"You didn't build that!"
I won't speak for others, but I passed up years of employment to better myself, I went to college, and for four years I spent almost no money on myself. I didn't date. Some of my friends did the same. Noodles for most meals. Studying until late at night. Homework. I happen to love learning, but though I generally had very good experience with individuals, teachers, students, administrators, etc. I hated having to deal with bureaucracy. I have a degree now. I did that.
But if Obama prefers to look at it the other way... then he didn't win the Presidency and he won't lose the next one.
Update: Bill Whittle said that the President meant "you didn't build that [road]," but yes, it was the tax money that business contribute to the government that did build that [road].
Update: check out PJTV's magnum opus on this subject here.
But if Obama prefers to look at it the other way... then he didn't win the Presidency and he won't lose the next one.
Update: Bill Whittle said that the President meant "you didn't build that [road]," but yes, it was the tax money that business contribute to the government that did build that [road].
Update: check out PJTV's magnum opus on this subject here.
Obamacare: Chief Justice Robert
To withhold money from states who refuse to expand Medicare, is the equivalent to holding a gun to their head, but to levy a tax against an individual for not purchasing healthcare-all in a day's work.
The idea that taxes can be so inconsistently distributed is reprehensible. I know it has been going on this way for quiet some time, but what is next? A tax against people who don't do what? Roberts thinks that congress can levy a tax against any "group" of the US population. My key point is that they don't have the right to regulate commerce, but they do have the right to tax into submission the participants of any commercial action. Does this make sense? Or is it inconsistent?
It is singularly unique, as all other taxes come into effect based on actions, this is based on inaction. Earn money? Income taxes. Buy a house? Property taxes. Buy cigarettes? A specific inflated tax for cigarette smokers. Obamacare? You owe the IRS money.
The idea that taxes can be so inconsistently distributed is reprehensible. I know it has been going on this way for quiet some time, but what is next? A tax against people who don't do what? Roberts thinks that congress can levy a tax against any "group" of the US population. My key point is that they don't have the right to regulate commerce, but they do have the right to tax into submission the participants of any commercial action. Does this make sense? Or is it inconsistent?
It is singularly unique, as all other taxes come into effect based on actions, this is based on inaction. Earn money? Income taxes. Buy a house? Property taxes. Buy cigarettes? A specific inflated tax for cigarette smokers. Obamacare? You owe the IRS money.
Audit the Federal Reserve?
Sounds like a great idea, but it was explained to me on "The Front Page with Allen Barton" on Youtube, that this would give Congress more power over the Federal Reserve. And I have an analogy for y'all: Letting the Federal Reserve continue to function without auditing is like leaving your money with a very good, but dishonest accountant, he will generally try to keep you happy and hide how much he stealing from you by minimizing how much he takes from your account, he is not perfect and will occasionally lose a large percent of your money*. Letting Congress audit the Fed is like throwing all your money in a dry swimming pool, leaving a can of gasoline balanced on the edge of the pool, and leaving a box of matches right beside the gas can, and letting a pyromaniac child in the pool area to play.
*Many people lost 50% of invested money at the beginning of this recession, though admittedly more than just the Fed was involved.
*Many people lost 50% of invested money at the beginning of this recession, though admittedly more than just the Fed was involved.
Saving Parochial Schools in a Voucher System
Milton Friedman voiced a discontentment with the potential that the Parochial schools might be destroyed in a voucher system. The relative monopoly of the parochial schools in offering low cost education for those outside the government educational system would be destroyed. I offer two paths.
Protection Path: The government voucher can be for 75% of expected free market costs protecting Parochial schools and guaranteeing the admission of the poorest who cannot afford to pick up the last 25% making the environment sad and degrading to the moral fiber of both the school and the students.
Free Market Path: The government voucher can be for 100% of expected free market costs. The private secular schools will function within this budget, but the Parochial schools have huge reserves to draw upon. With their fiscal income and reserves they can operate at a "loss" indefinitely, hiring the best teachers in the country, building the best facilities and even expanding to new junior colleges and universities. But even should all their reserves disappear, I suspect that the parochial schools can always operate at lower costs than the general population due to the high commitment and low "salary" expectations of religious individuals.
Protection Path: The government voucher can be for 75% of expected free market costs protecting Parochial schools and guaranteeing the admission of the poorest who cannot afford to pick up the last 25% making the environment sad and degrading to the moral fiber of both the school and the students.
Free Market Path: The government voucher can be for 100% of expected free market costs. The private secular schools will function within this budget, but the Parochial schools have huge reserves to draw upon. With their fiscal income and reserves they can operate at a "loss" indefinitely, hiring the best teachers in the country, building the best facilities and even expanding to new junior colleges and universities. But even should all their reserves disappear, I suspect that the parochial schools can always operate at lower costs than the general population due to the high commitment and low "salary" expectations of religious individuals.
