Pursuing equality is the same as seeking liberty - letter -my analysis

A letter by Patrick Hessman appeared in today's Bozeman Chronicle. You will find my commentary interspersed in bold in Mr. Hessman's letter. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.
-----------------

First, Mr. Levitt's letter:

The United States of America was designed to be different from all other nations. It accepted that an individual’s fate was to be determined, not by class distinction and hereditary status, but, by one’s own freely chosen pursuit of ambition.

This fostered our “exceptionalism.”

In all other nations, the rights enjoyed by their citizens were conferred by human agencies: kings and princes and parliaments. They were privileges that could be revoked by the same human agencies. In America, the citizen’s rights were declared to have come from God and to be “inalienable” – immune to legitimate revocation. Thus was fashioned a country in which more liberty and prosperity is more widely shared than among other people in history.

Politicians, not concerned about liberty, pursue class warfare policies seeking economic equality, rather than opportunity, reflected in the phrase “spread the wealth.”

They ignore the observations by a socialist that those nations which put liberty ahead of equality have ended up doing better by equality.

Within America today a split has developed, with one side in favor of liberty and the other in favor of redistribution.

Those seeking redistribution assume that the financial gap between citizen groups self-evidently amounts to a violation of social justice, which rules out the role played by talent, character, ambition, initiative, risk, work and spirit in producing unequal outcomes.

This wiping away of the causes of American exceptionalism, by employing class warfare, is turning this country into a facsimile of social-democratic regimes of Western Europe. America can continue to be “exceptional” only if we the people demand our God given rights, not privileges to be parceled out by politicians, and if we understand that, while we are all created equal, we should remain free to pursue our own fate, even though economic results are unequal.

------------------------

Now Mr. Hessman's reply:

This letter is a response to Jack R. Levitt’s Dec. 6 letter regarding his thoughts on American exceptionalism. One of his main points was that any attempts at social justice violate the idea that our nation was founded on the ideas of equality of all people (Take a moment and read Mr. Levitt's letter again. This is not what he said. Mr. Levitt said that spreading the wealth violates liberty.) 

and that an insidious  group of Americans seek to eliminate this principle (Insidious is not a word used by Mr. Levitt. In fact, he doesn't even imply that there is some sort of stealth movement. He does specifically name politicians, who implement policy in government. Those laws are published and are not hidden at all. 

In fact, it seems that these kinds of people have been emboldened to the point where they freely admit their objectives. Insidious is a word that conveys a conspiracy, which of course pushes Mr. Levitt into kook-land, according to people like Mr. Hessman).

I am one of the people whom he accuses of putting equality before liberty, but the point he misses is that seeking equality is seeking liberty for all. To abandon social justice would be an abandoning the idea of freedom. To give free reign to those who hold wealth only results in class division being further increased. (This is a standard line of thinking for the Left, the envy of the rich. This dividing people into classes is a marxist concept. Supposedly it is wealth disparity between classes that needs to be remedied by the uprising of the proletariat against the bourgeois. 

This concept is held dear by the Left, even though it has been rendered obsolete by the success of western society for all classes. Western society is predicated on the idea of individualism, property rights and self sufficiency, and this has yielded unprecedented prosperity and opportunity. The American ideal celebrated by Mr. Levitt has rendered marxist arguments moot. 

But they persist, clinging to an archaic framework, albeit in a modified form. Traditional marxists would identify the wealthy factory owner, aided by a government consisting of a privileged class, as the oppressor which needs to be overthrown, violently if needed. 

However, rather than overthrow the wealthy power structure, modern day quasi-marxists have embraced the government power structure as a means of change, and now use it to coerce people to part with their wealth via taxation. Now they can achieve their vision simply by passing laws that take money from one person and gives it to another person who did not earn it. 

This vision of "justice" is what Mr. Levitt objects to.)   

Conservatives argue government should get out of the way to allow for equal opportunity, but the idea of equal opportunity is a complete sham in the corporate-driven world. (Here's confirmation of my previous paragraph. Mr. Hessman identifies his bogeyman and claims that corporatism is the reason there is poverty. So, since equal opportunity is a sham, the government, which happily embraces corporate cronyism by the way, should intervene) 

Students from poor families being unable to continue their education because of insane college costs (It sometimes surprises me what bubbles to the surface when quasi-marxists rant. Mr. Hessman equates high tuition costs with lack of liberty, but few institutions of higher learning are run by corporations. Most are government-run!) 

while trust fund babies sail through expensive educations is not liberty (Do you see? People who have money are at an advantage, and that is not liberty. Mr. Hessman seems to think that the RESULT of liberty is proof of lack of liberty! 

But we know that if the results are always equal, no matter the intelligence, resources, effort, creativity, and initiative invloved, then definitionally merit becomes irrelevant, or even, undesirable  So, in this odd scenario, people should get what they don't deserve, while others don't get what they do deserve. This is not liberty, it is tyranny.).

A family facing financial ruin because they had the poor judgment to get sick is not liberty (This is a not-too-clever way of saying that healthcare equals fairness. One might take that further and suggest that everyone not eating steak is unfair, people who are forced to drive an old car is not fair, not being able to afford box seats at the football game is not fair, and not being able to breathe clean air is not fair. Leftists, like little kids, are obsessed with fairness. 

However, fairness is a base concept, a fiction in real life. Nothing is fair, and frankly, nothing can be made fair. The complete lack of fairness ought to be self-evident. A storm destroys one home while leaving another untouched. A murderer kills one person, but leaves another alone. Someone eats a bad clam and dies from food poisoning, while another eats a bad clam and doesn't even get sick. 

Fairness is a fairy tale, it's what junior-high level intellects want.).

Liberty can only exist when people are not only free to choose their own path in life, but able to pursue their dreams. (This is quite true. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)

This ability becomes more and more diminished as social programs are cut in a heat of tax-cutting fervor (Now we have Mr. Hessman equating social programs with liberty. Aside from the fact that they have not been diminished at all, we need to note that social programs have not succeeded. Poverty is still hovering at 12-14%, and has for decades. Senior citizens still have to choose between dog food and medicine, despite Social Security, Medicare, and all sorts of other senior benefits. 

Even corporate welfare has not prevented Chevrolet, Chrysler, Solyndra, and a host of other crony corporations from going bankrupt. If anything, the evidence is overwhelming that fairness has failed. The redistributionist model is an unmitigated disaster).

If America does indeed wish to remain exceptional, pursuing equality is key. Neither liberty nor equality can exist while distant plutocrats build their empires on the backs of the rest of the population (Plutocracy is defined as government by the wealthy. The irony of this is that government, by growing huge and intervening in society at every level, has precipitated the very situation bemoaned by Mr. Hessman. Government is obscenely powerful, spending untold trillions on every conceivable fairness program. Government controls huge sums of money, which of course is directed by government officials. And people are corruptible. We see it every day. Bribery, influence-buying, cronyism of every kind, are all commonplace. 

People like Mr. Hessman want government spreading money around, they want redistribution, they want high taxes on the wealthy. And then they are surprised  when interested parties try to influence where that money goes. Quasi-marxists are responsible for the very problems they decry! 

If liberty was truly the goal, then we would deprive government of power. If they didn't have the ability to control huge sums of money, then their inevitable corruption would not manifest, because they could do anything with their corruption. Take the money away, and corruption is contained.).

Feeling lucky: Bozeman students learn value of human rights - By GAIL SCHONTZLER

This article appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

My comments in bold.

------------------------

American kids take it for granted they can go to school and get an education, but a Pakistani girl was shot in the head for speaking out in favor of a girl’s right to an education, Bozeman students learned Monday during a Human Rights Day Celebration.

The shooting of 15-yearold Malala Yousafzai, who was nearly killed by terrorists two months ago, is just one example of human rights under attack, (I was waiting to see how long it took for the first howler. With articles like these, you can be assured that some misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or outright lie will crop up somewhere. 

I will not assume malicious intent, but certainly our children are being subject to maleducation. So what's wrong with the above statement? It should be quite easy to see. The girl was shot by terrorists, not by police or military. Therefore, she was assaulted. The crime is attempted murder. The terrorists didn't violate her rights, they tried to kill her. Government violates rights, people commit crimes) 

64 years after the United Nations ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948. (Can you imagine? These terrorists ignored the United Nations! Didn't they know that what they did was outlawed by the UN 64 years ago? By simple fact of ratification, the problem was supposed to be solved, right?) 

Six speakers were invited Monday to talk on the anniversary to Chief Joseph Middle School students. Emma Bowen, 13, said she came away from the event feeling “how lucky we are.” (Although we don't know why this youngster feels lucky, at least she understands that we live in a country that is established on the principles of liberty and rights.)

