Thursday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, June 14. 2018

Cleanse and Refresh - The New York Times’ coverage of buzzy wellness concepts like “detox” is a case study in pseudoscience creep.

Where to Invest Now

Moms to Daughters: Don’t Be Ali Watkins

Without Government, Who Will Build the Roads? Domino’s Pizza, Apparently

New York Times: It's All Craigslist's Fault

Many large US firms sell, hire and invest more overseas than in US and they have to think globally, not domestically, to survive

Dershowitz Blasts the ACLU for Becoming a ‘Hard-Left Political Advocacy Group’ - "The ACLU is no longer a neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties. It has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group," Dershowitz wrote.

In California, the “Jungle” Is Predictable. Primary results suggest overwhelming Democratic governance—though not without trouble signs.

Rod Rosenstein’s Subpoena Threat: He’s Conflicted, and He’s Acting Like It

Who Unraveled the New World Order? It wasn’t Trump. The global economic consensus began falling apart years before he entered politics.

The Down-Under View of Donald Trump

Germany: Shut down talk shows

An IDF soldier’s description of experience in Gaza - Have you ever seen 4,000 people running towards you full of hate and yelling “Allah Akhbar”?

When Reagan Went to the Wall: A Berlin-Singapore Nexus?

North Korea in the Middle East: A Dangerous Military Supply Line

The two Koreas are moving ahead

The "Trump Doctrine" for the Middle East

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:31 | Comments (23) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Re: Rosenstein, Tucker Carlson has recently had Jeff Sessions, and last night some former DOJ prosecutor, and it is deeply disturbing to me to hear how vigorously both tried to defend the indefensible, specifically DOJ redacting information provided to Congress for legitimate oversight, and then subsequently we learn that the redactions were not for any legitimate reason, but to cover up things that might embarrass DOJ or FBI.

These guys really do think that they are a law unto themselves, answerable to no one.

#1 peacelovewoodstock on 2018-06-14 08:45 (Reply)

People in power come to believe that threats to that power are threats to the institution they work for. I have seen this with hospital administrators; I have heard at close secondhand about pastors who have felt this way.

I will say again that Andrew McCarthy over at National Review has been a treasure covering this entire matter.

#1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2018-06-14 10:05 (Reply)

Of course the DOJ and FBI top officials are conflicted. They are Oath Breakers. They swore, gave their word, to defend the Constitution. They have been defending their jobs, the dem-leftist party, the globalist world view.

#1.2 Blick on 2018-06-14 10:14 (Reply)

They do have a law unto themselves. They are answerable to no one. Show me where those statements are wrong? When I see one of these top officials being indicted, and going to trial, I’ll know equal justice has returned. I’m not holding my breath.

#1.3 B. Hammer on 2018-06-14 11:33 (Reply)

Dershowitz Blasts the ACLU for Becoming a ‘Hard-Left Political Advocacy Group’

Well, welcome to reality, a few decades behind the rest of us but better late than never. The ACLU has communist ties and was founded by pro-communist activists. It always was about destroying the country by forcing them to obsess over those "constitutional" things that would most likely cripple us in the long run. Interesting that "civil liberties" never seemed to include perhaps the most important civil liberty of all; the right to keep and bear arms.

#2 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-06-14 10:01 (Reply)

Many large US firms sell, hire and invest more overseas than in US and they have to think globally, not domestically, to survive

Ooooh! An article written by an "academic" at a third-rate university! He must be correct, then, right? (Not to mention heavily subsidized by the US Chamber of Commerce!)

This is just another globalist pile of Bovine Scat, aimed at protecting the current structure of the world economy, which heavily relies on a supine US citizenry, bending over and taking the protectionist tariffs of OTHER countries, good and hard, for benefit of the globalist robber barons.

If not, why does this "academic" use the following language:

"...protectionist, nationalist, jingoistic xenophobic, “America First” administration..."

in trying to persuade us of the correctness of his position?

TRUMP isn't ANTI trade, he's merely for FAIR trade, such negotiating with foreign governments into removing THEIR already-existing tariffs and structural trade barriers to US manufactured goods. Best example occurred when TRUMP was asked about NAFTA while Justin Canada was sitting next to him. TRUMP replied that he and Trudeau were going to do away with all tariffs on both sides! Trudeau blanched and looked as if he was going to be sick!