The Challenge for a Free Market Military
Milton Friedman challenged his son to find a free market system for the US Army. The challenge is flawed. A free market system must have competition. My response is to create 50 separate armies and go back to State Militias. My first challenge is that the states pay for their own armies and the size of these armies have a minimum that can be correlated to the Electoral points of each State.
Example, today current Army including National Guard and Reserves 1.1 million/538 = 2100, so smallest States would be required to have a total 6300 troops with 3150 active duty and 3150 reservists. California would have to hire an army of 115,500, with 57,750 active and 57,750 reserve.
All 50 states would have a minimum active army and reserve. The active army would hopefully only be deployed occasionally. One expectation is that two minimum size separate State militias would be deployed simultaneously to maintain Armed Forces Cohesion and competition.
The 50 states can compete in a multi-year war games in which the national minimum army size would compete, after which the highest ranked teams would receive modest bonuses, honor, and a cup or trophy to hold for 5? years. I can't develop rules for the Hunger games, but I expect generals can. The game would be played with fully armored soldiers shooting paint balls, or relevant technology of the day.
Some states may all buy Jeeps, another group of states may use Hummers, and yet a third group may modify SUVs.
Tasks like border security would be shared fairly among the State Militias. This can work for coast guard easily, merely by creating regional blocs, a few in the Pacific, the Gulf, the Atlantic and the Great Lakes? Can the same blocs work for the Navy, Marines & Air Force work? Perhaps, but I know too little about the subject to discuss.
Military minds may scoff at the very idea. Some may see a benefit to the idea, but find my methodology all wrong. Okay with me, get real economists and generals to throw together some ideas. So Milton, how did I do? RIP
Example, today current Army including National Guard and Reserves 1.1 million/538 = 2100, so smallest States would be required to have a total 6300 troops with 3150 active duty and 3150 reservists. California would have to hire an army of 115,500, with 57,750 active and 57,750 reserve.
All 50 states would have a minimum active army and reserve. The active army would hopefully only be deployed occasionally. One expectation is that two minimum size separate State militias would be deployed simultaneously to maintain Armed Forces Cohesion and competition.
The 50 states can compete in a multi-year war games in which the national minimum army size would compete, after which the highest ranked teams would receive modest bonuses, honor, and a cup or trophy to hold for 5? years. I can't develop rules for the Hunger games, but I expect generals can. The game would be played with fully armored soldiers shooting paint balls, or relevant technology of the day.
Some states may all buy Jeeps, another group of states may use Hummers, and yet a third group may modify SUVs.
Tasks like border security would be shared fairly among the State Militias. This can work for coast guard easily, merely by creating regional blocs, a few in the Pacific, the Gulf, the Atlantic and the Great Lakes? Can the same blocs work for the Navy, Marines & Air Force work? Perhaps, but I know too little about the subject to discuss.
Military minds may scoff at the very idea. Some may see a benefit to the idea, but find my methodology all wrong. Okay with me, get real economists and generals to throw together some ideas. So Milton, how did I do? RIP
One More Observation for Johnathan Haidt
I watched Johnathan Haidt last night on YouTube. Loved every minute of it. Look it up on Youtube: 1/7 Johnathan Haidt lecture about morality
Jim Doughty introduces The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education and chats us up for a few minutes. We will get back to him later when he weighs in on Jon's lecture.
Johnathan Haidt is a scientist, a label I rarely apply to people, studied and studies social science. He is a great presenter, passionate speaker and an effective teacher. He describes the Conservative and the Liberal, their values and motivations. Please watch the videos.
Jon describes people as a rider on an elephant. The elephant is the normal response to stimuli and the rider is the intellectual mind. "If you are interested in changing the world" to what do you apply you effort? The elephant? or the rider? The answer: the path. (in 4/7) The path is the small changes that free up people to blossom as best they can. The liberal approach "unconstrained vision" "the worst track record" he describes the French Revolution, the Party of Reason, "they committed genocide." "The unconstrained vision, when it gets a chance to run things, screws it up. 20th century communism, Fascism, any movement that tried to create a new man ends up committing atrocities, ends up committing mass murder." "Most left-wing revolutions have ended up with mass murder, because you have this utopia, people don't go along because you have human nature incorrectly, they don't go along but you know you're right because you have reason on your side so you use force." (5/7)
Jon concludes: because Conservatives set up a community and do more for the local group, not worry about Darfur, they do more kindness. Therefore Liberals should learn from them and do more like conservatives. But of course Jim doesn't like this, "we are a global community" we understand better, don't limit yourself to the local. Did someone say limit yourself to local? No, Jon even said earlier in the lecture it is easy to send five bucks to a distant country and do a lot for people. (6/7)
The reality is, conservatives give more charity, but we can also see that food shipped to Africa had the opposite effect from that intended (not to say never give, but don't give unlimited, it does more harm than good). Welfare created a dependent group.