Fellow eighth-grader Malia Bertelsen said she was surprised that it wasn’t until after the murder of millions of people in World War II – including Jews, homosexuals, disabled people and gypsies (I wonder how much emphasis the guest speaker put on these small numbers of ancillary persecutions. Not that they aren't worthy of note - any horror perpetrated against people is lamentable - but frequently the objective is to enable people to obtain "me too" status, blowing up their importance out of perspective. 

ays, for example,  while part of the persecution, amounted to a very small proportion: "The actual number of victims is not known. Estimates range from about 7000 to tens of thousands." I think it is safe to assume that tens of thousands represents an exaggeration. But even assuming that, say, 30,000 gays were killed, that amounts to only .5% of the 6 million Jews killed)  

— that a document listing worldwide human rights was ratified. “That’s crazy,” she said (Yeah, crazy. Um, they're TERRORISTS. A UN treaty probably doesn't mean too much to them. Kids are always quick to call out violations of the rules. Immature minds are consumed with fairness. Just like liberals, it seems). 

Holly Fretwell, an adjunct faculty member in economics at Montana State University and research fellow at PERC, the Property and Environmental Research Center, talked about the Pakistani girl’s story and the right to liberty and self determination.

“The freedom to do what you want to do without hurting somebody else, is the ultimate human right,” Fretwell said. (This may be the first time these kids have ever heard the conservative/libertarian perspective on this. Kudos to the school for including someone of this perspective)

Fretwell also talked about the importance of property rights, and the danger to the clean water, fisheries and the environment when there are no property rights. “If nobody owns it, who’s going to take care of it?” she asked. (Private property rights are anathema to the left. I hope that Ms. Fretwell was allowed to speak at length about this. Especially to balance the predominately leftward tilt of the rest of the speakers)

Billy Smith, an MSU history professor, talked about slaves who tried to escape in early America because they had no human rights (I'm relying on the the author of the article to accurately relate what was said. If Mr. Smith said this, he's wrong. Human rights are unalienable. They cannot be taken away or bestowed. They can only be violated or made safe, as far as governments go. The slaves had rights, but those rights were being violated).

“All men are created equal,” written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is “one of the most important phrases in American history and world history,” Smith said.

But in Jefferson’s day, many didn’t believe the idea applied to slaves, or to women, Smith said (This appears to be a backhanded attempt to impugn the founders. However, it was the founders who created and signed the Declaration and Constitution. It was the founders who fought for way to move the country to liberty. 

Of course some people opposed this. Apparently Mr. Smith wants to apply contemporary sensibilities to a fledgling nation as if by our standards they were evil men).

He displayed a 1769 newspaper ad Jefferson published offering a reward for the return of his escaped mulatto slave Sandy.

If you had no rights, Smith asked students, what would you do? Some slaves started to run away after Northern states banned slavery. Harriet Tubman, an escaped slave, was a “conductor” on the Underground Railroad and helped about 250 slaves escape to the North. Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave, advocated abolition to Abraham Lincoln.

Slavery still happens today around the world and even sometimes in the United States in the “underground” economy, Smith said.

The speakers were introduced by Bozeman disc jockey Missy O’Malley, who told students that human rights “hit home with me, personally.” Without freedom of speech and expression, O’Malley said, she wouldn’t have a job, and everyone would have to wear the same clothes.

“We are very lucky,” she said.

The event was sponsored by CJMS’s Million Ways Club and organized by Spanish teacher Jan Krieger and parent Aida Murga. Student Finn Vaughan Kraska, 14, said the Million Ways Club volunteers at the food bank and takes on other projects. “It’s fun to make a difference,” he said.

At Irving School, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child was read (You can read it here. This declaration consists mostly of feel-good pablum. The people who create these resolutions are largely leftists, and want to mold the world into their image of utopia. They are outraged when their precious dictates are violated by tyrants, dictators, and terrorists, as if the sheer passage of the resolution solves the problem. 

But can you imagine there being a right to recreation? How would this play out? Who would pay for it? It's this kind of stuff that reminds me of the worldview of the Left, where everyone lives in idyllic surroundings with unicorns and rainbows. They make no allowance for the fundamental ugliness of human nature, which no amount of proclamations will change.)

according to parent volunteer Vickie Edelman. Bonnie Satchatello-Sawyer, director of the nonprofit Hopa Mountain (Here's their website),

spoke to students, who made drawings for a large paper quilt to illustrate rights (It  appears that Hopa Mountain is intent on creating little activists and community organizers. It's all pretty vague, filled with nice-sounding goals like getting involved, changing your community, and helping at-risk people. Hopa Mountain also has a blog, which reveals a bit more of the leftist tilt of this organization.).

The article does not tell us what every speaker presented, but the guest list seems quite decidedly leftward in orientation. The reporter seems to be uninterested in the details, instead preferring to communicate platitudes and generalities. One might expect the reporter to ask what this Hopa Mountain thing is all about, or the Million Ways Club, or even FREE. These groups have access to our schools, so what do they stand for? What are they trying to accomplish? Who is behind them?

One gets the distinct impression that these poor little children are simply being indoctrinated. 

US was built without federal income taxes - FB conversation

D.G.: So not only have there always been taxes other than income taxes, but state income taxes long predate Federal ones. cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax#History. So even if you interpret "kept all of their earnings" to refer only to income tax, the first sentence is still false.

Me: I'm sorry, I really don't get your point.

D.G.: The picture says: "Up until 1913, Americans kept all of their earnings", clearly referring to the 16th Amendment, which allowed for a Federal Income Tax. Since there were state income taxes long before 1913, that statement is false. That's my only point.

Me: There is a large difference between what the feds do and what the states do. The whole of conservative thought has to do with the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the constitution, since all other powers are left to the states or to the people. Therefore, opposition to the 16th amendment is considered and logical.

D.G.: Didn't say it 's not. :) Just said that the statement is false.

Me: In the context of limited federal powers, it's true.

D.G.: It doesn't say anything about the Federal Government. It just says "all of their earnings."

Me: Again, context. A list of all the things the federal govt is doing follows that sentence. None of them needed an income tax before. This is hardly debatable, so what is it that you're trying to establish?

D.G.: I'm trying to establish that this picture is demagogic and misleading. :)

Me: Make your case.

Me: This post is all about what the nation did before the federal income tax. What the states did is not relevant.

D.G.: So Rich, I can't read your mind. And if I'm taking this thread too far away from what you wanted to discuss, I apologize and I'll depart the thread.

What I can read is the picture you posted. It says that "schools, colleges, roads, vast railroads, streets, subways, the Army, the Navy and the Marine Corps" were built without taking money from Americans' earnings.

In the period mentioned, schools, colleges, roads, streets, and subways were all paid for by the states. (To a large extent they still are, but I don't know the proportions off-hand.) If you want to argue that the full responsibility for those things should revert to the states, then fine. But you can't claim that these things were built without taking from Americans' earnings.

S.W.: Well, to start with, in 1913 our army ranked something like 15th in the world...we didn't have enough trained troops for Cuba and had to take volunteers and our navy, while impressive to the common people, was outdated and of mixed technology, far behind European models...not entirely our fault, as all navies had mixed fleets... but when they finally arrived in England four years later they had a great rate of fire but less than 10% accuracy. Brass pins on watertight doors were polished to the point they did not seal anymore. Officers threw training ammo overboard to keep from blistering the paint. Back home, working conditions were abysmal and the open pollution was incredible. Robber barons were raping the west for natural resources and rural poverty was rampant. Not taking sides here, but it's too easy to smooth over history like cheap frosting : )

Me: *Sigh* I give up.

The UN disability treaty - FB conversation

F. B. friend B.R. posted this:

 Thoughts on the UN disability treaty vote, Rich?

Me: I hadn't heard about it, had to look it up. Looks like it's modeled after our own ADA.

I have two thoughts. First, a treaty is binding: Constitution, Article VI, section 2: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." This means if we happen to modify or repeal ADA, we are still bound by the provisions of the treaty. Second, a treaty is defined as "a formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade." Is the UN a country?

What are you thinking about it?

B.R.: I'm wondering what the benefit of blocking it is. I don't buy that it's a threat to American sovereignty. I don't buy that Rick Santorum thinks the UN is going to invade his home to make decisions about his children. And I don't think the GOP would walk into such obviously bad PR without some kind of motive. So I guess I'm wondering what that motive is.

Me: That's the thing about this kind of stuff. Whenever the GOP opposes something, it's always represented as extreme, damaging to the poor and elderly, hateful, greedy, etc. Once enough people have accepted the faulty notion that the government is the fount of all things compassionate, the GOP has lost the argument. And that's why they lost the election.

Since the treaty duplicates the ADA, what would be the point of binding us to treaty when our law already covers it?

B.R.: Well, the Democrats rarely take a stand to oppose bills that do damage to the poor and elderly - unless I'm mistaken.

