically and anywhere between 800-3k for vet treatment. I don't know that it's virtue signaling in those cases or profit mongering - hard to make a profit laying out K's in medical treatment for a 1k dog. With the ones I know, it seems to be more of the, "made a difference for that starfish" kind of deal.
I am honestly asking this question and hope to get an answer. How could a "dog that's usually in pretty rough shape medically" be worth $1500 or even $15? I don't understand. I have had a few dogs in my life but they were always free. I actually don't understand why anyone would pay for a pet especially pay big bucks. The last dog I got was for my mother in law, a cocker-poo 4-5 months old for free on Craigslist. It turned out to be a pretty good pet.
In the case of one acquaintance, an animal rights lawyer, I think it's a desire to give the dog a chance at a better life. She has participated in the prosecution of animal abuse as well as civil litigation based upon fraud and violations of deceptive trade practice acts. From the auctions, one example she's told me about was a 4 year old purchased at just under 2k. The dog needed emergency care for respiratory illness and heart failure. They are covering her medical expenses for life. Between the purchase price and medical fees they have spent almost 5k on the dog. Another one is a dog they purchased for about 900 with pneumonia, giardia, and coccidia. His medical expenses were over 1k. I noticed the article didn't mention the breeders purchases. I dont have a dog in the fight (pun intended) and I have yet to donate but, I'm not quite ready to follow this article's slant
Don't think me careless but it makes no sense to me to pay $1500 or $2000 for a sick dog to then just spend more money to treat it. I do not understand either the cost of the sick dog or the purpose in spending a few thousand on a dog. I can certainly understand the long term owner being so attached that they would spend a lot to take care of their dog. I wouldn't, it's just a dog not a person. But I understand it. I don't see the purpose or how this is useful or meaningful to spend $2000 to buy a sick dog just to spend even more to treat it. The purpose of this is totally lost on me.
I could understand buying a mistreated dog for $50 or $100 or even more just to get it away from the abusive owner but $1500? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the $1500 to save 15 dogs? I dunno, I'm just not understanding it. Again, I don't mean to sound careless or argumentative I just can't make sense of it.
Oh, I don't either. Like you said, it's a dog - not a person (how specist of me - if that's a word). Like I said, I've never donated to their cause. Which is why I compared it to the starfish story. They feel - key word - they're making a difference in these dogs' lives. I will say the rescuers I know are also involved in advocating legislation to limit the number of times a dog can be bred and the conditions of care.
Willie Parker: Aborting Babies is My Satanic Calling. Fixed it for you. Christians, call out evil when you see it.
" Trump Is a Low-Information Gasbag
He was not elected to be Intellectual -in-Chief
They call that blog "Reason"??? Wotta joke! And the commenters are even more ignorant, mis-informed or stoopid than the author of that article.
No wonder Libertarians all ways finish last in any contest; starting with "Who can find your ass with two hands, the fastest?"
And yes, we know, Bird Dog: TRUMP just doesn't fit in with your tweed jacketed friends down at the Club....he's from Queens after all!
Trump is much more intellectual than anyone wants to admit. They are believing his well-crafted exterior....over many many decades...and believing what they see. Go back to the 1980s. The interviews he did with several news personalities. Every bit the intellectual and the gentleman.
You don't become a billionaire by being stupid.
However, I am glad these losers think this, it allows Trump to fundamentally change government from the ground up while they rant about how stupid he is.
Works for me.
Probably safe to say the "smartest people in the room" most likely aren't. More likely, they're the loudest.
Remember the SNL skit on Reagan, the one where he's a genius? True dat, and Trump too.
They're believing what they're telling themselves - they REALLY want to feel superior to Trump, and this is the way they can do it.
Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. What matters is how it makes them FEEL to think he's ignorant.
And they feel good about that.
Calling names is not an argument. Have you got anything else? You haven't previously, but maybe today you suddenly bought a mirror.
You like Trump. We get it. You think anyone who says the smallest negative thing about him must just hate Regular Guys. Yeah, we get that too. Pony up with a real argument.
You are wrong if you think people are knee jerk defending Trump. We get it, you dislike Trump. I understand that. I disliked all of the Kennedy's, Jimmy Carter and Obama. I more than dislike Hillary and though old Bill Clinton would be a great guy to go drinking with. So I get hating political opponents. But you are making a simple mistake about those who respond to Trump hate.
Simply put Trump is smarter than you think. He is probably the smartest president we have had since the founding fathers. He plays games, he might call it the art of the deal or something else. It is big game poker palyer. He learned it all in the streets of New York dealing with the working class New Yorkers. That's why he shuns polish and putting on airs. Not only will it not work but by acting a little coarse and loud people misunderestimate him. He has made his fortune on getting more out of his deals than he puts into them. He is good at this.
Just like his tweeting. The press hates his tweeting and are constantly either disparaging him about it or giving him advice to do less of it. Why? Because his tweeting bypasses the MSM and they hate it. The MSM is always playing catch up. The press too fail to "get" Trump. They think they are winning by telling lies about him or shouting embarrassing questions. They are clueless to how this helps him with his base.
Misunderestimate Trump at your peril !
Whatever anyone thinks of Trump personally, give Trump credit for exposing just how anti American, malignant, and corrupt the Government/Media complex is.
Saucier, Arpaio, ... now Libby.
Kudos, Mr. President!
To quote a poster form the Althouse blog: Women are the target audience for pretentious BS.
Sperm is expensive? What about the long-term costs?
Learning not to be a snowflake: Resiliance can be learned? Who woulda thunk it!
Trump Is a Low-Information Gasbag
Arabic translators needed in Afghanistan
JF Kerry's "nuance," which means JF Kerry is unable to string together two coherent sentences.
The Goreacle's various pronouncements on global warming
Ah, the Clintons.
"Trump Is a Low-Information Gasbag"
Hey, I'm a foreigner, so can one of you help here?
I just read through your Constitution a couple of times and - for the life of me - nowhere could I find the section that states a presidential candidate must be an Ivy League grad with an IQ through the roof and 20 years of inside-the-Beltway policy-wonking experience.
Just where is that part again? Can anyone help?
Look through the constitution until you come to the clause that says abortion is a right and just below that it states that all presidents must be super intelligent unless they are a minority or a woman in which case they get a pass.
Oh yeah. There it is. I had to look quite hard before I found it.
It comes right after the part where it is states that any former First Lady must automatically assume the Presidency if she is becomes a candidate.