Allow people to flourish or you will have to crush them for the general good.
5/7/2012
Jim Doughty introduces The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education and chats us up for a few minutes. We will get back to him later when he weighs in on Jon's lecture.
Johnathan Haidt is a scientist, a label I rarely apply to people, studied and studies social science. He is a great presenter, passionate speaker and an effective teacher. He describes the Conservative and the Liberal, their values and motivations. Please watch the videos.
Jon describes people as a rider on an elephant. The elephant is the normal response to stimuli and the rider is the intellectual mind. "If you are interested in changing the world" to what do you apply you effort? The elephant? or the rider? The answer: the path. (in 4/7) The path is the small changes that free up people to blossom as best they can. The liberal approach "unconstrained vision" "the worst track record" he describes the French Revolution, the Party of Reason, "they committed genocide." "The unconstrained vision, when it gets a chance to run things, screws it up. 20th century communism, Fascism, any movement that tried to create a new man ends up committing atrocities, ends up committing mass murder." "Most left-wing revolutions have ended up with mass murder, because you have this utopia, people don't go along because you have human nature incorrectly, they don't go along but you know you're right because you have reason on your side so you use force." (5/7)
Jon concludes: because Conservatives set up a community and do more for the local group, not worry about Darfur, they do more kindness. Therefore Liberals should learn from them and do more like conservatives. But of course Jim doesn't like this, "we are a global community" we understand better, don't limit yourself to the local. Did someone say limit yourself to local? No, Jon even said earlier in the lecture it is easy to send five bucks to a distant country and do a lot for people. (6/7)
The reality is, conservatives give more charity, but we can also see that food shipped to Africa had the opposite effect from that intended (not to say never give, but don't give unlimited, it does more harm than good). Welfare created a dependent group.
Allow people to flourish or you will have to crush them for the general good.
5/7/2012
Let them have Healthcare
Let them eat cake. On Hugh Hewittt today, Jonah Goldberg discusses his new book, The Tyranny of Cliches, mentions some cliches and some of the misconceptions about them.
Jonah explains that Marie Antoinette probably did not say "let them eat cake," but more than likely another noble/royal female did. But what did she mean? She was referring to the commercial mandate that required bakers, who ran out of the low cost bread, must sell the high cost bread at the same price. While this law is "kind" to the poor person, this is not a level of commercial interference which we would accept here in the US.
Now let me explain "kind." "Kind" is not the same as kind, if I share what I have = I am kind, if someone steals from one and give to another = "kind."
And while this might sound like Robinhood, let's be very clear, Robinhood stole money from a tyrant (and the tyrant was himself stealing money from both the peasants and from his "rightful" king).
I want to go get a job, not enslave the masses to afford a suburban home and start a family, but can I?
So let them eat cake can take either connotation, but all the same it applies to Obama's Heathcare bill. Either we steal from the bakers and give to other people or we proclaim that healthcare and cakes be given to those who need it, whether the cakes exist or not.
5/7/2012
Jonah explains that Marie Antoinette probably did not say "let them eat cake," but more than likely another noble/royal female did. But what did she mean? She was referring to the commercial mandate that required bakers, who ran out of the low cost bread, must sell the high cost bread at the same price. While this law is "kind" to the poor person, this is not a level of commercial interference which we would accept here in the US.
Now let me explain "kind." "Kind" is not the same as kind, if I share what I have = I am kind, if someone steals from one and give to another = "kind."
And while this might sound like Robinhood, let's be very clear, Robinhood stole money from a tyrant (and the tyrant was himself stealing money from both the peasants and from his "rightful" king).
I want to go get a job, not enslave the masses to afford a suburban home and start a family, but can I?
So let them eat cake can take either connotation, but all the same it applies to Obama's Heathcare bill. Either we steal from the bakers and give to other people or we proclaim that healthcare and cakes be given to those who need it, whether the cakes exist or not.
5/7/2012
Long after Romney's Summer Vacation
I was born.
Then I grew up just a little. And as a young kid, my grandpa took me for a ride in the bed of his pickup truck, no seats, no seatbelts in fact nothing to keep me from falling out. Oh sure, he drove slowly, and it was on a farm road, but Romney's dog was still safer than I. But then again, when I was that young, this was considered normal, and responsible parents (and grandparents) controlled the environment they put their children in.
Don't get me wrong, Child seats are great, I would definitely use them for my future children, but lets keep things in perspective.
5/7/2012
Then I grew up just a little. And as a young kid, my grandpa took me for a ride in the bed of his pickup truck, no seats, no seatbelts in fact nothing to keep me from falling out. Oh sure, he drove slowly, and it was on a farm road, but Romney's dog was still safer than I. But then again, when I was that young, this was considered normal, and responsible parents (and grandparents) controlled the environment they put their children in.
Don't get me wrong, Child seats are great, I would definitely use them for my future children, but lets keep things in perspective.
5/7/2012