I think the point of the treaty is to encourage other countries to follow our lead, not just for their own disabled citizens, but for our disabled citizens when traveling or on business abroad. I'm used to the GOP's attitude that America is the example of greatness, and that other countries should follow our examples instead of the other way around. So this vote seems like a turnaround from that ideology.

Me: According to Politico, the treaty is "...already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries...", so I doubt the reason is to be an example.

As far as the Democrats, notice the sweet deal they have. All they have to do is rush in with the government wallet and proclaim how compassionate they are. Issues of affordability, constitutionality, waste, fraud, and abuse are ignored because they require higher cognitive consideration than the emotional context of tossing around govt money.

B.R.: The treaty is modeled after ADA, so it already IS an example, but by ratifying it ourselves, we put our stamp on it. It's still the same purpose as I suggested.

What are the extra costs involved in this treaty?

Me: Then the symbolism is enough reason, in your opinion?

B.R.: No, I'm honestly asking, what are the costs of voting to approve the treaty? What are we spending, risking, losing?

Me: Treaties, historically, have been between nations that intend to cooperate for mutual advantage, or for things like the cessation of hostilities. This treaty, however, is not with a nation, it does not negotiate an issue to establish the rights of parties, it does not deal with war, economic disputes, trade issues, or anything like that. This is a political statement, a tool to bludgeon uncooperative nations, a statement that does absolutely nothing to improve the plight of the disabled. And since we already do what the treaty wants, not only is there no substance, there is no reason.

B.R.: You're correct about everything but this part: "a statement that does absolutely nothing to improve the plight of the disabled". This treaty would improve the likelihood that disabled Americans - including veterans - would have the ease and consideration in their international travels and business that they do in America. I'm not asking you to fight for the cause of this treaty, I simply want to know why it deserved to be voted down. This really seems like a no-brainer, an easy thing we could all agree on. If we can find reasons to vote this down, can't we find reasons to vote anything down?

Me: I sincerely doubt that this would do a single thing to improve anything regarding international travel for the disabled. I doubt that you can find a single UN treaty or resolution that quantifiably improved anyone's life.

I haven't said that it deserved to be voted down. But I can't find any reason at all that it should be passed.

B.R.: Bummer.
------------------
And then this follow up conversation:

The Fiscal Cliff - FB conversation

FB friend L.B. posted this:

Did you ever hear of an abused woman getting the crap beat out of her and then thanking her husband for doing it? I think thats a good description of us, "The useful idiots." The so called "Fiscal cliff is a man made crisis" manufactured by the Obama team to play us for idiots, and him coming out of it like a savior. If you go back a little over a year ago, Obama created the congressional super committee to solve the fiscal cliff of that time. The incentive put in place to encourage them to come up with a solution is what we are now calling the "fiscal cliff". Obama is no idiot and he knows that a tax increase on the rich is only a drop in the bucket of what he wants, his real agenda is to increase taxes on everybody. This way he gets to preside over one of the biggest tax increases in history and look like a hero doing it. Remember this, "Crisis, reaction, solution." That is the formula they used to create this so called "fiscal cliff". So what happens if we go over it; you get the shaft and our military is severely weakened.

Me: The republicans are wholly complicit in this mess. They think that going over the cliff at 50 mph is better than going over it at 90 mph like the dems want to do . We're still gonna crash...

D.R.: His real agenda is to raise the dept ceiling limit by 1.7 trillion dollars so they can spend more money we dont have.....

M.S.: You cannot have two multi-trillion dollar wars and then refuse to raise taxes. Tell me who is truly "asleep..." And as for the debt ceiling, how much more expensive is debt now that the child-like GOP caused our credit rating to fall? It goes like this: if you have bills to pay, you pay those bills, and you pay them on time. You do not hold off on paying the mortgage to teach your family a lesson. What happened with the debt ceiling is beyond absurd and reckless.

Me: Tax increases have failed to reduce the debt every time they've been tried. Reducing spending has rarely, if ever, been tried. 40% of government spending is borrowed money. Clearly paying the mortgage is not a priority in D.C..

J.L.: I'd rather fall of the fiscal cliff then let Rich Bullies run America! Just because you're rich doesn't give you the right to pay a smaller percentage in taxes then me! No More Breaks Richie Rich! You are not entitled!!!!!- ( one of my old posts, thought it fit as another view point. Not calling any of you rich, because I don't know your finances personally.)

Me: Unfortunately, myths get perpetuated and eventually become "fact." Rarely does anyone go to the source to check these myths. The rich do not pay a smaller income tax rate. Just that simple.

And, it's not an either/or situation. It's not a choice between the fiscal cliff and the rich running America. In fact, we do not have this choice. We picked our idiot leaders and they make the choice, which will lead us over the cliff either way.

M.S.: Rich: A mortgage is "borrowed money" by definition. Debt in and of itself is not evil. It just needs to be kept down to a sustainable level. Raising the top rates AND capping exemptions to some some degree simply must be part of the equation. It is also a myth that entrepreneurs avoid making money because of taxes.
I think everyone agrees that spending and waste need to be reduced. Of course there is disagreement on where exactly that tightening should happen.
As far as our "idiot leaders" go... I cannot imagine the USA would be better off if you, Lockley, or Glenn were in charge. Just saying.

Me: ? The US does not have a "mortgage." A mortgage has real property that secures it, it has an amortation schedule which is followed exactly, and the debt is gradually retired over the term of the loan. The US debt is nothing at all like a mortgage.

I made no assertion about entrepreneurs.

Perhaps you could confine your remarks to the topic at hand. Your snarky insults have no place here.

Lincoln the movie and conservatism -FB discussion

I posted this:

I saw "Lincoln" the other night, and the more I think about it, the less I like it. On one hand it accurately represented the political situation, where Democrats were uniformly opposed to freeing the slaves, while the newly formed Republican party was specifically created as abolitionists.

However, Lincoln was depicted as wondering if he had the constitutional power to do what he was doing, and deciding it didn't matter because the cause was just. The character played by Tommy Lee Jones behaved simlilarly, making choices for the sake of expediency. I don't know if these things were historically accurate depictions, but it seems to me that in real life we want politicians who will follow the law, even if they disagree with them.

Oh, and there were no car crashes or big explosions.

B.R.: Non-rhetorical question: which presidents do you admire for making significant progress on the nation's problems, without ever overstepping their constitutional authority?

Me: I sincerely doubt that there has been a president who has not overstepped his constitutional authority in some way. One of my favorite presidents is probably Calvin Coolidge.

B.R.: Why?

J.L.: Abraham Lincoln's question concerning constitutionality was valid. And thus the movie's portrayal was accurate. From a constitutional standpoint President Lincoln did not have the authority to free the slaves through his emancipation decree. But of course the North wasn't going to call that into question. He did however understand that once the south was brought back into the fold he would have the fight of his life on his hands. That is why in the movie they show President Lincoln almost selling his soul to get the legislation that becomes the 13 amendment ratified in both houses. He knew the war was only days away from being over. The Emancipation Proclamation was wartime tactic in reality and little more. And President Lincoln knew it...

Me: Coolidge cut taxes and revenue exploded. He was the first president that didn't appoint KKK members to his cabinet, which essentially ended the political power of the KKK. He proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that conservative political and economic ideas work. He wan't a showboater or self-promoter. He knew the limits under which exercised his authority. One of the best presidents, and one of the most underrated.

J.L.: You are correct. And in this discussion lies one of my biggest pet peeves. In 1963 the patriarch of the democratic party John Fitzgerald Kennedy started the ball rolling on what would become the Revenue Act of 1964. It was a top down, across the board tax cut. For the express purpose of easing a recession. Otherwise referred to as STIMULUS!!! Have the mathematical properties of addition and subtraction somehow changed since then? No. The democrat leadership and ideology has changed. In my opinion Tip O'Neill would have nothing to do with this current band of fools. Even Bill Clinton wasn't this destructive. I remember in 2008 during the democratic primaries praying for Barack Obama. Just knowing in my heart he would be the lesser of two evils. Other than this last election I can say I have never been so wrong. I firmly believe if people actually turn over in their graves when disgusted or upset, JFK must feel like a pig on a rotisserie...

B.R.: So what's the solution here? Boost the economy through tax cuts?

J.L.: Rich, some friend you are getting me this riled up in the middle of the day...!!

Me:  Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. Calm down, grab an adult beverage. You have to remember that a lot of people weren't around when JFK was president, and hardly anyone was when Coolidge was. Some things are intentionally forgotten, others are misconstrued, and still others are imputed where they didn't exist. That's the nature of political debate these days.

J.L.: Just for the record JFK preceded me by almost ten years. Just wanted that clear and in the official record!!