For the globalists, its "heads we win, tails you lose" for the US middle class, when it comes to their claims of FAKE "free trade." ("Nice little product you got there! Too bad we French have to impose a 75% tariff on it if you import that well-made, cheap product from the US into France.......now, if you were to build a plant here in Paris, employing French laborwe might be able to help you out on the price......")

#3 B48 (Link) on 2018-06-14 10:07 (Reply)

B48: TRUMP isn't ANTI trade, he's merely for FAIR trade, such negotiating with foreign governments into removing THEIR already-existing tariffs and structural trade barriers to US manufactured goods.

The U.S. and E.U. have comparable tariffs on manufactured goods. The U.S. has higher overall tariffs compared to Canada.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-14 10:22 (Reply)

You overlook the VAT tax versus the sales tax added to those products. Those aren't even close in Euro trade.

#3.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-06-14 15:51 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You overlook the VAT tax versus the sales tax added to those products. Those aren't even close in Euro trade.

VAT applies to local production as well as imports, so does not represent an unequal playing field or tariff.

#3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-14 16:19 (Reply)

But the VAT is also returned to any exporter as a subsidy to make exports cheaper when landing on foreign shores. A VAT tax on US product brought into Europe along with the US and state income tax already on that product gives the European product a big advantage. That's exactly why the Europeans went to a VAT tax.

#3.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-06-14 16:53 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: But the VAT is also returned to any exporter as a subsidy to make exports cheaper when landing on foreign shores.

Again, that means there is a level playing field. If a German company and a U.S. company sell into Germany, then they both pay the VAT. If they sell into the U.S., then they both collect the sales tax. There is no advantage.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-15 06:33 (Reply)

The German company gets the VAT tax refunded to it if it exports to the US. The US company does not get the federal income tax refunded to it. When a US company exports to Germany it pays the federal income tax and the VAT tax while the German company only pays the VAT tax. There is a tax advantage (subsidy) to using VAT and that is why the Europeans went to the VAT tax rather than keep their old income tax system. To make it simple...the federal income tax is never refunded to US exporters while the VAT tax is always refunded to European exporters. Subtract the individual state sales tax from the VAT tax and that is the subsidy that all European exporters will get in a trade deal. That is what Trump will change along with equaling the Tariffs charged.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-06-15 12:33 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: The German company gets the VAT tax refunded to it if it exports to the US.

And the U.S. company doesn't have to collect U.S. sales taxes on exports, so the result is neutral.

indyjonesouthere: When a US company exports to Germany it pays the federal income tax and the VAT tax while the German company only pays the VAT tax.

German companies pay a corporate income tax, though not on their export business, a territorial tax system. So your problem is with the corporate income tax, not the VAT. Your original comment concerned the VAT. In any case, the U.S. is moving towards a territorial system.

#3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-16 11:16 (Reply)

"US firms have to operate as efficiently as possible... and sometimes that requires them to shift production overseas, possibly to take advantage of lower labor costs, lower taxes, or more favorable regulations."

I am OK with this. But when they sell those cheap products back into the most profitable market in the world they should be taxed to make up for the loss of jobs, loss of income taxes and SS paid into the system. We are not and should not simple be a "host" for these greedy corporations. Move your jobs overseas and pay a 50% tariff or tax on any products sold into the U.S. I also think that limits should be placed on total imports such that our trade deficit drops to zero. MAGA

#4 OneGuy on 2018-06-14 10:09 (Reply)

OneGuy: But when they sell those cheap products back into the most profitable market in the world they should be taxed to make up for the loss of jobs, loss of income taxes and SS paid into the system.

So if a U.S. company manufactures a product overseas, there should be a 50% tariff, but not for foreign owned companies that produce the same product?

OneGuy: I also think that limits should be placed on total imports such that our trade deficit drops to zero.

How would you bring that about? Quotas? High tariffs?