Me: B.R., I think the issue here for conservatives is the metaphysical certainty that government is too big, too intrusive, and too powerful. Tinkering with the tax code and deeming the results as cuts, targeted tax increases, or tax relief (or whatever fine-sounding moniker is in vogue) is good for little else than political sound bites.

Most of us on the right, as well as some on the left) recognize that fundamental restructuring of government is needed, including wholesale changes in the tax code, as well as the underlying philosophies that have gotten us into this mess. Unfortunately, that's a pipe dream. I am convinced that not only will we have to go over the fiscal cliff, we will ultimately end up in a Thelma and Louise. It require this kind of financial devastation to finally shake people of the notion that government can solve social problems.

The Social Security Trust Fund - FB conversation

FB friend D.G. posted this:

I've generally dismissed the Social Security trust fund as a meaningless accounting identity. Kevin Drum makes a great point: it's not a store of value, it's a distributional contract. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/no-social-security-trust-fund-isnt-fiction

Me: True it is fund that facilitates wealth redistribution, but most of the left still represents the trust fund as contain real cash assets. Example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/as-social-security-turns_b_1776451.html

Since the trust fund contains bonds which have to be paid back, it is a liability, not an asset.

B.C.: I gotta say I'm grateful for this trust fund, as I am on Social Security Disability and Medicare due to fibromyalgia.

D.G.: Rich, this may be just a difference of semantics, but I wouldn't say that trust fund is a liability or an asset. The bonds are both a liability and an asset; the two sides cancel each other out. The real liability is the promises that we've made to citizens; i.e. expected future Social Security benefits.

Me: Astute analysis. I would say, though, that although a typical government bond has value, there are two things worth mentioning here. One is that a bond's value comes from the issuing organization's ability to repay the bond. The second is more important: These particular bonds are unique in that only the trust fund can buy them. They are not a marketable instrument, which means they really have no true value.

Ultimately, we are talking about an accounting device by which the government can convert the cash assets of the trust fund into the general fund. It spends that money immediately, while offering only a pile of IOUs to the trust fund. So you are correct. The liability is what will be paid to future recipients, the source of which is supposed to be the trust fund. However, that liability will be paid by the taxpayer, which has already paid once before via the payroll tax.

Me: By the way, once again I must say I appreciate discussing things with you. You are clearly a person who thinks about things.

D.G.: Thank you! Let me play with these concepts a little more and see what you think.

Let's say I choose to save for retirement. I do so by setting money aside, and investing it. Fundamentally, I am taking my share of societal resources, and deciding that instead of consuming those resources, I am going to use them to make the economy grow. If I'm wise or lucky, I then receive back a portion of the increased resources I helped grow in our economy.

Now let's say the government wants to make sure that people save for retirement. There are three major ways it can do that:

1. Incentivize or mandate people to invest in private accounts. We currently incentivize 401(k)s and IRAs.

2. Pool resources, and invest them directly. This is called a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Generally the countries that have those funds are small countries that are unable to impact the world economy. My understanding is that the consensus among economists is that having such a fund in the US would be a bad idea.

3. Shift taxes in a way that promotes economic growth. This is what the Social Security Commission chose to do in the early 80's. By raising the payroll tax and putting the surplus in the general fund, they allowed for the reduction of income and capital gains taxes; in other words, they shifted resources away from consumption and towards investment.

In the case of personal investment, when I retire, I need to start drawing down my investments. Similarly, as we age as a country, we need to recover returns from our investment. We do that by reversing the investment process: we use money from income and capital gains taxes to supplement the payroll tax.

If Greenspan et al were right, the extra economic growth we had over the last few decades means our economy is now large enough that we can afford the cost of the Boomers' retirements. If that's not true, then we're in the same position as someone who invested their 401(k) in Pets.com.

Me: A couple of corrections: You are not taking a share of societal resources, you are taking a share of your own resources. And you are not using them to make the economy grow, you are using them to make your own portfolio grow. If you are wise or lucky, then your resources grow to your benefit.

There are investments that do not benefit the economy. That's how Soros made his money, by betting against the economy.

Something else before I analyze rest of your post. Government incentives to saving are on the chopping block: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/26/401k-groups-try-to-block-tax-law-changes/

Me: 1) I don't think government should incentivize saving. Or buying a house. Or getting married. Or saving energy. Or lowering caloric input. Or giving to church. I don't like the idea the government's preferences ought to be mine.

2) This is similar to the proposals to allow SS money to be invested, that is, "privatization." I think it would be better if we didn't have to give it to government to begin with. But the problem with privatization is that the government would have to acknowedge the reality of the assets it holds on behalf of the people. Right now, SS benefits are not a matter of rights.

3) I'm in favor of shifing taxes in order to encourage economic growth. But I am not in favor of this continual tinkering with the tax code. It creates uncertainty in the economy, and it's not good for any of us if a business owner can't plan for the future because of uncertainty about how the next legislative whim will affect him.

I'm not sure if Greenspan was right. I don't see any way possible that we can afford the boomers.

Congress looks at doing away with the $1 bill - analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My commentary interspersed in bold.

-------------------

By KEVIN FREKING

Associated Press WASHINGTON — American consumers have shown about as much appetite for the $1 coin as kids do their spinach. They may not know what’s best for them either. (Yeah, we don't know what's best for us. Thank Gawd we have such smart people in government who can tell us what we need and keep us from doing something stupid) Congressional auditors say doing away with dollar bills entirely and replacing them with dollar coins could save taxpayers some $4.4 billion over the next 30 years. (Uh, sure. Let's do the math. That's $14.7 million per year of PROMISED savings in a budget of $2.8 trillion. $14.7 million dollars runs the government for about 4 minutes. This is what the media is reduced to talking about for budget savings when we've had 4 straight years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion, a national debt of $17 trillion, and unfunded liabilities estimated at $106 trillion. But by all means, let's try yet again to convince Americans to use a coin they have shown they don't like.)
Vending machine operators have long championed the use of $1 coins because they don’t jam the machines, cutting down on repair costs and lost sales. (I'm sure the decision to make a move to $1 coins has to consider the desires of vending machine operators, hmm?) But most people don’t seem to like carrying them. In the past five years, the U.S. Mint has produced 2.4 billion Presidential $1 coins (Wow, 2.4 billion 1 dollar coins? And thy're just sitting around? This is certainly a good reason to mint yet another dollar coin, given such a successful track record). Most are stored by the Federal Reserve, and production was suspended about a year. The ago latest projection from the Government Accountability Office on the potential savings from switching to dollar coins entirely comes as lawmakers begin exploring new ways for the government to save money by changing the money itself (So lawmakers are just beginning to look for ways to save money? And this is the best they could come up with? Meanwhile the country goes down the tubes as it reels under the weight of financial mismanagement unprecedented in history).

The Mint is preparing a report for Congress showing how changes in the metal content of coins could save money. The last time the government made major metallurgical changes in U.S. coins was nearly 50 years ago when Congress directed the Mint to remove silver from dimes and quarters and to reduce its content in half dollar coins. Now, Congress is looking at new changes in response to rising prices for copper and nickel. (It used to be that coins had intrinsic value because of their precious metal content. Now they are like paper money, in that their value is represented only by what is printed (or stamped) on them. They only have value because people agree to exchange them for goods and services. If and when this confidence fails, this fiat currency will be valueless.)

Contraception and the Pope - FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

“Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, ….. growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” - Pope Paul VI, 1968

B.R.: Awww that poor Pope doesn't know what he's talking about.

Me: Not sure if you're being sarcastic. Rape statistics are way up since 1968, and partner abuse is as well. Not to mention pornography, out of wedlock births, abortion (particularly among black women)...

Me: "The mass-produced condom and the Pill have freed men from feeling obligation for women as much as they have freed women to regularly and blithely pursue what was historically risky sex with caddish alpha males on the make." http://heartiste.wordpress.com/

B.R.: I'm not being sarcastic. Unless there's a missing section on the benefits of sexual satisfaction, this quote by the Pope displays a sad misunderstanding of both genders' physical desires and needs. Show me just cause for blaming sexual dysfunction on contraception alone - as well as some hard statistics on these supposed rises since 1968 - and I'll take this position seriously. Until then, it's a closed-minded and disrespectful perspective on one of God's greatest gifts to mankind.

Me: Your moral indignation in support for the objectifying of women is unseemly. Generic "sexual satisfaction" is not automatically beneficial.

Indeed, your next statement includes the phrase "sexual dysfunction" admits there is good sexual interaction and bad sexual interaction. Therefore, we only differ on the details.

B.R.: My moral indignation is not on behalf of female objectification, it's on behalf of positive sexuality, population control, sexual education, homosexual health, and women's right to choose when to become pregnant. I completely agree that there is healthy and unhealthy sexual interaction, and obviously there are welcome and unwelcome sexual advances. But I don't think unhealthy sexual interaction nor unwelcome sexual advances can be blamed on the advance of contraception - if you believe contraception is responsible for a supposed rise in both of these negative elements, I'd love to see the facts and reasoning behind that belief.

Me: Every once in a while I express my disappointment in you. This is one of those times. YOur first sentence reads like a bumper sticker on the back of a Volvo.

You continue to use language like "healthy and unhealthy" and "welcome and unwelcome," which are value judgments. I don't see why my value judgments require documentation while yours do not.

Me: Have you looked at the heartiste link? This blog is dedicated to techniques for the pick-up artist. The author himself provided the Pope's quote, and as a player himself he says he has benefited greatly from the contraceptive culture in his quest for casual sex.

B.R.: What's wrong with Volvos? I'm gonna cut this short before we continue misunderstanding one another: this is another conversation in which our disagreement is very basic, but our base message and contextual definitions are in completely different realms. You want to talk about how contraceptives have increased opportunities for sexual predators, and I'm not going to argue with that. I want to talk about how contraceptives have provided benefits and cultural improvements to both genders, and to give that argument justice, I should provide documentation, which I don't have the interest in doing right now, given the aforementioned chasm in our viewpoints. However, my initial point is that the Pope doesn't understand the sex lives of other people, and I'll hold to that.

Me: Actually, our differences are fairly small. I have not denied the benefits of contraceptives, nor am I anti-contraceptive. I have simply asserted that there are a certain amount of bad consequences as a result of contraception. You seem to think that there are no bad consequences, and that these bad things cannot be blamed on contraception.

Nothing wrong with Volvos. That was a suspect attempt at humor, my friend.

B.R.: Ah well, it's hard to swing from "you disappoint me" to humor, but I appreciate the attempt. And c'mon there's not NOTHING wrong with Volvos - they're soooooo boooooring.

I haven't said there are no negative consequences to contraception. However, it's hardly fair to blame sexual predation and dysfunction (e.g. "no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium") on it. When it comes to man's disrespectful treatment of women, I believe parenting and education play a far bigger role than contraception. When it comes to harassment and rape, I believe that parenting, education, alcohol, narcotics, the justice system, and the mental health system play equal or bigger roles than contraception.

Sermon showed compassion for all - Eli Kutsch, 6th grade student

This letter appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

I just wanted to note that this young man's priest is doing him a great disservice by preaching falsehoods to him. Mary and Joseph were not illegal aliens, nor were they migrating to Bethlehem. They were responding to official decree that everyone had to return to the town of their birth for a census. So they couldn't get any more legal than to follow the law. And they couldn't be less alien, because they were returning to where they were born.

May I also ask where the parents are in all this, not only for allowing their child to not only listen to a priest who doesn't know the Bible, but for letting their child send in a letter like this?

---------------

My priest seemed disappointed in his sermon last Sunday that a law passed in the election to stop help from the Montana state government to illegal aliens. I know people in Montana want everyone to follow the law, but they also like to help each other.

I’m glad illegal aliens can still get help from local charity groups. I hope everyone makes donations to these groups during the holidays, because it’s when we remember a very special couple who had to migrate to Bethlehem — Mary and Joseph.

Eli Kutsch 6th grade student at Sacajawea Middle School Bozeman

Study: public land means more jobs - By Jason Bacaj - Analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

-------

The article below quotes the head of Headwaters Economics Ray Rasker, who happens to be a former board member of the Sonoran Institute. A board member of the Sonoran Institute is Jerry Grebenc, while another board member for Headwaters is coincidentally Deb Grebenc. The article also notes that Chris Mehl, a left-leaning Bozeman City Commissioner, is a board member as well. 

We can see that Headwaters shares a connection the Sonoran Institute. And, if there is a personnel connection there is likely an ideology connection. And what is that ideological perspective? If you poke around the Sonoran website you'll find leftist buzz words like sustainability and smart growth., while the Headwaters website similarly adopts the same political perspective. 

We see this kind of ideological nepotism frequently, where over and over the very same people populate all sorts of foundations and study groups as board members. I think the idea is to create the perception that there is a broad level of support and intellectual weight that really isn't there.

The reason I'm mentioning all this is because the website for Headwaters describes itself as engaging in "independent nonpartisan research." So it is fair to conclude that Headwaters is hardly non partisan. We should therefore understand their pronouncements through the lens of left-leaning politics and environmentalist perspectives.

A quick review of the Headwaters report mentioned in the article allows us to conclude that Headwaters is essentially equating correlation with causation. They assert that employment increased at a higher rate because of the existence of public land. This is likely to resonate with Montanans, who are used to wide open spaces and low density of population. Of course, it is clever strategy to manipulate this attitude for policy advocacy. 

However, the report mentions nothing regarding other important economic factors, like tax policy, zoning, housing costs, the impact of the colleges, or tourism. In fact, these words are not even found in their report. Yet it concludes that the sole factor that draws people to places like Bozeman is open spaces. It seems that the conclusion was established first, and the report was created to prove the conclusion. 

It is then a quick jump to conclude that legislative action to create more open space is desirable, based on the faulty conclusion that such actions will drive prosperity. This is agenda-driven advocacy wrapped up in a scientific veneer.

It also seems clear as one reads the article that reporter Jason Bacaj accepted the Headwaters report uncritically and without any research. In fact, the whole article reads like a press release. Mr. Bacaj approvingly interjects an editorial comment in this "news" story: "It appears Bozeman residents are ahead of the curve, having approved a 20-year bond that will give the city up to $15 million to create more public parks, trails, athletic fields and natural spaces in town." Herein is contained the whole purpose of the story, that is, to cheer-lead for more taxation for trails and athletic fields.  

Mr. Mehl, Headwaters board member and city commissioner, is quoted: "As the economy changes, hopefully our elected officials will change as well. It's really a question of what the elected officials do with this data to make the state as a whole more competitive." With breath-taking glibness, he asserts that the report produced by his own organization is authoritative, and ought to be adopted by the government which he presides over! And reporter Jason Bacaj glosses completely over this glaring conflict of interest.

There is much else that could be pointed out in the Headwaters report. However, I think I've mentioned enough to call it and its conclusions into question. 
--------

All the parks and trails in and around Bozeman are more than just nice to look at: They're main drivers of the local economic engine, according to a new report by a local nonprofit economic research group.

The group Headwaters Economics says that over the last four decades, non-metropolitan counties in the West with more than 30 percent federally protected lands increased jobs by 345 percent. Much of that job growth has come in service industries like health care, real estate and high-tech. Similar counties with no protected land increased jobs by 83 percent.

Gallatin, Madison and Park counties fall in the former category, with each having at least 45 percent of its land set aside as public, according to Headwaters data. And the area is seeing growth in many of those service industries, particularly high-tech and real estate, said Ray Rasker, executive director of the nonprofit research group. The. time frame studied stretches from 1970 to 2010, but he said the local real estate industry is rebounding and contributing positively to the economy, even though the study period included the housing collapse.

"What people are doing is using the lifestyle of the West as a way to attract talent, and it bears out in the numbers," Rasker said. "The structure of the economy has changed tremendously."

Headwaters Economics focuses its research on community development and land management decisions and has delved into the topic of land and its economic value in the past. Rasker said they decided to jump back into the topic because of the recession, to "reeducate ourselves about what's driving the economy." Lance Trebesch, CEO and co-owner of event ecommerce company TicketRiver, said public land and recreational opportunities along with highspeed Internet connections have allowed him to build a successful technology company based in Bozeman and Harlowton. The key to it, he said, is attracting talent; and talented people are now able to pick and choose where they work, which amplifies the importance of an area's quality of life.

Rasker said Headwaters attributed the nearly two to-one job growth experienced in the western U.S. compared to the rest of the country solely to public lands, rather than other developments or area improvements, because of the number of data slices and models the nonprofit was able to incorporate into its analyses.

It appears Bozeman residents are ahead of the curve, having approved a 20-year bond that will give the city up to $15 million to create more public parks, trails, athletic fields and natural spaces in town.

The group hopes the Legislature will take a look at the study and consider what open land contributes to the economy by itself, in addition to the value of what can be extracted from it.

"As the economy changes, hopefully our elected officials will change as well," said Chris Mehl, policy director at Headwaters Economics and Bozeman city commissioner. "It's really a question of what the elected officials do with this data to make the state as a whole more competitive."

Jason Bacaj may be reached at jasonb@dailychronicle.com 582-2635.

Government subsidizing the exporting of jobs - FB conversation

S.W. posted this on FB:

Raising taxes on unemployed people is like trying to save gas by always driving downhill. Sooner or later you are gonna hit the bottom and it's gonna be a long push back up.

K.S.: what they should be doing is subsidizing jobs, but those subsidies keep getting voted down... Instead, we get tax breaks on job creators who either don't create jobs, or create low-wage PT jobs.