#4.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-14 10:25 (Reply)

Oh no! I forgot to take into account the intentionally stupid. Every firm overseas selling their goods into our market would pay the tariff/tax. It's all about incentive. I would want to incentivize every American company to make products here using American labor. I would also like to incentivize every foreign company to either manufacture here in our country or to license American companies to make their products here. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Yes quota's but enforced by the companies themselves. That is they could bring in a million widgets but every widget after the millionth would cost them a 100% tax. I would expect that high tax would make them extremely careful to abide by the quota.

Seriously wouldn't you like a balanced trade with every country? If not, why not?

#4.1.1 OneGuy on 2018-06-14 16:15 (Reply)

OneGuy: Every firm overseas selling their goods into our market would pay the tariff/tax.

That's the current situation.

OneGuy: What could possibly be wrong with that?

The problem with barriers to trade is that is costs the consumer more, reduces innovation, doesn't allow production to move towards the most efficient producer, or allow for scaling inherent in global markets.

OneGuy: Seriously wouldn't you like a balanced trade with every country?

No. While long-term trade deficits can indicate economic problems, trade deficits can fluctuate for a variety of valid economic reasons. For instance, when an economy is rapidly expanding, imports may increase faster than exports, as consumption exceeds production, while attracting foreign investment. Artificially forcing balanced trade is economically less efficient.

If the U.S. wants to lower its trade deficit, it needs to invest in production rather than borrow for consumption.

#4.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-14 16:34 (Reply)

Oh-oh! Fake argument: "The problem with barriers to trade is that is costs the consumer more"

If you really cared about that THEN you would be in favor of eliminating sales taxes. Because sales tazxes cost the consumer more!!!!

But your response is just so much BS. You don't care about what consumers pay you want to use trade negotiations for crony political reasons. It brings power and kickbacks to the elite.

"If the U.S. wants to lower its trade deficit, it needs to invest in production"

"Invest" That is the same word that all Democrats use when they mean spending tax payers money.

Production investment is and should be 100% in the sphere of the private sector. They would rather invest overseas because Democrats make the cost (taxes and regulations) of investing in the US too high. That is why we must have incentives to make it more profitable and practical to invest in the US.

MAGA

#4.1.1.1.1 OneGuy on 2018-06-15 18:48 (Reply)

OneGuy: If you really cared about that THEN you would be in favor of eliminating sales taxes.

Sales taxes and tariffs all cost the consumer, so they tend to reduce consumption. The government has to tax something in order to exist, so by that measure, tariffs are just another tax. But you ignored the other effects, that a tariff "reduces innovation, doesn't allow production to move towards the most efficient producer, or allow for scaling inherent in global markets. "

OneGuy: Production investment is and should be 100% in the sphere of the private sector.

Direct production invest is the sphere of the private sector, however, government is generally responsible for infrastructure, security, and long-term scientific research.

#4.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-06-16 11:05 (Reply)

Even more than adding tariffs there should also be a tax on each work vista immigrant that is brought into the country by employers. All inported goods, services, and laborors should have a tax applied.

#4.2 indyjonesouthere on 2018-06-14 16:00 (Reply)

"In California, the “Jungle” Is Predictable."

California is a Democrat success. They intend to import voters/citizens and use them to acquire and hold power. They intend to use this power to extract higher taxes from the productive to transfer to the unproductive in return for their votes. That is why we have millions of immigrants coming in every year both legal and illegal. We don't "need" them, we would be better off without them, but they tend to vote Democrat and they tend to "need" welfare. That is your future, work for 45 years of your life to pay for illegal immigrants who will vote to take more and more of your income for themselves.

#5 Anon on 2018-06-14 10:15 (Reply)

Shut down talk shows/Rise of the FAR RIGHT!!!!!1111!!!!! Well, only because the rest of the media is so farrrrrrrrrrrrr left.

#6 Sam L. on 2018-06-14 10:48 (Reply)

Dershowitz just discovered the ACLU is left leaning? Roger Baldwin, the founder and first director of the ACLU, was a communist. William Z. Foster, was National Chairman of the Communist Party USA and an ACLU co-founder.

#7 Ray on 2018-06-14 12:48 (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

Thursday, June 14. 2018

Thursday morning links