R.E.W.: Perhaps allowing tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas is not as good idea as it sounds?

S.W.: When I was at the bank they moved 5,000 jobs to south Texas and took advantage of the "Guest Worker" programs. We all lost our jobs.

Me: I hope jobs subsidies continue to be voted down. Government is the cause of the situation we are in.

R.W.: Humm lets see once? you work and earn unemployement for when you are laidoff and have to pay taxes on those benefits and also those benefits only last so long,,,,But you recive welfare and dont pay one red cent but get to be on evrey FREE program on the planet and it lasts a life time ?????? and dont do anything for those benefits. Things that make us go HUMMMMMM

R.E.W.: R.W., where do you get lifetime welfare? Not in the USA. There was a five-year limit put on it under Clinton. So ... will you change your mind on that subject?

R.E.W.: Rich, why do you say "Government is the cause ..." ? Is this a religious belief you have, or do you have some factual basis for blaming government for the export of 50,000 factories (not just jobs, but FACTORIES) out of the USA?

Me: R.E.W., why don't you rephrase your question, this time without a condescending comment?

R.E.W.: Rich - don't whine. Answer the question, or just concede you have a religious belief here: that you have no factual basis, it's just something you believe.

Me:  we can be respectful and exchange ideas, or you can be an asshole. You choose.

R.E.W.: Rich, why you think "religious belief" is disrespectful I don't know, but since you've resorted to potty words, I'll play along: Do you have some factual basis for blaming government for the export of 50,000 factories (not jobs but FACTORIES) out of the USA? (Or is it the request for facts that make me an "asshole" LOL?)

Me: Thank you sir. I did not make any statement about the exportation of 50,000 factories. I did comment that job subsidies, like so many government intervention into the private sector, cause the very problems they purport to solve.

R.E.W.: Rich, So what you're saying is that "the problem we are in" is the result of job subsidies - that the shortage of good-paying jobs in America is because government subsidizes good-paying jobs? Am I correctly characterizing your statement? Because, sir, an extraordinary statement like that requires extraordinary proof; do you have any facts to support the idea that the export of 50,000 factories is a smaller factor than any government subsidy of the jobs in those factory? I apologize if asking for facts appears condescending, but it's a habit.

R.E.W.: Here, for example, is a government action that would have ended government support for exporting jobs. Can we agree that it would be a good idea for government to stop encouraging the export of jobs: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/239029-republicans-blocked-the-democrats-insourcing-bill

"Senate Republicans blocked the Democrats’ ‘insourcing’ bill Thursday — creating a trend of failure for the week. The Bring Jobs Home Act would have ended tax breaks to companies that move jobs overseas and given a tax incentive to companies bringing jobs back to the United States..."

R.E.W.: Or perhaps we can agree that when Pete Singer, owner of Delphi (formerly Delco Auto Parts), held GM hostage, demanding billions of taxpayer dollars or he'd collapse the auto industry by shutting down the manufacture of steering collumns, well it was a bad thing for government to surrender to the blackmail, especially since the blackmailer then used the money to export most of Delphi's jobs to China ... but not giving in to the blackmail would have been bad too. Government is not the problem; government is just a tool; the question is who is using the government for what purpose: http://truth-out.org/news/item/12210-greg-palast-mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza

Me: What I am saying is the problems we are in are due largely to government interventions into the private sector, frequently exacerbating the problems it sets out to solve. Regarding your first link, I'm sure tinkering with the tax code seems like a solution, that is, if one could say that fixing a previous bad government intervention with yet another is a solution, but I'm at loss to explain how a tax credit like this will do what is claimed. Regarding your second link, I quote: "Singer’s fund investors scored a gain of $904 million, all courtesy of the US taxpayer." Does this sound like a government intervention solved a problem, or created one?

Let me put it to you. Can you name one government social or economic program that solved the problem for which it was created, so that the program was discontinued as a result?

Me: Truth-out? I guess I should quote idiot hannity or someone.

R.E.W.: Rich,  - are you saying that the facts I outlined about Pete Singer's Delphi Deal are not true, just because the easier source to cite is truth-out ?

R.E.W.: when you state "I'm at loss to explain how a tax credit like this will do what is claimed" are you not ignoring the fact that the tax credit ALREADY EXISTS ... it just works to help EXPORT JOBS? Do you want to say "Stop the tax credit for exports, and don't implement a credit for imports"?

R.E.W.: "Can you name one government social or economic program that solved the problem for which it was created, so that the program was discontinued as a result?" places a silly condition on program: that they permanently end continuing problems. You might as well say that glasses don't correct vision because you still need to wear them; some things, like power supplies, fire protection and health care, are ongoing issues and require ongoing solutions. (Although it is true that many anti-poverty and education programs have reduced the problems they attacked; I know several people personally who used government resources such as education to get their way into private sector jobs ... don't you?) Turn the question around: Can you name one private sector social or economic program that solved the problem for which it was created, so that the program was discontinued as a result?

R.E.W.: Finally, it might as well be stated that "... the problems we are in are due largely to government interventions into the private sector" is simply false. No evidence is provided for that statement, and in fact the very terms of the statement are not defined, e.g. "the problems we have". The one example we discuss (Delphi) are an example of the private sector driving itself to ruin, so that Pete Singer could take control, and then extort billions because otherwise his control of the production of steering columns would enable him to destroy the entire auto industry. That is not government's fault; you may disagree with the government decision to give in to the economic terrorist but you can't blame government for the terrorist's act.

Me:  *Sigh* "The facts I outlined" is an a prioi assumption of veracity which has yet to be established. Considering the far left source, I justifiably doubt their presentation is without bias.

Yes, yes, yes. The tax credit exists. Please note that I did not say that it didn't. If you think that simply because of a tax credit companies move their businesses out of country, you are naive. Similarly, if you think a company will move its operations back simply because the tax credit is modified, you simply don't understand how business works.

Me: So, I am assuming you concede that government does not solve social problems. Um, power supplies, fire protection, and health care are not social problems. But I think you knew that.

Me:  The private sector does not create or implement social programs. It is not an arm of government. Again, you appear to not to understand how the private sector works.

Me: "... the problems we are in are due largely to government interventions into the private sector" is an opinion, and cannot be false. An opinion is not a statement of fact. Since you have admitted that you don't know what I'm referring to, you cannot know if my claim is without merit.

R.E.W.: Not interested in discussing with someone who says facts don't matter because he's just expressing an opinion, but grateful that my first point was validated: it's a belief proof against fact, aka religion.

Me: Yeah, that's exactly what I said: Facts don't matter.

Making a show of compassion - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

One of the key figures in the future of the Democrats.

Amen.

Me: He's right, but there's a catch. He wants people to show him their compassion, but as soon as anyone does it becomes bragging, not compassion. People who are out there in the trenches do not do it because Cory Booker wants proof.

B.R.: I don't think it has to be bragging. The Dalai Lama shows his compassion every day, in words, actions, donations, etc. He's not bragging; he's exemplifying his compassionate beliefs. I think Cory's saying that if someone wants their personal religious beliefs to be part of a public discussion or decision, they've got to demonstrate compassion.

Me: What do you think the reason is behind his remarks? He's calling Christians hypocrites! He's framed the issue so that he wins either way. Christians believe the scriptures that say to not let your good deeds be shown. Millions of Christians are giving sacrificially to help the poor and the hungry, and they labor in anonymity in keeping with their faith. If someone stood up and showed Booker what they do, then Booker (or someone like him) would jump all over them for their lack of humility.

You don't know what the dalai lama donates. You don't know if he's compassionate. You simply look at some superficial things and think you know his heart. You've made your decision by appearances. He may well be a compassionate man, but you don't know.

B.R.: Your assumptions about Christians are no more relevant than mine, or Cory's. Not all Christians believe their good deeds shouldn't be shown, and I'm pretty sure Cory's issue is not with the "people out there in the trenches". Additionally, you telling me that I can't determine if anyone is compassionate is another example of framing the issue so you win either way.

Me: Ben, I respect your intellect too much to let you get away with that. If all our opinions are irrelevant, why did you post Booker's, and why did you express yours?

So are you telling me that you do know for a fact that someone is compassionate as opposed to making a show?

Me: "Not all Christians believe their good deeds shouldn't be shown..." Irrelevant. The exception does not establish the rule.

B.R.: Thanks, I appreciate that. I've obviously displayed my intellect with enough consistency that you have come to understand me as an intellectual person. Similarly, it is possible for individuals to display their compassion with enough consistency that others may come to understand them as compassionate.

As for what some or all Christians believe, I think it IS relevant. Neither of us can know what even a majority of practicing Christians believe when it comes to the visibility of their compassionate acts. It's pretty hard to base a defense of all Christians on something so indeterminable.

Mr. Booker is illustrating a point: he wants people to show, not tell, their personal convictions. I like that point. I posted Booker's opinion because I want people to keep track of him as a political leader in the coming years, and because I respect his call for accountability.

Me: By that measure, he wants Christians to violate their beliefs, simply for the sake of proving to him that they are compassionate.

No, my take is that he's simply laying out damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenario. His motivation is political.

B.R.: I appreciate your points; this topic needs more dimension, not less. I will maintain, however, that many (percentage unknowable) Christians' reluctance to SHOW their universal compassion rather than just talk about it may have as much to do with their lack of a pragmatic track record as it does with their dogmatic humility.

Me:  If they are not showing you, then your statement is a product of lack of information and your conclusion is specious.

T.K.: Who gives a shit if people brag about being compassionate? Being compassionate is a good thing to brag about. It's a good quote, not a conspiracy. Settle down.

Me: T.K., you and I disagree, which does not make me wrong or a conspiracy theorist. I give a shit about bragging, and I don't really care if you don't like it.

O.F.: The point of being compassionate is in BEING compassionate, not in being perceived as compassionate. I totally understand Rich's point. The desire to be recognized for one's virtue is the seed of spiritual pride that has the ability to undermine entirely one's real character. That said, I don't necessarily believe that the above quote is an exhortation of Christians to "show off" their compassion but a reminder that one can talk a good game about loving their neighbor without doing anything to demonstrate it. Love is active. What is the context for this quote?

B.R.: I don't think there is one. He Tweeted it and put it on his fan page. A search revealed no larger quote or discussion, just links to see the words on different pages. However, that search did reveal more about how he personally has shown rather than simply tell: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/cory-booker-food-stamp-ch_n_2167027.html

"Not content to simply rescue neighbors from burning buildings and invite cold Hurricane Sandy victims into his home, Cory Booker has a new plan to connect with his constituency. He's going to live on food stamps...."

Me: B.R., you'll have to forgive me for being cynical regarding politicians and their statements. And their photo-ops. I don't trust a thing he says as a result, and I also don't think that him living on food stamps is anything other than a calculated political opportunity.

O.F.: I'm gonna have to side with Rich on this and say that I'm no more impressed by this at face value than I am by Paul Ryan and his family showing up to be photographed in a soup kitchen.

Do Republicans appreciate living in civilized society? - Letter by Mary Vant Hull

My commentary is interspersed in bold. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

-------------
You’ve probably heard, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” (Oliver Wendell Holmes). (The truth of what he says is certainly debatable, but there is no causal relationship between the AMOUNT of taxation and the AMOUNT of civilization.)

Did you hear, Adam Smith’s, “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities?” (The Wealth of Nations) (Does anyone really  think that Ms. Hull has read anything from Adam Smith, apart from some cherry-picked quotes? Unfortunately for her, Adam Smith is not advocating progressive taxation. Taxation in proportion to ability [i.e., income or wealth] is proportional taxation. That is, a flat tax. In actual fact, Adam Smith is refuting the very leftists who are misappropriating his writing.) 

Or French minister Anne-Robert Jacque Turgot, “...and the more a man enjoys the advantages of society, the more he ought to hold himself honored to contribute to those expenses.” (Who the hell cares what the French minister believes or says?)

Or Samuel Johnson, “...the right to tax ... “had been considered by all mankind, as comprising the primary and essential condition of all political society...” (This may be the first time I have sat with my fingers poised to type, but was unable to do so because of the sheer magnitude of ignorance on display. You know, anyone can look up these things to discover the context and meaning of what the author intended. We find that Samuel Johnson is an Englishman who is discussing the right of ENGLAND TO TAX THE COLONIES. Here's the real quote: "Of this kind is the position, that "the supreme power of every community has the right of requiring, from all its subjects, such contributions as are necessary to the publick safety or publick prosperity," which was considered, by all mankind, as comprising the primary and essential condition of all political society, till it became disputed by those zealots of anarchy, who have denied, to the parliament of Britain the right of taxing the American colonies."

  
Or Schuyler Colfax, Congressional Republican from Indiana, during the debate on land taxes to fund the Civil War in the 1860s, “I cannot go home and tell my constituents that I voted for a bill that would allow a man, a millionaire who has put his entire property in stocks, to be exempt from taxation, while a farmer who lives by his side, must pay a tax.” (Here we have a fairly obscure political figure presented as though he was some sort of highly respected authority on taxes, as far as what republicans believe. This, of course, is not the case. Nevertheless, I had no luck tracing the entirety of Mr. Colfax's remarks. But on face value, what do we find he was advocating in this short statement? He opposed TAX EXEMPTION. This is totally non-controversial. No one anywhere is advocating the tax exemption of the rich.)

The baby-sitting co-op that went bust teaches us something that could save the world - Krugman's errors

You can find the original article here, which I also posted previously here.

Though I'm not a Nobel Prize winning economist, I do know when I'm being bamboozled with Keynsian fairytales. Here's the mistakes I think Mr. Krugman makes:

Error #1) The Scrip is not currency, and can only be used for the purpose the group created it for. This means it's not fungible. Therefore the scrip more like a commodity than a currency.

Error #2) The co op members hoarded their scrip, and thus there was a lack of circulation. However, currency is generally not hoarded, it remains in circulation in some form (unless it's hidden in a mattress, it will be invested, deposited, or spent).

Error #3) Having a "central authority" print more scrip so that it can be borrowed does not solve the problem. Indeed, if more scrip can be printed, then the holders of scrip will lose confidence in its since it can be created arbitrarily. What should happen is the scrip should be loanable from member to member, which keeps the quantity and value of the scrip intact.

Error #4) This is a closed system, not an economy. There are no other factors that come to bear on the value of the scrip. It has value because the members agreed that it would represent a tangible item (babysitting). In other words, the scrip and the service are always one-for-one interchangeable.

This is a complicated subject, and further analysis could be employed. However, it is enough to say that this is not a good working example of why our economy should engage in Mr. Krugman's prescriptions. unfortunately, it has done just that, and has suffered as a result. 

The baby-sitting co-op that went bust teaches us something that could save the world

I've posted the article for fair use and discussion purposes. See if you can spot the errors from this Nobel Prize winning economist. I will post those errors separately.

------------------------

By Paul Krugman Posted Friday, Aug. 14, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET

Twenty years ago I read a story that changed my life. I think about that story often; it helps me to stay calm in the face of crisis, to remain hopeful in times of depression, and to resist the pull of fatalism and pessimism. At this gloomy moment, when Asia's woes seem to threaten the world economy as a whole, the lessons of that inspirational tale are more important than ever.

The story is told in an article titled "Monetary Theory and the Great Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op Crisis." Joan and Richard Sweeney published it in the Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking in 1978. I've used their story in two of my books, Peddling Prosperity and The Accidental Theorist, but it bears retelling, this time with an Asian twist.

The Sweeneys tell the story of—you guessed it—a baby-sitting co-op, one to which they belonged in the early 1970s. Such co-ops are quite common: A group of people (in this case about 150 young couples with congressional connections) agrees to baby-sit for one another, obviating the need for cash payments to adolescents. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement: A couple that already has children around may find that watching another couple's kids for an evening is not that much of an additional burden, certainly compared with the benefit of receiving the same service some other evening. But there must be a system for making sure each couple does its fair share.

The Capitol Hill co-op adopted one fairly natural solution. It issued scrip—pieces of paper equivalent to one hour of baby-sitting time. Baby sitters would receive the appropriate number of coupons directly from the baby sittees. This made the system self-enforcing: Over time, each couple would automatically do as much baby-sitting as it received in return. As long as the people were reliable—and these young professionals certainly were—what could go wrong?

Well, it turned out that there was a small technical problem. Think about the coupon holdings of a typical couple. During periods when it had few occasions to go out, a couple would probably try to build up a reserve—then run that reserve down when the occasions arose. There would be an averaging out of these demands. One couple would be going out when another was staying at home. But since many couples would be holding reserves of coupons at any given time, the co-op needed to have a fairly large amount of scrip in circulation.

Now what happened in the Sweeneys' co-op was that, for complicated reasons involving the collection and use of dues (paid in scrip), the number of coupons in circulation became quite low. As a result, most couples were anxious to add to their reserves by baby-sitting, reluctant to run them down by going out. But one couple's decision to go out was another's chance to baby-sit; so it became difficult to earn coupons. Knowing this, couples became even more reluctant to use their reserves except on special occasions, reducing baby-sitting opportunities still further.

In short, the co-op had fallen into a recession.

Since most of the co-op's members were lawyers, it was difficult to convince them the problem was monetary. They tried to legislate recovery—passing a rule requiring each couple to go out at least twice a month. But eventually the economists prevailed. More coupons were issued, couples became more willing to go out, opportunities to baby-sit multiplied, and everyone was happy. Eventually, of course, the co-op issued too much scrip, leading to different problems ...

If you think this is a silly story, a waste of your time, shame on you. What the Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op experienced was a real recession. Its story tells you more about what economic slumps are and why they happen than you will get from reading 500 pages of William Greider and a year's worth of Wall Street Journal editorials. And if you are willing to really wrap your mind around the co-op's story, to play with it and draw out its implications, it will change the way you think about the world.

For example, suppose that the U.S. stock market was to crash, threatening to undermine consumer confidence. Would this inevitably mean a disastrous recession? Think of it this way: When consumer confidence declines, it is as if, for some reason, the typical member of the co-op had become less willing to go out, more anxious to accumulate coupons for a rainy day. This could indeed lead to a slump—but need not if the management were alert and responded by simply issuing more coupons. That is exactly what our head coupon issuer Alan Greenspan did in 1987—and what I believe he would do again. So as I said at the beginning, the story of the baby-sitting co-op helps me to remain calm in the face of crisis.

Fights over public meeting opening prayers continue - analysis

(This is what I've been talking about in so many of my posts here, here, here, and here. Once government oversteps its constitutional boundaries, all sorts of abuses are possible. My comments interspersed in bold. This article reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.)

By JESSICA GRESKO

Associated Press WASHINGTON — It happens every week at meetings in towns, counties and cities nationwide. A lawmaker or religious leader leads a prayer before officials begin the business of zoning changes, contract approvals and trash pickup (in other words, the practice of prayer in government has a history going back to the Founders. One must conclude that the Founders themselves were in violation of the constitution, or were ignorant of what it meant Thank goodness we have such a better understanding of the constitution than the Founders!).

But citizens are increasingly taking issue with these prayers, some of which have been in place for decades. At least five lawsuits around the country — in California, Florida, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee — are actively challenging premeeting prayers.

Lawyers on both sides say there is a new complaint almost weekly, though they don’t always end up in court. When they do, it seems even courts are struggling to draw the line over the acceptable ways to pray (Herein lies the problem. The courts' struggles are because they are involved! The government has absolutely no authority to speak at all regarding religion.). Some lawyers and lawmakers believe it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will weigh in to resolve the differences. The court has previously declined to take on the issue (as well it should, except to strike down all previous lower court interventions into religious expression), but lawyers in a New York case plan to ask the justices in December to revisit it. And even if the court doesn’t take that particular case, it could accept a similar one in the future.

Lawmakers who defend the prayers cite the nation’s founders and say they’re following a long tradition of prayer before public meetings. They say residents don’t have to participate and having a prayer adds solemnity to meetings and serves as a reminder to do good work (to add to that, this is a free speech/freedom of assembly/religious freedom issue. "Congress shall make no law... is pretty clear, isn't it?).

“It’s a reassuring feeling,” said Lakeland, Fla., Mayor Gow Fields of his city’s prayers, which have led to an ongoing legal clash with an atheist group. The City Commission’s meeting agenda now begins with a disclaimer that any prayer offered before the meeting is the “voluntary offering of a private citizen” and not being endorsed by the commission (an unneccessary proviso. It should be enough to read the 1st amendment aloud and leave it at that.).

Citizens and groups made uncomfortable by the prayers (Discomfort is hardly a reason to make policies or laws. I have no interest at all in your comfort) say they’re fighting an inappropriate mix of religion and politics (inappropriate is a matter of taste. We should not be mixing comfort or appropriateness into how the law comes to bear).

“It makes me feel unwelcome,” said Tommy Coleman, the son of a church pianist and a self-described secular humanist who is challenging pre-meeting prayers in Tennessee’s Hamilton County.

Coleman, 28, and Brandon Jones, 25, are urging the county to adopt a moment of silence at its weekly meeting rather than beginning with a prayer. A number of groups are willing to help with complaints like those filed by Coleman and Jones.Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-founder of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, says complaints about the prayers are among the most frequent her organization gets.

Gaylor’s organization sends out letters when it is contacted by citizens, urging lawmakers to discontinue the prayers (free speech for thee but not for me...). Other groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State send out similar letters.

Ian Smith, a lawyer with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says his organization has gotten more complaints in recent years. That could be because people are more comfortable standing up for themselves or more aware of their options, but Smith also said groups on the right have also promoted the adoption of prayers (Actually, religion haters make noise at a level much greater than their numbers, and the rest of us must kowtow to their feelings at the expense of religious liberty).

Brett Harvey, a lawyer at the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian group that often helps towns defend their practices, sees it the other way. He says liberal groups have made a coordinated attempt to bully local governments into abandoning prayers, resulting in more cases.

“It’s really kind of a campaign of fear and disinformation,” Harvey said.

Courts around the country don’t agree on what’s acceptable or haven’t considered the issue (which again, is the problem. The court has no business deciding what acceptable speech is, or acceptable religious practices are. Such an idea ought to be summarily rejected by any thinking individual). In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court approved prayer before legislative meetings, saying prayers don’t violate the First Amendment’s so-called Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another (this clause is always given preeminence, while the "free exercise thereof" clause is the ugly step sister.). But the case didn’t set any boundaries on those prayers, and today courts disagree on what is permissible (Ugh. There is its again. Can you imagine? The courts disagree on what a person can say? This ought to be outrageous!).

For example, one court ruling from 2011 says that prayers before legislative meetings in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia should be nondenominational or non-sectarian. That means the prayer leader can use general words like “God” and “our creator” but isn’t supposed to use words like “Jesus” ‘’Christ” and “Allah” that are specific to a single religion (Ah yes. Here we have the censorship of speech in the name of "neutrality.").

The law is different in courts in Florida, Georgia and Alabama: In 2008 a federal court of appeals overseeing those states upheld the prayer practice of Georgia’s Cobb County, which had invited a rotating group of clergy members to give prayers before its meetings. The prayers were predominantly Christian and often included references to Jesus (Jesus, the most offensive name on the planet. No one gets offended by the name of Zeus or Odin).

Towns that get complaints, meanwhile, have responded differently. Some have made changes, some willingly and others with misgivings. Other towns have dug in to defend their traditions.

Citizens in Lancaster, Calif., for example, voted overwhelmingly in 2010 to continue their prayers despite the threat of a lawsuit. Mayor R. Rex Parris says the city of 158,000 has already likely spent about $500,000 defending the practice, and he expects to spend more before the case is over. He said the issue is worth it because it has brought the town together (That's one of the strategies. Make it expensive to defend free speech, and you gain a defacto win for religion haters).

Other towns have gone the opposite route, stopping prayer altogether when challenged. Henrico County, Va., stopped prayers recently after lawmakers reviewed recent court decisions and determined it would be too difficult to police the content of prayers (Can you imagine? Government policing the content of prayers? So rather than engage in one egregious practice, they implement another: Banning free speech!).

Higher taxes on wealthy won’t trigger new crisis - Jack Kligerman - analysis

Our responses in bold.

--------------------

The claim that raising taxes on the wealthy would throw us back into a recession because the “job creators” — the wealthy 1 or 2 percent of the population — would no longer have extra money to spend (assuming that they do not have everything they want already) and would therefore cause great job losses is a fairy tale (polite language for “a lie”). (Typical for the Left, Mr. Kligerman confuses two concepts: High income earners and wealthy people. The two are not the same. Leftist rhetoric attacks the highest wage earners as the top 1%, but they are not necessarily rich. But the real problem is his simplistic equation. Jobs are created when there's work to do, not simply when there's money to spend. 

The problem in the economy is not that the rich aren't spending their money [or by an extension of Mr. Kligerman's logic, that they aren't being taxed enough so that government can spend it], it is because there is not enough work to be done, because people aren't buying things. However, to speak to his point, it doesn't matter how much a person has or earns when it comes to taxation. Taxation takes money from the person who earned it and gives it to someone who did not. It has absolutely zero to do with how much the taxee can afford. Taxes are not based on affordability, they are based on the need for government to raise revenue.)  

After all, a millionaire who had $1 million 10 years ago, when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, would today, without investing any of that money and just letting it accumulate at the .046 percent tax rate savings, have a total of $1,714, 438 (by compounding the savings). (Um, no. The accumulated amount would be 1,004,509.12. The lump sum accumulation described by Mr. Kligerman would need to earn a rate of 5.55% to get to $1,714,438 in 10 years. But even then, the earnings themselves are subject to taxes.)  

Someone who had $10 million 10 years ago, would have $17,154,380. And someone who had $100 million 10 years ago would have $171,154, 380. This has nothing to do with new revenue on their part. It would happen automatically. (Automatically? So a person who is thrifty and responsible, who sets aside some of their money, invests wisely, and manages to increase his savings is getting there automatically? Nonsense.)